So OK! What do we actually do?

williamgrogan · 30-01-2004 08:33AM #1

We can waffle on until hell freezes over but what are we individually and as a group going to actually do to stop the wholesale fraud of the gullible & unscientific focus of modern life?

The “enemy” are proactive in the spread of their beliefs but little or nothing is being done to counter them. The fundamental Christians in Georgia have agitated and successfully removed “Evolution” from the state's education “mission statement”. The “CAM artists” in Ireland want regulation which will help them spread the notion that they are "Medical Professionals".

The other day in a bookshop I spotted two pinned up advertisements for CAM treatments, in this case Rekki Healing & Reflexology. I pointed out to the salesperson that many people believed that such paid for "treatments" were fraud and asked her to ask the owner to stop displaying them. If we as individuals take action then maybe we can start a “movement”?

I also intend complaining to chemists that sell Homeopathy treatments and thereby defraud their customers. This is a particularly obnoxious type of fraud because people trust the pharmacist who is medically trained.

I will re-visit the book shop again but this is a small example of what we can do.

Any other ideas?

PaulP · 30-01-2004 01:23PM

Pharmacists selling homeopathic compounds should be asked if they were paying attention in class.

sextusempiricus · 01-02-2004 01:36PM

Originally posted by PaulP
Pharmacists selling homeopathic compounds should be asked if they were paying attention in class.

I expect them to say that they were but they can only make money to pay the mortgage or whatever if they have their fingers in more than one pie. They probably wouldn't go as far as the advice offered by Horace

Si possis recte, si non, quocumque modo rem ( By right means if you can, but by any means make money ).

Any pharmacist I know would hesitate to sell anything that positively did harm and was more than a placebo.
Of course misleading advertising of products can be referred to the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland . CAM treatments come within their terms of reference. Thus in 3.14 of the ASAI Codes it states

Advertisements for alternative and complementary products and services including those for natural, herbal and traditional remedies are subject to the requirements of the code.

The Code requires that all advertisements

Should be legal, decent, honest and truthful.

Should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers .

As the ASAI says on its web-page

Fiant Secundeum Descriptionem Bona ( Let the product accord with its description ).

The MORAL is to be vigilant and be prepared to complain.
I heard an advert today on Radio 1 that was promoting a vitamin preparation which promised to prevent colds . This of course you can buy from your pharmacist.

GuanYin · 01-02-2004 01:47PM

Originally posted by williamgrogan
We can waffle on until hell freezes over but what are we individually and as a group going to actually do to stop the wholesale fraud of the gullible & unscientific focus of modern life?

I think more time should be spent encouraging logical, analytical and unbiased thinking, getting people to question things themselves and be, well, more skeptical.

What I disagree with as a community is the wholesale witchhunting and bandwagon jumping that often occurs (and I'm not accusing anyone). what invariably happens with this approach is that one kind of deception is substituted for another

sextusempiricus · 01-02-2004 02:46PM

Originally posted by sextusempiricus
Any pharmacist I know would hesitate to sell anything that positively did harm and was more than a placebo.

As an afterthought I think its worth noting that Ireland has one of the highest incidences of haemochromatosis ( 1 in 86 )and iron containing tonics at pharmacists are easily available without prescription. These can dangerously overload the sufferer with iron. Pharmacists certainly need to use their scientific knowledge.

PaulP · 02-02-2004 12:42PM

How about trying to get a new subject on the state exam syllabus, namely "How to Think Straight (and Not Be Fooled By Crooked Thinking)".

The syllabus could include correct informal logic, logical fallacies, the psychology of reasoning plus how to spot flim-flam and an explanation of the scientific method and perhaps statistics. While the course basics could be abstract in a high-level way, it would be aimed at practical application. Of course it is this practical application that might prove controversial. Which would be good because it would require the usual suspects to explain how their claims do not conflict with straight thinking.

(Informal logic is the rules of formal logic applied to human discourse. Formal logic deals with logic in an almost mathematical way, using symbols like + for "logical and").

williamgrogan · 02-02-2004 12:57PM

Which would be good because it would require the usual suspects to explain how their claims do not conflict with straight thinking.

Is this not really the underlying problem?

Beside the whole religious world, all those who earn a living or obtain power from conning people would fight this tooth and nail. I already made the point in another thread that the Professor of Logic in Trinity for many years was a priest. In my school & I suspect most Irish schools in the 70’s the teaching of Evolution was banned.

In another thread we spent several months debating whether you could be religious AND skeptic and I argued that you couldn't for this very reason.

If children were thought how to think then their religious parents would object. I strongly suspect that the Knights of Columbanus have more power in Ireland than you would think. Guess why that paedophile priest, Smyth, was not extradited?

sextusempiricus · 02-02-2004 09:50PM

Originally posted by PaulP
How about trying to get a new subject on the state exam syllabus, namely "How to Think Straight (and Not Be Fooled By Crooked Thinking)".

I'm all for this but suspect that those that need this most are unlikely to be too enthusiastic about logic and reasoning. Anyway, when it comes to CAM remedies vain hope often takes priority over clear thinking even if you've been trained to use the requisite tools for challenging bogus claims.
What about a 'Consumer's Guide to CAM'? Needs a panel of scientists, medics, statisticians and other experts to assess the evidence for CAM claims ( where possible randomised controlled trials ) and put it in a palatable form for your average punter. Could be published regularly to keep up-to-date. Should sell well as CAM is so popular. Is there an enterprising publisher interested? I wonder if the National Drug Advisory Board would take this on? Any thoughts on this?

williamgrogan · 02-02-2004 10:06PM

'Consumer's Guide to CAM'

Considering the vast amount of money spent on CAM there must be market. It could also be sold internationally.

However, would we take adds for Homeopathy remedies?

Calibos · 03-02-2004 12:57AM

You're quite right WG. I work in the family Newsagent and often get people coming in asking if they can put up a notice/poster. I usually say ok as long as there's room on the noticeboard. I should pay more attention because I'm sure we've had/have homeopathy/reiki etc posters up. I should stand by my convictions and take down the ones already up and refuse any future ones.

I suppose I've been afraid of offending them or confrontation etc which is funny cause there are a few religious types that come in and bore me senseless discussing the headline in the latest edition of the Irish Family, Catholic Times etc Whom I can't wait to offend when the opportunity arises with the fact that I am an Atheist and could they please stop boring me with how they don't agree with the churchs new policy on blah which changes the catechism blah blah blah....

:D

"Can I put this poster up?"

"Whats it for?"

"Combi Reiki Homeopathy workshop"

"Get outta here ya bloody hippy!"

"But don't you remember, you put my last poster up no problem??"

"Well obviously my memory isn't as good as waters....now p1ss off!"

:D

PaulP · 03-02-2004 08:48AM

sextusempiricus wrote

I'm all for this but suspect that those that need this most are unlikely to be too enthusiastic about logic and reasoning

I am more hopeful. We all use logic and correct reasoning or else we would do stupid things like running towards danger when we wish to flee it. And logic can be taught with examples that shown such advantages and gains that accrue to getting it right.

williamgrogan · 03-02-2004 12:18PM

As we are on this, there is a much bigger subject here.

I feel that there is a need for a subject in school called “How to thnik”. (IBM had this word on the walls of all their offices.)

It could teach logic, Algebra (very useful when trying to get an answer where you have a missing variable and two equations..), The Scientific Method, Probability (probably bankrupt the Lotto), “How to read a newspaper”, Critical Analysis of books, art, film, advertising etc.., Lateral Thinking (maybe Edward De Bono could help?), exam tips, how to solve problems (as a working Systems Analysis it always astonishes me how poor most people are at solving problems or even describing them), “How to spot a con artist”, and of course Skepticism etc…………..

Many people have these skills innately at a high level anyway but most people do not. It is because they are not though how to think that so many people are so easily fooled all of the time and why they buy The Sun, not to mention the Sunday Independent.

I have always believed that my school fell down on not equipping the pupils with the basic tools to tackle all the other subjects.

If you lot have any further suggestions we can make up a curriculum and send it to the Minister of Education.

PS

I shook hands with the Minister of Health Saturday night and congratulated him on his anti-smoking initiative but left out the CAM business. However I will try and meet him again.

PaulP · 03-02-2004 12:45PM

William Grogan on another thread wondered what we could do about newspapers printing uncritical articles on various CAM quacks, effectively giving them free publicity.

One interesting idea the British "New" Labour party had was to create what it called a fast-response unit. (I'm using their example not endorsing their politics) The idea was that the British print media was by-and-large anti-Labour and that it tended to print any old anti-Labour nonsense. The fast-response unit's job was to be on the lookout for these pieces and to produce a rebuttal/response as quickly as possible. Speed is important for two reasons: 1) To try to get the response printed s close as possible in time and space to the original piece, thereby lessening its effects; 2) to train reporters and columnists, in a Pavlovian manner, that if they attacked Labour or wrote something that damaged Labour, Labour would bite back.

Perhaps we need a similar approach. How about an informal network to newspaper monitors who could report of the appearance of dangerous puff-pieces to the rest of us, together with a form email we could then all send to the offending editor. The email should ideally contain references showing the harm produced by the quackery in question.

Another idea: a medical person treating people for the same sorts of conditions could complain to the Competition Authority that a competitor was getting free publicity, and demand the same treatment (no pun intended).

williamgrogan · 03-02-2004 01:54PM

OK but who is going to be the ISS quick response writer to the Sunday Independent? Not me! What about the Sunday Sport?

Unfortunately the newspapers cannot print every letter to the editor.

I know that the Irish Times letter editor can be phoned & cajoled into/asked to print a letter.

The first rule of propaganda is to get your story in first.

Pat Kenny is a trained Chemical Engineer and yet seems to be very sympathetic to these chancers. Marion Finnucane seems to be getting more sceptical.

Hey! Maybe we should have a Gullibility Index (GI ™). Score newspapers, journalists & media celebs from 1 to 10.

Complete langer, as we say in Cork, equals 0. Very Skeptical 10.

Pat Kenny is a big fan of Aide Roche and Bono’s wife vis a vis the Chernobyl myth, so I’m giving him 5. PS I even sent him the WHO report. No good. He still believes in millions dying & being born with no limbs from the radiation.

If this got out then maybe Pat, Marion & Joe would avoid being thought of as gullible “langers”.

davros · 03-02-2004 03:38PM

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Hey! Maybe we should have a Gullibility Index (GI ™). Score newspapers, journalists & media celebs from 1 to 10.

I really like the Aussie Skeptics' Bent Spoon Awards. The Society can issue annual awards for services to ignorance and gullibility. These would be contained in a press release towards the end of the year when newspapers and magazines are running all sorts of summing up articles. It's entertaining and it might shame some journalists into being more sceptical.

sextusempiricus · 03-02-2004 10:08PM

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Considering the vast amount of money spent on CAM there must be market. It could also be sold internationally.

However, would we take ads for Homeopathy remedies?

Such ads would probably contravene the Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland's Code for misleading claims. That would be embarassing. Publications are printed for doctors ( for example by the BMJ ) on the evidence for their treatments with no support from ads. Why not for the consumer of CAM? I deliberately kept my title of such a guide neutral. Wouldn't want to make hackles rise now, would I?

Syth · 10-02-2004 07:35PM

Of course it is this practical application that might prove controversial. Which would be good because it would require the usual suspects to explain how their claims do not conflict with straight thinking.

Well if any one objects to teaching people how to think logically and critcally you can just ask them why do they want kids not to think logically. Noone will admit to keeping people in the dark, it's just that people don't want to admit that they are acting stupidly.

About the CAM, Each company should have to garuantee there product is non-harmful and to back-up any claims about it's effictviness. This will then be analysed and a final result on the effictivness given. Every medical product should then have to carry a sticker that reflects it's effitivness. You can just imagine some homeopathy product with stickers like "This product is safe, but it will have absolutly no effect on you."

So OK! What do we actually do?

Comments