by Jamie Hale
The news media, television shows, movies, and the internet are saturated with psychological topics- mental illness, brain imaging, forensic psychology, psychics, recovered memories, polygraph testing, parenting, heinous crimes, psychotherapy, intelligence tests, child sexual abuse, hypnosis and so on (Lilienfeld, Lynn, Ruscio & Beyerstein, 2010). Bookstores generally have hundreds of books on psychology. Self-help and motivational books, which are generally stocked in the psychology department, are often best sellers. These books often provide information that contradicts scientific evidence. Other best sellers associated with psychology include books on ESP and other psychic abilities, even though psychology has probably done more than any other field to refute psychic claims. Psychology’s association with the self-help industry, the supernatural, and a variety of other nonscientific claims have lead some people to believe psychology is not a science.
Before determining whether psychology is a science, it is important to understand the central tenets of science and psychology. After acquiring a basic understanding of science and its methods you will be able to determine psychology’s scientific status.
What is Science?
Science is a specific way of analyzing information with the goal of testing claims. Keith Stanovich (How to Think Straight About Psychology, p.9) says, “Science is … a way of thinking about and observing the universe that leads to a deep understanding of its workings.” Contrary to popular belief, science is not about a specific subject matter, but is applicable to various aspects of the observable universe. Science is not defined by test tubes, electronic equipment, or the researcher’s white lab coat (Stanovich, 2007). Claims that are considered scientific must meet the falsifiability criterion; that is, they must be stated in a way that their predictions can be tested and potentially falsified.
What sets science apart from other modes of knowledge acquisition is the use of what is commonly known as the scientific method. Giving a precise definition of the scientific method is difficult as there is little consensus in the scientific community as to what that definition is. Although the scientific community has been slow to agree upon a clear definition, the scientific method is rooted in observation, experimentation, and knowledge acquisition through a process of objective reasoning and logic (Hale, 2009). If you asked a panel of scientists to define the scientific method you would receive a large array of answers. This is what Michael Shermer had to say about the scientific method (Why People Believe Weird Things 1997, p. 19). “A sizeable literature exists on the scientific method, but there is little consensus among authors. This does not mean that scientists do not know what they are doing. Doing and explaining may be two different things. However, scientists agree that the following elements are involved in thinking scientifically:
Induction: Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.
Deduction: Making specific predictions based on hypotheses.
Observation: Gathering data, driven by hypotheses that tell us what to look in nature.
Verification: Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypotheses.”
When using the scientific method one of the primary goals is objectivity. Proper use of the scientific method leads us to rationalism (basing conclusion on intellect, logic and evidence). Relying on science also helps us avoid dogmatism (adherence to doctrine over rational and enlightened inquiry, or basing conclusion on authority rather than evidence).
Scientific Theory
In science the word theory is used differently than it is in everyday language (Johnson, 2000). To a scientist, the word theory represents that of which he or she is most certain; a hypothesis or set of hypotheses that has been proven successful time and time again (Shermer, 2002). Scientific theories are provisional. The provisional nature of science is one of its most important and distinctive characteristics. The willingness to modify theories promotes scientific progress.
In everyday language the word theory implies a guess (not sure). This often causes confusion for those unfamiliar with science. This confusion leads to the common statement “It’s only a theory.”
What is Psychology?
Webster’s New World Dictionary (2003, p.520) gives two definitions for psychology:
“1. the science dealing with the mind and with mental and emotional processes. 2- the science of animal and human behavior.” L, Sdorow (Psychology 1990, Glossary G-11) defines psychology as “the science of behavior and mental processes”. Another commonly cited definition of psychology is the science of human behavior. Even though definitions vary, most people in the psychology field will probably agree that psychology involves the study of behavior and to a degree the cognitive processes that influence behavior and thinking. Modern psychology is composed of an enormously diverse set of investigations (Stanovich, 2007), which has led to many branches within the discipline.
Within the different branches come different areas of research and study. Some of these branches are rooted in science while others are not. For example, Freudian psychoanalysis does not meet the criteria to be called science, while cognitive psychology and experimental psychology are scientific endeavors. When determining whether a specific branch is scientific it is generally more important to address the methods used than the research topic.
Psychology’s Superstar
When most people think of psychology they think about Sigmund Freud. “The notoriety of Freud has greatly affected the general public’s conceptions about the field of psychology and has contributed to many misunderstandings”, says Keith Stanovich (How to Think Straight About Psychology 2007, p.1). Sigmund Freud, Austrian physician and physiologist, is the founder of psychoanalysis. Freud believed human beings were primarily motivated by unconscious, and often sexual motives (Sdorow 1990). In addition he believed that early childhood experiences were the main factors in the development of personality. A 1981 survey of chairpersons of graduate psychology found that the respondents considered Freud the most influential figure in the history of psychology (Davis, Thomas, & Weaver, 1982). Times have changed. According to Keith Stanovich (How to Think Straight About Psychology 2007, p.1), “[I]f all the members of the American Psychological Association (APA) who were concerned with Freudian psychoanalysis were collected, they would make up less the 10 percent of the membership. In another major psychological association, the Association for Psychological Science, they would make up considerably less than 5 percent.”
Modern psychology pays little attention to the ideas of Freud. Freud’s methods of data collection are different than those used by modern psychologists. Freud based his theories on case studies, not controlled experimentation. His theories lack scientific support and rely on a database of unreliable, unreplicable behavioral relationships (Stanovich, 2007). Psychology is not synonymous with Freud.
Media Psychology and Hearsay
In addition to the Freud problem the media’s promotion of psychology has distorted the layperson’s image of the field. A common misconception is that psychology deals only with mental illness and therapy. When I was attending college, as a psychology major, my family and friends often asked what type of mental facility I planned on working in when I graduated college. Contrary to popular belief, psychology encompasses more than the study of mental illness; not all psychologists are shrinks or therapists.
Psychologists featured on radio and television shows often offer common-sense advice about personal problems. These types of programs contribute to the idea that psychology is only concerned with personal problems and that psychology is merely common sense. Both of these assumptions are incorrect. To reiterate, psychology investigates a wide variety of topics not only mental disorders and personal problems. Furthermore, psychological science is not synonymous with common sense (Flagel & Gendreau, 2008; Cacioppo, 2004). Common sense is often common nonsense. To illustrate the point consider the common-sense idea that children who read a lot or excel academically are socially or physically under developed (Stanovich, 2007). This idea is often perpetuated by society, although contradictory to scientific evidence (Gage & Berliner, 1984, pp.18-19; Zill & Winglee, 1990). The idea of common sense is a fallacy found in various fields, not only psychology.
Bookstores often place paranormal books in the psychology department. This leads the layperson to believe psychologists’ agree with the reality of paranormal claims (e.g. telepathy, remote viewing, psychic surgery, psychokineis etc.). In reality, psychologists’ second only to professional magicians “have clearly done the most to expose the fraudlent nature of most purported demonstrations of paranormal abilities” (Stanovich 2007, p.186).
Shelving the self-help literature in the psychology section has furthered blurred the general perception of psychology. The quality and diversity of the self-help literature is enormous, containing good and bad information. Even if the book contains accurate information, will reading it have a positive impact on people’s lives? Will their lives get better (PSYBLOG, 2010)?
Most of the self-help literature found in bookstores provides advice on eating disorders, relationship mal-functions, sexual disorders and so on. This leaves an impression that psychologists only deal with abnormal behaviors (Stanovich, 2007). Another problem arises when psychology’s research methods are confused with those promoted by the self-help literature. The self-help database is derived from testimonials and case studies, while the database for scientific psychology is based on a rigorous scientific process. Bookstores or popular book publishers are rarely concerned with accurate representations of science, but more with book sales, which often means selling books that have little scientific value.
Modern Scientific Psychology
Psychologists often contribute to other fields of science yet receive no credit. Psychologists have made contributions to the fields of evolution, exercise science, biology, computer science, neuroscience, engineering, business, ethology, nutrition science, and so on. The involvement of psychologists in a variety of scientific endeavors is testament to psychology’s wide diversity. One of psychology’s top researchers, Daniel Kahneman, received the 2002 Nobel Prize in economics (Stanovich, 2007).
In a recent interview (www.knowledgesummit.net Thinking Straight About Modern Psychology), I asked Keith Stanovich- What branches of Psychology or rooted in science? Which ones are not? He said, “Virtually all areas of modern psychology are scientific, except for certain subsegments of clinical psychology and a good deal of clinical psychological practice.”
Conclusion
Is psychology a science or a sham? If you associate the entire field of psychology with media psychologists, self-help gurus, or anyone whom wears the title psychologist then you may be able to say psychology is not a science, however this would be a logical fallacy- Hasty over generalization. The fallacy of judging the entire industry based on a few bad apples happens in all scientific endeavors. What if you were to base the scientific status of exercise science on popular exercise literature or base the scientific validity of nutrition science on claims made supplement companies and popular diet plans? What if you were to base physiology’s scientific status on assertions made by physiologist Sigmund Freud? Modern psychology takes a scientific approach to knowledge acquisition. Psychologists whom gather data else wise should not be seen as representatives of modern psychology.
References
Cacioppo, J.T. (2004). Common sense, intuition, and theory in personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 114-122.
Davis, S.F., Thomas, R.L., & Weaver, M.S. (1982). Psychology’s contemporary and all-time notables: Student, faculty, and chairperson viewpoints. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 20, 3-6.
Flagel, D.C. & Gendreau, P. (2008). Sense, common sense, and nonsense, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1354-1361.
Gage, N.L., & Berliner, D. (1984). Educational Psychology(3rd ed). San Francisco: Freeman.
Hale, J. (2009). Scientific and Nonscientific approaches to Knowledge. MaxCondition.com. http://www.maxcondition.com/page.php?126
(accessed Jauary 27, 2010)
Hale, J. (2010). Thinking Straight About Modern Psychology. KnowledgeSummit.net. www.knowledgesummit.net (accessed January 29, 2010)
Johnson, G.B. (2000) The Living World. USA: McGraw Hill.
Lilienfeld, S.O., Lynn, S.J., Ruscio, J, & Beyerstein, B.L. (2010). 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology. United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.
PSYBLOG. Is Modern Self-Help Just a Massive Money-Making Scam? PSYBLOG. http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/01/is-modern-self-help-just-massive-money.php
(accessed Mar 2, 2010)
Sdorow, L. (1990). Psychology. Dubuque, IA: Wm.C. Brown Publishers.
Shermer, M. (2002). Why People Believe Weird Things. New York: Owl Books.
Stanovich, K. (2007). How To Think Straight About Psychology. Boston MA: Pearson: Allyn and Bacon.
Webster’s New World Dictionary: Fourth Edition (2003). Pocket Books. New York: New York.
Zill, N., & Winglee, M. (1990). Who Reads Literature? Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press.
Jamie Hale
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Psychic & Fitness Expert in Hott Water!
by Jamie Hale
Psychic busted again
The following quote is from Consumer Health Digest #10-07
February 18, 2010 (Consumer Health Digest is a free weekly e-mail newsletter edited by Stephen Barrett, M.D., with help from William M. London, Ed.D)
”A detailed three-year study of alleged psychic Sylvia Browne's predictions about missing persons and murder cases has found that despite her repeated claims to be more than 85% correct, ‘Browne has not even been mostly correct in a single case.’ The study's authors collected Browne's televised statements about 115 cases and compared them with newspaper reports that are believed to be factual. They found that in 25 cases where the actual outcome is known, she was dead wrong in every one; and in the rest, where the final outcome is unknown, her predictions could not be substantiated. The study indicates that the media outlets that repeatedly promote Browne's work have no visible concern about whether she is untrustworthy or harms people.”
[Shafer R, Jadwiszczok A. Psychic defective: Sylvia Browne's history of failure. Skeptical Inquirer 34(2):38-42, 2010]
Sylvia Browne is the so-called psychic that has made numerous appearances on the Montel Williams show. The following quote is from the Stop Sylvia Browne website, “On February 6 2007, Lt. Colonel Hal Bidlack (Ret) mailed a letter to Montel Williams, asking him some serious questions regarding Williams' continued support of Sylvia Browne.” http://stopsylvia.com/articles/montelresponsetoopenletter.shtml
Sylvia’s predictions have proven highly unreliable, but she still charges $850 for a phone reading. However, she is Sylvia Browne- a real psychic- and “Unlike some pseudo-psychics who tell people that their problems are caused by curses, evil entities, demons, or karmic retribution neither Sylvia nor Chris will blame the negative occurrences on your life on these things, and each of them feel it is important to advise their clients to not believe in such things. They do not exist.” http://readings.sylviabrowne.com/#promos
Seriously, pseudo-psychics?
If I could ask Sylvia (the real psychic) one question, it would be- why haven’t you collected the one million dollars James Randi has been offering you for years? If you really believe in your psychic ability why not make an easy million?
In 2001, Sylvia said she would take Randi up on his one million dollar challenge- a challenge that states if you can demonstrate supernatural abilities in a controlled scientific study you will receive one million dollars. At this time, Browne has still not taken the challenge. She has made various excuses for why she hasn’t participated in the challenge. To entice Browne, Randi even changed the rules of the challenge when he offered to put the money in an escrow account and make Montel Williams and Larry King, both Browne supporters, the escrow agents
Check out Robert S. Lancaster’s website
Stop Sylvia Browne
www.stopsylvia.com
Fitness expert in the hott seat!
So-called fitness expert from NBC-TV’s reality show, “The Biggest Loser” is being sued for falsely advertising that her “Jillian Michaels Maximum Strength Calorie Control” will provide “automatic” weight loss if taken before meals. “Christie Christensen of Lake Elsinore, California has filed a class-action lawsuit against Jillian Michaels and two companies [Thincare International and Basic Research, LL] that market her products”
http://www.dietscam.org/reports/michaels.shtml
False advertising by weight loss, or supplement companies is nothing new. It may actually be the norm. This doesn’t make it right, but, in my opinion it means many other celebs and companies should also be sued.
Let me make it clear, I am not defending Michaels or her false assertions. I think Michaels should be fined and barred from the fitness industry, along with others participating in false ad campaigns.
Psychic busted again
The following quote is from Consumer Health Digest #10-07
February 18, 2010 (Consumer Health Digest is a free weekly e-mail newsletter edited by Stephen Barrett, M.D., with help from William M. London, Ed.D)
”A detailed three-year study of alleged psychic Sylvia Browne's predictions about missing persons and murder cases has found that despite her repeated claims to be more than 85% correct, ‘Browne has not even been mostly correct in a single case.’ The study's authors collected Browne's televised statements about 115 cases and compared them with newspaper reports that are believed to be factual. They found that in 25 cases where the actual outcome is known, she was dead wrong in every one; and in the rest, where the final outcome is unknown, her predictions could not be substantiated. The study indicates that the media outlets that repeatedly promote Browne's work have no visible concern about whether she is untrustworthy or harms people.”
[Shafer R, Jadwiszczok A. Psychic defective: Sylvia Browne's history of failure. Skeptical Inquirer 34(2):38-42, 2010]
Sylvia Browne is the so-called psychic that has made numerous appearances on the Montel Williams show. The following quote is from the Stop Sylvia Browne website, “On February 6 2007, Lt. Colonel Hal Bidlack (Ret) mailed a letter to Montel Williams, asking him some serious questions regarding Williams' continued support of Sylvia Browne.” http://stopsylvia.com/articles/montelresponsetoopenletter.shtml
Sylvia’s predictions have proven highly unreliable, but she still charges $850 for a phone reading. However, she is Sylvia Browne- a real psychic- and “Unlike some pseudo-psychics who tell people that their problems are caused by curses, evil entities, demons, or karmic retribution neither Sylvia nor Chris will blame the negative occurrences on your life on these things, and each of them feel it is important to advise their clients to not believe in such things. They do not exist.” http://readings.sylviabrowne.com/#promos
Seriously, pseudo-psychics?
If I could ask Sylvia (the real psychic) one question, it would be- why haven’t you collected the one million dollars James Randi has been offering you for years? If you really believe in your psychic ability why not make an easy million?
In 2001, Sylvia said she would take Randi up on his one million dollar challenge- a challenge that states if you can demonstrate supernatural abilities in a controlled scientific study you will receive one million dollars. At this time, Browne has still not taken the challenge. She has made various excuses for why she hasn’t participated in the challenge. To entice Browne, Randi even changed the rules of the challenge when he offered to put the money in an escrow account and make Montel Williams and Larry King, both Browne supporters, the escrow agents
Check out Robert S. Lancaster’s website
Stop Sylvia Browne
www.stopsylvia.com
Fitness expert in the hott seat!
So-called fitness expert from NBC-TV’s reality show, “The Biggest Loser” is being sued for falsely advertising that her “Jillian Michaels Maximum Strength Calorie Control” will provide “automatic” weight loss if taken before meals. “Christie Christensen of Lake Elsinore, California has filed a class-action lawsuit against Jillian Michaels and two companies [Thincare International and Basic Research, LL] that market her products”
http://www.dietscam.org/reports/michaels.shtml
False advertising by weight loss, or supplement companies is nothing new. It may actually be the norm. This doesn’t make it right, but, in my opinion it means many other celebs and companies should also be sued.
Let me make it clear, I am not defending Michaels or her false assertions. I think Michaels should be fined and barred from the fitness industry, along with others participating in false ad campaigns.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Thinking Straight About Modern Psychology
After reading Stanovich's highly recommended book- HOW TO THINK STRAIGHT ABOUT PSYCHOLOGY- I decided I had to get an interview with the brilliant scientist.
In How To Think Straight About Psychology you dedicate an entire chapter to the ‘Freud Problem”. Can you give readers a brief explanation of “The Freud Problem”?
The notoriety of Freud has greatly affected the general public’s conceptions about the field of psychology and has contributed to many misunderstandings. Many people think Freud is central to modern psychology and are shocked to learn that he is not. One popular introductory psychology textbook (Wade & Tavris, 2008) is over 700 pages long, yet contains only 15 pages on which either Freud or psychoanalysis is mentioned—and these 15 pages often contain criticism (“most Freudian concepts were, and still are, rejected by most empirically oriented psychologists,” p. 19).
In short, modern psychology is not obsessed with the ideas of Sigmund Freud (as are the media and some humanities disciplines), nor is it largely defined by them. Freud’s work is an extremely small part of the varied set of issues, data, and theories that are the concern of modern psychologists.
It is bad enough that Freud’s importance to modern psychology is vastly exaggerated. What makes the situation worse is that Freud’s methods of investigation are completely unrepresentative of how modern psychologists conduct their research. In fact, the study of Freud’s methods gives an utterly misleading impression of psychological research. For example, Freud did not use controlled experimentation, which, is the most potent weapon in the modern psychologist’s arsenal of methods. Freud thought that case studies could establish the truth or falsity of theories. Of course, this idea is mistaken. Finally, a critical problem with Freud’s work concerns the connection between theory and behavioral data. For a theory to be considered scientific, the link between the theory and behavioral data must meet some minimal requirements. Freud’s theories do not meet these criteria. To make a long story short, Freud built an elaborate theory on a database (case studies and introspection) that was not substantial enough to support it. Freud concentrated on building complicated theoretical structures, but he did not, as modern psychologists do, ensure that they would rest on a database of reliable, replicable behavioral relationships. In short, Freud’s style of work can be a significant impediment to the understanding of modern psychology.
What is your definition of science? What branches of Psychology or rooted in science? Which ones are not?
In my book How To Think Straight About Psychology, I define science as having three essential features: (1) the use of systematic empiricism; (2) the production of public knowledge; and (3) the examination of solvable problems.
Virtually all areas of modern psychology are scientific, except for certain subsegments of clinical psychology and a good deal of clinical psychological practice.
How has the field of Psychology changed over the past 20 years?
The field has evolved steadily. It has not undergone any revolutions. Psychology is a very evolutionary, cumulative science.
What impact has Brain Imaging had in the field of psychology?
Brain imaging is one converging technique among many. It has not revolutionized anything. In one of my research fields—the psychology of reading—it has merely served to confirm what we have known about reading (for example, the importance of phonological awareness in early reading) for decades. Newspapers and magazines love the pictures of many-colored brains, but this type of publicity over-emphasizes the contribution of these techniques.
Who is your favorite writer? Favorite book?
Contemporary writers I like are David Lodge and Ian McEwan. Of classic writers in the canon, it’s George Orwell. Favorite books would be Lodge’s Thinks (a novel about cognitive science). McEwan’s Enduring Love and Saturday (both of which are flavored by science). Orwell’s essays are worth reading (“Shooting an Elephant”) in addition to the famous novels.
What are your current research interests?
Investigating the differences between rational thought and intelligence.
Do you have any current projects you are working on?
Same as the previous.
Of the books you have written which one is your favorite?
The last two: What Intelligence Tests Miss and The Robot’s Rebellion.
Click on the following links for more information on Keith Stanovich
http://web.mac.com/kstanovich/iWeb/Site/Home.html
Psyconoclasm: A scientific Approach To Psychology
http://psyconoclasm.com/2009/04/22/episode-1-the-scientific-approach-to-psychology-with-keith-stanovich-phd.aspx
In How To Think Straight About Psychology you dedicate an entire chapter to the ‘Freud Problem”. Can you give readers a brief explanation of “The Freud Problem”?
The notoriety of Freud has greatly affected the general public’s conceptions about the field of psychology and has contributed to many misunderstandings. Many people think Freud is central to modern psychology and are shocked to learn that he is not. One popular introductory psychology textbook (Wade & Tavris, 2008) is over 700 pages long, yet contains only 15 pages on which either Freud or psychoanalysis is mentioned—and these 15 pages often contain criticism (“most Freudian concepts were, and still are, rejected by most empirically oriented psychologists,” p. 19).
In short, modern psychology is not obsessed with the ideas of Sigmund Freud (as are the media and some humanities disciplines), nor is it largely defined by them. Freud’s work is an extremely small part of the varied set of issues, data, and theories that are the concern of modern psychologists.
It is bad enough that Freud’s importance to modern psychology is vastly exaggerated. What makes the situation worse is that Freud’s methods of investigation are completely unrepresentative of how modern psychologists conduct their research. In fact, the study of Freud’s methods gives an utterly misleading impression of psychological research. For example, Freud did not use controlled experimentation, which, is the most potent weapon in the modern psychologist’s arsenal of methods. Freud thought that case studies could establish the truth or falsity of theories. Of course, this idea is mistaken. Finally, a critical problem with Freud’s work concerns the connection between theory and behavioral data. For a theory to be considered scientific, the link between the theory and behavioral data must meet some minimal requirements. Freud’s theories do not meet these criteria. To make a long story short, Freud built an elaborate theory on a database (case studies and introspection) that was not substantial enough to support it. Freud concentrated on building complicated theoretical structures, but he did not, as modern psychologists do, ensure that they would rest on a database of reliable, replicable behavioral relationships. In short, Freud’s style of work can be a significant impediment to the understanding of modern psychology.
What is your definition of science? What branches of Psychology or rooted in science? Which ones are not?
In my book How To Think Straight About Psychology, I define science as having three essential features: (1) the use of systematic empiricism; (2) the production of public knowledge; and (3) the examination of solvable problems.
Virtually all areas of modern psychology are scientific, except for certain subsegments of clinical psychology and a good deal of clinical psychological practice.
How has the field of Psychology changed over the past 20 years?
The field has evolved steadily. It has not undergone any revolutions. Psychology is a very evolutionary, cumulative science.
What impact has Brain Imaging had in the field of psychology?
Brain imaging is one converging technique among many. It has not revolutionized anything. In one of my research fields—the psychology of reading—it has merely served to confirm what we have known about reading (for example, the importance of phonological awareness in early reading) for decades. Newspapers and magazines love the pictures of many-colored brains, but this type of publicity over-emphasizes the contribution of these techniques.
Who is your favorite writer? Favorite book?
Contemporary writers I like are David Lodge and Ian McEwan. Of classic writers in the canon, it’s George Orwell. Favorite books would be Lodge’s Thinks (a novel about cognitive science). McEwan’s Enduring Love and Saturday (both of which are flavored by science). Orwell’s essays are worth reading (“Shooting an Elephant”) in addition to the famous novels.
What are your current research interests?
Investigating the differences between rational thought and intelligence.
Do you have any current projects you are working on?
Same as the previous.
Of the books you have written which one is your favorite?
The last two: What Intelligence Tests Miss and The Robot’s Rebellion.
Click on the following links for more information on Keith Stanovich
http://web.mac.com/kstanovich/iWeb/Site/Home.html
Psyconoclasm: A scientific Approach To Psychology
http://psyconoclasm.com/2009/04/22/episode-1-the-scientific-approach-to-psychology-with-keith-stanovich-phd.aspx
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Homeopathy: Under Investigation
by Jamie Hale
Claim: Homeopathy is an effective treatment procedure for various health problems
Investigation: Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician, developed homeopathy in the late 18th century. He developed homeopathy in response to his dissatisfaction with the conventional medicine of his time. Hahnemann’s homeopathy suggested two key principles. First, he asserted that "like cures like". In other words, a substance that produces certain symptoms in a healthy person can be used to cure similar symptoms in a sick person. Second, he claimed that smaller and smaller doses of the remedy would be even more effective. Hahnemann diluted the remedies in a process he named "potentization". Hahnemann would take an original natural substance and often dilute it numerous times. Between each dilution, the remedy was shaken. Shaking, supposedly released the healing energy of the remedy (1).
After investigating 107 controlled trials on homeopathy Kleijnen and and colleagues concluded (2)“At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.” Hill & Doyon investigated 40 randomized trials involving homeopathy (3). The researchers concluded, that in their opinions the evidence did not show homeopathy to be effective. In 1994 the National Council Against Health Fraud advised consumers not to buy homeopathic products or to patronize homeopathic practitioners (4). In addition they suggested, “basic scientists are urged to be proactive in opposing the marketing of homeopathic remedies because of conflicts with known physical laws. Those who study homeopathic remedies are warned to beware of deceptive practices in addition to applying sound research methodologies.” Shang and colleagues analyzed 110 trials of homoeopathy and 110 conventional medicine trials (5). The researchers concluded “ there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.”
Conclusion: A few studies implicating the positive benefits of homeopathy have appeared in major medical journals. But, the majority of positive studies have appeared in nonscientific journals, have been subject to bias, or poor research design. The overwhelmingly majority of data appearing in scientific journals shows that homeopathy is an ineffective treatment for any clinical condition. There is no good reason to use homeopathic products.
References
1-Wagner M. Is Homeopathy “New Science” or “New Age”? [online] September 18, 2009 http://www.homeowatch.org/articles/wagner.html
2-Kleijnen J, et. al. Clinical Trials of Homeopathy. BMJ 302(6772):316-23 1991
3-Hill C, Doyon F. Review of randomized trials of homeopathy. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 38(2):139-47 1990.
4-NCAHF Position Paper on Homeopathy. [online] September 18th, 2009 http://www.ncahf.org/pp/homeop.html
5-Shang A, et. al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 366(9487):726-32 2005.
Claim: Homeopathy is an effective treatment procedure for various health problems
Investigation: Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician, developed homeopathy in the late 18th century. He developed homeopathy in response to his dissatisfaction with the conventional medicine of his time. Hahnemann’s homeopathy suggested two key principles. First, he asserted that "like cures like". In other words, a substance that produces certain symptoms in a healthy person can be used to cure similar symptoms in a sick person. Second, he claimed that smaller and smaller doses of the remedy would be even more effective. Hahnemann diluted the remedies in a process he named "potentization". Hahnemann would take an original natural substance and often dilute it numerous times. Between each dilution, the remedy was shaken. Shaking, supposedly released the healing energy of the remedy (1).
After investigating 107 controlled trials on homeopathy Kleijnen and and colleagues concluded (2)“At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.” Hill & Doyon investigated 40 randomized trials involving homeopathy (3). The researchers concluded, that in their opinions the evidence did not show homeopathy to be effective. In 1994 the National Council Against Health Fraud advised consumers not to buy homeopathic products or to patronize homeopathic practitioners (4). In addition they suggested, “basic scientists are urged to be proactive in opposing the marketing of homeopathic remedies because of conflicts with known physical laws. Those who study homeopathic remedies are warned to beware of deceptive practices in addition to applying sound research methodologies.” Shang and colleagues analyzed 110 trials of homoeopathy and 110 conventional medicine trials (5). The researchers concluded “ there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.”
Conclusion: A few studies implicating the positive benefits of homeopathy have appeared in major medical journals. But, the majority of positive studies have appeared in nonscientific journals, have been subject to bias, or poor research design. The overwhelmingly majority of data appearing in scientific journals shows that homeopathy is an ineffective treatment for any clinical condition. There is no good reason to use homeopathic products.
References
1-Wagner M. Is Homeopathy “New Science” or “New Age”? [online] September 18, 2009 http://www.homeowatch.org/articles/wagner.html
2-Kleijnen J, et. al. Clinical Trials of Homeopathy. BMJ 302(6772):316-23 1991
3-Hill C, Doyon F. Review of randomized trials of homeopathy. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 38(2):139-47 1990.
4-NCAHF Position Paper on Homeopathy. [online] September 18th, 2009 http://www.ncahf.org/pp/homeop.html
5-Shang A, et. al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 366(9487):726-32 2005.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Brain & Belief
by Jamie Hale
After reading Brain & Belief (Mcgraw 2004) for the second time I decided I would e-mail the author and see if he would be interested in answering some questions. To my delight he agreed.
I know of no other single volume which covers such a wide range of topics and still retains a depth of analysis…this book is an important addition to the pantheon of popular science books that should be read not only by general readers, but by professional scientists, philosophers, and scholars of all stripes. And it’s a good read to boot! –Michael Shermer, Publisher of Skeptic magazine; author of How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God.
I just finished reading Brain & Belief for the second time. In addition I have referenced the book too many times to count. Needless to say I really enjoyed the book. What inspired it?
What inspired Brain & Belief? Life. My life. I can’t look back to a time in my life when some question or another that ended up central to Brain & Belief wasn’t there. As I recounted at the beginning of the book, I had a great-grandfather and great-grandmother (husband and wife) who were both senile; he lived in a hospital, she in her condominium. My great-grandfather was never verbal in any interactions with me but his owlish, staring eyes always spooked me out when I was a little kid. I just didn’t get it. We visited my great-grandmother more routinely and I remember answering the same questions from her over and over again, half-amused and half-frightened; a strange combination for sure. Their uncanny disabilities left me ill-at-ease with the diseased brain and informed me, from a young age, that human personality relies on a healthy, working brain.
One of my favorite activities as a small child was sitting on my dad’s lap, sucking my thumb and enjoying his quiet warmth as he read the newspaper. Occasionally he would stop to point something out or pose a question to me. I would innocently answer and he always took my answers with patience and encouragement. How can one not fall in love with questions, big and small, with a background like that? Most kids, in my experience, love to wonder about great things and ask why endlessly but they are usually stifled and their curiosity squashed. I was especially fortunate never to have to go through all of that. With an incredibly patient father and a handful of inspirational teachers, I kept on track thinking about and discussing ridiculously irrelevant philosophical quandaries. At the end you find a need to express the pent up pressure of all those questions and sketch out a few answers that have begun to satisfy.
Now, more proximally, there’s no doubt that Brain & Belief is a record of my undergraduate studies at Stanford. I remember looking over the course catalogs as an undergraduate with nerdy enthusiasm. I tried to take as many classes as I could and found that the patterns worked out so that I could major in psychology as well as do an interdepartmental major in philosophy and religious studies. If you look at Brain & Belief closely you’ll see that the structure of the book and its arguments are pretty evenly broken down by those fields/approaches.
Since the publication of Brain & Belief, in 2004, have your thoughts changed on any of the content?
To be honest, I’m still pretty content with the book though I think I could do a better job with it now than when I wrote it. There are sections that seem a bit rushed to me. I would prefer to have fleshed out those bare bones some more.
And journal articles! When I wrote Brain & Belief I didn’t have access to any online journals or databases so virtually all the content I included was either from the books I owned or those I read at the UCSD library. Occasionally, I would track down an old journal article and find a bound copy to look over. My Ph.D. program has made me a far more capable researcher so I think I can enrich the content of the book in any future editions.
I find the language of Brain & Belief a bit hyperbolic now. As a doctoral student I’ve had to proceed in a much more measured tone. But screw it…I like tossing around big ideas with the tone and language they deserve. Moreover, I think it’s easier to draw in a popular audience when you write for them rather than for a hypercritical set of scholars who are probably too sober for their own good.
As an anthropologist I’ve developed a greater patience with religions and religious movements. Around the time I wrote Brain & Belief, I was feeling a lot of frustration with the religions that had shaped me. But even that frustration was muted; I’m no Sam Harris. Now, as time has passed and I’ve studied even more about religion I see it as inextricable from the human condition. Is it irrational? Often. Is it dangerous? Sometimes. But such are people. Even when we put forward our best face we might be clutching a knife behind our back. You aren’t going to make humanity better by amputating that arm. What to do? I’m not sure. Clearly we need more science education and a more thorough training in the use of reason. This includes the use of reason as a means to philosophically approach psychological struggles. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, that descendant of Hellenistic philosophies, really does help people. And everyone ought to learn some of those practices as children or adolescents in order to rationally contend with the insanities we torment ourselves with as young people. Scientific pursuits and experiences in nature (camping, hiking, boating…) are just as rich in developing a sense of awe vìs-a-vìs the universe as sitting in some clammy stone building singing hymns with elderly neighbors. But there still are plenty of religious practices and beliefs that are exquisite in their elicitation of feelings of joy, forgiveness, understanding, and peace. As always, we need to find a golden mean here between obnoxious sanctimony and heartfelt human experience.
When can we expect another book?
Soon, I hope. I have a “Big Idea” that’s been simmering for years now. I have a hundred pages of starter material but I’ve just been too distracted by all my other commitments to consistently work on the book. But I’m always marking another quote or skimming another book in support of the project. If I got really motivated and had 8 months I could probably get a draft completed. So, realistically, we’re probably looking at 2-3 years. But it will definitely be better than Brain & Belief; it will take what I see as the most essential arguments of that book and rigorously develop them and extend them to account for a bunch of human behavior. Here, as in Brain & Belief, I’ve gained much from Ernest Becker. Like him, I feel that contemporary scholars need more chutzpah: we ought to work on grand synthetic models that pull together findings from the various fields of psychology and inform them with a philosophical and anthropological sensitivity. In short, we need modern myths. But these won’t be tales of Gorgons and unicorns, they will be explanatory frameworks that help us understand who we are and why we are given our ecology, physiology, psychology, and culture. Like the ancient myths, these modern myths will enable us to face our universe and all the natural phenomena that have mystified us and take it in. We will look at our limitations, we will look at the fearsome and awesome things all around us, and in us, and be able to weave them together with a comprehensive affirmation. We will take things as they seem to be and yet we will find these things emotionally, cognitively, and philosophically satisfying, if not indulgent. That’s the idea at least.
How do people respond when you tell them almost all current religions can find their roots in shamanism?
In a few of the reader reviews that I’ve seen people have responded well to the idea. It’s not an original idea of mine, of course, and it remains a highly debatable/speculative one at that. But to the extent that we can piece together prehistory and discern its influence on later times, I think this is a very reasonable argument.
Shamanism, as a concept, has been debated over the years. Some scholars feel that it is merely an academic construct. Whatever similarities “shamanistic” groups display are far outweighed by the numerous differences they have idiosyncratically developed, so some scholars have argued. To me this criticism has something of a Pyrrhonian flavor to it. At the end of the day, all generalizations are false. But if we want to proceed in this endeavor called “knowledge,” we need to employ skepticism in measures, not wholesale. Generalizations are useful if there is ample data to support them and they lead to other ideas/hypotheses.
In my own fieldwork, in Guatemala, I was able to work with specialists who employed rituals and techniques that I had read about in the context of Siberian shamanism. Wow! If this is not just coincidence (and that’s always an underappreciated possibility in my opinion) then it would suggest that groups of indigenous Asians and contemporary Mesoamericans continue to share cultural traits in spite of thousands of years of divergence. This seemed to confirm exactly what Weston LaBarre had argued in “Anthropological Perspectives on Hallucination, Hallucinogens, and the Shamanic Origins of Religions.” So, yes, I continue to support the idea that much of the things we see in contemporary religions, the world over, had their roots in “paleo-shamanic” rituals, practices, and ideologies.
After reading the section in Brain & Belief discussing Zoroastrianism I did further research. Very interesting. Could you give readers a brief tutorial on Zoroastrianism and how it influenced present day monotheistic religions?
Sure. Zoroastrianism is an ancient religion that was started by the prophet, Zarathushtra, around 1000 BCE. The ancient Greeks translated Zarathushtra into Zoroaster and thus we have the current name of the religion although it also goes by the title, Mazdaism, after its god, Ahura Mazda. Zoroastrianism believes in a supremely good god, Ahura Mazda, and a diabolical one, Angra Mainyu or Ahriman. The universe is a constant battle between the forces of good and those of evil/chaos. Humanity itself is caught up in this conflict and has an essential role to play in the prophesied triumph of good over evil at the end of days. In this final time, a savior will emerge, evil will be vanquished, and the dead will be resurrected to live in bliss with Ahura Mazda forevermore.
Sound familiar?
If you know your Old Testament you’ll remember that the Jews were conquered by Nebuchadnezzar in the sixth century before the common era. Nebuchadnezzar forcibly relocated the Jews to his kingdom in the east. This stage, which lasted for two or three generations, is called the Babylonian captivity. What was the primary religion in this area at the time? Zoroastrianism. After the Babylonian captivity Jews began to write about and discuss a few things that weren’t much in evidence beforehand, namely, angels, the resurrection of the dead, the centrality of scripture and its priestly interpretation, the battle between good and evil, a forthcoming savior, and the power of Satan as God’s nemesis. Hmm…sounds a bit fishy, doesn’t it? The transitional prophet of this time (supposedly) was Daniel, who lived in Babylon, spoke to angels, and made one of the first references in the Judeo-Christian canon to the idea of resurrection as the future glory of humankind. Unlike most Jewish prophets before, Daniel was obsessed with the future, rather than the present, and wrote about the apocalypse and a savior he called the “Son of Man”. Though the historical picture is decidedly more complicated than this, it’s hard not to conclude that Zoroastrianism had a major influence on later Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. As an additionally suggestive sidenote, remember that Jesus was first heralded as the messiah by the three wise men from the east who brought him gifts as a baby. The name of these wise men? Magi, the title of priests in the religion of Zoroastrianism.
The whole good/evil distinction that is so central to Western cosmologies and systems of ethics seems to have come directly from this ancient source.
Visit www.johnjmcgraw.com
After reading Brain & Belief (Mcgraw 2004) for the second time I decided I would e-mail the author and see if he would be interested in answering some questions. To my delight he agreed.
I know of no other single volume which covers such a wide range of topics and still retains a depth of analysis…this book is an important addition to the pantheon of popular science books that should be read not only by general readers, but by professional scientists, philosophers, and scholars of all stripes. And it’s a good read to boot! –Michael Shermer, Publisher of Skeptic magazine; author of How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God.
I just finished reading Brain & Belief for the second time. In addition I have referenced the book too many times to count. Needless to say I really enjoyed the book. What inspired it?
What inspired Brain & Belief? Life. My life. I can’t look back to a time in my life when some question or another that ended up central to Brain & Belief wasn’t there. As I recounted at the beginning of the book, I had a great-grandfather and great-grandmother (husband and wife) who were both senile; he lived in a hospital, she in her condominium. My great-grandfather was never verbal in any interactions with me but his owlish, staring eyes always spooked me out when I was a little kid. I just didn’t get it. We visited my great-grandmother more routinely and I remember answering the same questions from her over and over again, half-amused and half-frightened; a strange combination for sure. Their uncanny disabilities left me ill-at-ease with the diseased brain and informed me, from a young age, that human personality relies on a healthy, working brain.
One of my favorite activities as a small child was sitting on my dad’s lap, sucking my thumb and enjoying his quiet warmth as he read the newspaper. Occasionally he would stop to point something out or pose a question to me. I would innocently answer and he always took my answers with patience and encouragement. How can one not fall in love with questions, big and small, with a background like that? Most kids, in my experience, love to wonder about great things and ask why endlessly but they are usually stifled and their curiosity squashed. I was especially fortunate never to have to go through all of that. With an incredibly patient father and a handful of inspirational teachers, I kept on track thinking about and discussing ridiculously irrelevant philosophical quandaries. At the end you find a need to express the pent up pressure of all those questions and sketch out a few answers that have begun to satisfy.
Now, more proximally, there’s no doubt that Brain & Belief is a record of my undergraduate studies at Stanford. I remember looking over the course catalogs as an undergraduate with nerdy enthusiasm. I tried to take as many classes as I could and found that the patterns worked out so that I could major in psychology as well as do an interdepartmental major in philosophy and religious studies. If you look at Brain & Belief closely you’ll see that the structure of the book and its arguments are pretty evenly broken down by those fields/approaches.
Since the publication of Brain & Belief, in 2004, have your thoughts changed on any of the content?
To be honest, I’m still pretty content with the book though I think I could do a better job with it now than when I wrote it. There are sections that seem a bit rushed to me. I would prefer to have fleshed out those bare bones some more.
And journal articles! When I wrote Brain & Belief I didn’t have access to any online journals or databases so virtually all the content I included was either from the books I owned or those I read at the UCSD library. Occasionally, I would track down an old journal article and find a bound copy to look over. My Ph.D. program has made me a far more capable researcher so I think I can enrich the content of the book in any future editions.
I find the language of Brain & Belief a bit hyperbolic now. As a doctoral student I’ve had to proceed in a much more measured tone. But screw it…I like tossing around big ideas with the tone and language they deserve. Moreover, I think it’s easier to draw in a popular audience when you write for them rather than for a hypercritical set of scholars who are probably too sober for their own good.
As an anthropologist I’ve developed a greater patience with religions and religious movements. Around the time I wrote Brain & Belief, I was feeling a lot of frustration with the religions that had shaped me. But even that frustration was muted; I’m no Sam Harris. Now, as time has passed and I’ve studied even more about religion I see it as inextricable from the human condition. Is it irrational? Often. Is it dangerous? Sometimes. But such are people. Even when we put forward our best face we might be clutching a knife behind our back. You aren’t going to make humanity better by amputating that arm. What to do? I’m not sure. Clearly we need more science education and a more thorough training in the use of reason. This includes the use of reason as a means to philosophically approach psychological struggles. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, that descendant of Hellenistic philosophies, really does help people. And everyone ought to learn some of those practices as children or adolescents in order to rationally contend with the insanities we torment ourselves with as young people. Scientific pursuits and experiences in nature (camping, hiking, boating…) are just as rich in developing a sense of awe vìs-a-vìs the universe as sitting in some clammy stone building singing hymns with elderly neighbors. But there still are plenty of religious practices and beliefs that are exquisite in their elicitation of feelings of joy, forgiveness, understanding, and peace. As always, we need to find a golden mean here between obnoxious sanctimony and heartfelt human experience.
When can we expect another book?
Soon, I hope. I have a “Big Idea” that’s been simmering for years now. I have a hundred pages of starter material but I’ve just been too distracted by all my other commitments to consistently work on the book. But I’m always marking another quote or skimming another book in support of the project. If I got really motivated and had 8 months I could probably get a draft completed. So, realistically, we’re probably looking at 2-3 years. But it will definitely be better than Brain & Belief; it will take what I see as the most essential arguments of that book and rigorously develop them and extend them to account for a bunch of human behavior. Here, as in Brain & Belief, I’ve gained much from Ernest Becker. Like him, I feel that contemporary scholars need more chutzpah: we ought to work on grand synthetic models that pull together findings from the various fields of psychology and inform them with a philosophical and anthropological sensitivity. In short, we need modern myths. But these won’t be tales of Gorgons and unicorns, they will be explanatory frameworks that help us understand who we are and why we are given our ecology, physiology, psychology, and culture. Like the ancient myths, these modern myths will enable us to face our universe and all the natural phenomena that have mystified us and take it in. We will look at our limitations, we will look at the fearsome and awesome things all around us, and in us, and be able to weave them together with a comprehensive affirmation. We will take things as they seem to be and yet we will find these things emotionally, cognitively, and philosophically satisfying, if not indulgent. That’s the idea at least.
How do people respond when you tell them almost all current religions can find their roots in shamanism?
In a few of the reader reviews that I’ve seen people have responded well to the idea. It’s not an original idea of mine, of course, and it remains a highly debatable/speculative one at that. But to the extent that we can piece together prehistory and discern its influence on later times, I think this is a very reasonable argument.
Shamanism, as a concept, has been debated over the years. Some scholars feel that it is merely an academic construct. Whatever similarities “shamanistic” groups display are far outweighed by the numerous differences they have idiosyncratically developed, so some scholars have argued. To me this criticism has something of a Pyrrhonian flavor to it. At the end of the day, all generalizations are false. But if we want to proceed in this endeavor called “knowledge,” we need to employ skepticism in measures, not wholesale. Generalizations are useful if there is ample data to support them and they lead to other ideas/hypotheses.
In my own fieldwork, in Guatemala, I was able to work with specialists who employed rituals and techniques that I had read about in the context of Siberian shamanism. Wow! If this is not just coincidence (and that’s always an underappreciated possibility in my opinion) then it would suggest that groups of indigenous Asians and contemporary Mesoamericans continue to share cultural traits in spite of thousands of years of divergence. This seemed to confirm exactly what Weston LaBarre had argued in “Anthropological Perspectives on Hallucination, Hallucinogens, and the Shamanic Origins of Religions.” So, yes, I continue to support the idea that much of the things we see in contemporary religions, the world over, had their roots in “paleo-shamanic” rituals, practices, and ideologies.
After reading the section in Brain & Belief discussing Zoroastrianism I did further research. Very interesting. Could you give readers a brief tutorial on Zoroastrianism and how it influenced present day monotheistic religions?
Sure. Zoroastrianism is an ancient religion that was started by the prophet, Zarathushtra, around 1000 BCE. The ancient Greeks translated Zarathushtra into Zoroaster and thus we have the current name of the religion although it also goes by the title, Mazdaism, after its god, Ahura Mazda. Zoroastrianism believes in a supremely good god, Ahura Mazda, and a diabolical one, Angra Mainyu or Ahriman. The universe is a constant battle between the forces of good and those of evil/chaos. Humanity itself is caught up in this conflict and has an essential role to play in the prophesied triumph of good over evil at the end of days. In this final time, a savior will emerge, evil will be vanquished, and the dead will be resurrected to live in bliss with Ahura Mazda forevermore.
Sound familiar?
If you know your Old Testament you’ll remember that the Jews were conquered by Nebuchadnezzar in the sixth century before the common era. Nebuchadnezzar forcibly relocated the Jews to his kingdom in the east. This stage, which lasted for two or three generations, is called the Babylonian captivity. What was the primary religion in this area at the time? Zoroastrianism. After the Babylonian captivity Jews began to write about and discuss a few things that weren’t much in evidence beforehand, namely, angels, the resurrection of the dead, the centrality of scripture and its priestly interpretation, the battle between good and evil, a forthcoming savior, and the power of Satan as God’s nemesis. Hmm…sounds a bit fishy, doesn’t it? The transitional prophet of this time (supposedly) was Daniel, who lived in Babylon, spoke to angels, and made one of the first references in the Judeo-Christian canon to the idea of resurrection as the future glory of humankind. Unlike most Jewish prophets before, Daniel was obsessed with the future, rather than the present, and wrote about the apocalypse and a savior he called the “Son of Man”. Though the historical picture is decidedly more complicated than this, it’s hard not to conclude that Zoroastrianism had a major influence on later Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. As an additionally suggestive sidenote, remember that Jesus was first heralded as the messiah by the three wise men from the east who brought him gifts as a baby. The name of these wise men? Magi, the title of priests in the religion of Zoroastrianism.
The whole good/evil distinction that is so central to Western cosmologies and systems of ethics seems to have come directly from this ancient source.
Visit www.johnjmcgraw.com
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Skepticism
By Karen Stollznow
Are Skeptics closed-minded, nay-saying curmudgeons?
If you agree with this assessment, you've mistaken skepticism for cynicism. These labels are often confused, but they're not interchangeable at all. Skepticism is a positive outlook of enquiry, open-mindedness, curiosity and wonder, not a negative, narrow-mindedness based in pessimism and misanthropy. Dictionaries and thesauruses often claim that skeptic and cynic are synonymous, but as a Linguist, I can assure you that these sources aren't always accurate. I recently had the pleasure of meeting Joe Nickell, the modern ‘Sherlock Holmes’ of the Committee for Scientific Inquiry (was CSICOP, now known as CSI). I told Joe that I've been an “investigator of the paranormal and pseudoscientific” for the past 10 years, at which he interjected, “I like that...you called yourself an ‘investigator’, rather than a ‘debunker’. That sounds much more positive”.
‘Debunk’ is a word I've never used to describe what I do, or a useful word to explain what skepticism is all about. Admittedly, it's not a commonly used word in Australian English. Furthermore, ‘debunk’ implies that the ‘debunker’ has already made a negative judgment, prior to any investigation. Skepticism is about questioning, not doubting.
We all have the ability to question, so we should all be natural skeptics. Kids make great skeptics! They exhibit curiosity and a keenness to understand the world around them. Remember though, that children will believe that they are always being told the truth by the 'wise', 'knowledgeable' adult.
What can undermine our questioning skills is the blind acceptance of what we're told. Often, we need to question the answer.
Skepticism isn't only for scientists.
A healthy dose of skepticism is important for all of us, to avoid being the victims of abuse, exploitation, fear, manipulation, and most of all, to be true to ourselves. Ironically, I once received a fortune cookie that proclaimed: Skepticism is the first step toward truth.
For those who don't regularly administer this 'healthy dose' to themselves, there are real life dangers. There are many documented cases of people who have lost money, time or even their lives, through exposure to cults and dogma, or the negligence of pseudoscientific practitioners. These are only the extreme cases we hear about. When you apply skepticism in your thinking, you can trust your own judgment.
Here are a few quick tips to apply some useful skepticism to your own life:
think, rather than believe or feel
question, rather than simply accept
keep an open mind, rather than a closed-mind
If you're not a skeptic...are you the closed-minded one?
Read more of Stollznow’s articles at www.bad-language.com
Are Skeptics closed-minded, nay-saying curmudgeons?
If you agree with this assessment, you've mistaken skepticism for cynicism. These labels are often confused, but they're not interchangeable at all. Skepticism is a positive outlook of enquiry, open-mindedness, curiosity and wonder, not a negative, narrow-mindedness based in pessimism and misanthropy. Dictionaries and thesauruses often claim that skeptic and cynic are synonymous, but as a Linguist, I can assure you that these sources aren't always accurate. I recently had the pleasure of meeting Joe Nickell, the modern ‘Sherlock Holmes’ of the Committee for Scientific Inquiry (was CSICOP, now known as CSI). I told Joe that I've been an “investigator of the paranormal and pseudoscientific” for the past 10 years, at which he interjected, “I like that...you called yourself an ‘investigator’, rather than a ‘debunker’. That sounds much more positive”.
‘Debunk’ is a word I've never used to describe what I do, or a useful word to explain what skepticism is all about. Admittedly, it's not a commonly used word in Australian English. Furthermore, ‘debunk’ implies that the ‘debunker’ has already made a negative judgment, prior to any investigation. Skepticism is about questioning, not doubting.
We all have the ability to question, so we should all be natural skeptics. Kids make great skeptics! They exhibit curiosity and a keenness to understand the world around them. Remember though, that children will believe that they are always being told the truth by the 'wise', 'knowledgeable' adult.
What can undermine our questioning skills is the blind acceptance of what we're told. Often, we need to question the answer.
Skepticism isn't only for scientists.
A healthy dose of skepticism is important for all of us, to avoid being the victims of abuse, exploitation, fear, manipulation, and most of all, to be true to ourselves. Ironically, I once received a fortune cookie that proclaimed: Skepticism is the first step toward truth.
For those who don't regularly administer this 'healthy dose' to themselves, there are real life dangers. There are many documented cases of people who have lost money, time or even their lives, through exposure to cults and dogma, or the negligence of pseudoscientific practitioners. These are only the extreme cases we hear about. When you apply skepticism in your thinking, you can trust your own judgment.
Here are a few quick tips to apply some useful skepticism to your own life:
think, rather than believe or feel
question, rather than simply accept
keep an open mind, rather than a closed-mind
If you're not a skeptic...are you the closed-minded one?
Read more of Stollznow’s articles at www.bad-language.com
Friday, September 18, 2009
Tropical Classroom
By Jamie Hale
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to sleep in the jungle or whitewater raft through the jungle? Adventure guide, Chris Begley knows and he’s here to tell us. National Geographic Traveler recently named one of Begley’s expeditions among 50Tours of a Lifetime!
What are Tropical Classroom Expeditions and The Exploration Foundation?
Tropical Classroom Expeditions and The Exploration Foundation are the two companies I founded to create the type of trip I thought was missing from the market. Tropical Classroom Expeditions focuses on creating international travel experiences for academic groups, from a travel course in a university to an alternative spring break trip. Most of these trips involve a service or volunteering component, and all of these courses get the travelers in close contact with the local communities. I’ve taken groups to Honduras, Costa Rica, and Iceland, and have upcoming trips to Peru, Jordan, and Suriname.
National Geographic Traveler recently named one of your expeditions among the 50 Tours of a Lifetime! Must be an exciting trip could you briefly describe?
The trip they named one of their ’50 Tours of a Lifetime’ is a 14-day trip down a jungle river in Honduras on whitewater rafts, from the headwaters to the ocean. We pass through the Rio Platano Biosphere reserve, the largest area of tropical rain forest in the Western Hemisphere outside of the Amazon. We also visit indigenous communities as we emerge from the jungle. The trip is spectacular – the river has Class III and IV rapids, so it is exciting from that point of view. We see lots of animals, including two or three types monkeys, macaws, toucans, tapirs, and occasionally a big cat like a jaguar or puma. Most people can’t believe that this type of place, and this type of trip, still exists.
Where is your favorite place to travel?
My favorite place is probably the jungles of eastern Honduras, where I did my dissertation research in archaeology and where I take some of the groups I guide. It is truly a wild place, in all the good and bad ways. It’s challenging and difficult, but that makes it rewarding.
Have you ever felt seriously endangered while on an expedition?
Yes, several times. A couple of times because of illness (I’ve had malaria once, dengue fever various times, among other things), a couple of times because of animals (usually close encounters with poisonous snakes such as the fer-de-lance, once in a river with crocodiles), but the most serious problems involve people. I was with a group of local guys with whom I worked often, in a very isolated area that had taken 5 days to walk to, when we ran into a group of heavily-armed bandits, one of which was a known killer who threatened us and clearly had bad intentions. We managed to escape in the night while he went to get his compatriots, but it was a close call. We ended up hiking 20 hours in a 24-hour period. I thought we might not make it out of that situation.
How do you balance your work as a University professor with your exotic travel? Would you rather be in a classroom or in the wild?
I am able to balance the two since I usually travel in the summer, and some of my trips are research, and other can sometimes be combined with research. For instance, next summer I’m working with a group of English students who will be helping me with an archaeological project in Honduras. Organizing the trips during the academic year really doesn’t take too much time. What I miss is any time off during the summer – it seems like the semester ends, I’m off on my trips, and I return just before the next semester. There is little time to unwind.
As to which I prefer, that’s hard to say. I think the balance is about right. By the time the academic year is ending, I’m reading to get out in the jungle. By the time my trips wind up, I’m ready to get back to something more stable, comfortable, and safe. Also, the interaction with students during the academic year is very energizing to me.
What is a typical day in the life of an adventure guide? What about the typical day of a college professor?
There is probably not a typical day in the life of an adventure guide. When I’m actually on a trip, I’m up early, checking everything for the upcoming day. I might be going through our gear checking to see if we have enough food for the next stage of a trip, enough paddles, water purifying drops, or if the zippers on the tents are in good shape. If we are back in town, I’ll be on the phone a lot, checking hotel and transportation arrangements, etc. Last summer I had a group in Honduras when the coup happened. We were just heading out into the jungle, so I spent a lot of time on the satellite phone getting information about the situation, letting people know we were alright, and assessing whether or not it was safe to return to the city. So, I spend a lot of time double-checking arrangements. Sometimes the day involves showing people certain techniques, like how to cross a deep river, how to choose a course through a rapid while rafting, or jungle survival techniques. I really like this aspect of being a guide.
Finally, of course, I end up doing a lot of things for the group – starting the campfire, preparing food, helping clear campsites, or checking to see what kind of insect bit somebody and assuring that they’ll be alright (they always are).
A typical day in the life of a university professor is a little more stable. I usually teach three days a week, and the rest of the time is spent preparing for classes, doing other university-related work, such as serving on committees, and doing research, writing, etc. I have a lot of flexibility, except for my actual classes, and that helps since I have three young children (ages 7, 6, and 2) and can work around their activities, school, etc.
Are you currently working on any new projects? Future expeditions?
I have a few trips upcoming. I’m taking a group from California to Jordan in January with Tropical Classroom Expeditions, looking at social justice issues such as the Palestinian refugee situation there. In May, I’m taking a group from Transylvania University to Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana, looking at issues of race and ethnicity. Then, with The Exploration Foundation, I have a mountaineering trip to Peru in June, and then a rafting trip through the jungle in Honduras at the end of June. In July and August, I’ll be working with the Scientific Exploration Society from London, doing a trip through the jungle and about two weeks of archaeological work there.
Chris Begley’s sites
Tropical Classroom Expeditions @ www.tropicalclassroom.com
And The Exploration Foundation @ www.explorationfoundation.org
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to sleep in the jungle or whitewater raft through the jungle? Adventure guide, Chris Begley knows and he’s here to tell us. National Geographic Traveler recently named one of Begley’s expeditions among 50Tours of a Lifetime!
What are Tropical Classroom Expeditions and The Exploration Foundation?
Tropical Classroom Expeditions and The Exploration Foundation are the two companies I founded to create the type of trip I thought was missing from the market. Tropical Classroom Expeditions focuses on creating international travel experiences for academic groups, from a travel course in a university to an alternative spring break trip. Most of these trips involve a service or volunteering component, and all of these courses get the travelers in close contact with the local communities. I’ve taken groups to Honduras, Costa Rica, and Iceland, and have upcoming trips to Peru, Jordan, and Suriname.
National Geographic Traveler recently named one of your expeditions among the 50 Tours of a Lifetime! Must be an exciting trip could you briefly describe?
The trip they named one of their ’50 Tours of a Lifetime’ is a 14-day trip down a jungle river in Honduras on whitewater rafts, from the headwaters to the ocean. We pass through the Rio Platano Biosphere reserve, the largest area of tropical rain forest in the Western Hemisphere outside of the Amazon. We also visit indigenous communities as we emerge from the jungle. The trip is spectacular – the river has Class III and IV rapids, so it is exciting from that point of view. We see lots of animals, including two or three types monkeys, macaws, toucans, tapirs, and occasionally a big cat like a jaguar or puma. Most people can’t believe that this type of place, and this type of trip, still exists.
Where is your favorite place to travel?
My favorite place is probably the jungles of eastern Honduras, where I did my dissertation research in archaeology and where I take some of the groups I guide. It is truly a wild place, in all the good and bad ways. It’s challenging and difficult, but that makes it rewarding.
Have you ever felt seriously endangered while on an expedition?
Yes, several times. A couple of times because of illness (I’ve had malaria once, dengue fever various times, among other things), a couple of times because of animals (usually close encounters with poisonous snakes such as the fer-de-lance, once in a river with crocodiles), but the most serious problems involve people. I was with a group of local guys with whom I worked often, in a very isolated area that had taken 5 days to walk to, when we ran into a group of heavily-armed bandits, one of which was a known killer who threatened us and clearly had bad intentions. We managed to escape in the night while he went to get his compatriots, but it was a close call. We ended up hiking 20 hours in a 24-hour period. I thought we might not make it out of that situation.
How do you balance your work as a University professor with your exotic travel? Would you rather be in a classroom or in the wild?
I am able to balance the two since I usually travel in the summer, and some of my trips are research, and other can sometimes be combined with research. For instance, next summer I’m working with a group of English students who will be helping me with an archaeological project in Honduras. Organizing the trips during the academic year really doesn’t take too much time. What I miss is any time off during the summer – it seems like the semester ends, I’m off on my trips, and I return just before the next semester. There is little time to unwind.
As to which I prefer, that’s hard to say. I think the balance is about right. By the time the academic year is ending, I’m reading to get out in the jungle. By the time my trips wind up, I’m ready to get back to something more stable, comfortable, and safe. Also, the interaction with students during the academic year is very energizing to me.
What is a typical day in the life of an adventure guide? What about the typical day of a college professor?
There is probably not a typical day in the life of an adventure guide. When I’m actually on a trip, I’m up early, checking everything for the upcoming day. I might be going through our gear checking to see if we have enough food for the next stage of a trip, enough paddles, water purifying drops, or if the zippers on the tents are in good shape. If we are back in town, I’ll be on the phone a lot, checking hotel and transportation arrangements, etc. Last summer I had a group in Honduras when the coup happened. We were just heading out into the jungle, so I spent a lot of time on the satellite phone getting information about the situation, letting people know we were alright, and assessing whether or not it was safe to return to the city. So, I spend a lot of time double-checking arrangements. Sometimes the day involves showing people certain techniques, like how to cross a deep river, how to choose a course through a rapid while rafting, or jungle survival techniques. I really like this aspect of being a guide.
Finally, of course, I end up doing a lot of things for the group – starting the campfire, preparing food, helping clear campsites, or checking to see what kind of insect bit somebody and assuring that they’ll be alright (they always are).
A typical day in the life of a university professor is a little more stable. I usually teach three days a week, and the rest of the time is spent preparing for classes, doing other university-related work, such as serving on committees, and doing research, writing, etc. I have a lot of flexibility, except for my actual classes, and that helps since I have three young children (ages 7, 6, and 2) and can work around their activities, school, etc.
Are you currently working on any new projects? Future expeditions?
I have a few trips upcoming. I’m taking a group from California to Jordan in January with Tropical Classroom Expeditions, looking at social justice issues such as the Palestinian refugee situation there. In May, I’m taking a group from Transylvania University to Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana, looking at issues of race and ethnicity. Then, with The Exploration Foundation, I have a mountaineering trip to Peru in June, and then a rafting trip through the jungle in Honduras at the end of June. In July and August, I’ll be working with the Scientific Exploration Society from London, doing a trip through the jungle and about two weeks of archaeological work there.
Chris Begley’s sites
Tropical Classroom Expeditions @ www.tropicalclassroom.com
And The Exploration Foundation @ www.explorationfoundation.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
