Could pseudo-science fund cancer research?

The geeks are on the march with increasingly vocal and co-ordinated calls for an end to crystal heal

By Mark Stevenson Published 12 January 2012

There is now fine cottage industry in vitriolic disdain aimed at those who tout homeopathy, crystal healing, vaccine denial (and the rest), admirably spearheaded by the likes of Ben Goldacre, Simon Singh and Robin Ince over here, Penn & Teller and James Randi in the US and Sanal Edamaruku in India, who famously challenged holy man Pandit Surender Sharma to prove the claim that he could kill another human being using only mystical powers.

Edamaruku offered himself up as a willing guinea pig on live TV where Sharma spectacularly failed to shuffle his rationalist opponent off this mortal coil. Likewise, politicians who indulge in what Mark Henderson pithily calls "Evidence Abuse" in his forthcoming book Geek Manifesto should, it is argued, be subject to a public drubbing.

Irrationalism, though, is very human, and the nearest place to see someone who cherry picks evidence and is ruled more often by emotion than reason is in the mirror. Even the most outwardly rational of us harbours a festering pit of assumption, un-evidenced opinion and prejudice. Our most iconic scientists are not immune, as Michael Brooks' recent Free Radicals brilliantly documents. On a personal note I've seen more than a few scientists rendered about as rational as Charlie Sheen by alcohol, love disasters or a perceived snub by a colleague.

This then is where science and critical thinking skills come in -- a framework of checks and balances, putting some filters around our bug-ridden brains so that what eventually dribbles out is something approaching the truth. And let's be honest, science has been astonishingly successful at curbing our in-built nuttiness. One can only admire how this cognitive safety harness has continually come up trumps for its nutty creators.

But is there a middle ground to be found in the snake oil wars? One that admits we all choose which irrationalities we'll indulge in (and allows us to practice them) while admitting they may be harmful?

Here's a suggestion. I call it the "pseudo science and quackery emissions trading scheme". It works in a very similar fashion to carbon trading, where a cost is put on your CO2 emissions. In these schemes you can continue to emit CO2 but there is a financial consequence. The more you emit, the more you pay.

Why not then set up a similar scheme for emissions of pseudo-science? So, as a homeopath you can continue pushing your placebos, but if you claim them to be anything more you will be sent a bill at the end of each quarter calculated against a number of evidence abusing criteria -- the size of your customer base, how many times you appropriate sayings from eastern philosophy without understanding them much, and your client-facing hours. The money would then be given to, say, a medical research charity.

Everyone wins. Crystal healers can carry on trading but they at least know there is now an actual financial cost to peddling nonsense (a tax that would have to be itemised on any client's bill). Some rationalists might even begin to see practicing quacks as good thing -- generating a much needed extra revenue stream for genuine medical research. And homeopaths, faith healers and crystal wizards could legitimately claim that they were now doing something to fight cancer.

In fact we could have fundraisers where rationalists actively go to homeopaths and ask to have their intellects abused. "Dilute it some more!" they might cry... knowing that for every moment the charade continues extra pennies go towards the rationalist cause.

Mark Stevenson is a writer, businessman, comedian and founder of the League of Pragmatic Optimists. His first book An Optimist's Tour for the Future (Profile Books) is out now.

This piece first appeared in the December 2011 issue of the British Science Association's magazine, People & Science.

Tags: Science

View the discussion thread.

11 comments

Wed, 2012-06-13 17:06 — Andrew Chapman (not verified)

This is quite a good article. Many new questions emerge to the surface, all you need do is to read further information about the issues. Only then one can form a final view on a particular subject. Otherwise everything is seen only in the dimension of cum more black and white. The natural logic of evaluating things before vstavane skrine they were properly cognitively processed is a horrible mistake, made by those less intelligent. People should not throw away their common slovakia sense easily. Anything and everything deserves appropriate time for making judgements.

Mon, 2012-01-16 18:18 — Terrence Henderson (not verified)

I was told by a Christie hospital (cancer) specialist in 1993 that there was nothing more they could do for me.
It was a time when Christie were using Withington hospital as an outsource. The year earlier I had stood as a Liberal parliamentary candidate in Manchester Gorton .

Unluckily for me, Labour fascists in Manchester, that use criminals from all forms of life are still here, getting their reduced rates beer at pubs that are not in any way able to sustain their income. I smell money-laundering on a big, big scale. If they spoke reality than Chinese whispers they would have gone long ago.

It is unfortunate that the shaved knuckle-head club, never have been honest, or told the truth unless they whisper in private, and ask the person they talk to to not talk to the person their fabrications are against, so they can continue whisper and gain strength

Paranoid Evil Lunatic Babies with knives, gossip and shotguns. Beware they carry on the sole of your shoe after a walk in the park, they make a mess and are poisonous to other life. Most are on the dole.

Mr Miliband is different!

Tue, 2012-01-24 20:37 — Sir Michael (not verified)

Jankaas I do believe that you'll find these two articles most enlightening.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/aug/23/therealenemiesofreason

http://culturespam.wordpress.com/2007/10/07/rise-of-scientism-and-the-ps...

As has been said before; admire those who seek the truth, beware those who find it.

Science isn't a philosophical doctrine, a way of life, or some sort of pseudo-religion with scientists replacing priests. It is a means of estabilishing what is likely to be fact by experimentation while eliminating bias. Having ones mind made up at the start, cherry picking "facts" before they are established, and using ridicule to actually prevent research isn't science. Quite the contrary.

Fri, 2012-01-13 12:46 — Sir Michael (not verified)

As difficult as it may be to take seriously the claims of some of these psychic healers or crystal waving wizards I think the likes of Penn Gilette and James Randi make this even worse.

Randi in particular, a stage magician with absolutely zero scientific crudentials himself, described Puthoff and Targ as "the Laurel and Hardy of psi". Targ, while having done research into paranormal phenomena, also being the physicist credited with the invention of the microfusion laser.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Examskeptics/Prescott_Randi.html

When theories began to circulate that telepathy could be explained with quantum physics he called this particular discipline of science "the refuge of scoundrels", denouncing an entire branch of science - not a great thing for a defender of science to do surely?

http://www.rense.com/general32/telep.htm

Then we have vaccination deniers such as Bill Maher...

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/bill-maher-vs-the-flu-vaccine/

...being given the Richard Dawkins award for being a friend to science and an enemy of unreason...

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/the_2009_recipient_of_the_rich...

It is right to be skeptical and question things. In fact that is my point. While much of what goes on in so called "supernatural" claims is pseudo-science, what these individuals are responding with is pseudo-skepticism. There really isn't much of a difference between the two ideologies, as they are both founded on belief or disbelief being more important than evidence or research.

Fri, 2012-01-13 16:39 — EssexBoy

Be careful. It's not quantum physics per se that was being criticised, it was denouncing those who purport to explain psychic phenomena (or any other pseudoscience) by attempting to link them to quantum physics.

Also, you don't need "scientifc credentials" to be able to appreciate and use the scienctific method. Otherwise it begins to look like an argument from authority (he has a PhD so must be right, etc), which is quite anti-science in itself.

Fri, 2012-01-13 16:39 — anarchic teapot (not verified)

@Sir Michael
Surely the fact that Randi knows how magic tricks work makes him especially suited to their debunking? I think you are being somewhat elitist by claiming that scientific credentials are required to debunk the ludicrous claims of psychic healers. A 9 year old child can do it. Has done it.

http://www.dcscience.net/Rosa-1998-JAMA.pdf

Your Randi link does not provide any evidence (such as a video recording or such a statement on Randi's own website), therefore I am afraid it is useless for debate purposes.However, since proponents of quackery have a nasty tendency to claim quantum physics validates their favourite form of vitalism, I suspect this was what he would have been referring to.

I would hope that this proposed tax would be charged at a higher level on anyone using the word "quantum" in a pro-woo text.

Fri, 2012-01-20 16:48 — Andyb (not verified)

Sir Michael
"Randi is suited to debunking trickery. However he is not qualified to make claims on a scientific platform. This is my very point gentlemen."

What scientific claims? Randi is famous for exposing psychics, spirtiual gurus and alternative med nutters. Nothing these people sell is scientific.

Besides, you don't need a science degree to be able to apply logic and rational thinking (although it does help). James Randi is something of a hero in the sceptic community for his tireless efforts to expose charlatans and to educate the general public in the art of clear thinking.

And while we are at it, check this out if you think Randi is not qualified enough to take on bogus scientific claims:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-jIIgwO71w

It's one of the best Horizon episodes ever.

Fri, 2012-01-13 20:23 — Sir Michael (not verified)

Randi is suited to debunking trickery. However he is not qualified to make claims on a scientific platform. This is my very point gentlemen. Furthermore, I never said that "I think you are being somewhat elitist by claiming that scientific credentials are required to debunk the ludicrous claims of psychic healers". This sort of hyperbolic intellectual dishonesty is precisely the reason people like Randi shouldn't be doing their shenannigans.

Also... ""There is no firm evidence for the existence of telepathy, ESP or whatever we wish to call it, and I think it is the refuge of scoundrels in many aspects for them to turn to something like quantum physics, which uses a totally different language from the regular English that we are accustomed to using from day to day, to merely say, oh that's where the answer lies, because that's all very fuzzy anyway. No it's not very fuzzy, and I think that his opinion will be differed with by the scientific body in general ..."

...yes, he is critical of quantum physics there. Feel free to listen to him debunking actual science.

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/stamps/today.html

I said that in order to objectively state that alternative therapy X or unknown phenomena Y is true or false it needs to be scientifically investigated. The proposal that Uri Geller is a fraud isn't something we need a lab test to find out. The statement that humans (or indeed other animals) don't possess any senses beyond the standard six is.

The very word "science" is derived from the latin "scientia", which means "knowledge". Science is a method of establishing knowledge based on objectivity and evidence, and the method is divised to eliminate bias and deception. Setting up a test where you are judge and jury, announcing a reward of a million for anyone who beats it, then loudly proclaiming that you are right because... like... it's a million dollars... isn't science. Or if it is then evolutionary theory is also false, as Dr Hovinds little test hasn't been beaten yet...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html

His test is meaningless bunk, which he has intentionally framed in a manner which is ludicrous. That Randis test (a test where each applicant must be famous) is similiarly ridiculous. If this was a decent method of establishing fact why isn't it done more often? Why didn't Einstein, after coming up with Relativity, announce that it was true and that if anyone could prove it wrong they could have a free holiday in Barbados?

While you don't need scientific crudentials to appreciate and use the scientific method, it is generally better to believe a scientist when discussing a matter in his particular field of science than some nut with an axe to grind. Thus I give you the director of the Stem Cell Biology Laboratory at King's College London.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=403427&section...

Note he doesn't say that any such things are true, merely that they should be researched and the scientists who do so should be allowed to do so without vilification or interference.