Vaccination vitriol

If you react to people challenging your beliefs by calling them frauds, shills, or sellouts, it's a pretty good indication that you're on shaky ground yourself.

The topic comes up because of the response the anti-vaxxers had to the shift in allegiance of a woman named Carmit, whose decision not to be vaccinated for whooping cough resulted in her newborn contracting the disease.

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

Carmit realized her role in her infant's illness, and made a plea for pregnant women to receive a whooping cough booster so that others would not have to go through what she and her daughter did.  "I wish I could turn back time," she said.

Her widely-publicized video brought the anti-vaxxers howling out of the woodwork.  Here's a sampling of the vitriol Carmit had thrown her way.

From someone who evidently has never heard of the No True Scotsman fallacy (or punctuation):

[I]f she's a true anti-vaxxer she'd know about viral shedding from a recently vaxxed person coming too close to her baby It's a RED HERRING The PR trolls must be getting desperate to stoop to this crap You can almost see them sitting around their table working out their next strategy to divide and conquer the "troops"

Well, to start with, whooping cough is caused by a bacteria (Bordetella pertussis), not a virus.  And even with a vaccine for a viral disease, you don't "shed" live virus after being vaccinated.  But why bother with science, right?

Then we have someone saying that there's no way that an honest person could have evaluated the facts and changed her mind:

What a crock of crap.  No anti vaxxer upon learning the truth, there is no going back... ever. 

Then she started to have accusations of being a fake, someone hired by the hospital or the pharmaceuticals industry to hoodwink people:

This woman looks so familiar im [sic] trying to find out from where...  I know I jave [sic] seen her before and thats [sic] a bit sus [sic] as i too think it might all be made up

I just wonder if it's a made up story and she's a paid pharma actor.  Can anyone get her image and use google image search to see if you can find her real name. 

Shill!  She should be ashamed of herself!

Then we heard about how the hospital set the whole thing up:

So many weeks in hospital, sleep deprived, you can be brainwashed to believe anything and they push hard at you with multiple doctors.  My suspicion is that they gave the baby antibiotics which makes whooping cough worse and they have taken advantage of her and got her to read from a script. 

After that, the accusations became even wilder -- including that Carmit's daughter in the video was actually a doll:

GC health is running a campaign to increase pregnant mum vaccines.  The lady is a paid actor with a doll.  It's going ballistic and makeing [sic] people think pregnant women need a shot to save their baby from whooping c.

I'm 95% sure she's holding a doll. 

The kids [sic] neck looks like it's about to break and you never see it move or breath during the whole video.  The lady really does have a baby but this may just be a fake to scare us all. 

Sweetie this is a fake prop baby.  I've been in the film industry for over 25 years.  She is an actress and that is a doll.  Jeez. 

Others chimed in with suggestions for what she could have done instead:

That's Bullshit she doesn't need willing [sic] cough vax she just needs to build up immune system with colloidal silver.

Right.  Colloidal silver.  Which besides being generally useless, has as a side effect turning your skin blue-gray -- permanently.

And then we hear that this is a false flag to distract us from discredited anti-vaxx researcher Andrew Wakefield's film Vaxxed, which came out on the same day as Carmit posted her video:

This story came out on the same day that Vaxxed was released.  The biggest load of crap propaganda.  Have you watched the video?  Obviously an actor.  And her "baby" doesn't move or even breathe.  I call bullshit.

And finally, we reach Conspiracy Theory Nirvana, wherein we find out that the entire story is made up -- neither Carmit nor her baby is real:

That whole story is made up.  It's part of the pro-vax campaign.  Campaigns are organised, so this story is too.  The story is full of contradictions and other absurdities.  Even if you don't know anything about the topic then still it's a very strange story that should raise a lot of red flags.

The whole thing is nauseating.  It's appalling that someone would be so desperate to cling to their counterfactual stance that they would respond to a challenge with slander, accusations of lying, and even doubts that the challenger exists.  What, are you so sure of yourself that you can't imagine anyone looking at the facts and coming to a different conclusion?

Or are you just aware you're on such thin ice that you lash out at anyone who points it out?

In any case, I'll end with a wish for continued good health for Carmit and her daughter.  I'm deeply sorry that on top of illness, you're having to put up with threats, accusations, and libel.  But at least this shows up the anti-vaxxers for what they are; anti-science, anti-fact, and more concerned with their preconceived notions than they are with truth or compassion.

Here comes the sun

If you needed further evidence of why we need sound science education -- and what happens when we don't -- look no further than "Sun Gazing: Why I Stare At the Sun," over at the site in5d Esoteric, Metaphysical, and Spiritual Database.

And in case you're thinking, "No... that headline can't really mean what it sounds like it means," unfortunately it does.

[image courtesy of NASA]

Right out of the starting gate, we're told that all of the stuff we've been told about sun exposure causing skin cancer, skin damage, and sun blindness is wrong.  "All of these things," the author tells us, "have little to do really with the sun."

In fact, the opposite is true.  Sun exposure heals melanoma.

So then, what causes skin cancer and sun blindness?  Respectively, the answers are: toxins (of course), and...

... glasses.

Lest you think I'm making this up, here's the relevant passage:

Your skin is your largest eliminatory organ, whereby unprocessed toxins are released through the skin’s pores. Interactions between the toxins and the sun’s rays, bring about what we know of, as skin cancer. 

Skin damage, such as leathering of the skin, is caused by lack of EFA’s in the diet. Sun blindness or damage to the eyes, is caused by the use of corrective lenses. Glasses, and contact lenses both, cause an unnatural glare on the eyes, when exposed to the sun. This can cause serious damage to the eyes over time.

EFAs are never defined in the article, but I found out that it stands for "essential fatty acids," i.e., linoleic acid and alpha-linoleic acid.  So apparently if you consume enough of those, sunburn isn't a problem.

We're also told that sunscreen causes cancer.  So use sesame oil instead.  Presumably that way you'll hear a nice crackling sound as you sit in the sun, similar to chicken wings hitting the oil in a deep fat fryer.

Then we get to the main gist of the article, which suggests that we spend up to fifteen minutes a day staring at the sun.  It has to be near sunrise or sunset, though:

The practice entails looking at the rising or setting sun one time per day only during the safe hours.  No harm will come to your eyes during the morning and evening safe hours.  The safe hours are anytime within 1-hour window after sunrise or anytime within the 1-hr window before sunset.  It is scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt that during these times, one is free from UV and IR rays exposure, which is harmful to your eyes.

Righty-o.  It is "scientifically proven" that the sun waits for an hour after rising to switch on its ultraviolet and infrared rays, probably after it's had its second cup of coffee.

Then we're given a variety of puzzling statements and directives:

• Food makes us commit the maximum pain to others and exploit others. 
• You have to walk barefoot for 45 minutes for the rest of your life. 
• The sun energy or the sunrays passing through the human eye are charging the hypothalamus tract, which is the pathway behind the retina leading to the human brain.  As the brain receives the power supply through this pathway, it is activated into a brainutor.  One of the software programs inherent in the brain will start running and we will begin to realize the changes since we will have no mental tension or worries.
• 70 to 80% of the energy synthesized from food is taken by the brain and is used up in fueling tensions and worries.
• The Pineal gland has certain psychic and navigational functions.  Navigational means one can fly like the birds.
• After 6-months of sungazing you will start to have the original form of micro food, which is our sun.  Additionally, this can avoid the toxic waste that you take into your body while you eat regular food.
• Photosynthesis, which we misunderstand, does not in fact need chlorophyll.

So science be damned, apparently.  But that won't matter to you, because after nine months of staring at the sun, "you have become a solar cooker."

And no, I did not make that statement up, either.

It's kind of funny that despite the fact that the author is unequivocal about how wonderful sun gazing is, (s)he seems to be aware that this article is 100% unadulterated horseshit.  At the beginning of the article is the following disclaimer:

PLEASE NOTE: This sungazing information is for educational purposes only. We do not recommend sungazing to anyone. If you are considering sun gazing, please research this as much as possible.

I dunno, sure as hell sounded like you were recommending it to me.  But in case we were uncertain about that point, it's reiterated at the end:

Disclaimer: The information on this web site is presented for the purpose of educational and free exchange of ideas and speech in relation to health and awareness only. It is not intended to diagnose any physical or mental condition. It is not intended as a substitute for the advice and treatment of a licensed professional. The author of this website is neither a legal counselor nor a health practitioner and makes no claims in this regard.

I'm no legal expert either, but what does the statement "After 3-6 months of sun gazing, physical diseases will start to be cured" sound like to you?

As far as I can see, you can't just give people bogus medical advice and then get away with it by saying at the end, "Please note: This bogus medical advice is not actually medical advice!"

I'd like to think that no one is gullible enough to fall for this, but you just know that there will be people who are.  Right now there are probably people out there staring at the sun in order to activate the higher vibrations of their chakras, or some such nonsense, and will spend the rest of the day walking into walls because they've burned a hole directly through their retinas.

At this point in writing this blog, I'm beginning to lose my sympathy for the people who are getting suckered.  There are laws in place to protect people from being prey of fraudulent medical advice, but at some point you just have to learn enough science to protect yourself.  There will always be charlatans out there trying to sell the newest variety of snake oil, not to mention well-intentioned people who are (to put not too fine a point on it) insane.  So arming yourself with a little bit of science is really your best bet.

That, or a good pair of sunglasses.

Alien revelations

No one would be happier than me if we got unequivocal proof of intelligent life on other planets.  It would demonstrate what I've been saying for years -- that given the right conditions, developing living organisms is straightforward and common.  It would mean that we're not alone in the cosmos, something I'd find reassuring.  And it would give us an opportunity to explore the minds of creatures whose thoughts float on a completely different biological matrix.

I mean, I'm the guy whose favorite movie is Contact.

But all wishful thinking aside, I think it's pretty unlikely that they've come here.  The distances involved are simply too large.  When you consider that the fastest man-made vehicle, the Juno spacecraft, will take five years just to get to Jupiter -- itself only one-sixth of the way out from the Sun in our own solar system -- the idea that even an advanced civilization has crossed the interstellar wastes and come in for a visit is pretty far-fetched.  Science fiction aside, faster-than-light travel really does seem to be impossible.  And fanciful proposals for ultra-fast travel, such as the Alcubierre warp drive, have yet to be proven practical or even possible.

So it was with a great deal of eye-rolling that I read a news story today about the most recent weird twist in the 2016 presidential campaign, in which Hillary Clinton's campaign manager has said that if elected, Clinton will come clean on the government's role in covering up UFOs and alien contact.

John Podesta, who not only serves as Clinton's campaign chair but was Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton, sounds pretty serious about this.  In an interview with Jake Tapper on The Lead, Podesta said it's time that the government 'fesses up:

The U.S. government could do a much better job in answering the quite legitimate questions that people have about what's going on with unidentified aerial phenomena...  What I've talked to the secretary about, and what she's said now in public, is that if she's elected president, when she gets into office, she'll ask for as many records as the United States federal government has to be declassified, and I think that's a commitment that she intends to keep and that I intend to hold her to.

Podesta's been on this kick for a while.  Last year, while working for the Obama administration, Podesta tweeted:

Finally, my biggest failure of 2014: Once again not securing the #disclosure of the UFO files. #thetruthisstilloutthere cc: @NYTimesDowd

When Tapper asked Podesta whether he believed in aliens, he sidestepped:

That's for the public to judge once they've seen all the evidence that the U.S. government has...  There are a lot of planets out there.  The American people can handle the truth.

Which certainly sounds like it's a veiled "Yes."  After all, if Podesta didn't think there had been alien contact, what would be the big deal?  He's not likely to say, "The American people can handle the truth that there haven't been any real encounters with extraterrestrials."

What's to handle?

Me, I'm skeptical.  Of course, I would be.  Every time there's been news of revelations from government regarding their role in covering up alien contacts, it's turned out to be the same old anecdotal eyewitness stuff that really isn't admissible as evidence.  After all, last year the Air Force declassified and released (online, for free) the files from Project Blue Book, and what was in there turned out to be... not much.  My guess is that even if Podesta and Clinton end up making some grand pronouncement, it's gonna be more of the same.

Even so, the conspiracy theorists are all abuzz about this.  Some are predicting that Podesta is going to be taken out before he has a chance to reveal anything.  Others say that anything Podesta says will have been screened to remove all of the interesting stuff -- just as Project Blue Book was.  Why exactly the government would be so determined to prevent us from knowing that there was intelligent life out there is never fully articulated.  They have their reasons, apparently.  The sinister, all-knowing, all-powerful They.

So we'll see what happens.  My guess is that the whole thing will fizzle, even if Clinton gets elected.  Probably all for the best.  Even if there have been visitors from another world, we have more pressing concerns at the moment, like how not to continue fucking up this world to the point that it's uninhabitable.

Scary Sophia

I find the human mind baffling, not least because the way it is built virtually guarantees that the most logical, rational, and dispassionate human being can without warning find him/herself swung around by the emotions, and in a flash end up in a morass of gut-feeling irrationality.

This happened to me yesterday because of a link a friend sent me regarding some of the latest advances in artificial intelligence.  The AI world has been zooming ahead lately, its most recent accomplishment being a computer that beat world master Fan Hui at the game of Go, long thought to be so complex and subtle that it would be impossible to program.

But after all, those sorts of things are, at their base, algorithmic.  Go might be complicated, but the rules are unvarying.  Once someone created software capable of playing the game, it was only a matter of time before further refinements allowed the computer to play so well it could defeat a human.

More interesting to me are the things that are (supposedly) unique to us humans -- emotion, creativity, love, curiosity.  This is where the field of robotics comes in, because there are researchers whose goal has been to make a robot whose interactions are so human that it is indistinguishable from the real thing.  Starting with the emotion-mimicking robot "Kismet," robotics pioneer Cynthia Breazeal has gradually been improving her design until recently she developed "Jibo," touted as "the world's first social robot."  (The link has a short video about Jibo which is well worth watching.)

But with Jibo, there was no attempt to emulate a human face.  Jibo is more like a mobile computer screen with a cartoonish eye in the middle.  So David Hanson, of Hanson Robotics, decided to take it one step further, and create a robot that not only interacts, but appears human.

The result was Sophia, a robot who is (I think) supposed to look reassuringly lifelike.  So check out this video, and see if you think that's an apt characterization:

Now let me reiterate.  I am fascinated with robotics, and I think AI research is tremendously important, not only from its potential applications but for what it will teach us about how our own minds work.  But watching Sophia talk and interact didn't elicit wonder and delight in me.  Sophia doesn't look like a cute and friendly robot who I'd like to have hanging around the house so I didn't get lonely.

Sophia reminds me of the Borg queen, only less sexy.

Okay, okay, I know.  You've got to start somewhere, and Hanson's creation is truly remarkable.  Honestly, the fact that I had the reaction I did -- which included chills rippling down my backbone and a strong desire to shut off the video -- is indicative that we're getting close to emulating human responses.  We've clearly entered the "Uncanny Valley," that no-man's-land of nearly-human-but-not-human-enough that tells us we're nearing the mark.

What was curious, though, is that it was impossible for me to shut off my emotional reaction to Sophia.  I consider myself at least average in the rationality department, and (as I said before) I am interested in and support AI research.  But I don't think I could be in the same room as Sophia.  I'd be constantly looking over my shoulder waiting for her to come at me with a kitchen knife, still wearing that knowing little smile.

And that's not even considering how she answered Hanson's last question in the video, which is almost certainly just a glitch in the software.

I hope.

So I guess I'm more emotion-driven than I thought.  I wish David Hanson and his team the best of luck in their continuing research, and I'm really glad that his company is based in Austin, Texas, because it's far enough away from upstate New York that if Sophia gets loose and goes on a murderous rampage because of what I wrote about her, I'll at least have some warning before she gets here.

Control vs. conspiracy

Being a science teacher, I'm perhaps to be excused if I think that a lot of the world's problems would be significantly mitigated if everyone learned more actual science.

It wouldn't fix everything, mind you.  Even I'm not gung-ho enough to think that.  But if we all could admit that anthropogenic climate change is real, that evolution happened, that vaccines work, that scientists aren't some kind of evil cadre of conspirators who would like nothing better than to destroy the Earth -- well, it would go a long way toward making this a much saner world.

This idea is bolstered by some research that I just ran across -- although it dates to 2008, I hadn't heard about it.  Entitled "Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception," by Jennifer Whitson and Adam Galinsky of the University of Texas, it describes research supporting the idea that when people feel confused or out of their depth, they have a tendency to see patterns that don't exist.  It's as if the mind becomes desperate to find something to hang on to, and attempts to force order from chaos.  The authors write:

Participants who lacked control were more likely to perceive a variety of illusory patterns, including seeing images in noise, forming illusory correlations in stock market information, perceiving conspiracies, and developing superstitions.  Additionally, we demonstrated that increased pattern perception has a motivational basis by measuring the need for structure directly and showing that the causal link between lack of control and illusory pattern perception is reduced by affirming the self.  Although these many disparate forms of pattern perception are typically discussed as separate phenomena, the current results suggest that there is a common motive underlying them.

Science writer Ed Yong draws a connection between this phenomenon and belief in conspiracy theories.  In his wonderful blog Not Exactly Rocket Science, Yong writes:

Obviously, the effect has both good and bad sides that should make for interesting discussions.  For a start, an ability to spot patterns isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It could be downright beneficial if it ramps up a person’s skill at spotting subtle trends that are actually real (although future studies need to test whether this actually happens). 

Even spotting false patterns could have psychological benefits if it restores a person’s sense of control, increases their confidence or even reduces their risk of depression.  Scientists, fond as we are of truth and fact, would typically argue that it’s better to get an accurate picture of the world around you.  Whitson and Galinsky agree but they also take a pragmatic stance, saying that “it may be at times adaptive [to allow] an individual to psychologically engage with rather than withdraw from their environment.” 

Of course, there are instances when making false connections can be downright damaging, especially if they’re used as the basis of bad, or even fatal, decisions.  Imagined pharmaceutical conspiracies or implications drawn about medicines from one-off anecdotes could drive people to embrace fruitless or potentially dangerous forms of alternative treatment.  People can avoid taking responsibility for, or psychologically coping with, events in their lives if they ascribe them to higher powers or sinister agencies.  And seeing too much meaning in the actions of others could lead to paranoia and severed social ties.

Which certainly supports the conjecture that belief in conspiracy theories would be stronger amongst people who feel that they have little control over their lives.  If you feel yourself to be at risk, if you think your home, family, or your entire way of life is in danger of being irreparably damaged, you begin to cast about for explanations -- because, after all, even a terrifying explanation is better than all of those bad things happening for no reason at all.  So you begin to put together pieces of information, all the while looking for a pattern.

And Whitson and Galinsky's research implies that if there is no pattern, your brain simply invents one.

See the pattern?  [image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

It's not that I don't understand the drive people have for there to be an explanation.  The idea that bad things just happen because they happen -- that the world is so constructed that it raineth alike on the just and the unjust -- is a pretty bleak view.  

But there are a lot of things that we do understand, and that's where science education comes into play.  Whitson and Galinsky's research shows once we know more about those phenomena for which we do have an explanation, we not only make smarter decisions, but our feelings of befuddlement and confusion diminish.  We're less likely to find illusory patterns and miss the reality, or to be taken in by people who are muddying the situation because of a specific agenda (currently the case with the political attitudes toward climate change).  

It brings me back, as I have many times, to the wonderful quote by Carl Sagan: "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."  

Ten questions, ten answers

The site Today Christian posted an article a couple of days ago entitled, "10 Questions for Every Atheist."  The subtitle reads, "Some Questions Atheist [sic] Cannot Truly and Honestly REALLY Answer!  Which leads to some interesting conclusions…"  Because evidently we atheists never think about these things, and faced with questions have no choice but to say, "Golly!  I hadn't considered any of this!  I will go out and become a Christian immediately!"

Only ten, actually, but close enough.  [image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

So in the interest of setting the record straight, I thought I'd answer them.  Not that the Today Christian people are ever likely to read my answers.  But just in case.  So here they are:

Question 1:  How did you become an atheist?

I was raised Roman Catholic, and spent the first part of my life trying like hell to believe the whole shebang.  There was (and is) something attractive about there being a Grand Pattern to it all, something bigger than myself that gives meaning and purpose to life (a topic I'll deal with more in a moment).  However, after reading the bible more than once cover-to-cover, and talking with various priests, ministers, and other true believers, I was forced to the conclusion that belief came from one of three sources: (1) I believe this because it's how I was raised; (2) I believe this because I've had a personal experience that convinced me; or (3) I believe this because I was convinced by an authority figure I trust.  None of these seemed to be acceptable reasons to commit to a belief, so I started casting about for actual evidence that any of it was true.  When I was about 28 or so I realized that there didn't seem to be any, or at least no evidence that would be acceptable to someone from outside the system.  At that point, I had no choice but to admit to myself that I was at least an agnostic, and that the complete dearth of hard evidence strongly supported atheism.

Question 2:  What happens when we die?

I don't know.  I'll find out when I get there.  Furthermore, not only do I not know, neither does anyone else, despite what they'll tell you to the contrary.  Wherever death leads, it's a one-way trip, with no possibility of sending text messages back to the ones we've left behind.

Question 3:  What if you're wrong?  And there is a heaven?  And there is a HELL!

Ah, yes, it always comes up sooner or later -- Pascal's Wager.  "I'd rather be a Christian who is wrong than an atheist who is wrong."  The problem with this is twofold.  Of all the gods humans have ever worshiped, how do you know that the Christian version is the one we need to worry about?  What if you die and find yourself in Valhalla? 

Of course, the other problem is that it's hard to conceive of a just deity who hides every shred of available evidence of his/her/its existence, creates a world full of confusion and ambiguity, and then when people come to the wrong conclusion says, "Ha ha!  You're wrong!  Into the fiery furnace with you, sucker!"  I'm not sure that such a deity would be worthy of worship in any case.

Question 4:  Without God, where do you get your morality from?

Easy.  My morality is based on doing the least harm I can and the most good I can, and continuing to learn and grow.  This sort of attitude is seen in all social species -- sharing food, taking care of family, banding together to face dangers.  So the reason I am moral is because I'm a social primate, and morality evolved to make the social structure cohere.

Question 5:  If there is no God, can we do what we want?  Are we free to murder and rape?  While good deeds are unrewarded?

Cf. my answer to question #4.  And if the only reason you're not murdering or raping is because the Big Sky Guy says no, I think you're the one whose morality needs some analysis.

Question 6:  If there is no God, how does your life have any meaning?

I create the meaning of my life.  For me, the meaning in life comes from connections with the people I care about; from learning and teaching; and from creativity.  I don't need an external source of meaning. 

Question 7:  Where did the universe come from?

Physicists are hot on the trail of this question, and current research on the topic of cosmology is tremendously exciting.  I find that people who criticize cosmology usually don't have the vaguest clue of what the physicists are actually saying, and almost never have read a single scholarly paper on the subject.  So before you start spouting nonsense like "atheists say that nothing exploded and made everything," try learning some actual science first.  Then we'll talk.

Question 8:  What about miracles?  What about all the people who claim to have a connection with Jesus? What about those who claim to have seen saints or angels?

Throughout the ages, people have claimed to be in touch with gods, demons, spirits, whatever.  I think the more pertinent question for you is: if you think that such experiences are real, what about all of the Hindus who have claimed to have an experience of Krishna?  What about the ancient Greeks who believed that they'd gotten prophecies from Apollo?  What about the Cheyenne who had vision quests in which they met, and spoke with, Coyote?  Accepting these kinds of mystical experiences as real actually creates a far bigger problem for you than it does for me.

Question 9:  What's your view of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris?

I think they are (or were, in Hitchens's case) strident because they've needed to be.  The religious model has dominated all discussion for thousands of years; in a lot of places, it's impossible to hold public office unless you are religious.  In some places, being an atheist can get you imprisoned or executed.  But because I largely agree with them about religion doesn't mean that I agree with them about everything.  They're not the Popes of Atheism, or something.  They're human, which means they'll be right about some things and wrong about others.

Question 10:  If there is no God, then why does every society have a religion?

Let me ask you a question: if the Christian god is the only real one, then why does every society have a different religion?  The things that drive religious belief -- the desire for explanations for the deep questions, fear of uncertainty, fear of death, trust in authority -- are universal to the human condition.  It's unsurprising that many societies have landed on religious explanations.  What's more puzzling is that if only one religion is true -- and it's hard to see how they could all be true, despite what some ecumenical types might claim -- why the various religions aren't at least similar.

So, there you are.  Ten questions, ten answers.  Despite the condescending attitude of the person who wrote the original post, I've tried to keep the snarkiness to a minimum and answer the questions as honestly as I can.  Like I said, it's unlikely that this post will be read by the person who asked them; my sense is that in any case, they didn't want answers, they were just hoping to be able to say "Gotcha!" and have us atheists retreat in disarray.  But if anyone who is religious does read this, and wants to discuss these points further, feel free to post a comment.  Increased understanding is, as always, the watchword around here.

Scam detection

I am asked sometimes why I care so much if people believe counterfactual nonsense.  "What's the harm?" is a frequent way the question is phrased.  "So what if folks like to check their horoscope or get a Tarot card reading every so often?  Who is it hurting?"

There are two answers to this.  First, once you've accepted one idea without requiring that it have any connection to reality, it makes it all too easy to get suckered again.  One gets in a habit of sloppy thinking -- or not thinking at all -- and the attractiveness of certain forms of woo are such that once you've started down that road, it's hard to turn back.

The second, though, is more insidious, and it is that it puts you at risk of being taken advantage of by predatory charlatans.  These are people who know damn good and well that they are liars, but are shamelessly bilking people for thousands of dollars, preying on gullibility, desperation, and grief to swell their own ill-gotten gains.

Take, for example, "psychic detectives."  These people descend like vultures on families whose loved ones have gone missing, claiming that they will gather information from The Cosmos to tell the grief-stricken whether the missing individual is dead or alive, whether there's any hope of their safe return, or (if they're dead) where the body might be found.  One session can cost $500 or more.  And driven by the loss and emptiness, together with the horrible uncertainty regarding what happened, the victims are often willing to pay.  The result?  "Psychic detectives" do a thriving business.

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

So it does my heart good to see one of them get found out.  Just last week, Inside Edition reporter Lisa Guerrero did an exposé on Portland, Oregon "psychic detective" Laurie McQuary, wherein the show's producer, Charlie McLravy, hired McQuary, posing as the brother of a missing girl.  He brought along a photograph and asked McQuary what had happened to the girl.

McQuary didn't hesitate.  The girl was dead, she said.  She hated to tell him that, but she had to be honest.  Her death was violent, and involved sexual assault.  In the end, her assailant hit her in the head with a rock and killed her.

But it went further than that.  McQuary brought out a map, and told McLravy where he could find his sister's body.  "She's right here," she said.  "No more than a mile or two away."

The next day, McQuary was brought in to be interviewed by Guerrero.  Guerrero brought out the photograph, and McQuary verified that she'd spoken to the missing girl's brother, and that the girl was dead.

"You always know... if a person is dead or alive?" Guerrero asked.

"Oh, yes," McQuary answered.

"Then would you be surprised to know that this little girl is me?"

There was a moment of pure shocked silence.  Then McQuary said, her voice faltering a little, "And... um... you haven't been abducted?"

Guerrero said, "No, as you can see, I'm right here.  Can you explain this?"

McQuary said, "No, I can't."

Then Guerrero went in for the kill.  "This little girl is me, and you told him she was dead.  You're taking advantage of desperate people with a bunch of hocus-pocus, aren't you?"

McQuary said, "No, I'm not," and then got up and walked off the sound stage, trying to gather whatever shreds were left of her dignity, ending with, "This has been very interesting.  You all have a very nice day."

All in all, McLravy and Guerrero showed the photograph to ten psychic detectives -- all of whom said that Guerrero had died as a child.  Not a single one said, "Um... she's still alive, she was never abducted, and in fact, she isn't your sister.  What's going on here?"

It's not that I don't understand the pain people feel over loss.  And although I've never had a close friend or relative disappear, I can imagine how hard it is not to know the fate of someone you care about.  So I have some sympathy for the grieving family members who hire these people.

But the idea that "psychic detectives" and other such charlatans are using the pain of the grieving to bilk them out of huge sums of cash, and giving them nothing in return but a skein of lies -- that is unforgivable.  And to Guerrero and McLravy, all I can say is: touché.