McGill U.'s Call to Arms Against Pseudoscience - Montreal Gazette 2010-10-16

Joe Schwarcz, "director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society" writes in "Confronting the Plague of Pseudoscience" in the Montreal Gazette (2010-10-18):

"scientifically unsupported claims about therapeutic interventions that are not science-based offer false hope. Worse, they may steer patients away from proven conventional treatments [...] pseudoscience is enjoying a golden age [...it] can masquerade as science and wreak intellectual and physical havoc [...though] a definition is hard to come by because pseudoscience takes on so many forms [...it is a] plague [...an] intellectual muddling [...and] most scientists [...] would agree that when they see it, they know it. But this is not necessarily the case for people not well versed in science [...] in essence, pseudoscience encompasses any belief, process or claim that pretends to have a scientific basis but actually has none [(yes!)...] real science accumulates facts and formulates testable theories to gain an understanding of the physical world, pseudoscience relies on anecdotes, ideology and cherry-picked data to support preconceived notions [...and] is often mired in dogma [...] homeopathy would be a typical example of a pseudoscience [...per] no scientific basis [...also] distance healing [...] when scientists start raising eyebrows at such mindless twaddle, the pseudoscience champions unleash their usual attacks, claiming that scientists are closed-minded [...though] as Carl Sagan cleverly said, they may have laughed at Columbus and the Wright brothers, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Scientists are quite prepared to stop laughing when evidence is provided [...] where is the comparable evidence for astrology, iridology [a pseudodiagnostic], crystal healing, quantum healing, magnetic healing, 'chi' channels [vitalism], telepathy, or creationism? Where is the proof that John Kanzius's radio waves can cure cancer or that [naturopath] Hulda Clark's 'zapper' can zap it away? There isn't any, and Hulda is not going to produce any, given she passed away from cancer last year [(oh snap!)...] it is time to stem the rising tide of pseudoscience [...] the Lorne Trottier Public Science Symposium is one of McGill's premier annual events and this year focuses on pseudoscience [...it will have] four world-renowned experts on pseudoscience [...] Dr. Ben Goldacre, medical columnist for The Guardian in England and author of Bad Science; Dr. David Gorski [...] a managing editor for the famed 'Science-Based Medicine' blog; Dr. Michael Shermer, Scientific American columnist and founder of Skeptic magazine; and the incomparable and indefatigable James Randi, the world's leading investigator of pseudo-scientific and paranormal claims."

Note: naturopathy, of course, is a world renown pseudoscience. At the Naturowatch site, Dr. Barrett's article is famous for calling the average naturopath a "muddlehead."

Randi on World Homeopathy Awareness Week 2010:

James Randi states in the recent Youtube video "Randi Speaks - Homeopathy Week 2010":

"hello, I'm James Randi and I'm here to help celebrate World Homeopathy Awareness Week [...] the delusion known as homeopathy [...] that variety of quackery [...] well if it's awareness that the homeopathic community wants, then by all means lets promote that awareness [...] there is no stranger idea than the [so-called!] science  that Samuel Hahnemann came up with some 200 years ago [...] it's all a matter of vibrations, you see [...which is] acceptable to the suckers out there [...] homeopathy has been tested, and tested and tested for more than a century now [...it is] ancient nonsense [...that when tested rigorously] failed dramatically  [...] it doesn't work, it's a fake [...] quackery, nonsense, fraud [...] bullshit."

Note: nicely done.

Randi on Acupuncture II - A "Mythology of Pseudoscientific Mumbo-Jumbo":

James Randi recently stated in "More Evasion":

"so, to the NCI [National Cancer Institute] and the NIH [National Institutes of Health]: here's the answer to my question, which is: 'is there any scientific, double-blind research that shows acupuncture is effective?' No, there is not. Acupuncture is a well-developed mythology of pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo that ranks high in the quackery constellation, fails carefully-designed tests, and makes fortunes for the practitioners largely because of the reluctance - no, the refusal - of the NCI and NIH to level with the citizens of the USA. [hear, hear]."

Note: and acupuncture is part of naturopathy, which in my view is quite the "quackery constellation". NCI also has a horrid definition of naturopathy, but it does speak to naturopathy's inclusion of acupuncture:

"a system of disease prevention and treatment that avoids drugs and surgery. Naturopathy is based on the use of natural agents such as air, water, light, heat, and massage to help the body heal itself [coded vitalism]. It also uses herbal products, nutrition, acupuncture, and aromatherapy as forms of treatment."

From this definition, you will not be informed that naturopathy is absurd, since it labels the profoundly science-ejected as scientific, e.g. that naturopathy is based upon vitalism, which is several decades [generously] DECEASED in terms of science. Nor does it speak to the requisite supernaturalism that is bound up with naturopathic vitalism, also labeled absurdly as science. I can only hope that cancer patients stay away, and ignore NCI's quasi-endorsement / misinformation.

Randi on Acupuncture 'Primative Mystical Idiocy', & Extended To Naturopathy-Homeopathy-Acupuncture "SCIENCE" at UB:

here, I quote something Randi recently wrote about acupuncture [see 001., below]; and I extend it into the realm of UB nonsense [see the rest, below]:

001. James Randi recently wrote in "We Should Be Insulted":

"the 'complimentary and alternative medicine' [sCAM!] business brings in some $34 billion a year in direct out-of-pocket spending from American consumers [...] I recently came into possession of a 62-page full-color booklet produced and distributed by the National Cancer Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health. This comprehensive publication - in its 'Words To Know' glossary, begins with a definition of what is possibly the only form of quackery that outranks homeopathy for idiocy: acupuncture [...] acupuncture is only a notion, a colorful way of looking at the human condition, a mystical and primitive concept of how the human body works and survives. It has no basis in fact or in observation. It is a dangerous myth. For the US National Institutes of Health to support it - though in an uncertain, luke-warm fashion - is farcical. The JREF has consistently offered its million-dollar prize to any and all acupuncturists."

Note: I don't think that that $35 billion includes the amount of money people spend on degrees encompassing CAM idiocies.

002. along the lines of "idiocy" and "mystical and primitive" mythical concepts [and academic malpractice, of a most blatant kind!], I give you naturopathy at the University of Bridgeport, which includes both homeopathy and acupuncture in its curriculum, and labels nonscience science and takes money for such, as a fully sanctioned degree granting entity [farcical to the thousand power]:

002.a. at UB, naturopathy's requisite homeopathy & acupuncture are readily apparent:

"a licensed naturopathic physician (N.D.) attends a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an M.D. [...] the basic medical sciences [...] naturopathic education includes [...] homeopathy [...] the naturopathic physician is required to complete training [...] acupuncture [and] homeopathic medicine";

Note: the claim of science as a basis / umbrella, regular ordinary basic science like at all other colleges and universities in this day and age.

002.b. per acupuncture, UB states in "Acupuncture Institute":

"the Master of Science in Acupuncture degree."

Note: again, the categorical label of science upon...idiocy.

002.c. UB's 'vitalism is health science', overarching all of this:

002.c1. UB naturopathy's essential vitalism is readily apparent. And I've collected a preponderance of naturopathy vitalism ludicrously labeled scientific fact by .gov entities;

002.c2. and UB's label upon all of this, "health science".

003. and that is akin to stating that 'science is the nonscientific' or 'p and not-p', and it is madness:

to quote a particular set of logical rules, "the law of non-contradiction: a conjunctive proposition [...] cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. Thus the proposition 'p and not-p' cannot be true. For example, the proposition 'it is raining and it is not raining' is a contradiction, and must be false."

004. NYU physicist and UCL mathematician Alan Sokal says it best in "Archaeological Fantasies. How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public" (ISBN 0415305934; 2006):

"for my own part, I have been struck by the fact that nearly all the pseudoscientific systems to be examined in this essay are based philosophically on vitalism [...a.k.a.] 'life energy', elan vital, prana, qi [...] mainstream science has rejected vitalism since at least the 1930s for a plethora of good reasons that have only become stronger with time [p.347]."

Perfect. I've a preponderance stating that vitalism is hugely not science.

Randi on Homeopathy - "Quackery, A Farce, A Fake, Flummery" 2009:

here, a quick quote from James Randi regarding the nonsense known as homeopathy:

001. Randi writes in "Homeopathy Qualifies for the Million Dollar Challenge":

"homeopathy is eligible for the million-dollar prize [MDP...] we've offered it on BBC, in print, by lectures, all over the world, and it [homeopathy] has always – 100% of the time – failed tests. It was reported as a failure in Nature Magazine [...] if anyone can show that homeopathy works, the James Randi Educational Foundation will pay them the million-dollar prize [...] homeopathy DOES NOT WORK. It's quackery, pure and simple. It's a farce, a fake, and flummery. Prove it works, and win the million dollars."

Note: of course, the naturopaths claim homeopathy is a "clinical science":

"the core clinical science examination is a case-based examination that covers the following topics [...which includes] homeopathy."

002. Let's think:

since NDs claim they are science experts, and that homeopathy is science, why haven't they claimed the $?

If homeopathy is science, IT IS ALREADY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.

The MDP would be easy winnings.

Something smells HUGELY fishy about naturopathy.