Facts are overrated anyway

This blog was started to share my thoughts on science, rationality and why they are continuously attacked. Today I am convinced intra-personal psychological processes create the caustic responses from humans that are confronted with scientific conclusions which contradict their ideology.

Even before I began writing this blog I was not impressed by what journalists produce. Knowing a little about medicine I was repeatedly surprised by the either outdated, incomplete, or even incorrect articles I read covering medicine. When I became a resident I was taught how to read, and write, articles. In every hospital I worked we would discuss two articles from medical journals -i.e. NEJM, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Intensive Care Medicine, et cetera- on a weekly basis. By talking about the strenghts, and weaknesses, of the article this has increased my critical thinking skills. Undoubtedly one of the reasons this ritual is part of hospital life.

Unfortunately this is not part of journalist school. As such I wonder how this may influence the viability of nonsensical ideas in society. The type of journalism media currently practice does the general public a disservice by making the "fair-and-balanced"-fallacy a popular point of view. This doctrine increases the dumbing down of society, which has given us numerous absurd opinions. Also, the need for celebrities to engage in misinforming the public has devastating effects. Terri Judd, for The Independent, writes about these effects and on how the public sees manufactroversies. To illustrate the spread of the "I-refuse-to-adequately-inform"-virus, within the media, below are stories covering different topics that fall within the "facts-are-to-be-treated-as-opinions"-category.

Regarding vaccines:
Just recently there was a concerted effort to counter the misinformation being spread by the infectious-disease-promotion-movement. It was hugely successful. So much so that today radiostations have been enlisted to help keep us scared of science. One wonders how effective the fearmongerers would be without the complicit media wich refused to point out the numerous, and huge, inaccuracies being presented as facts. A review by David Gorski of:

two — count ‘em, two! — books taking a skeptical, science-based look at vaccines and, in particular, the anti-vaccine movement.

can be found here. Astonishingly, even after Brian Deer in a leading medical journal concluded the father of the current infectious-disease-promotion-movement, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, made up the article which started the recent anti-vaccination scare journalists refuse to discard the "fair-and-balanced"-doctrine. As Cyril Washbrook, for MediaSpy, reminds us:

As Ben Goldacre notes in a well-known critique of the media's reporting on the issue, the so-called "quality" press stood shoulder-to-shoulder alongside trashy tabloids in peddling fears that lacked a credible basis.

What does the Serious Reporter do?:

But even now, purportedly respectable media outlets continue to trot out their post-modernist, we-shall-never-adjudicate routine, showing that the lessons have not been learned. Step forward, CNN.

A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines is an "elaborate fraud," according to a medical journal - a charge the physician behind the study vigorously denies.

Note the immediate establishment of the basic heuristic: one person says the study is a fraud, the other person says it isn't. Unsurprisingly, the entire article proceeds along these very lines. Wakefield says it's a smear campaign; the BMJ says it's a genuine exposé. Wakefield says Deer has been paid off; Deer says he's independent.

There is no sign journalists realise that informing one's audience about the veracity of claims, not merely reporting the claims themselves, is what journalism should be about.

Regarding the placebo-effect:
We all have heard of the placebo-effect. A recent study suggests we underestimate the power of the placebo. According to what has been reported in the media it works even when patients are aware they are taking fake medicine. Predictably, the popular press has not been sceptical enough, as Orac points out.

I don't have a huge problem with the study. After all, it's a pilot study. The biggest problem I have is with how the study is being sold to the press, as though it were evidence that placebo effects can really be triggered without at least some degree of deception. It shows nothing of the sort.

More on this by PalMD and David Gorski.

Evolution is not science:
Once Darwin irked the religious with his theory their response has been: attack, attack, and attack. The reason for this is clearly their fear science might prove The Bible is not The Truth. One can imagine religion being shown to be nothing more than mythology. The horror. There was initially the Scopes trial and recently through slight of hand, introducing the sciency sounding reincarnation of creationism: Intelligent Design. Despite the fact ID has been shown to violate the basics of science they keep claiming this is proof of an Evil Atheist-plot to take over the world. Surely, the media have come to the rescue by promoting, and continuing, the teach-the-controversy-fallacy. Still, I am waiting for journalists to use this argument to report on the Holocaust-controversy, and the Flat-Earth-controversy.

Regarding global warming:
Despite the fact the science is settled ideologues keep telling us AGW is a hoax. An example of inadequate reporting is Climategate. This purportedly showed a conspiracy of scientists to keep The Truth from us. A fact journalists felt compelled to share with us. After it became abundantly clear this was not the case, and the scientific method was exonerated, the media could not be bothered to share that with us. At least, not with the same zeal, and headlines, as the alleged corruption. 

War of Terror:
The breakdown of journalistic standards became painfully apparent when the Bush administration was allowed to make the wildest accusations towards Iraq. Worse, the media themselves were the main purveyors of misinformation. Even today, while those claims have turned out to be unsupported by the then available evidence, the media are incapable of learning from that experience. Like Saddam then both Iran and Julian Assange are now The Biggest Threat In The World. Again, no questions are asked to counter that premise.

Political discourse in the US:
For decades it has been bon ton in the US, and it is spreading beyond its borders, to use the most antagonistic and inflammatory ways of discussing topics. It is called freedom of speech. In short, use ad hominems and never relevant arguments. Politicians, and newsmedia, have engaged in sharp descriptions of individuals. After Obama became President of the US the Republicans, their ministry of truth, and other supporters have used terms like traitors, terrorists, un-american (and much more) to describe members of the Democratic Party. Then, this week, a Democrat was shot. In light of the recent rhetoric by the political Right some have suggested a correlation with the toxic political climate. While it is difficult to prove any causality one has to be blind to ignore the possibility. In the words of Mike the Mad Biologist:

As I've said before, words do have meaning. Words should have meaning: if they don't, then do us all a favor and shut up. I believe Representative Trent Franks. I believe them when Rush Limbaugh and his millions of regular listeners believe we're the problem. And the anti-abortion movement has shown what happens when people post cross-hairs over people's names.
So let's not be so concerned with civility, but instead demand honesty and accuracy. That will serve us far better.

He also discusses a NYT article, by Matt Bai, on the shooting which employs the usual "but-both-sides-do-it"-meme.

........, John Cole succinctly sums it all up:

And then my personal favorite: "He was just crazy!" No shit. You have to be crazy to walk into a crowd of people and start spraying bullets, killing a bunch of elderly people and a little kid. That is crazy.

The point we have been trying to make for the last couple of years is that Republicans need to stop whipping up crazy people with violent political rhetoric. This is really not a hard concept to follow. There are crazy people out there. Stop egging them on.

The problem Bai has is that, if you report the obvious story--Republicans have been engaged in eliminationist and exclusionary rhetoric that has some of the hallmarks of fascism--there's nothing new there. It doesn't establish you as a 'contrary' thinker who comes up with devastating counterintuitive insights. But if you can 'establish' (even though you actually can't) that the Left does it too, then you have something different to say.

Another comment on the incident is made by We Beasties:

There's been plenty of talk about the violent rhetoric that's been spewed for the last 2 years, and many have blamed talk radio, Sarah Palin's map with cross-hairs over congressional districts (including congresswoman Giffords') and the like, and I don't have much to add on that front. There's been no direct connection, and there may never be, but I find it hard to believe that this atmosphere of violent hatred had nothing to do with this gunman's actions.

If you are wondering how this relates to my criticism on journalism I refer you to the fact-free, and at times delusional, opining by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and many others which contributed to this climate. In all fairness, yes: they are not journalists but propagandists. Responding to the "the-guy-must-be-crazy"-view, by David Brooks, We Beasties notes:

Vaughan Bell has a devastating critique of this sort of thinking in Slate, noting that the most complete scientific research on the effects of mental illness show very little increase in risk of violent behavior.

More on mental health and violence can be found here.

Wikileaks exposes journalists as not doing their jobs:
As I noted before without the massive failure of journalism we would not have Wikileaks. Their recent disclosures appear to be based on Bradley Manning, who allegedly confessed to a total stranger, Adrian Lamo. His newfound friend then turned informant, and contacted Wired. Note the curious treatment he recieves while he is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. This tellingly has led the U.N. to start an investigation.

To aid those favouring all sorts of conspiracies Wired refuses to confirm, or deny, the ever changing narrative being told by Adrian Lamo. Kept hidden from us, by Wired, is how he met Manning and what his relationship is with journalist Poulsen, quoth Greenwald:

That's what so much "journalism" now is:  a means of shielding secrets from the public -- usually to protect friends and the agendas of "sources" to ensure further access.  Ironically, it is that very mentality -- the Cult of Secrecy that American journalism has become -- that gave rise to the need for WikiLeaks in the first place.

He concludes:

The chat logs that Wired has but is withholding -- and about which they are refusing to comment -- are newsworthy in the extreme.  They cannot but shed substantial light on what really happened here, on the bizarre series of events and claims for which there is little evidence and much cause for doubt.  I expect government officials to shield the truth from the public and to conceal key evidence and facts.  But those who claim to be journalists should not be aiding in that effort.  Wired is doing exactly that.

Totally unsuspected the media in general also fail to tell about Wikileaks without incorporating copious amounts of inaccurate statements. How journalists, in this story, have become the voice of the Obama administration's PR-department is described by Greenwald. Of course, Wikileaks does things real journalists never do, they endanger lifes, or this is what we are being told. Therefore we should not be afraid of governments limiting free speech for the real media, who never publish secret information. Strangely enough The NYT itself is now endangering National Security with a new article. In the words of Greenwald:

In The New York Times today, Mark Mazzetti and Dexter Filkins expose very sensitive classified government secrets -- and not just routine secrets, but high-level, imminent planning for American covert military action in a foreign country.

He rhetorically asks:

The question that emerges from all of this is obvious, but also critical for those who believe Wikileaks and Julian Assange should be prosecuted for the classified information they have published: should the NYT editors and reporters who just spilled America's secrets to the world be criminally prosecuted as well?  After all, WikiLeaks has only exposed past conduct, and never -- like the NYT just did -- published imminent covert military plans.  Moreover, WikiLeaks has never published "top secret" material, unlike what the NYT has done many times in the past (the NSA program, the SWIFT banking program) and what they quite possibly did here as well.

Just to remind us of what we have learned because of Dah Evil Wikileaks, which Real Journalists failed to uncover, read this, this, this, and this.

With the above in mind, combined with the numerous examples I left out, what I notice about journalism today is that it does not matter what you are writing about, to be seen as a Serious Reporter the following characteristics are mandatory:

1. There are always two sides to a story, 
2. In the absence of any dispute pretend there is one, and present any discredited view as if the topic is still debated: failing to point out opposing opinions is a tell-tale sign of bias, hence point 1,
3. Never point out any incorrect statements, or factual inaccuracies, by the parties involved: that would be taking sides, 
4. Never reveal anything that damages those in power, i.e. see the hounding of anybody even remotely linked to Wikileaks. Limit your reporting to nefarious pawns and your career is a guaranteed success. 
5. Never explicitly admit error on your part,
6. A source is anyone who shares information with you, regardles of its veracity or factual accuracy,
7. Expertise, or lack thereof, should not influence your decision to use a source, i.e. expert opinion is equivalent to that from laymen, and celebrities, which have studied at the University of Google,
8. A priori you are required to keep the identity of a source, and any possible conflict of interest on their and your part, from the public. Especially when it turns out your source willfully lied to you in order to advance a political agenda,  
9. Should you feel overly generous you might include ad hominems, straw men, and other invaluable arguments to get rid of those annoying people trying to steer the article/interview into a more rational position.

Concluding, the abysmal state of reporting is not limited to scientific manufactroversies. As long as journalism school teaches the above characteristics there will be the need for organisations that understand the adagium Serious Reporters find tedious and outdated:

is this a reasonable representation of the facts (NB: opinions do not equal facts) involved, and am I merely reporting a story, or is my reporting the story? In other words, is this a realistic portrayal of the facts involved and can it be supported by independent reliable sources?

Are the media to blame for all that is evil? No, but their habit of having propaganda pose as news is certainly not helping us in making informed decisions, i.e. should I vaccinate, or who do I vote for, does The Law look backward? Those on Planet Reality need to keep pointing out that they sure act like willful footsoldiers in the War on Reason and Sanity.

Update: Nice reading tip on "making mistakes," by We Beasties, for non-journalists too. Also, amended post slightly.

Journalism: if only ......

Knowledge precedes understanding. Therefore to be adequately informed, and protected against the denialism-virus, we need good reporting. The principal problem with journalists today is they feel that presenting a story objectively means you do not check the facts, you only have to tell both sides: i.e. be fair and balanced. What this means is shown by Glenn Greenwald in the latest incarnation of the neutrality-virus. Harvard published a study which:

examines how waterboarding has been discussed by America's four largest newspapers over the past 100 years, and finds that the technique, almost invariably, was unequivocally referred to as "torture" -- until the U.S. Government began openly using it and insisting that it was not torture, at which time these newspapers obediently ceased describing it that way

Just like any guilty person the accused advanced an utterly unconvincing defence to which Greenwald responds:

The New York Times issued a statement justifying this behavior on the ground that it did not want to take sides in the debate.  Andrew Sullivan, Greg Sargent and Adam Serwer all pointed out that "taking a side" is precisely what the NYT did:  by dutifully complying with the Bush script and ceasing to use the term (replacing it with cleansing euphemisms), it endorsed the demonstrably false proposition that waterboarding was something other than torture. 

 To continue with:

Worse, to justify his paper's conduct, Keller [the executive editor of The Times] adds "that defenders of the practice of water-boarding, 'including senior officials of the Bush administration,' insisted that it did not constitute torture."

Then there is:

Cameron Barr, National Security Editor of The Washington Post, which also ceased using "torture" on command:  "After the use of the term 'torture' became contentious, we decided that we wouldn’t use it in our voice to describe waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques authorized by the Bush administration." 

Greenwald rhetorically asks:

Could you imagine going into "journalism" with this cowardly attitude:  once an issue becomes "contentious" and one side begins contesting facts, I'm staying out of it, even if it means abandoning what we've recognized as fact for decades.  And note how even today, in an interview rather than an article, Barr continues to use the government-subservient euphemism:  "waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques authorized by the Bush administration."  Just contemplate what it means, as Keller and Barr openly admit, that our government officials have veto power over the language which our "independent media" uses to describe what they do.

Such subservient behaviour I find disturbing. Is a journalist not supposed to do the exact opposite? He predictably notes the prescient words of George Orwell. The same Bill Keller is mentioned by Marcy Wheeler, and she illustrates Keller's hypocrisy by citing his contradictory behaviour as a reporter:

NYT reporter Bill Keller has a long history of referring to torture as torture without bowing to the spin of the governments who use it.

Unfortunately this misleading way of informing the public is not limited to politics. Mike the Mad Biologist writes about science journalists that are convinced one should present "opposing views," and how Ivan Oranski observed -commenting on a tweet by Maggie Koerth-Baker, a freelance science journalist in Minneapolis:

I never tell my students to get "opposing viewpoint" but to get outside perspective -- one that may agree with the study or the main idea being put forward by a source.

Anyone interested in factually and accurately reporting a story, or is political correctness more important? When do we demand the return of actual journalism in stead of the current "it's not our job to comment on the veracity of a story, we only report"-doctrine?

Update: Following the above exchange Glenn notes an AP story which explicitly states that China is guilty of torture. He posits:

Given the standards of Good Journalism prevailing in the U.S. media, as taught to us just this weekend by high-level executives at the NYT and The Washington Post (and previously at NPR):  what right does AP have to "take sides" in this dispute by substituting its own judgment about "torture" for the Chinese Government's?  Beyond that, given that the U.S. Government has officially adopted a definition of "torture" that plainly does not include a few cigarette stubs on an arm, shouldn't that preclude any Good Journalist from using the term in this subjective and biased way?  I hope AP will be apologizing to the Chinese shortly for its act of journalistic irresponsibility.  It's not the role of journalists to take sides this way.

Not only the Chinese "torture:"

As lysias notes in comments, the North Vietnamese have emphatically denied that the techniques they used on John McCain constituted "torture."

His post ends with an odd update:

Strangely, at some point after I wrote this, the above-linked AP article was re-written so as to edit out the word "torture" in the two places that word appeared to describe what the Chinese did (though the original language can still be seen in this old version of the AP article).  Perhaps, as recommended here, AP took to heart the Bill-Keller/WashPost/ NPR standard -- if a Government denies it did X, then a Good Journalist does not say that it did X -- and edited its article accordingly.

What any really Serious and Unbiased Journalist understands is that if somebody says the earth is flat it is inherently unprofessional to point out that this is a fringe and refuted position. To illustrate the double standard in the MSM Greenwald wrote another post:

Journalists like to claim that they are devoted to transparency, but it's always striking how so many of them exempt themselves and their own media outlets from those "principles."

The sudden refusal to call torture torture leads Marcy Wheeler to speculate whether this enabled public support for the use of it by the US administration.

Update II: Come to think of it, whenever the press engage in doublespeak, in order to manipulate their audience into accepting the official government position, normal people call that propaganda. In my definition of journalism there is no mention of the use of propaganda. Heck, my idea of a journalist is an individual fighting to let the light in where government officials work 24/7 to keep those illegal activities in the dark.

Update III: As if the media want to illustrate the point we now have the highly hypocritical reaction to a tweet by Octavia Nasr. Both Glenn and Eric Martin give an extensive analysis of the incident to show us how Serious and Unbiased Journalists are supposed to work.  

Update IV: Another example by Glenn.

Update V: The inadequacy of science journalist Nicholas Wade is shown by Larry Moran. While Andrew Bolt is challenged by Watching the Deniers to retract his statements attacking scientists.

Update VI: Quite illustrative is this example of a Serious and Unbiassed reporter.

Update VII: Nice article on modern day "fact-checking" by The New York Times concludes:

In short, fact-checking has assumed radically new forms in the past 15 years. Only fact-checkers from legacy media probably miss the quaint old procedures. But if the Web has changed what qualifies as fact-checking, has it also changed what qualifies as a fact? I suspect that facts on the Web are now more rhetorical devices than identifiable objects. But I can’t verify that.

Update VIII: In case you missed the point I am making here is a brilliant parody by Martin Robbins.

Chris Mooney: Science has to be more unscientific

Chris Mooney, after failing to lower the heat in other topics of science, has proposed his solution to all "controversies." Scientists should play nice and stop invoking facts and reason when confronted with the infectious disease promotion movement. Weird Things notes:

Previously, he’s done this with the evolution/creationism manufactroversy and scientific literacy. Now, after managing not to resolve either problem and missing the fact that blaming scientists for a culture which rejects science and expertise as a manifestation of elitist snobbery doesn’t actually accomplish anything, he’s off to make friends with the anti- vaxers and implore doctors and epidemiologists to build bridges with zealots who demonize their critics as baby-eating monsters.

He concludes:

His suggestions for all those involved in a big public dustup over science to sit around a campfire and sing Kumbaya, are born from a lack of consideration for the psychology of both sides and the environment from which they come, and if they really worked, he wouldn’t even have to write about militant anti-vaxers and creationists in the first place.

Regarding this way of thinking Orac points out that Mooney:

appears utterly unaware that scientists have been trying to reach out and build bridges to leaders of the anti-vaccine movement for years, if not decades. It hasn't worked. It doesn't work. As Mike Stanton pointed out in a comment, public health bodies courted Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center (whom I've discussed recently here, here, and here). The only result is that it raised her profile. She hasn't budged an inch; she is still as anti-vaccine as ever. One recent example that stands out in my mind occurred in 2007, when Sallie Bernard of SafeMinds participated as a consultant in the design of a large study designed to ask whether there was a link between thimerosal containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders other than autism. Unfortunately for her, the study failed to find a link. All investigators found were a handful of correlations, both positive and negative, that occurred at a frequency consistent with random chance. In a case of sour grapes, Bernard disowned the study before it was published and then, after it was published, launched attacks against it, even going so far as to write a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine criticizing it.

So, countering a misinformatiion campaign by sitting round a campfire, and holding hands, is the last we need to do. "Every attempt to do so is viewed by them as a sign of weakness or vindication of their crank views, never as an opportunity for compromise." Therefore, science should simply continue to call out the factual errors, and well-known lies, the anti-science groups use to spread their cult. We don't debate the shape of the earth, the aetiology of AIDS, whether our neighbour is in league with Satan, et cetera, either.

Double standard

Freedom of speech has led to the spread of misinformation regarding the efficacy, and risks, related to the practise of medicine. Anti-science nonsense is currently being advocated by celebrities. Oddly enough, opposing this culture of using uninformed non-experts as guiding light has proven legally damaging to those who try. So, this means that those claiming all sorts of "alternative" views can have their say: freedom of speech in optima forma. Yet, the moment you point out the numerous logical fallacies and scientific inaccuracies you will probably be forced by a court of law to retract, or the threat of being sued for libel will stop the accurately informed of making such corrections. In the words of Orac this is suppression of speech.

The adagium you have the right to your opinion, as long as it adheres to mine comes to mind.

Update: Just adding Steven Novella discussing the lawsuits against Paul Offit and Simon Singh.

Update II: In case you are looking for some rationality promoting spirits The Gotham Skeptics has a nice list you can start with.

Update III: Another mention of this silly game can be found at Weird Things.

Update IV: Responding The Gotham Skeptic hopes these legal games

will shine some light on the desperate and empty scare tactics of the anti-vaccine lobby, and in so doing bring the long-overdue attention and respect that real scientific[sic] deserves.

According to Science-Based Medicine the fact that the “infectious disease promotion movement” resorts to legal instead of scientific discourse indicates

a fundamental misunderstanding of both science and law. Science requires conflict, and the law does not protect us from the consequences of our ideas or the negative opinions of others. A free society cannot thrive on suppression of conflict, and science cannot progress without an atmosphere that allows vigorous, sometimes painful, debate.

It suggests that the anti-science movement is out of breath, and knows they are losing on the merits of this "debate." As if we do not already know Orac copiously writes about the consequences of misleading the general public into not vaccinating. He agrees with Barbara Loe Fisher's calls for a "fearless debate" on this topic. 

We do need a fearless conversation about vaccines. It needs to be a conversation free of the fear of the anti-vaccine movement filing lawsuits against its critics, free of the fear of harassment by the anti-vaccine movement, and with scientists being free of the fear that their work will be hijacked and misrepresented as supporting the pseudoscience of the anti-vaccine movement.

Clearly, his interpretation of "fearless debate" is contrary to hers, which is evidenced by the aforementioned lawsuit. Elaborating on Orac's posts Skeptico discovered  it is "only January 7th and we already have our first nomination for a 2010 Golden Woo." (Golden Woos 2009)

Media do not check for false reporting

Deltoid shows us yet another example of the myriad of articles in the media that lack any fact-checking. The Washington Post dutifully, and uncritically, lets Sarah Palin spout erroneous statements without any caveats. That is: they fail to tell us Mrs. Palin has no idea what she is talking about eventhough their own article on climategate clearly contradicts her words. But hey, a journalist has to be objective and present both sides.

In light of that I am utterly not-surprised by what Library Grape discovered.

Update. Of course, Glenn is pointing out the same intellectual deficiency in the media.

Update II. Island of Doubt remarks:

Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science, in an op-ed published in today's Washington Post, excoriates Sarah Palin for her illterate essay, published earlier this week, on the topic of climate change. (Amended citation slightly for style, PNN)

And

Why is that people like Leshner should be compelled to respond to people like Palin, when the latter is clearly not in a position to offer informed observations?

It must be the widespread notion that anybody is entitled to his opinion, and every opinion has to be treated as if qualifications, or lack thereof, on the topic in no way influence the validity of such an opinion.

They Live

This weekend I was watching that old classic of the conspiracy theorists They Live. The quality is open to debate, for which I refer you to Roger Ebert or Rotten Tomatoes. Having an overly active imagination I see the film as a metaphore for what should be our main goal in life: get educated and stop being a mouton (act like sheep). As such I am inclined to think those paranoid themes are not entirely incorrect. Or to cite the sage: the fact you are paranoid does not mean they are not after you.

It is reminiscent of Brave New World, which details an equally constructed and manipulated society, where the protagonist John the Savage discovers his world is not as it seems. H.G. Wells warned us about such a world divided in haves and have nots. He also showed they are interdependent.

To me this film captures the basic premise behind denying scientific research in most current debates (Big Pharma, Evolution, Global warming, War on Terror): accept as article of faith what we say when we contradict most, if not all, of the experts involved, and never question what you are being told. The principal argument the anti-science movement has is keeping the facts from us. Or, at least, distorting them under the guise of being "Fair and Balanced." The Film Vituperatum nicely illustrates this point, regarding the hyped threat that supposedly will end the world if we do not spend more on the military, with this picture.

The actual chance of terrorism killing you compared to more commonplace, yet conspicuously ignored, things I outlined before. This War of Terror, instigated by the Politico-Media Complex, obscenely benefits the mythical Military-Industrial Complex, which in turn guarantees us that giving them even more money and privileges (read: abolishing civil liberties) will prevent the end of days.

In short, we can think of those pointing out the many incestuous relationships between the haves as cranks, or we can adopt a slightly sceptical view allowing for the existence of contemporary Cassandras.

Tolkien was right that the "hearts of men are easily mislead." To my surprise, and disappointment, we still fall for the "panem et circenses"-routine.

Gullible

Much of the "debates" questioning science are nothing more than elaborate hoaxes. Luckily, the media dutifully, and uncritically, report on them. Unfortunately we, as species, have a history of believing the improbable, if not impossible, because most of us are easily misled. Or, paraphrasing the words of Lenny Bruce, we want to believe.

And then there is alternative medicine: mandatory removal of rational thinking skills before reading..

Update. Could not resist sharing this picture from Bioephemera:

Politics decides conclusions scientific research

Unsurprised as I am by yet another example of politicians dictating what scientist should conclude, never mind that it contradicts scientific research, it still makes me feel sick.

Update. As I noted earlier we can trust: the news to shape our views by overt erroneous (read politically slanted) statements which are never corrected.

What is "Fair and Balanced?"

During my life I developed the need to be adequately informed on many subjects. Therefore I read as much as I can on those topics. My main interests are broadly speaking biology, literature, medicine, politics and technology.  On top of that I try and visit blogs I consider highly sceptical towards manufactured controversies. Based on that, and on my personal experience, I cannot help but wonder whether those involved are insufficiently informed or willfully blind.

In later posts I will discuss violating the "we are all entitled to our own opinion but not to our own facts"-doctrine in more detail, as it relates to several so-called controversies. Some examples, as preview, are:

Medicine vs. Quackery:

It is not uncommon for people to adhere to all sorts of alternative medicine. In general I respect people's right to choose any therapy they feel best suits them. Unfortunately they are often "converted" by advocates that claim the most outlandish and inherently unscientific nonsense about -among other things- cancer, homeopathy and vaccinations. Much of that has already, and repeatedly, been disproven, but unfortunately that in itself is used as evidence of the global conspiracy to suppress those inconvenient facts that endanger the medical community's hegemony. Supporters of alternative medicine are so absorded in their beliefs, and so resistent to reality, that they behave like religious zealots. That is: being opposed to evidence based medicine is the new "True Faith."  Confronted with the possibility that spending time with fake "health care providers" may cause a belated diagnosis and therapy, or even result in withholding a required medical intervention, I have mixed feelings towards how to deal with this form of misinformation. Bottom line is: if it endangers the life of individuals it moves from deluded advise into criminal territory.

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design:

For decades evolution has been considered settled science, although it might conflict with religious dogma. The faithful have invented strategies, for ideological reasons alone, to get rid of this theory. Creationism was intended as "balance" but was soon replaced with Intelligent Design. Many supporting the "teach the controversy"-meme do not know (that information has escaped them) that at several levels ID cannot be considered science.

Roughly speaking to be science something has to have:  a) a theory: some sort of explanation for what we see -i.e. germ theory-, b) this theory has to be supported by experiment: through some sort of test we must be able show that our explanation is compatible with what we observe, c) we then subject ourselves to peer review: by writing down a "recipe" others are able to replicate our experiment and comment on it. After our theory cannot be falsified -i.e. shown to be false- d) this theory is accepted as "scientific fact." e) This scientific theory can only be refuted, or augmented, by a new theory that is required to also adhere to these points.

ID fails on all levels. First, it is not an explanation for the world around us. It merely states that science, at present, does not have all the answers. Ergo, a creator (god - who else) exists. Second, there is no known experiment in which this "intelligence" can be shown. Third, no peer review article has ever been published. Failing all this ID proponents argue that we should not judge it by the same standards as other forms of science. In other words: I am lousy at tennis and to compensate I should be allowed to use my hands and feet, and only for me no ball will be called "out." Of course, nobody would call this behaviour "playing tennis." By the same token we should not call actions that need a different book of rules science. By definition under the scientific method everybody, regardless of the topic, has to play by the same rules.

Also, ID proponents excell in debating tricks they use to muddy the water. Despite their vehement, and very vocal, objections a court of law has established that ID is religion posing as science.

Real Life Threatening Events vs. War on Terror Demagoguery:

We were told that the attacks of 9-11 were something new, there was a new kind of war and that if we did not intervene the world would be destroyed. Amazingly, hysteria took hold of our planet resulting in many silly and often counterproductive, if not previously illegal, actions that are known today as the "War on Terror." Strangely enough, were we to look in a more factual manner, leaving hyperbole and fearmongering behind us, we might discover much of the WoT is based upon non-existing, or by governments created, risks.

First, terrorism was not invented on 9-11. Many people had already died before that day because of the R.A.F., the I.R.A., F.A.R.C., E.T.A, to name but a few. Despite that knowledge people told us to forget about historical events and accept this attack as a novel concept: terrorism. Confronted with this we are told that terrorism itself is not new, but that as global organisation, operating like multinationals such as Shell and Microsoft, Al-Qaeda totally changed terrorism. This ignores the fact that Al Qaeda, before and after 9-11, never was a multinational-like organisation. At best it consists of a conglomerate of seperate entities with their own disputes and goals. The notion there exists an international movement with one goal, and one supreme leader (Osama bin Laden), has repeatedly been disproven by investigations: i.e. the attacks in London and Madrid.

Second, even accepting the premise, there is such a worldwide organisation, does not negate the fact that at best terrorism kills a few thousand people annually. If we look into the causes of death within the U.S. to ascertain the actual, as opposed to the perceived, risk for someone in the U.S. to die in 2006, in general terrorism presents a negligable threat. These figures show that a total of 2,426,264 people died in that year. Of these the following are the top killers in absolute numbers: heart disease 631,636, cancer 559,888, cerebrovascular diseases 137,119, accidents 121,599, diabetes 72,449, influenza and pneumonia 56,326, gun violence 30,000. To put this in perspective: terrorism has claimed about 3,000 lives in the U.S., including the christian anti-abortion killers, in the preceding ten years! Globally speaking the prevalence (total number of cases within the world population) of big preventable killers is: cardiovascular (17.5 million in 2005), hunger (9.7 million children < age 5 in 2006), injuries ( 2.6 million in people aged 10—24 in 2004), HIV/AIDS (2 million in 2007), tuberculosis (1.75 million in 2007), malaria (881,000 in 2006) measles (197,000 in 2007),  et cetera. Oddly enough, eventhough we could easily save millions of lifes each year if we tackled these conditions with the same vigour and hysteria, nobody sees the need to scare us by reporting on them, or by demanding new laws, or spending extra money.

Third, for whatever reason, even suggesting terrorism might not be haphazard but may be related to something else is by definition a no-go area. The best example is Israel. Regardless of how many times it is established Israel is violating international law, the mere fact their opponent (du jour) is doing the same absolves Israel from any responsibility to adhere to the law.

Fourth, more and more the use of the term terrorism is an example of doublespeak. it has an ever expanding, and never consistent, definition, that without exception conforms to our self-interests.

Journalism vs. Propaganda:

Most newsarticles, and programs I watch, appear to be suffering from the same shortcoming. The notion that to be "Fair and Balanced," i.e. truly objective, a journalist must only present both sides, with equal time, to any debate. Or, to use Glenn Greenwald's description, journalists function as stenographers. On the surface this sounds like responsible reporting. Looking into this principle more closely reveals a disturbing way of thinking that equates facts with opinion. Or, to put it differently, communis opinio on "objective reporting" is that confronted with facts and opinion it is not a journalist's job to determine what is what, "we report, you decide."  Also, pertinent information is not infrequently, yet always coincidentally, omitted and therefore absent from the story. Immediately the unsuspecting reader/viewer notices that this attitude deprives us of what should be the principal goal for any journalist: removing distractions, misrepresentations and propaganda in order to accurately report what happens in the world around us. To me it is neither fair, nor balanced, to report fabricated stories, or artificial controversies -i.e. evolution, global warming, vaccination, the shape of the earth, the holocaust, whether HIV causes AIDS, et cetera- as if there is any significant scientific debate between proponents and denialists of a certain subject. This way the newsmedia confuse us and, intentionally or not, legitimise refuting the scientific method, as principal mode of acquiring knowledge, while promoting crankscience.

With this in mind I feel less than optimistic towards our ability as species to rise above ideological constraints and start discussing in a more realistic (read: rational) way: i.e. based upon facts and adhering to the scientific principle.

A summary of the madness can be found on a flowchart from Lounge of the Lab Lemming: