The hCG Diet was invented by an endocrinologist named Albert T. Simeons [2]. He combined a 500-calorie restricted diet with the Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone. The claim is that the hormone negates the feelings of hunger induced by a dangerously low calorie diet, while also forcing the body to burn stored fat instead of protein for energy.

A number of studies have been done to assess the claim. Some of those studies claimed that the diet worked, and others find no benefit of combining hCG and a 500-calorie diet over using a placebo and the same 500-calorie diet [3]. How do we decide who is right? One group of authors did a “meta-analysis” [4] of these publications and assessed scores to the studies based on  the quality of the research (e.g. was a given study randomized-controlled or not?). They set in advance a score of 50 (out of 100) as the cutoff for higher-quality analyses. They found that of the 14 studies that scored above 50 (all of which included randomly controlled trials), 1 of the 14 found confirming evidence supporting the claims of the hCG diet. The others all found disconfirming evidence. The weight of reliable, scientific evidence is strongly against the effectiveness of the hCG diet.

From this we can conclude the following:

1. Any doctor that prescribes the hCG diet is not making a decision using evidence-based medicine. Medicine without evidence supporting its claims is quack medicine. The doctor is, at the very least, not keeping up with the research in their own field and at worst is willfully ignoring evidence.

But it gets worse. The Food and Drug Administration has strong words [5] regarding the sale of hCG as a diet supplement:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is advising consumers to steer clear of these “homeopathic” human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) weight-loss products.  They are sold in the form of oral drops, pellets and sprays and can be found online and in some retail stores. [5]

FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have issued seven letters to companies warning them that they are selling illegal homeopathic HCG weight-loss drugs that have not been approved by FDA, and that make unsupported claims. [5]

Not only is the hCG diet not science-based medicine – selling hCG products for the purpose of the diet is ILLEGAL. What about physicians that prescribe them? According to a news report by local Dallas WFAA [6],

HCG is FDA-approved for fertility treatments — not weight loss. Doctors, however, can prescribe HCG legally for an “off-label” use. [6]

So it’s currently legally okay for a doctor to use hCG in a way not intended, which is ethically murky. (Note: the above article claims that the “science is unclear” about the benefits of hCG, but this is likely because if you just count the number of studies there are equally many that find and don’t find benefits. WFAA was ill-equipped to understand good experiments and bad experiments, and likely misunderstood completely that the weight of reliable evidence is AGAINST the benefits of hCG).

From this, we can conclude that any doctor who prescribes this is practicing  unethical quack medicine. It might not be illegal to use hCG for a purpose not intended, but it flies in the face of evidence-based medicine. Evidence-based medicine is the only reliable kind of medicine. Everything else is wishful thinking or lies.

I tried to explain to my acquaintance that hCG has been clearly shown to be no more effective than placebo. I also tried to explain that the FDA has warned companies selling hCG for weight loss that they are conducting an illegal activity. However, they were adamant. They had lost weight (they were on it three times in the last year, gaining weight back after each time), they had heard anecdotes that said it worked, and that they had their beliefs and that science had its beliefs. Pretty much the spectrum of denial. This acquaintance of mine is a very bright person, so it pained me to know that they couldn’t be convinced of the evidence. They were actually willing to pay for the placebo effect (and said as much).

As a scientist, it’s hard to listen to that.

[1] http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chorionic_gonadotropin

[3] Published studies of hCG and weight loss:

CARNE S. The action of chorionic gonadotrophin in the obese. Lancet. 1961 Dec 9;2(7215):1282–1284.

LEBON P. Treatment of overweight patients with chorionic gonadotropin. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1961 Nov;9:998–1002.

Stein MR, Julis RE, Peck CC, Hinshaw W, Sawicki JE, Deller JJ., Jr Ineffectiveness of human chorionic gonadotropin in weight reduction: a double-blind study. Am J Clin Nutr. 1976 Sep;29(9):940–948.

Young RL, Fuchs RJ, Woltjen MJ. Chorionic gonadotropin in weight control. A double-blind crossover study. JAMA. 1976 Nov 29;236(22):2495–2497.

Shetty KR, Kalkhoff RK. Human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) treatment of obesity. Arch Intern Med. 1977 Feb;137(2):151–155.

Greenway FL, Bray GA. Human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) in the treatment of obesity: a critical assessment of the Simeons method. West J Med. 1977 Dec;127(6):461–463. [PMC free article]

Asher WL, Harper HW. Effect of human chorionic gonadotrophin on weight loss, hunger, and feeling of well-being. Am J Clin Nutr. 1973 Feb;26(2):211–218.

CRAIG LS, RAY RE, WAXLER SH, MADIGAN H. Chorionic gonadotropin in the treatment of obese women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1963 Mar;12:230–234.

Miller R, Schneiderman LJ. A clinical study of the use of human chorionic gonadotrophin in weight reduction. J Fam Pract. 1977 Mar;4(3):445–448.

FRANK BW. THE USE OF CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN HORMONE IN THE TREATMENT OF OBESITY. A DOUBLE-BLIND STUDY. Am J Clin Nutr. 1964 Mar;14:133–136.

SOHAR E. A forty-day-550 calorie diet in the treatment of obese outpatients. Am J Clin Nutr. 1959 Sep–Oct;7:514–518.

HASTRUP B, NIELSEN B, SKOUBY AP. Chorionic gonadotropin and the treatment of obesity. Acta Med Scand. 1960 Sep 21;168:25–27.

Veilleux H, Fortin Z. Effets gonadiques et extragonadiques, chez l’humain, de 3500 U.I. de HCG (gonadotrophine chorionique humaine) en doses fractionnées. Vie Med Can Fr. 1972 Sep;1(9):862–871.

Gusman HA. Chorionic gonadotropin in obesity. Further clinical observations. Am J Clin Nutr. 1969 Jun;22(6):686–695.

SIMEONS AT. CHORIONIC GONADOTROPHIN IN THE TREATMENT OF OBESITY. Am J Clin Nutr. 1964 Sep;15:188–190.

HARRIS JM, WARSAW E. OBESITY: A PROBLEM WITH MANY FACETS: OBSERVATIONS ON TREATMENT WITH CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN AS AN ADJUNCT TO DIETARY MEASURES. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1964 Oct;12:987–995.

[4] Lijesen GK, Theeuwen I, Assendelft WJ, Van Der Wal G (September 1995). “The effect of human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) in the treatment of obesity by means of the Simeons therapy: a criteria-based meta-analysis”. Br J Clin Pharmacol 40 (3): 237–43. PMC 1365103.PMID 8527285

[5] http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm281333.htm

[6] http://www.wfaa.com/news/health/HCG–Popular-Diet-Now-Faces-Legal-Controversy-139739033.html

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

From grist.org, a program that lets you generate your own "Heartland Billboard"!

This was a good week for prime examples of propaganda and pseudoscience. Let’s get started.

49 Cherry-Picked Questionable Authorities Can’t Be Wrong

There was some recent buzz about “49 authorities” who sent a letter [1] to NASA’s chief and asked the agency to stop promoting the idea of human-induced climate change. A blog, “Scholars and Rogues,” noted a number of serious instances of pseudoscience, mis-information, and logical fallacies in the letter [2]. “Scholars and Rogues” is a blog site that has a number of contributors; this particular article was contributed by Brian Angliss, a working electrical engineer (BSEE and MSEE) and the science editor and climate/energy writer for the blog. What makes him credible here is that he is careful to cite multiple examples of peer-reviewed, published scientific research to back up his arguments, and he demonstrates a clear mastery of the fundamentals of argument analysis (ala [4]) and a recognition of the use of logical fallacies to distract the reader of the “49 authorities” letter from an otherwise weak argument.

Here are a few good examples (you should read the letter and the criticism for a more complete picture):

1. The authors of the letter cited “hundreds” [1] of climate scientists who disagree with the conclusion that climate change is human-induced. An investigation reveals that this statement is based solely on information from Senator James Inhofe’s (R-OK) own 2008 minority report (Inhofe is a well-documented and proud climate change denier). Of the 700 scientists on the list provided by Inhofe, only 70 of 700 are practicing climate scientists; 680 of them have no publication record on climate science. And, in a funny twist, about 28 of 700 actually have been convinced by the scientific evidence of the reality of human-induced climate change. Whoops.
2. The letter points to “tens of thousands” [1] of other scientists who disagree with the conclusion that climate change is human-induced. That sounds impressive, until you breakdown the numbers (which themselves come from the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, a non-profit private organization that denies the existence of human-induced climate change). First, the list is compiled using the loosest possible definition of “scientist” – it doesn’t even constrain itself to practicing scientists, just to anyone with a Bachelor of Science degree. By that definition, US institutions have produced over 10 million “scientists” since 1970; the 31000 “scientists” on the OISM’s list represents only 0.3% of all “scientists” produced since 1970. Take a room full of people, and you’re guaranteed to find that at least 0.3% of them disagree with the other 99.7% of people in the room (on any issue, for any reason, right or not).

It goes on. Have a look. The above is a great example of  ”equivocation,” a key logical fallacy. The authors rely on the vague term “scientist,” which means something very different to the public than it means to the scientific community, to fool the reader into thinking they have found some very impressive numbers. They rely on vagaries and mis-direction to try to skirt your critical thinking defenses and trick you into agreeing with them.

In life, no “white knight” is going to save you from propaganda and mis-information. You have to learn to recognize good and weak arguments and think for yourself.

How would you have spotted the weaknesses in the “49 experts” letter? First, ask what are the vague terms. Believe it or not, “scientist” is a vague term unless it’s qualified (“practicing scientist,” “publishing scientist,” “actively publishing climate scientist” – these are all the minimum required qualifications needed into order to clarify the meaning of the vague term “scientist”).  Second, check their reasons. When they cite figures on the numbers of “scientists” that agree or disagree with a position, then it’s incumbent upon you to ask questions like:

1. Where did they get these numbers? Are they published? Are they peer reviewed? A quick check (which the blog above has done for us) reveals that the sources are neither published (in a respectable journal) or peer-reviewed. For a list of primary, peer-reviewed and published sources that help to understand the real number of climate scientists that have been convinced by the scientific evidence, see Naomi Oreskes’s essay in the journal “Science” [3].

Serial Killers Sleep, Poop, Eat, and Believe in Climate Change

The heartland Institute paid for billboards intended to use the principles of propaganda to scare you into denying the evidence for climate change.

This one goes under the “propaganda” header. The Heartland Institute, a non-profit private thinktank that originally partnered with the tobacco industry in the 1980s to fight medical research pointing to the dangers of tobacco, posted billboards this week that sought to terrify readers into being against the evidence for climate change. I’ve placed an example of this billboard to the left.

Propaganda is described at length (with examples) on our SMU course page for PHY/CFB 3333 [5].  In short, propaganda is any message that is delivered with the intent to “alter public perceptions and/or induce action” [5]. Everybody uses propaganda, from personal workplace politics to national politics. The key is to recognize that what is being used is propaganda. As Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi father of modern propaganda, noted, “Propaganda becomes ineffective the moment we are aware of it.”

So let’s make you aware of it. The above billboard is propaganda. It uses emotion – fear, in this case – to spur you to disagree with the scientific fact of global warming. It uses a convicted serial murderer – Ted Kaczynski – to do this. Basically, it implies that if you agree with the fact of global warming, you are no better than a serial murderer. You are then directed to the Heartland Institute’s website.

In order to see that this is propaganda, you need to understand that it is built on a logical fallacy: “Appeal to Questionable Authority” and an implicit “Ad Hominem Attack.” The Ad Hominem attack is on you; basically, if you believe in the fact of global warming, you are a serial murderer. The appeal is the use of Kaczynski’s photograph, implicitly linking acceptance of the fact of global warming with being a crazed genius murderer. The intent is purely to scare you, forcing your rational mind to be subsumed by your irrational mind. To deconstruct the propaganda, you should always change the words in the sign to something that is easier to understand and see if the argument still works. For example, imagine instead the sign read, “I still go to the bathroom. Do you?” The implication here is, “Ted Kaczynski poops. Ted Kaczynski is a crazed serial murderer. Only crazed serial murderers poop. You don’t want to be a crazed serial murderer, do you?” Of course that’s ridiculous; pooping has nothing whatsoever to do with being a crazed serial murdered. Neither does acceptance of a fact, like the fact that the Earth’s average temperature has shot up exponentially for the last 150 years.

Once you recognize and then deconstruct the propaganda (I find that using absurdity helps to take away the power of propaganda), then you find this billboard is a toothless fallacy. You are not weak-minded. Don’t let propagandists like the Heartland Institute try to treat you like a weak-minded person.

[1] http://sppiblog.org/news/former-nasa-scientists-astronauts-admonish-agency-on-climate-change-position

[2] http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/04/25/errors-shortcomings-void-nasa-climate-letter/

[3] Oreskes, Naomi. “Beyond the Ivory Tower, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (including corrections)”. Science.  2005.

[4] Browne, M and Keeley, S. “Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking (10th Edition).” ISBN-10: 0205111165. ISBN-13: 978-0205111169. Amazon URL: http://www.amazon.com/Asking-Right-Questions-Critical-Thinking/dp/0205111165/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

[5] http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/Propaganda/

Related posts:

1. Non-sequisantorum The following are statements from Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum, juxtaposed...
2. PoliSci: Perry on Climate Science is sometimes very helpful when trying to sort informed...
3. PoliSci: Galileo Galiperry In the most recent Republican Presidential Candidate debate [1], moderator...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

For example, I have always been bothered by the sign that says,”Slow children at play.” The sign should read, “Slow! Children at play” or ” Slow: children at play.” Otherwise, I find the sign conjures images of either mentally impaired children whose street is marked as if they lived in a dystopian ghetto, or the more comical image of kids playing in slow motion out in the street.

What did my mind see when it read the Romney sign? I saw a comma, turning the poster into an anti-Romney imperative sentence: ” Romney, believe in America.” Of course, it is intended to be read as if it contained a colon, “Romney: Believe in America.”

We should demand punctuation in all of our signs. Punctuation is needed in order to clarify the meaning and rhythm of sentences. Since meaning is so easily distorted in a political campaign, political parties should, more than anyone else, embrace punctuation.

Related posts:

1. PoliSci: Huntsman on Romney and Perry In a recent post, I noted that Republican candidate Jon...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

So, when I arrived home from the conference for the weekend I was very much looking forward to being comatose on the couch for most of the weekend. This morning, however, we had some drama that took my mind off the coughing and the hacking. Jodi walked into the living room and said, “I can’t find my fitbit. I had it when I went running, and I noticed it wasn’t in my pocket when I was mowing the lawn. I don’t know where it is.”

A manual search commenced, with the both of us slow-walking around the back yard in rows. Our search turned up nothing. We also poked around the house in obvious spots, but found nothing.

I tried to find the fitbit’s wireless signal with my mobile phone and a wifi signal strength application. But, a quick search on Google revealed that fitbit uses a proprietary short-range wifi network called ANT+, which standard mobile phone antennas are not tuned to receive.

That left one last option: using the fitbit’s own limits data syncing base station in the hunt. The station cannot tell you the signal strength of any single fitbit connection. But, it can tell you whether or not the fitbit has synced recently. Since the fitbit syncs just about every 15 minutes, one needed to only place the antenna in location, wait 15 minutes, and use that to establish a radius in which the fitbit cannot or can be located. The range of the fitbit wifi signal is 15 feet. We only needed three positive syncs in different locations to get a general triangulation of the fitbit.

The map below indicates the data. Green dots mark locations where the antennae successfully received a syncing signal from the fitbit. Red dots indicate failed locations.

Sure enough, in the overlap region of the three gray circles we found the fitbit, sitting on a shelf just out of view in a closet. The fitbit had been removed for a change of clothes, and then promptly forgotten. This was a sweet and simple use of technology and a little physics to help in the hunt for a small lost gadget.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

American Airlines is planning to run an anti-vaccination message from the Australian Vaccination Network, AVN. AVN is a mis-leadingly named organization that promotes the discredited link between vaccines and autism, among other anti-scientific nonsense. They claim there is scientific debate about the dangers of vaccines (there is no such debate) and also claim [1] that vaccines don’t work anyway, as evidenced by the rising rates of measles and whooping cough (these outbreaks have been overwhelmingly, >85%, linked to UNVACCINATED individuals [2]).

A petition has been created, with a goal of 1500 signatories. The petition explains why this is a dangerous and irresponsible message to air on an intentional airline, and offers you the chance to sign so your voice is heard. I also recommend you send your own mail to American Airlines customer relations.

The petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/ask-american-airlines-to-cancel-anti-vaccination-message#

[1] http://traffic.libsyn.com/firesnake/AVN_AmAirlines.mp3

[2] http://emergency.cdc.gov/HAN/han00323.asp

Related posts:

1. An Open Letter To American Airlines: No Platform for AVN A child infected with measles, a disease easily prevented with...
2. From the Texas Freedom Network: 2011 Anti-science Quotes Fresh from the Texas Freedom Network (TFN), here are their...
3. USAO sign Pride! ...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Author’s comment: Thanks to R. Scalise for sending this my way after the original post: http://science.psu.edu/journal/Spring2007/GMOFeature.htm

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The University of Michigan’s Marine Hydrodynamics Laboratory contains a “Physical Model Basin” for testing various ship designs. It can hold 750,000 gallons of water and its testing systems can supporting motion up to 22 ft/s.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

After my American Airlines flight finally departed Dallas last Sunday (after a two-hour weather delay) we swooped around the path of a massive storm system. You can see here one of the anvil-shaped clouds forming out of the lower cloud layer.

Related posts:

1. Heading home to Dallas ...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Please find below the letter I just sent to American Airlines pertaining to the claim by the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) press release claiming that AA will give them a platform for their anti-vaccination message.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I was recently disturbed to see this press release from the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN):

http://avn.org.au/2012/04/avn-information-to-air-on-american-airlines/

This group, mis-named to sound as if they promote the use of vaccines to prevent disease, actively works against the practice of vaccinating children against easily treated, but dangerous, diseases. They are claiming that your company will give them airtime on your in-flight media network and your “American Way” magazine.

I am a frequent traveler on American Airlines. I fly routinely between the U.S. and Europe and have come to rely on your excellent service to Geneva via London. I also regularly use your airline to visit my family in Wisconsin, which includes my four nieces and nephews, all of whom are protected against whooping cough, measles, and other diseases thanks to vaccines. If it is true that you are planning to air the view of AVN on your in-flight media services, I will refuse to fly on your airline for 2 years and instead give my money to your competitors, such as United Airlines (who also offer excellent and competitive service to Geneva and the Midwest).

There is over 100 years of credible, confirmed, scientific evidence for the benefits of childhood and adulthood vaccination against disease. There is no – and I mean ZERO – credible scientific evidence linking vaccines to such serious diseases as autism. Do not give AVN a platform.

Sincerely,
Steve Sekula

Related posts:

1. Anecdon’t The Republican Presidential Candidate debates (and all the media that...
2. From the Texas Freedom Network: 2011 Anti-science Quotes Fresh from the Texas Freedom Network (TFN), here are their...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Photo from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wasdin/4104127887/

This year has seen a large number of attacks in the ongoing campaign against science. In order to understand this new phase of the war on science, we need to first remind ourselves: what is science? Once we have done that, we can revisit the recent history of attempts to redefine science in our education system and understand why these are yet another move in the campaign against our greatest way of knowing.

What is Science?

Science is a process. It is the process of applying the scientific method in order to explain phenomena in the natural world. Because our lives our dominated by the natural world, understanding it is useful. It is so useful that, thanks to science, we have come to fundamental understandings of biology, chemistry, and physics; as a result, we gained deep insight into the structure of the earth, the nature of disease and sickness, and the fundamental laws that govern nature. Our progress in all of these fronts has cured disease, extended human life, extended human senses with technology, and allowed us to grasp the cosmos even though we occupy by a tiny corner of it.

What is this process? It is a way of gathering information about the world and using that information to construct explanations of the natural world. These explanations lead to new knowledge, and the process repeats itself.

1. We begin by making an observation of a phenomenon. This observation may involve the collection of data in one of many possible forms.
2. We then formulate an hypothesis to explain the data. An hypothesis is a statement like, “The phenomenon happens because of . . . ” What distinguishes an hypothesis from an opinion is that the hypothesis not only explains, but offers the possibility of being tested. That is, the hypothesis makes other predictions outside the scope of the existing data, and by collecting more data we can test the hypothesis. We can never PROVE an hypothesis. We can only collect new data that either disproves the hypothesis or confirms its predictions. However, it only takes a single bad prediction to disprove the hypothesis, which is why it can never be definitively proven,
3. The prediction(s) from the hypothesis lead to the proposal of an experiment, or experiments, to test the predictions of the hypothesis. These experiments must be plausible and feasible. They must also be repeatable; that is, the experiment must be such that any independent individual or group of individuals can repeat the experiment and confirm the results.
4. The experiment is performed, and either is inconclusive (requiring another experiment), refutes the hypothesis (in which case the hypothesis must be revised or discarded), or confirms the hypothesis and opens the door to further predictions and tests.
5. New data having been gathered, a new phenomenon may be observed that results from the hypothesis. This then leads to the repetition of the above process

This is referred to as The Scientific Method. It is extremely useful, since it leads to the creation of new knowledge and that knowledge has the power to transform our existence (as illustrated above). It is a process, not a recipe; the steps may or may not be performed in the above order. The process also includes peer-review – criticism of the results by independent individuals with expertise in the area of investigation. Peer review may result in further tests that must be performed in order to validate the claims made by the hypothesis.

A hypothesis that withstands the above cycle will eventually be raised to the status of a model – a more comprehensive and complete description of one or more phenomena. A model that stands up to further experimental tests will be elevated to the level of a scientific theory. “Theory” here is not meant in the vulgar sense – one’s opinion or personal pet idea. Here, a Scientific Theory is a power explanatory framework that not only is based on facts, but EXPLAINS facts, and predicts new phenomena. After enough time and enough tests, a theory will be raised to the level of a Scientific Law.

This is also a process, not a recipe. There are no strict time limits on the above elevation from hypothesis to a law. For instance, the Theory of Natural Selection has been around nearly as long as the Laws of Electricity and Magnetism (Maxwell’s Equations); Natural Selection is the fundamental driving idea in the development of biology as a science, while Maxwell’s Equations are but a subset of the ideas that are the core of modern physics. In physics, these are laws, while in biology, Natural Selection is still called a Scientific Theory. These are cultural artifacts; humans do science, and there is no specific rule that says when or if a theory much be elevated to a law. While Natural Selection is a far more encompassing idea in biology than is Maxwell’s Equations in physics, one field decided to elevate them to laws and the other just never bothered.

This is the Scientific Method. It has done more to improve the quality of existence of our species than any other way of knowing, and in that sense it is the most useful way of knowing ever devised. Is it perfect? No. But, as has been said of Democracy, science is the worst way of knowing . . . besides all the others.

What, then, are Scientific Weaknesses?

Having had time to consider the Scientific Method, we can then define “Scientific Weaknesses.” These would be:

1. Failure to generate a testable hypothesis, or the failure to generate an hypothesis that makes any predictions.
2. Failure to produce an experiment that is plausible, feasible, and capable of testing the hypothesis (e.g. discriminating the hypothesis from any other existing or competing idea).
3. Failure to revise the hypothesis in the face of disconfirming evidence. That is, sticking to a failed idea is a scientific weakness.
4. Failure to generate a repeatable experiment. For instance, if the experiment requires a process or observation that can only be done once, it is scientifically weak.
5. Failure to subject the hypothesis, experiment, and/or experimental results to peer review.

There are probably more, but given the definitions of the Scientific Method these are perhaps the most obvious and glaring kinds of Scientific Weaknesses. What, then, are bad examples of Scientific Weaknesses? Any weakness whose definition is based on a logical fallacy is a good example of a bad scientific weakness.

• Any weakness that is based on an “Ad Hominem” attack is a bad weakness. For instance, a poor criticism of a scientific idea is one that is rooted in criticism of the proponents. Just because a proponent is an atheist or a devout Christian does NOT make the idea invalid. The idea is only invalid if it falls into the clear definitions of “Scientific Weakness” based on the above criteria.
• Any weakness that is based on a LACK of evidence is a poor scientific weakness. One always needs more data; this is as true in biology as it is in physics. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Absence of evidence FOR something is also NOT evidence for another random explanation which, itself, is scientifically unproven. As an example, just because no one has found fossils for a specific transition between one species and another does NOT mean that Natural Selection is wrong, or that only God could have caused the transition to occur. All this means is that we await data. This kind of criticism is weak because it is based on the False Dichotomy logical fallacy – the idea that there are only ever two explanations for anything and absence of evidence for the first is confirming evidence for the second.

A good list of Logical Fallacies is available here: Ref. [1]. Any claim of a Scientific Weakness based on a Logical Fallacy is an example of a False Scientific Weakness.

The Present Strategy

The present strategy is to try to pass laws that require teachers in state-funded schools to “teach the scientific weaknesses” of only specific ideas in science, such as the Theory of Natural Selection, Human-Induced Climate Change, the Chemical Origins of Life, and Human Reproduction. Physics, other aspects of chemistry, mathematics, and other earth sciences are largely left out of these criticisms. How did we get to this strategy in the war on science?

The forces of anti-science have long tried to either conflate their efforts with science, or have tried to alter the definition of science. The teaching of Creationism in state-funded schools was rules illegal – a violation of the “separation clause” of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case Epperson v. Arkansas [2]. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [3]

That very first clause is known as the “separation clause” – Congress shall neither promote any religion above another, nor prohibit the free exercise of any religion. This has been interpreted in U.S. law to also mean that state-funded schools cannot promote one religion over another. In Epperson v. Arkansas, “Creationism” – the teaching that God caused all biologic diversity – was found to be a promotion of an Abrahamic religion (a specific Christian view) and thus, taught in schools, would be seen as promoting one religion’s view on Creation over any other religion’s view on Creation. Specifically, the Arkansas law in question in this case prohibited the teaching of evolution, and this was deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled that no state can tailor education to suit the principles or prohibitions of a specific religious sect or dogma.

Creationists then spent over a decade attempting to couch their ideology in the trappings of science, and invented the term “Creation Science.” This was meant to be taken as a serious subject that claimed that the natural world held evidence for biologic diversity based on the catastrophic Noah flood. Some states attempted to require that Creation Science be taught alongside standard biology and its core unifying principle of Natural Selection. This culminated in yet another U.S. Supreme Court case, Edwards v. Aguillard. Here, the court found that the Lousiana law in question was in violation of the separation clause, as ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas. However, they also stated that “teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.” [4]

This part of the ruling opened the door to a new generation of attacks on science. If the opponents of science could find a way to define an alternative, scientific theory devoid of the religiosity of past efforts (e.g. Creation Science), then they might be able to wedge their ideas into the classrooms of all state-funded schools. Indeed, such an effort crystallized, driven by a Seattle-based think-tank known as The Discovery Institute, and its Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. The stated goal of this organization was outlined in “The Wedge,” a document that defined their strategy for penetrating their ideas into mainstream scientific culture, leading to a redefinition of science, teaching, and eventually the humanities and social sciences [5].

This led to the formulation of “Intelligent Design” – the idea that the biologic diversity of life is explicable in some or all cases only through the intervention of a tinkering “intelligent designer” who manipulates or writes genetic code. The designer is not named, but various proponents of intelligent design have stated that the designer is a supernatural being; if it was a natural being, this would require asking, “Who designed the designer?”

Efforts, led by The Discovery Institute, then got underway to implement the Wedge Strategy. They largely failed in the scientific sphere. Their most scientific claim was a reformulation of William Paley’s “Watchmaker” argument – that design can be detected in nature by finding evidence of structures so complex they could not have happened via Natural Selection. Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe reformulated Paley’s idea into “irreducible complexity.” This is the notion that there are structures in nature whose function appears to be delicately predicated on all their parts working; take any part away, and the function of the whole is compromised. Since nature selects for usefulness based on function, such a structure (where all parts much work to execute the function) could not have arisen by Natural Selection.

The reason that this idea has failed in the scientific sphere is because the examples offered up by proponents of intelligent design have continually been shown to have predecessors in nature whose function was different, and whose structure was simpler. The bacterium flagellum is a key example. Behe and others claimed this biological motor, which drives a whip-like structure and propels a bacterium like an outboard motor propels a boat, is immensely complex and cannot function if its parts are removed. But, piles and piles of peer-reviewed research have been published in the scientific literature showing not only that the motor can operate even when parts are compromised, but also that a much simpler version of the exact same structure, with many fewer parts, is used by the bacterium that carries Bubonic Plague to inject lethal toxins into the cells of its host. A bad motor makes a great syringe. [6]

Having suffered multiple documented failures in the scientific sphere, the proponents of Intelligent Design have in parallel been conducting the other phase of their Wedge Strategy: change laws to their favor to weaken, or redefine, science and thus admit their ideas into public education. What they cannot achieve by the scientific process they will try to achieve by legal means.

This effort culminated in the 2006 Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District [7]. Here, the court found that intelligent design was merely creationism, repackaged, and thus in violation of previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the subject. Teaching intelligent design alongside standard biology was thus the promotion of one religion over any other, and deemed illegal. Efforts to thus present intelligent design as an alternative to the Theory of Natural Selection in state-funded schools were thus stopped cold.

The Legacy of Kitzmiller v. Dover: Teach the Scientific Weaknesses or Controversies

While this sounds like another victory for the Scientific Method and for the respect of religion and science as mutual, independent spheres in our society, the forces of anti-science never rest. While intelligent design cannot legally be offered as an alternative to the Theory of Natural Selection in the biology classroom. multiple efforts have been attempted this year to introduce state laws that require teachers to “teach the scientific weaknesses” of standard biology, or to “teach the scientific controversy” in standard biology. Other areas of science, like climate science, have been added to the language of the bills to avoid the problem of singling out an area where some religious sects clearly have a strong opinion. Climate science is added because while fundamentalist Christian sects tend to not have specific religious issues with this idea, it is viewed by the public as “controversial” and thus safe to package with biology in the bills.

Bills along these lines have appeared in Missouri [8], New Hampshire [9], Oklahoma [10], and Tennessee [11]. The effort in New Hampshire failed. Let’s focus on the Tennessee bill, which passed the state legislature and was passed by inaction by the Governor of Tennessee (failure to sign or veto a bill in Tennessee leads to automatic enactment of the bill as law). The bill, in part, states the following,

The general assembly finds that: . . . The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy . . . Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught. Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught. This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.[12]

It sounds good, but it’s a bad bill for at least two reasons. First, there is no law on the books that prohibits anything authorized in this bill. Therefore, it’s a useless piece of legislation in that it is trying to solve or undo a problem that doesn’t exist. Second, absent such a reason for passing this bill, we are left to assume that these specific subjects cause scientific controversy and are unclear or difficult to understand because of that controversy. Therefore, a bill must be needed to authorize teachers or school officials to teach the controversy so that students can then understand the subjects.

So, does the Theory of Natural Selection (what they call “biological evolution” in the bill) have scientific weaknesses? Go back to the beginning of this essay and review the definitions of Scientific Weaknesses that can be directly constructed from the guidelines of the Scientific Method.

• Does the Theory of Natural Selection failure to offer testable hypotheses? Certainly not. It not only explains how species emerge from other species, but offers an explanation about how those new species are generated by pressure from the environment (“descent with modification”). Tons of fossil evidence and live animal evidence has been collected for hundreds of years that all confirm this. Natural Selection, which requires vast amounts of time to happen, predicts that the earth is quite a lot older than the age inferred from Biblical Scholarship. Rather than thousands of years, the Earth would have to be at least millions, if not billions, of years old. Indeed, radiological dating of rocks from both Earth and our Moon confirms this; the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old, plenty old for Natural Selection to have worked its effects. Natural Selection also predicted a biological source of inheritance information, and this was later confirmed by genetics and discovered much later to be DNA.
• Does the Theory of Natural Selection fail to generate feasible, plausible experiments? Certainly not. If transitions in the fossil record are predicted, one needs to them scour the Earth for fossil evidence. If one wishes to test whether the environment can change a species, one needs only to observe animals in their natural habitats or perform controlled breeding experiments with animals, bacterial cultures, etc. The Theory of Natural Selection generates tons of plausible, feasible experiments.
• Does Natural Selection refuse to adjust in the face of disconfirming evidence? Not at all. In fact, hypotheses based on the original theory of Natural Selection have been refuted; rather than decimating the Theory, it instead led to a refinement of the hypotheses generated by the Theory. This led to a better understanding of nature. This is a hallmark of an outstanding Scientific Theory. For instance, it was assumed by the early proponents of Natural Selection that rapid periods of selection could not be possible, because Natural Selection takes so long to work. However, the incredible leap in the diversity of biological forms in the Cambrian Period would seem to challenge this idea. The HOX gene [13] is a family of related genes that cause body plans in living organisms to change rather rapidly, and these genes can be switched on and off rather easily. The result is that when sources of energy (nutrients, oxygen) are abundant, as they were during the Cambrian, an explosion of biological diversity can occur in just millions of years.

You can continue along on your own, but you’ll find that Natural Selection (or Climate Science) doesn’t fail these tests. In fact, as with any well-established Scientific Theory it has been put through so many tests that it doesn’t easily fail these basic “Scientific Weakness” tests. It is only logical fallacies, pseudoscience, or anti-science that easily and readily fails these ideas. Consider intelligent design. The proponents of ID refuse to revise their hypotheses in the face of disconfirming evidence. They spend most of their time noting places where data is incomplete in the biological record, and cite that as a weakness of Natural Selection and thus confirmation of Intelligent Design. But, this is the application of the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is either evidence of absence, or evidence for another idea. These are, in fact, CLASSIC Scientific Weaknesses. If anything fails the Scientific Weakness tests, it’s the very ideas that have failed in the scientific world and have been snuck into public school by back-handed and back-channel means.

Where to go from here

So, where so we go from here? There seem to be a few things we can all do:

1. Remain vigilant. The forces of anti-science will not stop just because they lose another legal battle. They will re-structure their attacks in an attempt to weaken our education system. They may try to couch it in scientific-sounding, or legally sound, language. They may be coming for biology and climate science now, but they’ll come for math, physics, and chemistry eventually. Failure to stop them now is not a guarantee that they will stop with one science.
2. Speak out and educate. Be an active citizen scientist, writing articles for your neighborhood newsletter or partnering with local schools to get kids excited about science. When scientists are viewed as friends and neighbors, it’s harder to dismiss us as “them” or “others.”
3. Be outspoken about the nature of science and what it means to actually be “scientifically weak.” Point out the strengths of scientific ideas, rather than railing against the weaknesses of anti-science or pseudoscience. Speaking poorly of those ideas is the same as failing to say anything useful about your own.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epperson_vs._Arkansas

[3] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

[4] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/578/case.html

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

[8] http://ncse.com/news/2012/01/intelligent-design-bill-missouri-007092

[9] http://ncse.com/news/2011/12/antievolution-legislation-new-hampshire-006996

[10] http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/22/oklahoma-gop-introduces-bill-that-attacks-evolution-and-climate-change/

[11] http://ncse.com/news/2012/04/monkey-bill-enacted-tennessee-007299

[12] http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB0368.pdf

[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.