Recent replies to "My favourite flavour of pseudoscience"

Reply from Rebecca Perrett

Rebecca Perrett — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:03:04 -0000

One I feel compelled to comment upon every time I see/read it is ‘pentapeptides’, or just ‘peptides’ from L’Oreal and Olay cosmetics. Apparently these are the miracle anti-wrinkle wonder treatments. Could they be more vague in their description? Basically a cream containing ‘bits of proteins’ will make you look 10 years younger?

Reply from Dinesh Kumar Singh

Dinesh Kumar Singh — Fri, 25 May 2007 14:20:07 -0000

Dear Bronwen, let me share my experience on telepathy.Though I have no idea about it at all but many a times, it has happened that I feel an intense urge as if someone close to me is thinking about me intensely and needs me for mental support.And quite interestingly, when I call(from US) a few of them (4-5 closest friends who are in India or Germany), I discover indeed they had been seriously thinking about me at the time I had those sensations. And it has happened not once or twice but many a times.May be all of them are coincidences but is quite interesting.Hope modern science can explain it somehow. Infact, I recently read an article (http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/925987/many_scientists_are
_convinced_that_man_can_see_the_future/index.html)
and was convinced that at least theoretically it is possible to do so. And looking back it reminded me about the texts in the ancient Vedic literatures where there are descriptions about some holy men having these potential.They acquired these “supernatural powers” merely by practicing yoga and meditation. It remains to be seen if these are really true.Hope someone would prove or disprove it in near future.

Reply from Bronwen Dekker

Bronwen Dekker — Wed, 23 May 2007 22:21:07 -0000

Ever since my mom told me that our hair continues to grow for a short time after we die, I have been puzzled by the idea that our cells could continue living after what-makes-us-who-we-are has ‘left’. And you are right, Dinesh: what is the difference between a living cell and the bunch of chemicals that are present immediately after it has died?

I don’t think that the point of calling something ‘pseudoscience’ is to throw tomatoes at ideas. It is to be critical of (1) the use of scientific language to validate an idea that cannot be proved scientifically (yet?); or (2) extravagant claims made on the basis of poorly designed experiments / dodgy statistics.

So for example, I don’t really have a problem with the idea of telepathy – while it is not part of my own experience, I am inclined to believe a person who tells me that it is part theirs. The pseudoscience is this entertaining attempt to explain it using quantum physics.

Reply from Stephen Loughran

Stephen Loughran — Tue, 22 May 2007 05:08:30 -0000

We have this woeful tv series in Australia, entitled What’s good for you . (As far as I know, this show may also have incarnations in other nations.) The premise of the show is to answer health-related questions to determine what is good for us. It is a great example of pseudoscience—every week experiments are performed which look like the scientific method, but which contort it horribly.

A typical example is one I saw asking “does wearing sunglasses prevent eye damage?” To answer this question, the show found one person who seldom wore glasses, and one who wore them quite a lot, and then sent them to the optometrist for a quick eye exam. One person in each cohort! No attempt to match the people for age or UV exposure or anything!

This kind of experiment is pointless – it has (at least in itself) no bearing on the likelihood of any hypothesis being true or false. (Incidentally the person who hardly ever wore sunglasses had more eye damage—I must rush out and by a pair now!!!)

There are several examples of this in each show. They are invariably poorly controlled and have miniscule sample sizes. The fact that there is all sorts of variation in the population due to all manner of factors is generally glossed over with a “well there you have it”.

The thing that concerns me most is that because these are “experiments”, and people have such an insatiable appetite for this type of health information, they will accept it uncritically, and attach to it the same authority and reliability that genuine scientific knowledge has.

All this being said, I do find the show quite entertaining, and am always bemused by their stupid experiments and willingness to make sweeping conclusions.

Reply from Dinesh Kumar Singh

Dinesh Kumar Singh — Mon, 21 May 2007 22:11:31 -0000

Though the topic of pseudoscience seems to be interesting and thought provoking but it is a premature act to Christianize “something not proven”, as pseudoscience.For example, if one says that each and individual cell has a “soul” in it, the biological community will laugh at breath. Though there is no way to prove or disprove this hypothesis, yet one cannot deny that cells as such are more than mere being a soup of molecules in a confined space. Lets assume that the cell is alive till the (n-1)th second past XX.XX….and it dies at the nth second past XX.XX…If it has been just been a collection of merely interacting biomolecules (chemicals), it should still function the same way as the molecules are still there.But we know, that something crucial is missing. If one says “that something” as soul, would you call it pseudoscience?I have no answer.The fact that the available technology or knowledge cannot prove something or detect/measure something, it does not mean it does not exist. Such things are relative and so we should be careful while commenting on their existence.