From: LARRY KLAES (ljk4_at_msn.com)
Date: Tue Feb 17 2004 - 07:13:06 PST
>From: Bob Carroll <sdnews_at_skepdic.com>
>To: sdnews_at_skepdic.com
>Subject: Skeptic's Dictionary Newsletter 38
>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 06:53:35 -0800
>
>
>
>the Skeptic's Dictionary Newsletter 38
>
>February 16, 2003
>
>"All pseudoscience is homeopathic: the less content it has, the more
>popular it is." --Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer
>
>In this issue: A few additions; Ken Wilber; VortexHealing® and Angel Card
>therapy; the nauseating Sea-Band; Kennewick Man; Scientologists as Drug
>Free Ambassadors; and a few words about some books.
>
>PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD! Tell your friends and colleagues about The
>Skeptic's Dictionary Newsletter. Remind them that the newsletter is FREE.
>To subscribe, just send an e-mail to sdsubscribe_at_skepdic.com. Note: I don't
>give or sell e-mail addresses to anyone.
>
>Do not respond to this e-mail. Send feedback to sdfeedback_at_skepdic.com. To
>unsubscribe send a blank email to sdunsubscrib_at_skepdic.com.
>
>Changes in The Skeptic's Dictionary and Skeptic's Refuge
> * There have been several new entries to the What's the Harm? page.
>
><file:///C:/http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/harm.html#aids>Alternative AIDS
>treatment
>
><file:///C:/http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/harm.html#magic>Another
>alternative AIDS treatment
>
><file:///C:/http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/harm.html#religion>Religious
>prophet starves child to death
> * There have been several additions to the Mass Media Funk page:
>
><file:///C:/http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk37.html#fengshui>Assemblyman
>wants feng shui in the California Building Code
>
><file:///C:/http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk37.html#georgia>"Evolution"
>out, then back in, in Georgia
>
><file:///C:/http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk37.html#design>Some thoughts
>on the implications of craniopagus
>parasiticus<file:///C:/http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk37.html#design>
>for intelligent design theory
>
><file:///C:/http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk37.html>Evangelical rapture
> * There have been a few additions to the Mass Media Bunk page:
>
><file:///C:/http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk22.html#birdbones>The girl
>with x-ray vision
>
><file:///C:/http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk22.html#astrology>Astrological
>readings of Democratic hopefuls
>in<file:///C:/http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk22.html#astrology> NY Times
>
><file:///C:/http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk22.html#lies>Lie-detector
>glasses
> * I also posted some reader comments on
>
><file:///C:/http://www.skepdic.com/comments/lucidcom.html>lucid dreaming
>
><file:///C:/http://www.skepdic.com/comments/creatcom.html>creationism
>
>and <file:///C:/http://www.skepdic.com/comments/satcom.html>12-step
>programs.
>
>Ken Wilber
>
>I have had several requests to do an article on Ken Wilber. In an earlier
>newsletter (<file:///C:/http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter4.html>#4), I
>stated that after reading an
><file:///C:/http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/habermas/index.cfm/xid,1898203/yid,32644213>interview
>with Mr. Wilber, which I found unintelligible, I doubted that it would be
>in this lifetime that I would get around to reading him. But things have
>changed. I've been reading Dean Radin's The Conscious Universe (in
>preparation for my new course Critical Thinking about the Paranormal and
>the Occult) and Radin claims that Ken Wilber is the greatest philosopher of
>science alive today. (Radin has a penchant for exaggeration.) I also met a
>gentleman on the golf course who, once he found out I teach philosophy,
>told me about this philosophy book he was reading that he thought was just
>great and really resonated with him. It was Ken Wilber's A Brief History of
>Everything. I bought a copy.
>
>The Foreword is written by media guru
><file:///C:/http://home.nyc.rr.com/tonyschwartz/>Tony Schwartz, who tells
>us that in 1986 he set out on his own "search for wisdom" and found Ken
>Wilber to be "far and away the most cogent and penetrating voice in the
>recent emergence of uniquely American wisdom." Schwartz also reminds us
>that Wilber published his first philosophy book when he was only
>twenty-three years old. He had dropped out of graduate school (where he was
>studying biochemistry) and became a
><file:///C:/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/>Hegelian of sorts,
>weaving Freud, Buddha,
><file:///C:/http://www.miraura.org/lit/sa/sabcl.html>Aurobindo and others
>into the unfolding stages of Spirit in the Kosmos. I think Schwartz is
>partly correct in his assessment of Wilber's popularity: He appeals to
>"those of us grappling to find wisdom in our everyday lives, but bewildered
>by the array of potential paths to truth that so often seem to contradict
>one another." Wilber's appeal will be greater, however, if you are also
>philosophically and scientifically untutored.
>
>Wilber obviously took a liking to Hegel and his view that history is
>spiritual, purposive, and ultimately intelligible. Everything has its
>reason and contains something of the truth. Wilber appeals to those
>romantics among us who desire everything to make sense, who find
>atheism/materialism/mechanism incapable of fulfilling their need for
>transformation. Wilber, one of the "fathers" of
><file:///C:/http://www.itp.edu/about/tp.html>transpersonal psychology,
>unites various philosophical traditions, eastern and western, into a kind
>of <file:///C:/http://www.skepdic.com/vitalism.html>vitalistic teleology
>that promises enlightenment and fulfillment for individuals and the Kosmos.
>
>If you do not believe in the existence of spirit, either personal spirits
>or one Big Spirit driving the universe, then Wilber's insights are unlikely
>to resonate with you. Wilber's Note to the Reader isn't too bad, however.
>It is clearly written and sets out his plan to "deal with" everything from
>the "material cosmos and the emergence of life" to "the Divine Domain." He
>lets us know early on that he considers the present state of the Kosmos to
>be dreadful. He calls it "flatland" and "one-dimensional." (He tells us on
>p. 19 that he prefers Kosmos to cosmos because that's the term the
>Pythagoreans used and they meant "the patterned nature or process of all
>domains of existence, from matter to mind to God, and not merely the
>physical universe...." Fair play to him.) Wilber does not like this
>postmodern world but it does provide him with a living as one who can
>discover "the radiant Spirit at work, even in our own apparently
>God-forsaken times."
>
>Forty years ago, Herbert Marcuse also expressed concern over this
>"one-dimensional world." Marcuse was a very popular professor when I was a
>student at UC San Diego. His most well-known book at the time was
><file:///C:/http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0807014176/roberttoddcarrolA/>One
>Dimensional Man:
><file:///C:/http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0807014176/roberttoddcarrolA/>Studies
>in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. The one dimension Marcuse
>wrote about, however, is not the same one Wilber writes about. Wilber
>thinks we've lost the spiritual dimension. Marcuse believed that we'd lost
>the ability to see that the world we live in is not the only possible
>world, that we'd become so repressed by the
><file:///C:/http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/marcuse/works/one-dimensional-man/ch01.htm>totalitarian
>powers-that-be that we've deluded ourselves into thinking that our lives
>are free when in fact we've become enslaved. Marcuse didn't think that
>spirituality was the answer. He thought we'd lost the ability to think
>critically, which for him meant the ability to criticize our
>consumer-driven society. (I find it interesting, though, that the
>passionate pleas of socialists and anti-globalizationists are sometimes
>indistinguishable from the pleas of New Age alternative religionists.)
>
>Marcuse would have seen those who seek to transcend this world for
>something "higher" and "spiritual" as being symptoms of what's wrong with
>the world. He would have called their solace in Spirit reactionary. Marcuse
>would have lumped together the folks pushing alternative religions (under
>whatever name) with the devotees of astrology, mediums, and other
>irrationalities of our time. Marcuse's ideal man today might be someone
>like <file:///C:/http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/chomsky.home.html>Noam
>Chomsky. There might be some hope for society, thought Marcuse, if enough
>of us could criticize the dominant ideology and envision a world where men
>and women don't exploit each other, where rich nations don't exploit poor
>nations, and where human beings don't see the planet as their little
>plaything put here for their amusement and to satisfy their lust and greed.
>The kind of transcendence Marcuse called for involves transcending
>ideology. Our one-dimensionality, he thought, was to be found in our
>worship of the values of the ideology of "advanced industrial society" or
>what today might be called "the global economy."
>
>Marcuse would not have seen skeptics as providing much hope, either. True,
>we criticize irrationality, but from Marcuse's point of view our activities
>are harmless and no threat to the dominant ideology. Hence, skeptics are as
>much a part of the problem as are the Wilber's of the world. Marcuse was a
>brilliant man but he was not a scientist and his heroes were Freud and
>Marx. I wonder what his work would have looked like had he been influenced
>by Darwin instead. A pointless wonder, so let's move on.
>
>Before I write anything about the content of Wilber's book, I must first
>comment on his style. The book is written in dialogue form...sort of. One
>of the characters is Q and the other is KW. However, Q is also KW. The book
>is Ken Wilber asking himself questions, giving himself answers, and
>commenting on his own questions and answers. This is not dialogue as Plato,
>Galileo, Berkeley, or Hume used dialogue: to put forth opposing viewpoints
>and criticize them. Wilber is only interested in putting forth his own
>viewpoint.
>
>Okay; now to the content. I found the first chapter well written, clear,
>and interesting. Wilber shows that he has a good sense of humor and is
>knowledgeable in many fields, including evolutionary psychology. The
>introduction is about men and women, male and female, the battle of the
>sexes. It's interesting and not New Agey at all until near the end. On page
>11, Wilber gives us his definition of flatland: "the idea that the sensory
>and empirical and material world is the only world there is. There are no
>higher or deeper potentials available to us--no higher stages of
>consciousness evolution, for example. There is merely what we can see with
>our senses or grasp with our hands. It is a world bereft of any Ascending
>energy at all, completely hollow of any transcendence." This seems to be a
>rather common, if twisted and distorted, view of New Age spiritual people
>toward atheistic materialists. We're seen as joyless hedonists, incapable
>of higher order pleasures such as love or friendship. From my perspective,
>it is these spiritual folks who are pursuing a hollow transcendence by
>chasing after chimeras. The atheistic materialist is much more likely to be
>able to see that true transcendence is the ability to see beyond the
>present state of the world to a better state here on this planet in the
>near future.
>
>In the first chapter Wilber tells us that he likes Arthur Koestler's
>concept of the holon so much that he believes it can form the basis of his
>metaphysics: "the world is not composed of atoms or symbols or cells or
>concepts. It is composed of holons" (21). According to Koestler, a holon is
>something that is itself a whole while simultaneously being part of some
>other whole. This concept of seeing reality as infinite nesting strikes
>Wilber as profound. It strikes me as pointless. But it's his book. He even
>goes so far as to claim that "Even the 'Whole' of the Kosmos is simply a
>part of the next moment's whole, indefinitely." Yes, I suppose so, but so
>what? Like other Hegelians, Wilber enjoys this vision of Spirit unfolding
>itself moment by moment. At least it gives the history of the universe a
>direction, a point. This is comforting to many people. To claim that we're
>evolving toward some grand spiritual goal is positively thrilling to many
>of these folks. Apparently, such a vision gives hope and meaning to
>people's lives. To me, it makes us pawns of some grand Spirit. We only have
>meaning as a means to an end that we have no part in creating. I find such
>a vision demeaning.
>
>When Wilber attempts to describe the characteristics of holons it becomes
>clear that his vision is essentially vitalism all over again. Holons have
>drives to maintain their wholeness and their partness. In other words,
>everything has a built-in spirit that moves it to be what it is and to
>fulfill its purpose. Up to this point, Wilber is simply offering a
>counter-metaphysical view to atheism/materialism and it is the world view
>of the 19th century German romantic philosophers like Hegel. It's
>vitalistic and teleological. Thus far he's just talking philosophy. It
>happens to be a philosophy I think is outdated and uninteresting, but I
>can't say it's false. All I can say is that I don't find it attractive or
>compelling.
>
>Then, however, he starts making claims that are not philosophical, but are
>empirical and most certainly false. For example, he writes: "The standard,
>glib, neo-Darwinian explanation of natural selection--absolutely nobody
>believes this anymore. Evolution clearly operates in part by Darwinian
>natural selection, but this process simply selects those transformations
>that have already occurred by mechanisms that absolutely nobody
>understands" (22). This is complete rubbish. Almost everybody who knows
>anything about biology does still believe this! Wilber and his admirers
>should read Richard Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker and Daniel Dennet's
>Darwin's Dangerous Idea. I'm not going to waste my time here trying to
>correct this nonsense. I will comment, though, on Wilber's example to prove
>his point.
>
>Take the standard notion that wings simply evolved from forelegs. It takes
>perhaps a hundred mutations to produce a functional wing from a leg--a
>half-wing will not do. A half-wing is no good as a leg and no good as a
>wing--you can't run and you can't fly. It has no adaptive value whatsoever.
>In other words, with a half-wing you are dinner. The wing will work only if
>these hundred mutations happen all at once, in one animal--also these same
>mutations must occur simultaneously in another animal of the opposite sex,
>and they have to somehow find each other, have dinner, a few drinks, mate,
>and have offspring with real functional wings.
>Talk about mind-boggling. This in infinitely, absolutely, utterly
>mind-boggling. Random mutations cannot even begin to explain this....But
>once this incredible transformation has occurred, then natural selection
>will indeed select the better wings from the less workable wings--but the
>wings themselves? Nobody has a clue.
>For the moment, everybody has simply agreed to call this "quantum
>evolution" or "punctuated equilibrium" or "emergent evolution"--radically
>novel and emergent and incredibly complex holons come into existence in a
>huge leap, in a quantum-like fashion--with no evidence whatsoever of
>intermediated forms. Dozens or hundreds of simultaneous nonlethal mutations
>have to happen at the same time in order to survive at all--the wing, for
>example, or the eyeball. (22-23)
>
>We've all heard these same nonsensical arguments from creation scientists
>and defenders of intelligent design. I suppose the reason Wilber can write
>such rubbish and get away with it is that his readers are just as ignorant
>of evolutionary theory as he is. Wilber assumes that
><file:///C:/http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_2.html>a partial
>wing would mean non-survival. He assumes that the
><file:///C:/http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/essays/miscncpt.html>many
>functions of the eye could not have been useful to survival except if taken
>all together. These assumptions are unwarranted. It is false to claim that
>nobody believes natural selection any more and that everybody has agreed to
>the notion of punctuated equilibrium.
>
>Wilber doesn't put forth these false claims about evolution in order to
>promote creationism or intelligent design, however. He puts them forth to
>support his simplistic teleological vitalism, which he grandly calls the
>drive to self-transcendence of the Kosmos.
>
>I have to admit that after seeing Wilber dismiss one of the greatest
>scientific ideas ever in a few paragraphs of half-truths and lies, I found
>it hard to continue reading....and I was only on page 23! I forged ahead,
>however, telling myself that it couldn't get much worse.
>
>I was wrong.
>
>Just two pages later Wilber launches into a tirade against the
>"reductionist frenzy that has plagued Western science virtually from its
>inception." Wilber is against any reductionism except the reduction of
>everything to dynamic Spirit. He notes that his view is shared by
>"religious creationists" and that there has been "a recent warming in some
>scientific circles" to his way of thinking. The only scientific circles
>warm to this idea would be the intelligent design folks and the
>parapsychologists (as described and defended by Dean Radin). In their
>view, science made a wrong turn when it became naturalistic and excluded
>supernatural explanations from its domain. They'd like to drag us back to
>the 16th century or earlier. To me, they're just sore losers. The battle
>over where the line between science and non-science should be drawn may
>still be debatable, but almost everybody agrees that the supernatural
>belongs on the other side of the line.
>
>That's just chapter one. I have to admit that I have little incentive to
>read on, but I am curious as to how Wilber handles the issue of freedom.
>Are these holons we call human beings just playthings of Spirit? I'll have
>to read more to find out. Don't hold your breath, but I might write a part
>two on Wilber's Brief History of Everything.
>
>***
>
>Quackery of the Hour
>
>Helen Mapson recommended this hour's winner. It is Ric Weinman's
>VortexHealing® Institute. His English may not be so good, but that may be
>because Dutch is his first language (though Colorado is his home). Here's
>the pitch:
>
>Many of us are deeply interested in learning to clear the roots of our
>issues. We're tired of living in our stuck emotional and behavioral
>patterns, and we have realized that simply blaming external circumstances
>for our feelings and behaviors has done little to improve our quality of
>life.
>
>I've been trying to clear the roots of my issues for years. According to
>Ric, Vortex Healing really works because it's been tested on musical
>instruments! I didn't know my guitar had roots that needed to be cleared. I
>learn something new every day. Life is good.
>
>Coming in a close second this hour is something we might call Tarot with
>wings:
>
><file:///C:/http://www.holisticshop.co.uk/library/angel_cards.html>Working
>With Angel Cards
>
><file:///C:/http://www.vortexhealing.com/>VortexHealing® Institute
>
><file:///C:/http://www.vortexhealing.com/draco1.html>Musical instrument
>Tests
>
>***
>
>The Sea-Band Acupressure Wrist Band
>
>A press release from Kathleen Van Gorden of KVG Communications (phone
>401.454.7591; e-mail: kathleenv_at_kvgcom.com) was posted on Yahoo News on
>February 10th. The headline read:
>
>FDA Approves Sea-Band Acupressure Wristband For the Relief of Nausea Due to
>Motion Sickness, Morning Sickness, Chemotherapy and Post-Operative Causes
>
>The press release, however, does not claim that the FDA approved the
>wristband for relief of nausea or any other symptom. It states that the FDA
>granted Sea-Brand International "clearance to market the 'Sea-Band'
>acupressure wristband for the relief of nausea caused by motion sickness,
>morning sickness, chemotherapy and post-operative nausea." What's the
>difference between approving a device and granting clearance to market a
>device. Plenty.
>
>FDA approval means some sort of testing of the device has gone on and the
>device is safe and effective. FDA clearance means something else. In this
>case it means that the FDA agreed with the applicant that there are already
>several similar or identical devices that are legally being sold in the
>United States. The FDA's ruling is public and states:
>
>We have reviewed your [Sea-Band Ltd.] Section 51 0(k) premarket
>notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have
>determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for
>use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed
>in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976, the enactment date of the
>Medical Device Amendments, or to devices that have been reclassified in
>accordance with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
>(Act) that do not require approval of a premarket approval application
>(PMA). You may, therefore, market the device, subject to the general
>controls provisions of the Act. The general controls provisions of the Act
>include requirements for annual registration, listing of devices, good
>manufacturing practice, labeling, and prohibitions against misbranding and
>adulteration.
>
>If I understand this bit of FDA gobbledygook, the FDA did not test this
>device and by law had to give clearance to Sea-Band because other devices,
>which the FDA may or may not have tested, are already legally marketed in
>the US. By no means did the FDA approve the device. It approved the
>marketing of the device, which is a very different matter. This difference
>is easily glossed over in the press release. Many readers, especially those
>prone to believe anything "alternative," will no doubt cite this as proof
>that acupressure or acupuncture really works. After all, the FDA approves
>it!
>
>Note. I am not saying the device doesn't work, only that it has not been
>tested by the FDA. Leonard Nihan, the president of Sea-Band International,
>is quoted in the press release as saying that "Studies have shown that by
>alleviating nausea Sea-Bands can effectively reduce healthcare costs
>[italics added]." That may be true, but what I would like to know is
>whether any studies have shown that the Sea-Band effectively reduces
>nausea. I have contacted Ms. Van Gorden for this information and will let
>you know if she responds.
>
>However, even if the Sea-Band relieves nausea and is cheaper than drugs, it
>is a waste of money. It is nothing more than a wrist band with a button on
>it. When you feel nauseous, you press on the button. Do I need the band?
>No. If acupressure works, all I need do is press on a spot about where one
>would take a pulse on the wrist. If I need a visual aid, I could always
>mark the spot with an x.
>
><file:///C:/http://prn.newscom.com/cgi-bin/pub/s?f=PRN/prnpub&p1=20040210-NETU005&xtag=PRN-prnphotos-36977&redir=preview&tr=1&row=1>Picture
>of the Sea-Band
>
><file:///C:/http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040210/netu005_1.html>FDA Approves
>Sea-Band Acupressure Wristband
>
><file:///C:/http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf3/k033268.pdf>The FDA Decision
>
>***
>
>Kennewick Man
>
>James Randi wrote some very eloquent words about the recent court decision
>to allow scientists to study the bones that may or may not be those of a
>Native American. Rather than be repetitious, I refer you to
><file:///C:/http://www.randi.org/jr/020604monk.html#15>Randi's commentary.
>
>***
>
>Scientologists as "Drug Free Ambassadors"
>
>How could anyone oppose a group promoting themselves as "Drug Free
>Ambassadors" and their program as "Kids For A Drug Free Future"? Easy, if
>the group is a gaggle of Scientologists. A city in Australia was quite
>upset when they found out that the Scientologists had been invited to join
>their festival under false pretenses. The city fathers felt the
>Scientologists had a hidden agenda, namely to promote Scientology. The
>group was passing out an anti-drug booklet that states on its final page:
>"Learn more about the discoveries of L. Ron Hubbard and his workable
>technologies that get people off drugs." I wonder if the city would have
>complained if the booklet had said: "Learn more about the discoveries of
>Jesus Christ and his teachings that get people off drugs"? We'll never
>know.
>
><file:///C:/http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8538849^2862,00.html>Cult
>aims at kids' shows
>
>***
>
>Books
>
>If you enjoy books along the lines of Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies
>in the Name of Science or James Randi's Flim-Flam! then you will love
><file:///C:/http://www.mchristopherfoundation.org/biography.html>Milbourne
>Christopher's (1914-1984) ESP, Seers and Psychics (1970). It's out of
>print, but there are many used copies available from
><file:///C:/http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0690268157/roberttoddcarrolA/>Amazon.com.
>Christopher was a magician and mentalist. His story of the occult, the
>paranormal, and the pseudoscientific is told from the point of view of an
>expert in deception. It's delightful reading and you may pick up a few
>tricks along the way.
>
>**
>
>Another delightful book is
><file:///C:/http://www.casebook.org/authors/obituaries/mharris.html>Melvin
>Harris's (1930-2004)
><file:///C:/http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=1591021081/roberttoddcarrolA/>Investigating
>the Unexplained (Prometheus 2003), which seems to be a reprint of
>Sorry--You've Been Duped (1986). (A hardback version of Investigating the
>Unexplained was published by Prometheus in 1987.) Harris's book is a
>series of personal narratives on a variety of paranormal and supernatural
>topics that resulted from his investigations as a reporter for the BBC. I
>especially enjoyed the chapters on Bloxham and the claims of evidence for
>reincarnation.
>
>**
>
><file:///C:/http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=1591020484/roberttoddcarrolA/>Hoaxes,
>Myths, and Manias - Why We Need Critical Thinking by Robert E. Bartholomew
>and Benjamin Radford (Prometheus 2003) is a clearly written series of
>narratives, mostly by sociologist Bartholomew, on topics ranging from
>monkey men in India to the strange practice of latah in Malaysia to the
>aliens of Roswell. The interesting twist to this book is the attempt to
>turn each narrative into an exercise in critical thinking with review
>questions. For those interested in latah and other exotic deviances, I
>suggest you read the book. If nothing else, you should come away thinking
>more about the blurry line between normal and whatever. Bartholomew is the
>author of a book I haven't read called
><file:///C:/http://www.forteantimes.com/review/exoticdeviance.shtml>Exotic
>Deviance. Great title.
>
>**
>
>You may hear of a new book by UK journalist Francis Wheen called How
>Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World: A Short History of Modern Delusions
>(Fourth Estate 2004). Wheen covers many of the same subjects as The
>Skeptic's Dictionary but he offers a theory as to why the whole world
>believes weird things that you will not find either in my book or in
>Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things. The real reason the
>world has gone mad is Margaret Thatcher. Or something like that. Here are
>links to two reviews, one positive and one negative, of Wheen's book.
>
>+David McKie of The Guardian -
><file:///C:/http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1141920,00.html>Twaddle
>unswaddled
>
>-John Gray of The Independent -
><file:///C:/http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=485862&host=5&dir=207>Lament
>for the light brigade
>
>Wheen has named his top ten modern delusions. I especially like #4. We
>mustn't be "judgmental." This is the rationale used by all those folks--and
>their numbers seem to keep growing--who claim it's only fair that
>intelligent design be taught as an alternative to any other scientific
>theory of evolution now taught. Scientists need not concern themselves with
>what is good or bad science. They should concern themselves with "balance"
>and "both sides."
>
>What is the other side's view on gravity? electricity? the Pythagorean
>theorem? Which begs the question: Is our children learning?
>
><file:///C:/http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0204a/02evolution.html>Georgia
>
><file:///C:/http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/02/08/loc_bronson08.html>Ohio
>
><file:///C:/http://www.mlive.com/news/fljournal/index.ssf?/base/news-19/1076344081308880.xml>Michigan
>
><file:///C:/http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4376057.html>Minnesota
>
><file:///C:/http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1452&dept_id=155076&newsid=10909451&PAG=461&rfi=9>Missouri
>
><file:///C:/http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2004/02/04/news/local/znews01.txt>Montana
>
>Chris Mooney:
><file:///C:/http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/harvard-design/>It just
>takes one
>
><file:///C:/http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/0211science.html>Scientists
>to lobby board on biology plan
>
>***
>
>I also like Wheen's delusion #6. Astrology and similar delusions are
>"harmless fun."
>
><file:///C:/http://books.guardian.co.uk/top10s/top10/0,6109,1140156,00.html>Francis
>Wheen's top 10 modern delusions
>
><file:///C:/http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/harm.html>What's the harm?
>
>***
>
>I'll finish up this newsletter with a quote from UC Davis anthropology
>professor Sandy Harcourt:
>
>"If the continued existence of the creationists' God depends on our
>ignorance of the world, no wonder creationists are trying to stifle
>science."
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Say “good-bye” to spam, viruses and pop-ups with MSN Premium -- free trial
offer! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Tue Feb 17 2004 - 07:22:51 PST