 |
Is natural always better than synthetic, or is that a red flag? |
How to recognise this tactic
Simple. You are expected to accept without question that anything ‘natural’ is good, and anything ‘artificial’, ‘synthetic’ or ‘man-made’ is bad.
 |
Let’s check the science: Amber teething necklaces – should babies wear them? |
My grandchildren are all past the age when teething is a big problem, but I still shudder when I see small children wearing amber teething necklaces. Surely any parent can see that harnessing a child with such a bauble is inviting a serious strangling or choking incident. You would have to be very desperate, and very certain of the effectiveness to take such a risk, I would think. Is the risk justified? Do these necklaces work?
|
The notion that the latest scientific information trumps all is a red flag. |
How to recognise this tactic
This tactic shows up when a person who has a vested interest in a particular point of view pounces on some new finding which seems to either support or threaten that point of view. It’s usually used in a context where the weight of evidence is against the perpetrator’s view.
I live in a part of the world where the print media is dominated by Murdoch publications, and since I am no longer prepared to pay money to support the evil empire, I have a shortage of good sources of analysis. Recently I noticed a newsstand offering free copies of the Epoch Times and decided to give it ago. Until today, I was quite impressed – good coverage of Chinese politics and even some local stuff. I’d almost overcome my skepticism about the its mysterious source (Is it a Falun Gong propaganda rag?). But then, in the latest edition, I came across an article with the headline: Water fluoridation affects children’s IQ. Read more…
|
Let’s check the science: How can I check the science myself? |
I began the “Let’s check the science” series on this website to encourage non-scientist visitors to do their own checking. The idea was that if I supplied a few examples, they would see how it can be done and try it themselves. I now realize that was probably wishful thinking (well, we all do it, don’t we?), so I decided a fully-fledged guide was in order. It wasn’t an easy task, and I’m expecting to revise it, probably many times. This is version 1.4. Feedback would be welcome. You can access a printable pdf version here.
|
Can you influence your future with your mental attitude, or is that a red flag? |
How to recognise this tactic
Magical thinking is present when anyone argues that everything is connected: thoughts, symbols and rituals can have distant physical and mental effects; inanimate objects can have intentions and mystical influences. Often, the connectivity is supposedly mediated by some mysterious energy, force or vibration and there is much talk of holism, resonance, balance, essences and higher states.
|
Let’s check the science: Is it true that olive oil turns toxic at high temperatures? |
A friend was recently told by her GP that she should not cook with olive oil because, he claimed, it becomes toxic when heated. In our house, we cook with olive oil all the time because we know it’s healthier than butter or other saturated fats, so this would have serious implications for us. Do I need to switch to another oil for cooking?
|
Is quantum physics the answer to all or problems, or is that a red flag? |
How to recognise this tactic
Those who use this tactic take a model that works under certain conditions and try to apply it more widely to circumstances beyond its scope, where it does not work. Look for jargon, sweeping statements and vague, rambling “explanations” that try to sound scientific.
The Australian newspaper has sacked its one and only science writer, Leigh Dayton. She tweeted yesterday:
Yes my job & I were made redundant Mon & I’m leaving The Oz 7/9. Thx for all the kind words!
Leigh is an experienced science writer, and must have found the going tough in the environment of the Murdoch flagship. Science has proved to be very inconvenient for The Oz. It has a track record as the country’s main print outlet for a whole menagerie of climate deniers. Deltoid’s Tim Lambert has brilliantly documented this in his The Australian’s War on Science series.
Looks like this is the final blow in the war. At least the paper is not pretending any more.
Update (30/08/2012): In the opposition Fairfax stable, The Sydney Morning Herald‘s science editor Deborah Smith, health editor Julie Robotham and health correspondent Mark Metherell have all taken voluntary redundancies, as has the Canberra Times‘ environment reporter Rossyln Beeby. They have been joined by a large number of other senior staff. This comes as a result of the Fairfax rescue plan to shed 1900 jobs.
Update (04/09/2012): Crikey puts this story into the context of the demise of science journalism worldwide.
|
Anyone who tells you they can manipulate your energy flow is waving a red flag. |
How to recognise this tactic
This tactic is easy to pick because people who use it try to convince you that some kind of elusive energy or power or force is responsible for whatever effect they are promoting.
Science or not? 