You probably have heard that demand from various people? The idea for the post was triggered by this brief Twitter exchange on #skeptics:

The top reply there is mine, and this little exchange got me thinking. I have no idea who SnBEternally is and what their problem is. They did tell the whole of CSICON to go fuck themselves though, so there’s some animosity at least.

Anyway. So why this demand for respect? First let me clarify what I am referring to here. I do respect people’s freedom of religion, belief and speech. This is not what I’m targeting her. What I am talking about is why should I respect a given belief by default? There are numerous religious and alternative beliefs I simply cannot respect or accept because I’m a secular humanist. I don’t respect the acts of terror performed by fundamentalist Muslims. I don’t respect the hatred displayed by Christian fundamentalists towards gay people and other groups they target. I don’t respect the homoeopath who sell water and sugar for medicine to sick people. I don’t respect the anti-vaccine activist who indirectly cause great suffering for individuals and put the flock-immunity of dangerous diseases of the entire population at risk. I don’t respect the global warming denier who is too fond of their wasteful lifestyle to want to sacrifice it for the common good. I don’t respect the pope for sweeping child abuse under the rug and opposing prevention of the spreading of HIV in Africa. The list of assholes I don’t respect is long. Too long.

But let’s flip the coin and ask: Why do these people crave our respect? I don’t really give a shit if they don’t respect my world view. My world view doesn’t rely on that. It isn’t fixed. I evaluate my world view based on how well it fits with reality. Specifically I rely on scientific evidence when I make up my mind what to believe. If the evidence isn’t present I either make up my mind based on available data, or don’t form an opinion at all. I have no problem with not knowing the answer! This maybe is the key. The religious and the alternative thinking seem to demand an answer regardless of how well the answer applies to observable reality. Where did the universe come from? God made it. How does homoeopathic medicine work? Quantum mechanics does it. (As a physicist, the QM explanations for homoeopathy is complete gibberish to me). So why this craving for respect? The answer is simple I think: validation. Their world view is not self-consistent, self-evident or self-reliant, thus they need external affirmation. That is why they get so annoyed when we don’t provide this. This is also why it is a bad idea to pay too much lip service to these people. The so-called “accommodationism approach”.

Came across this interesting blogpost via PZ Myers’ blog. It is about some interesting results from «Pew Research Forum on Religion and Public Life» which had a survey of the opinions of evangelical leaders attending a conference last year. Leaders from all over the world were included and there are some interesting cultural differences noted in the blogpost. You can read about that there, but the point I found most interesting and disappointingly unsurprising was that fact that the rejection of evolution was almost complete. Given the option of Evolution (but not excluding God), Intelligent Design and traditional creationism, 47% chose creationism, 41% chose ID and only 3% chose evolution. The error margins are usually a few percent. The number of evangelical leaders who said it is not “essential to follow the teachings of Christ in one’s personal and family life” was also 3%, so clearly the error margins are in that range. It is disappointing that so many evangelical, near all, reject a well established and well proven scientific theory. The author of the blogpost concludes:

Rejection of evolution is not simply a theological side issue in evangelical Christianity, but appears to be a defining feature.

There are other interesting things gathered from this survey as well, about their attitude towards atheists for instance. Interesting read:

Full post: Evangelicals, evolution and atheism: the 2011 Pew Foundation survey

Already in 1842 Homeopathy was debunked. I came over this old essay written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, a poet and physician that lived from 1809 to 1894. His essay Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions was two lectures  presented to the Boston Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge in 1842.

The essay gives us a quick introduction to the principles of Homeopathy and its inventor  Samuel Hahnemann’s original written work published in 1806. Even to the educated of his own days the principles he suggested were logically and scientifically unsound as they even more so are today.

Holmes describes the principles and suggest 3 consequences of these principles that ought to be true if these principles were. He picks them apart thoroughly. An examples is his comment on the first principle, namely that “like cures like”, or that a remedy that causes some given symptoms will cure a disease with the same symptoms.

Let us look a moment at the first of his doctrines. Improbable though it may seem to some, there is no essential absurdity involved in the proposition that diseases yield to remedies capable of producing like symptoms. There are, on the other hand, some analogies which lend a degree of plausibility to the statement. There are well-ascertained facts, known from the earliest periods of medicine, showing that, under certain circumstances, the very medicine which, from its known effects, one would expect to aggravate the disease, may contribute to its relief. I may be permitted to allude, in the most general way, to the case in which the spontaneous efforts of an overtasked stomach are quieted by the agency of a drug which that organ refuses to entertain upon any terms. But that every cure ever performed by medicine should have been founded upon this principle, although without the knowledge of a physician; that the Homeopathic axiom is, as Hahnemann asserts, “the sole law of nature in therapeutics,” a law of which nothing more than a transient glimpse ever presented itself to the innumerable host of medical observers, is a dogma of such sweeping extent, and pregnant novelty, that it demands a corresponding breadth and depth of unquestionable facts to cover its vast pretensions.

Then he looks at the absurdity of the claim that the more the remedy is diluted, the more effective it is. This is the most common argument anyone arguing that Homeopathy is humbug will first use. A commonly used dilution is 30C, which means that the dilution is of the order 1 to 100^30, or a one with 60 following zeros. This is of course absurd to anyone with some knowledge of chemistry or physics. As Holmes notes, even a schoolboy can see the flaw in that logic. Homeopaths claim there is some mystical effect that “copies” the information of the remedy unto the dilution. The way this is supposed to happen is purely magical and has no scientific plausible explanation. For more info on the process see here.

Holmes also note that the three basic principles of Homeopathy are derived with no logical connection. The idea that “like cures like” has absolutely no relation to the method of dilution they use, the last original principle, which apparently weren’t even well accepted by Homeopaths back then, is that all diseases have their origin in an itch! In any case, as his main arguments Holmes look at three implications of the argument that “like cures like” and go through them in great detail. The argument are as follow:

I proceed to examine the proofs of the leading ideas of Hahnemann and his school.

In order to show the axiom, similia similibus curantur (or like is cured by like), to be the basis of the healing art—”the sole law of nature in therapeutics”—it is necessary—

1. That the symptoms produced by drugs in healthy persons should be faithfully studied and recorded.
2. That drugs should be shown to be always capable of curing those, diseases most like their own symptoms.
3. That remedies should be shown not to cure diseases when they do not produce symptoms resembling those presented in these diseases.

The arguments themselves are lengthy, and are best read in the original essay. Which is well recommended reading for those who are interested in the subject.

Related links:

• Homeopathy is NOT medicine, Unfiltered Perception

In March 2011 James Randi came to Norway to take part in the Humanist Association’s campaign to inform the public about those people that are out to fool you with trickery and empty promises to get your money. The campaign has to a large degree focused on alternative medicine, but not only them. The so-called clairvoyant, crystal healers, astrologist and the like are also people the campaign wants to warn about.

James Randi had seminars in Oslo, Bergen and Trondheim. With full houses every night. I attended the one in Oslo and got to shake his hand at the restaurant after the event where Oslo Skeptics were gathered. The video below is from the event in Trondheim and is in English. Enjoy!

Related links:

• A Report On My Norway Tour, from the JREF Website

The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

I have decided to write a few blog-posts on the topic of Science and Skepticism. I have recently been debating people from the alternative movement (read New Age) lately, and have a few thoughts on various subjects related to this, and also the type of subject I’m more used to discuss, religion.

The title “The Fine Art of Baloney Detection” I have stolen from Carl Sagan, an astrophysicist well know for both his popularization of science and for his skepticism. The title refers to his covering of the subject in his book The Demon-haunted World, a book on pseudoscience (a book I have read a few times and can absolutely recommend). More on his take on the art of baloney detection here.

Anyway, what I want to write about is not necessarily the well known list of logical fallacies, but rather a specific way of thinking that seems to be common amongst those who think “alternatively”. First, let me define what I mean by thinking alternatively. I am not referring to a person who thinks out of the box, or is curious, or just like to philosophise about life, the universe and everything. I am talking about those people that reject reality and substitute their own to put it in Mythbuster-terms. Science have established a set of techniques, or rules if you wish, by which we evaluate scientific theories, organize them, and test their validity. It has a built-in fault-correction mechanism and a fraud-correction mechanism. It is otherwise known as The Scientific Method.

… and now for the Baloney

So what is it exactly I’m getting at? Well, science consists of people, and people are driven by different things. So are scientists. Many have a certain theory or hypothesis they want to prove, or some idea they want to be right for various reasons. This makes for a potential pitfall, namely that of bias. Especially in more fringe types of science, people tend to be driven by a desire to prove something specific right. Examples are research into the paranormal and attempts at proving various dualistic mind-body concepts. There are also a lot of people who desperately wish to get famous by for instance finding a new theory of relativity, or a new string theory and such. The New Age movement and the alternativers thrive on these fringe sciences and the outright crackpots you also find there. These alternative thinking people tend to look for some kind of scientific validation of their ideas, and anything will do. Otherwise they will openly reject science as a valid way of gathering information about the world. They are in other words inconsistent and selective to the extreme.

Recently I have been debating someone who is convinced people can have parapsychological abilities like clairvoyance and such. He is convinced this is proven (no less) by quantum mechanics, arguably the most popular scientific theory to be abused by New Age. It is very tempting for the more informed of that crew to pick apart the philosophical problem surrounding quantum uncertainty, a topic called the Quantum mind-body problem. Some have suggested a dualistic interpretation of this, but this is the far end of the spectrum and highly speculative. There are much better suggestions which are in line with the otherwise very successful ways of interpreting nature. In any case, these fringes of philosophical interpretation of science is gasoline on the fire for what is otherwise known as quantum mysticism. To many of these people science is a symbol of closed-mindedness and an insufficient tool to interpret reality as they see it. However when they find something they can use, they glorify it and use it for all its worth and then some. But again, they will out of hand reject any other piece of science that might balance any fringe theories. Without exception, every time I have seen any New Ager or a creationist embrace something appearing to be science at first glance, it has proven to be either highly speculative fringe science or outright crackpots with an agenda.

So why can’t you New Agers and alties out there decide whether you accept science or not? And when and if you do choose to accept science, why do you always cherrypick and the insist that cherry is the only possible true cherry? No matter how rotten it may be? Either accept science and its methodology or stick to the mysticism.

Related links:

• The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science, by Chris Mooney

Note: This post is in Norwegian and is addressed to the alternative medicine community in Norway in connection to the Humanist Society’s campaign to inform people about the dangers of these practices. It addresses some of the logical fallacies in the argumentation they use.

Oppdatert 14.04.2011

Jeg skriver dette i forbindelse med Human-Etisk Forbunds kampanje “Ingen liker å bli lurt“. Kampanjen omhandler og advarer om påstander fra mennesker som utnytter andre menneskers sorg og desperasjon for egen vinning gjennom å love behandlinger og andre tjenester som de ikke har belegg for; og dette gjerne til en høy pris. Den adresserer også de som tar seg godt betalt for å formidle mystisisme til søkende mennesker, som for eksempel astrologer og spåmenn. Sårbare mennesker blir gjerne avhengig av slike “råd” for å komme seg gjennom hverdagen. Også de som ikke tar seg betalt vekker bekymring da det er kjent at en del av disse utsetter andre mennesker for fare gjennom å oppfordre til alternativ behandling istedenfor medisinsk behandling så vel som å være en psykisk belastning for mennesker i sorg gjennom for eksempel å påstå man kommuniserer med menneskers døde slektninger. Det er rett og slett en kampanje mot humbug, og til dels farlig humbug.

Debatten

Diskusjonen har til tider vært ganske frisk på kampanjens Facebook-side. Det er så vidt jeg kan se i hovedsak de som faktisk tjener penger på humbug som er de som reagerer sterkest og nærmest går i skyttergravposisjon og skyter fra hofta. Argumentasjonen er til dels usaklig og bærer preg av personangrep. Det er også eksempler på at kampanjens tilhengere er ufine. Allikevel er disse alternative behandlerne og deres troende mest av alt sinte på at folk i det hele tatt våger å tale dem imot. Disse som tjener gode penger på dette har altfor lenge fått være i fred. Mye av argumentasjonen går igjen, og jeg vil ta opp noen av disse argumentene. De bærer sterkt preg av det man kaller logiske tankefeil eller det som på engelsk kalles “logical fallacies“, et tema som har blitt omhandlet i Fri Tanke 3/2010 og som diskuteres på forumet til skepsis.no.

Jeg er relativt godt kjent med denne typen argumentasjon. Jeg har i mange år diskutert på forskjellige fora på internett hvor skepsis og rasjonell tenkning er tema. De man treffer flest av på slike steder er religiøse fundamentalister, da særlig kreasjonister. Disse er ikke så vanlige i Norge som de er i USA, men da jeg er vokst opp i en del av landet der denne tenkemåten er vanligere, har jeg blitt eksponert for slikt siden jeg var liten. Alternativ medisin og New-Age har jeg mindre erfaring med siden de går heller dårlig sammen med bibelbelte-kristendommen, men jeg konstaterer at de sliter med de samme typer tankefeil og logiske kortslutninger som disse andre menneskene.

Mine sannheter og dine sannheter

Et argument som har dukket opp ofte fra “alternativerne” i diskusjonene den siste måneden går noe slik som dette: “Joda, det er fint at du har dine sannheter, men jeg har mine sannheter.” Vel, nå er jeg ingen filosof, men logikken i denne uttalelsen er vil få mange filosofer til å steile (ihvertfall de jeg har spurt om dette). Hvis det er noe som heter mine sannheter og dine sannheter, hva er da distinksjonen mellom disse og mine løgner og dine løgner? Er det i det hele tatt mulig å skille? For å ta et litt absurd eksempel: Si at jeg er innkalt som vitne i en rettssak. En person jeg ikke kjenner er mistenkt for et ran i en bakgate. Jeg er i denne historien en person som tror på mye rart, litt slik som en “elektrisk munk” for de av oss som har lest Douglas Adams. Jeg tror fullt og fast på det som måtte falle meg inn i øyeblikket. Akkurat nå for tiden så tror jeg ikke på gravitasjon, og akkurat den kvelden var jeg ute å fløy meg en liten luftetur over byen, og jo, jeg så denne mannen begå denne kriminelle handlingen. Er dette da det som kalles min sannhet? Er det da én mulig sannhet? Eller er det en løgn? En vrangforestilling som tyder på et forstyrret sinn kanskje? Burde mitt vitnemål tas til følge i rettssaken? Åpenbart ikke, det er vel alle enige om. Men ifølge den alternative logikken er ikke dette en selvfølge, snarere tvert imot. Det alternativerne egentlig mener er min oppfatning og min tro, som er ord som faktisk beskriver det de mener, men det er nå engang sannheter de vil selge. Er dette bare sleip markedsføring? De troende har ihvertfall kjøpt argumentet.

Så hva er så sannhet? Dette er et stort og komplisert tema i filosofien med en lang historie. For et sammendrag kan du lese om det på Stanford sine sider her. Man kan også lese litt på Wikipedia om noen av de moderne forsøkene på å definere sannhet som for eksempel “Pragmatism” og “Logical positivism” (de engelske artiklene er bedre enn de norske).

Uansett, man trenger ikke å gå i dybden i akkurat dette tilfellet. Poenget er at i vitenskapen er sannheten asymptotisk. Man kan nærme seg sannheten, men det er ingen som sitter på den hele og fulle objektive sannhet. Fint, vil noen gjerne si da (du kan jo gjette hvem), da er jo alle idéer likestilte? Ingen vet jo den fulle sannhet allikevel, så da kan jo hvem som helst ha rett? Nei, på ingen måte. Man kan gjerne ha sin egen virkelighetsoppfatning inne i sitt eget hode, men da vi lever i et samfunn, og vi ønsker å kommunisere og dele idéer med hverandre, er man nødt til å ha felles holdepunkter. Man må bli enige om en definisjon som gir oss brukbare resultater i praksis. Som for eksempel i en rettssak. Det har vært flere måter å strukturere dette på. Historisk sett gjennom religion og filosofi, og i nyere tid gjennom vitenskapen, som er en avgreining av filosofien.

Den vitenskaplige metode

Den vitenskaplige metode går enkelt sagt ut på å finne universelle forklaringsmodeller som er etterprøvbare og som optimalt sett kan forutsi ting vi ikke enda har oppdaget. Det siste har vært et viktig poeng i mitt eget fagfelt. Jeg driver og videreutdanner meg, og er for tiden masterstudent i partikkelfysikk. Dette er et fagfelt hvor oppdagelser har ledet til teorier som igjen har ledet til mange nye oppdagelser. Fysikkens standard modell er en meget god modell, men den er ikke fullstendig. Som de fleste vet leter vi nå etter blant annet Higgs-partikkelen. Men vi insisterer ikke på at denne partikkelen finnes! Vi må faktisk finne den først! Skulle man tenke dogmatisk, slik som blant annet religion har en tendens til å gjøre, kunne man slått seg til ro med at slikt som at “Gud holder alle ting sammen”, det er da ikke noe å lete etter i det hele tatt, man vet jo “svaret” og det meste av fysikken de siste 100 årene hadde aldri blitt oppdaget så vel som det meste av annen moderne vitenskap.

Mennesker har til alle tider forsøkt å forstå verden vi lever i. Innenfor medisinen har man prøvd vel omtrent alt man kan komme på. Medisin er et vanskelig felt å forske på på grunn av den velkjente placebo-effekten. Mange feilaktige slutninger har blitt trukket fordi man tror at en ny behandling fungerer, mens den ikke gjør noen ting som helst men det er placebo-effekten som trår til. Gjennom økende innsikt i både årsakene til sykdommer, den menneskelige organisme og teknologi generelt, har vi det siste drøye århundret eller to klart å sile det som virker fra det som ikke virker. Allikevel er det noen, av grunner jeg ikke helt klarer å forstå, som insisterer på at virkningsløse behandlinger allikevel fungerer. Homøopati er et strålende eksempel på dette. Den er basert på et stort sett feilaktig grunnprinsipp “likt kurerer likt”, en absurd idé om at fortynning forsterker effekten av medisinen, noe som strider mot veletablert kunnskap om kjemi og konsentrasjoner av stoffer (men et fantastisk markedsførings-stunt), og det siste prinsippet er ren magi, nemlig at vannet “husker” disse molekylene så lenge man gjennomfører et magisk riste-rituale. Dette er milliardindustri. Forstå det den som kan.

Det er mer mellom himmel og jord …

Nja, hvordan vet du det? Dette er en påstand. Det er forsåvidt en essensiell påstand i religionen, men den brukes på en litt annen måte her. Det kommer litt an på hva du legger i ordet “mer”. Et problem er at alternativerne bruker “mer” i vitenskapelig kontekst som et bevis for at det er noe “mer” av det de mener, nemlig metafysikk, mystisisme og magi. Joda, det er klart det er mye vitenskapen ikke har funnet ut av enda, eller kan forklare. Men det er også utrolig mye vi allerede vet og forstår meget godt. Innenfor klassisk fysikk så vel som kvantefysikk, kjemi, biologi, humanbiologi og medisin, astronomi og ikke minst alle de andre vitenskapene som ikke er direkte naturvitenskap, er det utrolig mye som vi forstår i detalj, og hvor teoriene er konsistente til og med på tvers av fagfelt. At en teori for et gitt fenomen også forklarer andre fenomener, eller til og med forutsier fenomener man senere finner, er en stor styrke i mye av moderne vitenskap.

Både alternativerne og kreasjonister har en tendens til å se på verden i små biter og leter etter forklaringer som underbygger deres a-priori oppfatning. De ser ikke på hva en slik forklaring gjør med resten av virkeligheten (som for eksempel med “mine og dine sannheter”). Stort sett ingenting av det de kommer fram til har noe å gjøre med den delen av naturen vi ikke har forstått enda, selv om det er utrolig populært å trekke inn kvantefysikk i tide og utide (en teori de overhode ikke forstår, men åpenbart håper at ingen andre gjør heller). Virkeligheten som vi ser der vitenskapen slutter er ofte rarere enn noen hadde forestilt seg, ikke minst hva middelalderens mystikere har forestilt seg. Forklaringene til alternativerne faller ikke i kategorien “ukjent vitenskap”, men i kategorien “ikke-eksisterende effekter med inkonsistente og naturstridige årsakshypoteser”.

Trosfrihet og toleranse

Når man konfronterer disse menneskene som lever av dette med slike argumenter er det mange som påberoper seg forfølgelse for sin tro. I dette landet har vi både trosfrihet og ytringsfrihet. Enhver har retten til å tro på det en ønsker, men enhver har også rett til å være uenige i andre menneskers tro og uttale seg om dette. Er man så i offentligheten og pusher overtro må man både forvente og akseptere å bli kritisert for dette. Ønsker man noe annet, får man holde troen for seg selv.

Videre, når man så selger produkter og tjenester basert på denne troen, enten motivasjonen er overbevisning eller grådighet eller begge deler, så kan man ikke lenger gjemme seg bak trosfrihet. Det er ikke da det de tror på som kritiseres, men det de tjener penger på. Alternativ behandling er ikke hellig grunn på noen som helst måte, det samme gjelder annen kommersiell New-Age virksomhet som Märtha Louises Engleskole. Å kritisere slik aktivitet er å regne som forbrukervern og til tider det rene borgervern i de tilfeller hvor liv og helse er i fare. Jeg er en sterk forkjemper for å få gjeninnført kvakksalverloven slik at man kan rettsforfølge de med de groveste overtrampene. Mye av markedsføringen som drives av alternativ bransjen er villedende og uetisk. Kvantehealing, magnetterapi, homøopati, natur medisin, akupunktur og til dels kiroprakti, alle driver med praksis de ikke har dokumentasjon for at virker i nevneverdig grad eller i det hele tatt.

Behovet for informasjon

Så hva kan vi gjøre med dette? Kunnskap og informasjon er nøkkelen. “Ja men folk er ikke dumme, de kan tenke selv” er det en del alternativere som argumenterer. Ja, selvfølgelig kan de det. Men som alle vet, man må ha kunnskap og informasjon om et gitt tema for å være i stand til å ta de riktige avgjørelsene. Alternativbevegelsen er aktivt ute og sprer løgn og missinformasjon. Uten en rasjonell motvekt har folk et dårlig grunnlag å ta avgjørelser på. Man kan finne informasjon om man leter, men folk har en tendens til å høre på mennesker de snakker med, venner og familie, fremfor andre kilder. Det er dessverre liten politisk vilje til å ta tak i problemet, for det er et voksende problem. Derfor er kampanjer som “Ingen liker å bli lurt” så utrolig viktige, og har min fulle støtte.

Relaterte poster og sider:

• The Relativity of Wrong, av Isaac Asimov
• Syke prioriteringer, fra bloggen unfiltered perception
• De som ikke ble mirakuløst helbredet, humanist.no
• Kreftkrigens uærlige og naive profitører, Kreftforeningens Blogg

This is embarrassing. Embarrassing for my country Norway that is. Norway is as you may know a monarchy, and we have our royal family. They are generally decent and well liked people. Unfortunately in the later years the princess, Märtha Louise, has turned out to be quite the crackpot. She’s running something called “Engleskolen”, or “The Angel School” in English, and have also written a book about this. It is some weird mix of religion and new age mumbo jumbo about guardian angels and something. The exact type of crackpottery is irrelevant. The point is that it is a business. They make good money on their wooey-wooey. That’s all well and good, people can waste their money on whatever they want, although it is a bit embarrassing when she also represents our nation.

Anyway, today she exploits the tragic events in Japan to promote their wacky business by posting several messages on their Facebook page like the message (translated): “Send angels to the disaster areas to give their light, their frequency, their tone so that Mother Earth can come into balance as soon as possible.” and other messages of similar sort. If she genuinely wanted to help, she should send some of the money she’s been scamming out of naive people over the years. People have protested on the Facebook page, but they keep deleting the posts, including posts by Japanese people who are insulted by the abuse of the tragedy for publicity. The outrage has also hit the media now.

If you do want to send real help to the victims of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, visit Doctors Without Borders or a similar organization and donate money.

Every now and then you run into one of those organic food enthusiasts. The organic food industry makes grand claims about more nutrition, less toxins and being environmentally friendly, and many people buy into it. Most of these claims are unsupported by scientific research, at least at the level such benefits are claimed.

I am not against making sure the food we eat is healthy, and I always like to support environmentally friendly initiatives, but this industry, in the same way as the cosmetics industry, has everything to gain to keep up its image in the general public. This is after all business as usual.

The alternative medicine industry are notorious liars, and the lies are usually easy to spot unless you either have invested interests in maintaining the lie, or are incredibly gullible. However the organic food industry is a bit trickier to handle. They have one thing in common with the cosmetic industry, the grand claims are exactly the claims we want to hear about the products we buy (and they have the price tag to go with it). Unfortunately it is hard for people in general to dive into the research, especially because most people don’t have much interest in scientific research even though it is often easily available online if you know how to separate it from the junk. Luckily there are people that do this work for us. I’ll provide some links at the end.

Nutrition and taste

One of the main claims the organic food industry makes is the claim that their produce is more nutritious. This is inconclusive if you look at the research, and by that I mean scientific research where proper methods are used like a proper statistical method, proper data and so on. Most of what you find out there does not qualify (see Dangour et al., 2009). The argument I often hear by people is that organic fertilizer is better for the plants because it is more natural. However as a physicist I know that a molecule or atom is exactly the same regardless of what source it comes from. This argument represent a view that is simplistic and reeks if mysticism, just like most claims made in alternative medicine. Yes, the nutrition content of the produce depends on the availability of nutrition to the plant, but saying the organic farming principles are the sole reason for an increase in nutrition is a bit like claiming a red Ferrari is faster than a blue Lada because the Ferrari is red.

It is also often claimed that organic food taste better. Problem with this argument is that anyone at any time can pick two pieces of fruit, and they can taste differently. It is also well documented that our senses are linked together, and taste is a complex experience influenced greatly by vision, smell, our expectation and even hearing. Quite often people will pick conventional grown food as better tasting because they are usually from better kinds of crops. Another silly idea of the organic food industry is that they often use “older” variations of the plants as it is supposed to be “natural”. But the bulk of the food we eat come from plants and animals that have been genetically manipulated through several millennia with farming and selective breeding. None of them exist in nature.

Toxicity

Another common claim is that the lack of pesticides makes the food less toxic. Well, it is shown that organic food contain less pesticide residue (obviously), but the definition of “toxic” is as much about concentration as it is about the chemicals. There are regulations in place to ensure the content of pesticide is well below toxic levels, so “toxic” is an abused buzzword more than anything. In addition, the plants we eat have evolved defence mechanisms themselves which are natural pesticides. These are also potentially toxic. They are produced on demand to an extent, and are sometimes made in organic food in larger quantities than in conventionally grown food. In addition, the natural pesticides are the dominant pesticides in our food by a fairly large margin. Another point is that food with less added preservatives spoil faster, so products made from organic food can be less safe, a point that counterbalance the pesticide argument. Apparently organic food is  for instance not supposed to be exposed to ionizing radiation either (which is used to kill of micro organisms). The public’s irrational fear of the word radiation in all forms never seize to amaze me. It is another thing that most people don’t understand, but that’s another rant altogether.

Over all, the risk aspect of the organic versus conventional food is complex, and does not consistently favour organic or conventional methods. In addition, and maybe most importantly, the risk is marginal and near non-existent! These arguments does, in my opinion, in no way justify the increased price. And the claims often made indicates to me that the motivation is financial rather than a concern for public health.

Environmental considerations

There is evidence that organic food production is sometimes more environmentally friendly, however this is not always the case, and the methods used to reduce environmental impact are not exclusively connected to organic production methods. Many traditional farming methods, that also have been incorporated into organic production, are also used in conventional food production. One issue with organic farming is that the use of natural fertiliser is not free of environmental impact, both due to the fact they’re less efficient and thus are used in larger quantities, and the fact that they contain roughly the same chemicals as artificial fertiliser simply because those are the chemicals the plants need. Run-off is an issue regardless of method. This is in any case a more complex issue. Policies regarding environmental impact should be applied to all farming, and many places they are. It is commendable that the organic food industry apply some on their own, but this does not way up for the mumbo-jumbo.

In addition, there is the issue of production efficiency and the general availability of food worldwide. Organic food is in my opinion mostly a symptom of the rich west and our collective fascination with hypes and trends and new ideas. Food production is also a political and ethical issue. The focus should be on a balance between environmental considerations and worldwide food availability. The western commercialism aspect of the organic food industry as well as the fact that they walk a fine line when it comes to their claims and their ability to back these up, is enough for me to be suspicious and ultimately avoid these products.

Some Resources

• Dangour et al., 2009, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
  Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review
• Giles J, 2004
  Organic FAQ (Question 2: Is organic food better for us?)
• Grinder-Pedersen L, et al, 2003
  Effect of diets based on foods from conventional versus organic production on intake and excretion of flavonoids and markers of antioxidative defense in humans.
• Caris-Veyrat C, et al, 2004
  Influence of organic vs. conventional agricultural practice on the antioxidant microconstituent content of tomatoes and derived purees; consequences on antioxidant plasma status in humans.
• Leclerc J, et al, 1992
  Vitamin and mineral contents of carrot and celeriac grown under mineral or organic fertilization.
• Chen MC, 2005
  Organic fruits and vegetables: potential health benefits and risks

Related links:

• Organic Food Quality, Neurologica Blog

(Updated 27.02.2011)

I usually don’t think the fundies over at Answers in Genesis is worthy much attention, but this article by head crackpot Ken Ham titled The Emotional Age Issue caught my eye. It says for instance:

Increasingly, I’ve noticed that when the media write reports about us, they often don’t mention the scientific points we present in our rebuttal of evolution, but instead state something like this (these words appeared in our local newspaper):

The Creation Museum employs scientists of its own but has been criticized by the larger scientific community for positions it takes that conflict with mainstream scientific belief. For example, the museum contends the Earth is 6,000 years old, rather than about 4.5 billion. It also shows humans living at the same time as dinosaurs, which most scientists say never happened.

Why is the age of the earth such a big issue with secular scientists and the media? And why is it that after biblical creationists have written so many books and scientific peer-reviewed papers that contradict the supposed billions of years for the age of the earth/universe, and expose the fallible dating methods devised by man, secularists still scoff?

Well, here’s the bottom line: For secularists to even postulate the idea of evolution, they have to also postulate an incomprehensible amount of time (billions and billions of years) so that the universe and life might have enough time to evolve. Even with billions of years, though, evolution is impossible. Mathematically and scientifically. But secularists aggressively promote billions of years to make evolution a plausible idea.

This got to be the worst case of projection I have seen from that gang in a while. These people look at the world purely through their fundamentalist religion, and seemingly cannot conceive that an objective scientific approach can exist. And further, if such an objective approach should exists, surely it would confirm their beliefs? Since it doesn’t, it naturally cannot be objective, and thus has a faith based agenda against God. I.e. a plot instigated by the devil himself.

What they so completely fail to grasp is that science do not care for faith-based preconceptions based on ancient mythology. Science investigate the nature and build models upon what they find. If the data actually agreed with the 6000 year-old-earth view, we’d still have that view. But there is absolutely nothing in nature that supports such an age-estimate. On the contrary. It cannot be stressed enough how vast the pile of evidence against such a claim is, and how consistent our scientific theories and the data is with the old earth and old universe model. There is no doubt at all for anyone who look at it objectively. It is not just evolution. Geology, palaeontology, anthropology,  cosmology and probably more fields of science, I forget, all agree on these things. Most importantly geology and cosmology who are completely unrelated fields to biology and each other. It is not a huge conspiracy involving millions of scientists and nearly 200 years of scientific progress, it is the truth. Deal with it!

Religion and the supernatural is not within range of scientific investigation as there isn’t much about it that is possible to investigate, other than perhaps secondary effects like miracles which constantly and consistently fails to be confirmed. They are basically just claims that many people agree upon and are emotionally attached to. Well, that is fine, people are free to do that, and they should be, but seriously, what do they have to gain by insisting on a version of reality, that for one is not necessary in order to believe in a god, and secondly is highly inconsistent with the real world? They are shooting themselves in the foot when trying to object to reality based on dogmatic interpretation of ancient texts. These interpretations are a legacy from pre-scientific ages, and seemed reasonable enough then. They aren’t any more. Welcome to the 21st century, the progress of the 19th and 20th century is required reading. You seem to have missed that too.

These videos may be a few months old, but they are quite good. They run through some of the many ridiculous arguments creationists often use.