Skeptical Say How

“Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”

2010-09-14T21:11:00.000-07:00

Marriage to many people is seen as an event that shapes their lives; it defines the relationships of the people involved and creates the foundations on which to build a family. Marriage can be undertaken as a religious practice, for social recognition or for financial safety, but generally in today’s western culture it is pursued as an act of love.

What then does the practice of marriage actually represent in our modern culture? Are there any legitimate reasons for a couple to get married? In this article I hope to show that the tradition of marriage has become corrupted by stringent legal regulations and eroded by euphoric promises. I aim to emphasize the importance of questioning even deep rooted traditions, like marriage, to ensure that they still retain validity.

My interest in marriage has arisen as my partner and I are to be wed next year. We had initially planned to get married, but have since changed our position. Investigation into the publically held concept of marriage and the pertaining legal structures revealed a tradition that we were not comfortable to be a part of. We have thus decided to hold a commitment ceremony instead, removing the need for any unsubstantiated state involvement and allowing us to structure the ceremony in a way that truly reflects the love we have for each other.

Currently, under Australian law, for a marriage to be valid the state requires the presiding celebrant to say “Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”. This single sentence conveniently encapsulates everything that I hold to be wrong with marriage.

‘According to law in Australia’

Why is it that marriage has anything to do with the state? Marriage in its early days originated as a financial agreement within families, offering economic security to those involved. Due to the business like structure of such agreements, laws dating back to 1,000 BCE were created outlining the price of marriage and subsequent property arrangements. As the concept of marriage evolved, the states retained their involvement, continuing to govern marriage even after it moved from being financial commitment to an emotional one in the 17th century. Now in the 21st century, with nearly all western marriages taking place for reasons of love, is the state’s involvement really justified? For what reasons should the state really be able to enforce that only certain couples can be married? Attempts to justify such discrimination can be made by appealing to definitions, but the state is not in place to enforce definitions. It’s role is to create laws that benefit the population through illegalizing crime and protecting the individual’s rights.

Proponents of state controlled marriage have argued that legal recognition conveys state endorsement and thus encourages people into healthy lifestyles. Implicit in such a position is that monogamous, heterosexual relationships are the only correct way to lead a healthy life (as currently they are the only state endorsed form of marriage) and as such the state is discriminating against all other forms of relationship.

Here someone might object and point out that many states are in fact beginning to recognize same-sex relationships through civil unions. If I was to momentarily accept that civil unions provided equal rights to that of a marriage then I am left in a position where state recognition of marriage becomes redundant. Civil unions are available to both homosexual and heterosexual relationships and as such there appears no adequate reason for the state to not solely recognize civil unions. Marriage should thus become independent of the legal system, with all state recognized relationships being encompassed in civil unions. Individuals would then be left to decide whether their civil union would be called a marriage, but such a decision would have no significance within the legal system. Even civil unions still mandate particular forms of relationships, namely monogamous ones, and as such would still have the potential to be discriminatory.

Others argue that state regulated marriage is required to protect children; that marriage promotes and supports two parent (heterosexual) families, which are proclaimed to be the ideal structure for a child to be brought up in. Unfortunately for proponents of such a position, the reality of the situation is much different. Studies have shown that children raised by homosexual couples are just as well off as those children who are raised within heterosexual families. Though many of these studies have been relatively small and alone are insufficient to draw conclusive results from, they do demonstrate that current government policy lacks empirical support; that we have no reason to assume that only heterosexual couples can adequately raise children. As such it is fair to conclude that, taken from a position of protecting children within families, the current policy of promoting only heterosexual relationships is again discriminatory.

With the absence of any substantial justification for such discrimination, governments should cease favoring particular arrangements for love, intimacy, and sex either through the removal of any recognition of relationships or by having state recognition of a diversity of marital relationships without restriction, but still compatible with justice (ie. still voluntary in nature).

I will add here that I do support the government’s involvement within divorces. Due to the complicated nature of financial arrangements within relationships it is important to ensure that in the event of a relationship breaking down, all parties are protected. Such divorce policies should in no way be limited to married couples alone though. Participants in homosexual or polyamorous relationships should equally be protected in the event of separation. Current government policies are moving towards such equality though, with members of de-facto relationships receiving protection comparable to those of married couples.

‘Between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others’

I have already touched on some of the discriminatory implications of viewing marriage as a purely heterosexual arrangement in the eyes of the state, but a great many people would still hold that, regardless of legal repercussions, marriage by definition is the union of a man and a woman (to the exclusion of all others), and as such is not open to interpretation. This view is common within religious denominations that see marriage as first and foremost a religious tradition. Such people hold that any variation to marriage would only serve to corrupt the tradition.

Such a position is precarious and ultimately unjustified. The act of marriage has its origins within Ancient Egypt, the first records dating back to 1000BCE. The concept of marriage subsequently evolved through history and was incorporated into Roman culture, although at this period it was still primarily a union undertaken for economic security.

Approaching along a quite different path through history is the word “maritare”, which will eventually become “marriage”. “Maritare”, a Latin word, described the close blending of two things, specifically humans, animals and grapes. Such origins are evident with the use of phrases such as “The Chardonnay did not marry well with the salmon” still present in today’s culture. Around 12 CE the French adapted the word into “mariage” and it was here that is was first used in conjunction with the previously mentioned acts of marriage.

Unbeknownst to many, it was not until around 900 CE that the church became involved with marriage. The tradition of marriage then continued to adapt through the ages until it eventually moved away from being an economic commitment and towards being an emotional one.

What we can see here is that marriage as we understand it today is an adapting social phenomenon and a blend of various cultural practices. Attempts to defend particular aspects of marriage, such as its religious origins, are fruitless due to its adapting nature. For these reasons, efforts to restrict marriage to incorporate only those unions between a man and a woman hold no merit. Throughout history, social norms have shaped our understanding of marriage, such as from a financial commitment to an emotional one. Consequently, the growing social acceptance of and the need to provide equal opportunities to same-sex couples should mandate the adaption of marriage to better reflect current social norms.

‘Entered into voluntarily for life’

For most people, at the core of marriage is the concept of forever; that through better and worse, you will always be with them. The underlying assumption here is that the marriage will indefinitely exist because their love for one another will always exist. Are people ever really in a situation where such a promise of eternal love can be made though? Here it is wise to remember that emotional responses such as love are really beyond our conscious control, we are really at their mercy. With this considered, it seems unlikely that a person could ever guarantee their undying love. They may very well intend to love another forever, but throughout their lives people change. Whilst it is possible that two people may change in a way that fosters their relationship, the possibility exists that these changes may lead two people in different directions.

The best evidence for such an assertion is the high number of divorces that occur in countries which permit no-fault divorce. In Australia almost 40% of marriages will end in divorce. Whilst these statistics can be misleading, they certainly serve to indicate that in a lot of relationships love does not pass the test of time. With such evidence in mind one cannot be sure that their own marriage will not go the way that so many others have.

If this were to be the case and two people found themselves in a loveless marriage, are we to suppose that due to their initial promise they will consequently have to remain within the relationship? No, such a view is not commonly held and the popular existence of no-fault divorce laws substantiates such. We are thus left with an initial obligation to remain within a relationship, made with a no exceptions clause (for better and worse), that can acceptably be disregarded at the holder’s disposition.

What then is the purpose of making such a promise? The promise would seem either to mean nothing, subtracting from any other promises made, or to articulate the unrealistic expectations that couples have of each other, demonstrating an absence of rational contemplation within the relationship. Neither of these are desired traits on which a newly formed relationship should be structured.

In Conclusion

I hold that marriage as practiced today has become a dated tradition. It is rich with discrimination which is unjustifiably enforced by the state. The expectations of marriage have become unrealistic and morally serious people should not even consider creating an obligation (through a promise) that can be disregarded at their own discretion.

My partner and I hold no desire to be part of such an institution. Instead we will hold a commitment ceremony to celebrate our love for one another, free from any state regulation. Acts of love, intimacy and sex are by their very nature exceptionally personal, and consequently should be free of any unsubstantiated state control. We will express our love for one another as we see fit, maintaining our moral integrity and rational views, and promising to always act in ways that will foster and support our relationship.

Reasonable Expectations of a Good God

2010-08-19T07:06:00.001-07:00

During 1932 and 1933 somewhere between 2.5 and 10 million people starved to death in Soviet Ukraine. The Holodomor (literally death by hunger) was thought to have been engineered by the Soviet Union.

Still today over one billion people are effected by starvation and it accounts for over 60% of all infant deaths.

An estimated 38 million people suffer from AIDS worldwide, including 2.5 million children. Africa contains around 88% of people living with AIDS and most of these people will receive only limited treatment, if any. Victims suffer from sweats, weight loss, and lethargy. They will typically die within a year without antiretroviral therapy after AIDS diagnosis.

In both India and Thailand it is estimated that 40% of prostitutes are children. These numbers have doubled over the last decade and amount to over a million children in these two countries alone. These boys and girls can be as young as 12 years old when they are forced to sell their own bodies to survive on the streets.

In light of the horrific suffering that exists throughout the world, how is it that many modern religions can claim that their god is all powerful and good? In this post I hope to look at some of the arguments put forward by theologians and philosophers, and show that belief in such a god is unreasonable.

The question is generally posed in two ways. The first being why is there any suffering in the world if god is all powerful and good? This is often expressed as the "logical problem of evil"; an all-powerful good god is incompatible with suffering.

It can be simply expressed as:

An omnipotent omniscient good god would prevent all suffering.

There exists suffering.

Therefore an omnipotent omniscient good god does not exist.

Responses to this form of logical argument dispute premise 1 (An omnipotent good god would prevent all suffering). It is argued that an omnipotent good god would allow suffering as it alone allows for the fundamental virtues of compassion and sympathy. It is also argued (famously by Plato) that suffering is a consequence of free will; god cannot allow free will and prevent suffering, as people would be free to cause suffering. This argument does not actually contradict premise 1, however, as free will can be shown to be incompatible with an omniscient god. This is a consequence of an omniscient god knowing all that you will do and so any perceived free will is simply an illusion.

A possibly even more convincing form of this argument is why is there so much suffering in the world if god is all-powerful and good? This is expressed as the "evidential problem of evil"; an all-powerful good god is incompatible with gratuitous suffering.

This argument can be simply expressed as:

An omnipotent omniscient good god would prevent all gratuitous suffering.

There exists suffering that could be prevented without hindering some 'greater good'.

Therefore an omnipotent omniscient good god does not exist.

This form of argument is probability based, arguing that as no evidence can be provided to justify currently perceived gratuitous violence then it is unreasonable and unjustified to believe that an all-powerful good god exists. This argument encompasses the possibility that some levels of suffering are required for fundamental virtues but focuses on the evidential excess of suffering. Granting that fundamental virtues and free will are a justified source of some suffering, what possible explanations can be provided for natural disasters, the 5 mass extinction events that earth has suffered and diseases such as Malaria which have a body count of around a million people every year.

There exists no reason why there cannot be currently unknown justifications for suffering. To be logically consistent though one should put a greater probability on the existence of an impartial god, where no contradictions exist with the currently perceived gratuitous violence, then on an all-powerful good god who requires further evidence to justify its existence.

Belief that there exists no gratuitous suffering due to unknown or unknowable justifications also has several moral issues surrounding it, namely that it would become impossible to commit an 'evil' act. One could rape and murder children as any incurred suffering would be justified by some greater good, albeit an unknown one. "It would be the end of all morals"- Volker Dittman.

So once again we are left in a situation where it is unreasonable and unjustified to believe in the existence of an all-powerful good god. Of course these arguments are not designed to disprove the existence of gods. Simply they aim to outline what god cannot be, or at least, cannot reasonably be expected to be.

The Ethics of Regulating Monetary Incentives within Clinical Trials

2010-08-10T05:28:00.000-07:00

A transcript of a presentation I gave today on whether it is ethical to allow people to be paid to participate in clinical trials.

I am going to be giving a short presentation on the use of monetary reimbursements and incentives within clinical trials, specifically looking at Australian policy. Currently in Australia, participants involved in clinical trials cannot be offered any monetary incentives for taking part in the study. Reading from section 2.2.10 of the ‘National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research” we have:

“It is generally appropriate to reimburse the costs to participants of taking part in research, including costs such as travel, accommodation and parking. Sometimes participants may also be paid for time involved. However, payment that is disproportionate to the time involved, or any other inducement that is likely to encourage participants to take risks, is ethically unacceptable.”

This policy I feel is unjustified, it shows no respect for the individual’s right to autonomy and in fact is cleverly designed to undermine such autonomy.

Before we get into the details of such an argument we will start by just looking at why such ethical concerns exist.

Generally when we talk about the possibility of people being paid incentives to participate in clinical trials we are mainly concerned with healthy people who are being recruited into Phase I clinical trials. While ailed people can also often be paid incentives to participate in clinical trials, Phases II and III, these trials are designed to benefit their position. In a Phase I trial the success of the treatment would have no effect on the potential participants and so ethical concerns are raised, understandably, when these participants are paid incentives to take part, that is, risk their health for no medical gain on their own behalf.

Generally when investigating such policies one would gather as much statistically relevant data as possible to help show exactly what are the issues at hand are. Unfortunately in this case there is not really any accessible data outlining percentages such as persons who have suffered adverse effects against total number of person involved in clinical trials. Without such data it is difficult to speculate on the actual risks that participants are putting themselves at except by analysis on an individual case by case basis.

In 2007 after being successfully administered to animals, TGN1412, an anti-inflammatory drug being developed to treat leukemia and arthritis, was tested on 6 healthy volunteers in a Phase I drug trial. These participants were offered a sum of 2000 pounds to take part in the study resideding in the UK where current policy allows such monetary incentives. The administered doses were 500 times less than the determined safe dose in animals but due to unforeseen complications the 6 participant’s conditions rapidly deteriorated, resulting in four of them suffering massive internal organ failure.

As with any misfortunate event like this the media jumped on it. Sensationalized stories appeared in many papers and online news outlets depicting events with little concern for the truth. First let’s look at an excerpt from an article published in the Times:

“Ms Marshall said that her boyfriend felt ill 80 or 90 minutes after being given an oral or injected dose of the

Now the Times are generally considered a fairly reputable news outlet. Unfortunately articles like this are not what you find when you initially Google the event. Instead you get stories like this:

“After being injected with the anti-inflammatory drug TGN1412, patients began tearing their shirts off, screaming that their heads were going to explode. One patient's head swelled to triple its normal size, and patients were soon passing out, vomiting, or screaming in sheer terror.”

Now don’t get me wrong this was a very unfortunate and sad event for these people and their families. Four of the men were in a critical condition, with one ending up in a coma for several weeks and another having suspected cancer as a result of the drugs effect. But it is too easy for the media to point the blame at the medical institutions and for people to jump to the conclusion that these men should have not been paid to be human guinea pigs.

At first glance this opinion does seem to be justified with many of the men expressing that the money was a driving factor in their involvement. “It’s such good money for a student” One of the patients stated, “It goes a long way”.

But upon further investigation it becomes clear that the monetary incentives were not the problem here. Instead it soon becomes apparent that the real issue lies with how these trials are advertised and ‘sold’ to the participants. These trials are often advertised like a holiday, using cavalier language and very little focus on the potential risks.

A Research ethicist is quoted as saying, “They failed to adequately disclose the degree of uncertainty around a first- in –man’s trial. The risks were well known. They’re not disclosed in the consent form” http://www.sskrplaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1472884.html

For these companies it really is all about enticing people in. Money does act as a powerful incentive but it is not the real concern here. The concern is the deception that the recruitment companies are employing.

Now imagine a hypothetical situation with a government that has no policy on monetary incentives and no laws protecting the participant’s right to informed consent. You can imagine that there would be a rise in clinical trial participation and thus consequently a rise in people who suffer adverse effects to these trials. The media would catch on as it does and creates a big fuss. The government then is put under pressure to fix the problem. How could it go about this?

If you look at Australia what our government has effectively done is say “these people don’t know what’s good for them and where therefore going to protect them from themselves” and so they have prevented anyone from receiving payments to participate in clinical trials, a clever and deceptive way of preventing participation or at least dramatically reducing participation as who would willing act as a human guinea pig when there is nothing in it for them.

But they have missed the point completely and that is to act ethically, as they so claim to be doing, they need to respect people right to choose, their autonomy. So instead of taking the easy, blanket approach of just preventing incentives, they need to address issues of informed consent. Ensuring that participants are not being deceived by the recruitment companies into thinking they have a sweet risk free deal.

With better enforced polices and proper avenues for prosecuting companies that don’t follow such policies, there should be no issue with people who are informed of the risks and understand the potential dangers from taking payment to participate. This is their choice and if they feel that they can justify the risks to themselves by the potential financial gains then they have the right to do so. This is comparable to miners who receive hazard pay when going underground or working on deep sea oil rigs. The work has substantially greater risks involved but they are financially compensated for taking such risks.

In both cases here it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that they do understand the risk and can make informed decision but not their role to take the decision out of their hands. This I feel is the most ethical approach available to us.

Before I finish up I want to address another issue that I believe is relevant to the situation, and this is the payments that go to the recruitment companies for recruiting participants into a trial. It seems contradictory that the government would establish laws preventing paid participation in clinical trials but have no strong policy regarding the conflict of interest that these recruitment companies obviously possess. This extends even further with doctors in Australia receiving payments upwards of $6000 per patient they recruit into clinical trials. GP’s are trusted by patients to have their best interests in mind but how can this possibly be achieved when such a conflict of interest exists. Just a little food for thought.

In conclusion, the point I am trying to drive home here is that the current policy is deceptively unethical, removing peoples autonomy without them even realizing. As long as people are fully aware of the risks they should have the right to be paid participants in clinical drug trials.

Science - Subjective or Objective

2010-08-09T06:26:00.000-07:00

A Response to Helen Longino's Paper "Values and Objectivity"

The objectivity of science and of scientific inquiry is often perceived as vital to its ability to uncover truth. This objectivity is seen as a way to ensure that the explanation of the nature of an object is independent of any features of the particular subject who studied it. This means that an objective account of the nature of an object does not draw on any assumptions, values or prejudices of a particular subject and thus can be universally accepted.

Philosophers such as Thomas Kuhn [1] believe that science can never truly be objective, saying instead that scientific knowledge is simply knowledge of the nature of objects as we perceive them, not as they actually are. They argue that perfect objectivity can never be achieved in science, as all scientific methods of inquiry are based on human concepts, tools and thought patterns. This direction of thinking tends towards issues revolving around scientific realism; the concept that science describes truths about the real world.

For the sake of this paper I am not going to concern myself with issues of scientific realism. Instead I will take on a varied form of a constructive empiricist stance, stating that we are not concerned with absolute truths within the real world. I will look at the objectivity of science from the stance that we are interested in determining the truth of the nature of objects as we perceive them. Future use of the word truth throughout the paper will be in reference to this concept; that we are seeking truth relative to the way we perceive the world.

I believe that it is because of the ambiguous nature of the definition of objectivity that the objectivity of science has come under attack by philosophers such as Thomas Kuhn1 and Paul Feyerabend[2].

If we define objectivity as a way to seek truths relative to the way humans perceive the world, we are accepting that objectivity is a human construct in itself. This form of objectivity is a cornerstone of science. If scientists allowed their own personal bias to influence their work, their findings would be misrepresentations of the actual truth and thus detrimental to attainment of knowledge of the nature of objects as we perceive them. Objectivity in science will therefore increase the reliability of scientific knowledge, but it will not grant science infallibility or any form of knowledge on the nature of objects from all perspectives.

In this paper I will look in particular at Helen Longino’s account of objectivity in science[3], specifically addressing her claim that the objectivity of science is secure because of the social structures surrounding modern scientific inquiry.

An important distinction to make of science is that it is not simply a body of knowledge, but instead the practice and methodology of how that knowledge is gained. So when discussing the subjective or objective nature of science, we are really discussing whether the practise of science, or more correctly the scientific method, is objective or not. We are to presume that if we were able to form a completely objective scientific method, then the knowledge gained from such methodology would be equally objective, as the knowledge would have been independent of any personal bias.

Longino suggests that by defining science as a practice we can now show that it is not something that is practised by an individual but instead by social groups. This social nature of science is emphasized by Marjorie Grene[4], where she speaks of scientists’ reliance on others for their education, ideas and instruments. With the rapid expansion in the wealth of our knowledge it is almost a necessity to have several different scientists with varying expertise working together on a project. A look at a project group developing a vaccine for malaria demonstrates this, with their team being comprised of medical professors, structural biologists, parasitologists, and members from the Department of Biochemistry and Department of Molecular Engineering of Monash University, as well as the engineers required to operate the complicated machinery such as the Australian Synchrotron[5]. Longino calls this “‘big science’ ;(where) a single complex experiment may be broken into parts, each of which will be charged to a different individual or group of individuals”.

Longino argues that while it may still be shown that the individuals are in at least principle practising science, scientific knowledge is gained not just by collecting all the data into one whole, but by the critical evaluation and modification of that data by the scientific community. This “critical emendation and modification”[6] of an individual’s data by the society is what Longino believes ensures that science is still objective. Processes such as peer-review analyse papers to ensure that they are methodologically correct and that the data is sufficient to support the conclusions made. Further repetition of experiments once the papers are published ensure that the same results can be found in varying labs by individuals whom hold differing values to the initial investigators. Even further down the track, when hypotheses based on knowledge gained from the initial findings don’t hold true, then those original findings are often scrutinised further. This gives science its perception of being self correcting.

The idea that in science nothing is sacred demonstrates that even for a well accepted theory, given enough criticism or the presentation of another theory with even greater supporting evidence, the scientific community will amend their concepts on the nature of the relevant objects. Examples of this are scattered throughout history, with Newton’s universal law of gravity standing strong for several hundred years until varying scientists began to criticise and eventually modify the theory to include Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

Do such processes really provide science with its objectivity? There are obvious benefits to such a system; it almost guarantees that any methodological errors will be picked up by the many checking stations along the way. It also takes the pressure of the individual scientists to be completely unbiased, an unrealistic expectation considering the complexity of the human mind and our varying social and cultural prejudices.

There now may seem to be no need to be unbiased in their methodology either, as any such errors would be resultantly picked up by peer-review or any of the other many checking stations. This, however, would lead to a seemingly very inefficient form of science, in which scientists could present sloppy work, including calculation errors, or not provide substantial data to support their conclusions. These errors could take substantial time to detect and would thus greatly slow the attainment of scientific knowledge. This of course is not a required artefact of accepting Longino’s account of the social structures protecting objective science and can be easily avoided by still promoting a level of quality in a scientist’s work, ensuring that studies are “double-blinded” and that there is always a complete disclosure of results.

The benefit would instead be that the scientists are free to explore avenues of research that they value, as is already commonly done today in the scientific community with issues such as climate change and breast cancer research, without the fear that their personal values will affect the truth value of their research. It would also promote a form of creativity among the science community, as a scientist with vested interest in his or her hypothesis is likely to actively defend it against criticism.

As stated above, these types of actions already seem prevalent in the scientific community and are most likely inescapable when dealing with a species such as ours, due to our tendency towards subjectivity. So Longino’s account of the objectivity of science, in particular the scientific method, seems to allow for an individual’s idiosyncrasies yet still permits science to be objective if it is practised by the community.

The problem with such an account is that Longino is vague on outlining what level of criticism is needed before a hypothesis is recognised as objective. Longino states that “The greater the number of different points of view included in a community, the more likely its scientific practices will be objective, that is, that it will result in descriptions and explanations of natural processes that are more reliable in the sense of less characterised by idiosyncratic subjective preferences of community members”[7]. You could look at her account in two ways.

Firstly you could understand Longino as saying that objectivity requires a constant level criticism and infinite view points. Anything less, while it may have a degree of objectivity, is not truly objective. If this is the case then her account differs very little from those who perceive true objectivity as an impossibility for science, as any definition that requires an infinite and continual level of criticism from an infinite source of views is unrealistic and the definition of no further use.

If on the other hand, she believes that science can be truly objective after a certain degree of criticism, but then offers no account for what level of criticism this equates to, or why such a level provides objectivity. One might respond to such criticism by saying that Longino was not referring to single experiments or research projects being objective in nature, but simply that as a whole. The scientific method is objective if it continues to critically evaluate and modify existing theories and hypotheses. If this were to be the case then she would have had created a paradox with her original statements regarding the objectivity of scientific knowledge being due to the objectivity of the scientific method. Longino would be left with an account of an objective scientific method that cannot produce objective knowledge without an infinite timeframe, and so our current knowledge of the nature of objects is no more objective under Longino’s definition then it would have been under any other.

Another issue with Longino’s account of objectivity is actually provided by her, as she describes that the belief we can just read data is a recipe for replicating mainstream values and ideology[8]. As shown, Longino accepts that individuals cannot escape the confines of subjectivity and are inevitability going to impose their personal bias on events. But what is it that makes a community so immune to such a bias? Why is the chosen criticism of someone’s hypothesis not biased in itself. She claims that the combined critical review of others’ work by a community will negate any such bias, but in doing so she is stating that objectivity is decided by agreement rather than actual truth. Knowledge is unquestionably benefited by the contributions of a society, but a critical consensus should not be the standard for objectivity. Objectivity cannot be measured by the cognitive needs of a society and must be defined by what actually is.

Processes such as peer-review and the many other checking stations of science do a play an important role in the scientific method and can in some instances remove bias, but that is just an artefact of the error checking process that peer-review is. A scientific paper should not need to conform to any particular values to be published, it should just be error free and ultimately that is all peer-review should be able to analyse. The current state of the peer-review process actually reflects on the problems presented by Longino’s account of objectivity, with a raise in concern for the criteria needed for a paper to be published in several of the mainstream journals. Longino talks about the breakdown of the peer-review process but describes peer-review as a way to “bring to bear another point of view on the phenomenon”[9]. She describes the situation where a reviewer assumes that a person would not have a job at X institution if they were not a good scientist and thus their work could be presumed to be of good quality. This situation she claims, while not desirable, is alright because further scrutiny after publication would compensate for any failings of the peer-review process. What she fails to address are not situations where papers are published because of values the reviewers hold, but instead where papers are discredited because they don’t align to the reviewer’s values. Objectivity should not be defined in such a way that it relies on the belief of the community. “It is inadequate because, believing, like wishing, does not make things so”[10].

A possible solution to the issue concerning the definition of objectivity is to show that objective knowledge, achieved through objective methodology, does not have to necessarily equate to truth. One could objectively analyse the provided data and come to a certain conclusion that when more data is provided can be seen to be wrong, but this does not prevent the original analyses from being objective. An objective explanation would therefore entail that it was concluded using the most reliable methods available at the current time. A definition of this form would enable science to strive to be objective by simply being reliable.

Conclusion

Objectivity in science, particularly in the scientific method, has long been held as being a founding principle of what science is, but difficulties in defining objectivity has made it difficult to outline how to attain a truly objective scientific method. Past attempts to provide objective conceptual methodology by some philosophers have resulted in paradoxical definitions of objectivity, whilst other philosophers have defined objectivity in such a way that it is unattainable in science, a definition that ultimately is of no practical use.

Helen Longino’s defence of the objectivity of science is flawed in several ways. Her account of objectivity in scientific methodology is either paradoxical or of no use due to its unrealistic requirements, depending on how you interpret what she says. Longino suggestion that the standard for objectivity lies in the views of other people is flawed as it provides no explanation for why the criticism of biased views cannot also be biased in itself. A society’s belief in the true nature of objects should not be taken as an objective explanation of the true nature of an object.

I believe the answer lies in an appreciation of the fact that as humans we are limited to understanding the nature of objects only as we perceive them and that objectivity itself is still a human construct. Therefore, it is only of use if we are to define it in such a way that shows it is for seeking the truth of the nature of objects, relative to how we perceive them.

We must also not limit objective knowledge (knowledge that is gained through an objective analysis) to being equal to the truth of how objects are. This would require a form of omniscience that is unrealistic to ask. Instead we must see that an objective account is one that reliably defines the nature of an object to the best of our current understanding.

An Overview of Helen Longino's Paper "Values and Objectivity"

2010-08-09T06:13:00.000-07:00

In her 1990 paper “Values and Objectivity” Helen Longino investigates varying approaches to objectivity in science and presents her own reasons for thinking why science is objective. She initially describes the current problems with the varying definitions of objectivity in science by analysing the Positivists and Traditional Empiricists approach to objectivity. She moves on to then show how she believes that objectivity in science is secure due to the nature of the social structures that encompass science. She argues that individual scientist’s values are justified and accounted for in her contextualist account of objectivity, and it is in fact these varying values within a community that ultimately result in objectivity.

The Positivist’s proposal for objectivity in science relies on an arbitrary/biased ‘context of discovery’ and a logical ‘context of justification’. This ‘context of discovery’ refers to the subjective nature of the circumstances surrounding the initial formulation of the hypothesis, and accounts for the varying mental and emotional states of the individual scientist. The subjective nature of the origin of hypothesis is negated by what Positivists call the ‘context of justification’ where theories are investigated in an empirical manor, considering only its observable consequences when determining its acceptability. This approach allows the acknowledgment of the subjective origin of hypothesis but retains the objectivity of science.

Traditional Empiricists such as Thomas Kuhn feel that this account of objectivity is historically unsatisfactory and so have proposed an account that seems more historically accurate. Kuhn proposes that science is based around paradigms, that a way of thinking about certain fields is developed (a paradigm) and is followed and taught for a period until anomalies arise and a paradigm shift eventually occurs. This, Kuhn argues, accounts for periods such as where the heliocentric model of the universe was accepted until a paradigm shift occurred and that model was replaced with the heliocentric model of the universe. This approach does not speak for the objectivity of science though, objectivity would only be in context to the paradigm currently being asserted by scientific community.

Longino feels that neither of these proposals are satisfactory, “a logically analysis that is historically unsatisfactory and a historically analysis that is logically unsatisfactory”, and so decides to take another approach to objectivity in science.

An important distinction to make of science is that it is not simply a body of knowledge, but instead the practice and methodology of how that knowledge is gained. So when discussing the subjective or objective nature of science, we are really discussing whether the practise of science, or more correctly the scientific method, is objective or not. We are to presume that if we were able to form a completely objective scientific method, then the knowledge gained from such methodology would be equally objective, as the knowledge would have been independent of any personal bias.

Longino suggests that by defining science as a practice we can now show that it is not something that is practised by an individual but instead by social groups. This social nature of science is emphasized by Marjorie Grene , where she speaks of scientists’ reliance on others for their education, ideas and instruments. With the rapid expansion in the wealth of our knowledge it is almost a necessity to have several different scientists with varying expertise working together on a project. Longino calls this “‘big science’ ;(where) a single complex experiment may be broken into parts, each of which will be charged to a different individual or group of individuals” .

Longino argues that while it may still be shown that the individuals are in at least principle practising science, scientific knowledge is gained not just by collecting all the data into one whole, but by the critical evaluation and modification of that data by the scientific community. This “critical emendation and modification” of an individual’s data by the society is what Longino believes ensures that science is still objective. Processes such as peer-review analyse papers to ensure that they are methodologically correct and that the data is sufficient to support the conclusions made. Further repetition of experiments once the papers are published ensure that the same results can be found in varying labs by individuals whom hold differing values to the initial investigators. Even further down the track, when hypotheses based on knowledge gained from the initial findings don’t hold true, then those original findings are often scrutinised further. This gives science its perception of being self correcting.

Longino describes how “the greater the number of different points of view included in a community, the more likely its scientific practices will be objective” . This view seems to indicate that alternative values act to ‘cancel’ each other out or suppress one another’s extremities and enough variance within a community will result in objectivity when combined with the fore mentioned critical review.
Longino continues on to provide a list criteria that must be met to achieve objectivity in the sense she describes. Firstly there must be “recognised avenues for criticism”. This would include processes such as ‘peer-review’ where reviewers are able to assess whether the claims made by a paper are substantiated by the evidence it provides. Longino also suggests that more emphasis should be put on critical review, so that scientists are encouraged to critically evaluate others work instead of only doing ‘original’ research.

Secondly standards must be set up that critics can invoke. These standards would not provide a ‘theory’ of theory choice as others have suggested and Longino admits that they would need more precise formulation but would include empirical adequacy and truth.
Thirdly the scientific community must respond to the critical discussions taking place. The content of textbooks and other sources of knowledge must be continually updated to take into account any criticism.
Lastly “intellectual authority” must be shared to prevent certain assumptions dominating communities due to the ideals of those in power. An example of this would be the German genetics program which was dominated by ideals of Eugenics during the 20th century due to the Naze parties interest in the field.

A point of contention with Longino’s account of objectivity is actually provided by her, as she describes that the belief we can just read data is a recipe for replicating mainstream values and ideology . As shown, Longino accepts that individuals cannot escape the confines of subjectivity and are inevitability going to impose their personal bias on events. But what is it that makes a community so immune to such a bias? Why is the chosen criticism of someone’s hypothesis not biased in itself. She claims that the combined critical review of others’ work by a community will negate any such bias, but in doing so she is stating that objectivity is decided by agreement rather than actual truth. Knowledge is unquestionably benefited by the contributions of a society, but can critical consensus be the standard for objectivity?

Another problem with such an account is that Longino is vague on outlining what level of criticism is needed before a hypothesis is recognised as objective. Is it that there exists a magic point where a theory has been criticised enough and subjected to enough varying values that it is suddenly objective? Or is it that the scientific method is objective as long it continues to criticise and include varying values? If this was the case then Longino would have created a contradiction with her original assumption that objective methodology leads to objective knowledge, as any of the knowledge gained could never be called objective because it could still be criticised further in the future.

Helen Longino presents an account of science as objective due to the social nature of the scientific method. Her account does succeed where she perceives others as having failed, in that it is both logically and historically satisfactory but is not without flaws of its own.

If only Everything was Preventable

2010-02-10T04:18:00.000-08:00

Andrew Wakefield is the lead author of the 1998 paper, “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children”. Wakefield claimed that his study had shown a link between the measles mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism in children. The British media latched onto this and filled the air-ways with news of how the MMR vaccine had been shown to cause autism.

The study itself did not actually prove any link between autism and MMR. It asked parents to think back and remember when their child had started exhibiting slowed development. In 8 of the 12 cases it was thought to have been within 2 weeks of the MMR vaccine and in 3 of these, within 48hrs. There are a number of problems with stating that this shows a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Firstly, as the parents were aware that the study looked to link MMR and autism, this exposed them to 'recall bias' (remembering a closer connection between two events then what actually occurred). Secondly the MMR vaccine is normally administered before a child begins school (where the likely hood of exposure to infectious diseases increases) and it is also around this time that autistic children begin to develop signs of autism. Therefore it is probable, but not relevant, that in the months following the MMR vaccine that an autistic child might first begin to display signs of autism. Lastly, the notion that these children's autism rapidly onset within days of the vaccine is scientifically unsubstantiated. Autistic children will display behaviour that is of slight concern but not clearly abnormal for weeks or months before beginning to display clearly abnormal behaviour. They are not simply normal children one day and autistic the next.

The paper itself actually states as much in its discussion section; "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described”. Yet Wakefield unrepentantly publicised the notion that a link had been shown. The large media hype that surrounded this controversy has led to vaccination rates dropping substantially. In the UK MMR vaccination rates dropped from 92% in 1996 down to 84% in 2002. Currently in Australia only around 83% of children aged five are fully vaccinated. These are both under the 90 - 95% needed to create herd immunity within a community. This appalling rate of vaccination has led to a massive increase in measles outbreaks worldwide, as well as several deaths. These deaths are absurd for a civilisation in which we have all the tools to eradicate such diseases.

The proposition that there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism has been thoroughly debunked, with studies having been carried out all around the world.

The 2009 paper "Lack of Association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and autism in children : A case-Control Study" looked at 96 children with autism and 192 control children (matched for age, sex and general practitioners) and concluded that it provided "evidence against the association of autism with either MMR or a single measles vaccine".

A Finnish study "No evidence for measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine-associated inflammatory bowel disease or autism in a 14-year prospective study" also concluded that there was no link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

"A population-based study of measles, mumps and rubella vaccination and autism" was published in 2002 and provided "strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism", after looking at over 500,000 children and comparing incidences of autism between those who were vaccinated and those who weren't.

In 2002 the study "Neurologic disorders after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination" was published. It was a retrospective study looking at 535, 544 children. Among many results it showed no clustering of hospitalizations for autism following vaccination, It again concluded that "We did not identify any association between MMR vaccination and encephalitis, aseptic meningitis, or autism".

A Japanese study "No effec of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism :a total population study" looked at autism rates in Yokohama, a city in which no MMR vaccinations took place after 1992. It concluded that the "MMR vaccination is most unlikely to be a main cause of ASD (autism spectrum disorder)" and that the withdrawal of the MMR vaccine cannot be expected to reduce the incidence of ASD.

Recently Andrew Wakefield’s methods have come under review. Investigative journalist Brian Deer found that before the study was conducted Wakefield had been awarded £55,000 by Richard Barr, a lawyer trying to raise a lawsuit against drug companies manufacturing the MMR vaccine. This money was to go towards the study, but Wakefield also personally received over £400,000 from Barr for his work. Of the 12 children involved in the study, most of their parents were either clients or contacts of Richard Barr’s. Obviously these circumstances would have biased both the parents and Andrew Wakefield, further discrediting his original study.

For the past two-and-a-half years the General Medical Council (GMC) have been investigating Andrew Wakefield and in January 2010 ruled that he acted dishonestly, irresponsibly, unethically and callously. These rulings followed the findings that he did not have ethics approval for the invasive testing he carried out on the test subjects (3-10 year old children), including lumber punctures. It was also found that the control blood samples were gathered at his son’s birthday party where the children were paid £5 for their blood sample. The GMC commented that he acted in disregard for the pain and distress it would have caused the children. The GMC have yet to decide whether he will have his medical licence revoked.

Following these findings The Lancet has retracted the original paper.

By acting so unethically, conducting a study with an undisclosed conflict of interest, and by drawing unsubstantiated and misleading conclusions, Andrew Wakefield has become responsible for a global decline in vaccination rates. Although his study has now been discredited, the damage has been done. The idea that the MMR vaccine causes autism has been popularised and is firmly seeded in society. The truth needs to be spread and people need to be shown how much damage is being done due to the declining rates of immunisation.

References

http://press.thelancet.com/wakefieldpaper.pdf

http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-greenhalgh.htm

http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8483865.stm

http://journals.lww.com/pidj/Abstract/publishahead
/Lack_of_Association_Between_Measles_Mumps_Rubella.99421.aspx

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9643797

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/347/19/1477

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12415036

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jcpp/2005/00000046/00000006/art00003

http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/provider/patients/acir/statistics.jsp

Homeopathy

2010-02-03T16:10:00.000-08:00

With the 10²³ campaign having just occurred all around the world, involving over 400 skeptics (myself included, see here, taking a massive over dose of homeopathic sleeping pills, I thought it would be appropriate to write up an article on homeopathy.

Homeopathy is an alternative form of medicine that originated in the late 1700’s. Developed by the German doctor, Samuel Hahnemann, it is based upon the concept that a massively diluted substance will heal a person suffering from symptoms that the undiluted substance would induce.

An example given by homeopaths is that when large dose of Ipecac is given to a healthy person it will induce nausea and vomiting. A strongly diluted solution of Ipecac when given to a sickly person who is nauseas and vomiting will therefore cure them.

Dr Hahnemann called this the “law of similars” and it is the underlying principle of homeopathy. He believed that by taking these micro doses of certain drugs, you were inducing an artificial disease that would empower the body’s life force to cure itself of the original disease. This at first glance seems plausible and along the same lines of how vaccinations work.

Vaccinations are where a pathogen is weaken or killed and then administered to the patient. The body recognises the virus’s capsid protein (the protein shell of a virus) and mounts an immune response. Proteins called antibodies are produced by the bodies B cells to specifically fight this virus and are then stockpiled. The original pathogen normally is too weak to actually affect the patient or reproduce, so is relatively harmless, but the body is now prepared to fight of this specific virus if encountered again. There are different forms of vaccinations that will last for different periods of time, but they are not relevant to this discussion so we’ll leave it there.

Homeopathy differs from vaccinations in several ways. Firstly, vaccinations are predominantly given prior to infection. Tetanus and rabies shots can be given immediately after infection, but they work because the body will react quicker to the administered vaccine then it will to the actual virus, giving it a head start in combating it. Homeopathic medicines are commonly administered well into the infection, once symptoms have already started appearing. By this point the body’s B Cells are already in full swing producing antibodies and would not be aided by re-administering the pathogen.

Vaccinations are also virus specific and target (or at least help the body target) the viral pathogens. Homeopathic medicine seems to be prescribed to treat symptoms of an infection, rather than the disease itself, such as in the first example where Ipecac is used to treat the symptom of nausea - not what is actually causing it. This leaves the underlying problem untouched, meaning any symptoms would return immediately when medication stopped (this assumes that homeopathy treats the symptoms). So even if it could work in this way it could never be claimed that it cures diseases, just that it relieves symptoms.

Lastly, of course, are the concentrations that homeopathic medicines are diluted to. Dr Hahnemann’s “Law of Infinitesimals” is based around the concept that the smaller the concentration the greater the effect it will actually have. No scientific evidence has ever been provided to substantiate such a claim, and so is the greatest failing of homeopathy. Dilutions commonly used vary between 6X and 200C, where X stands for a dilution of 1:10 and C stands for a dilution of 1:100. I have included a table below showing some common dilutions.

X Scale	C Scale	Corresponding Ratio
1X		1:10
2X	1C	1:100
6X	3C	1:10⁶
8X	4C	1:10⁸
12X	6C	1:10¹²
24X	12C	1:10²⁴
60X	30C	1:10⁶⁰
400X	200C	1:10⁴⁰⁰

A 12C preparation would be equivalent to putting 10ml of a solution into a volume of water the size of the earth (around 1000000000000km³). And so in a single tablet you are unlikely to even have a single molecule of the original substance.

Proponents of homeopathy usually won’t try and claim that there are any active ingredients left in the dilutions though. They claim that by vigorously shaking or knocking the mixture against a hard surface (a process they call “succussion”) between dilutions, that “dynamic forces” are realized from the substance into the water. These “dynamic forces” are preserved and intensified with every subsequent dilution.

There are several problems with the proposed mechanism behind homeopathy. One of the biggest being that if this really was the case, wouldn’t everyone be taking massive doses of homeopathic medicine every time they drink or eat anything at all. Our food and water sources are permanently contaminated with micro traces of hundreds of chemical compounds all of which would be shaken and knocked as they are transported around.

Arsenicum is a homeopathic remedy for food poisoning, anaemia, diarrhoea and gastroenteritis, and is formed from extremely diluted arsenic, concentrations ranging from 30C to 200C. Arsenic concentrations in drinking water are deemed safe as long they are below 10 ppb, equivalent to a dilution of just 4C. So how can it be claimed that drinking tap water has no effect on us but a homeopathic pill will?

Of course just because homeopathy currently lacks a plausible mechanism that doesn’t mean we can dismiss it as a pseudo-science. It is entirely possible that further break throughs in science could show us a mechanism through which it might work. But where homeopathy really falls down is in its inability to create an effect greater than placebo when administered to patients. Generally studies of homeopathy have been poorly designed and they either don’t properly compare the outcomes to placebo or they allow investigator bias to enter the results. These poorly constructed studies allow proponents to claim that science has validated homeopathy and that clinical studies prove its effectiveness. This is not the case, while many studies have accredited homeopathy with an effect greater then placebo, each study has been disputed and its flaws exposed.

In 1988 Nature published a paper by French immunologist, Jacques Benveniste, where water was shown to retain a “memory” of human antibodies that had been diluted in it. Human antibodies were diluted in water to such an extent that there was little probability of even a single molecule remaining. Human basophiles, when placed in the solution, reacted like antibodies were present.

After its controversial release, Nature had the study re-run, this time under the supervision of James Randi and Walter Stewart. It was found that the experimenters knew which test tubes contained the anti-bodies and which didn’t. Once precautions were taken to ensure it was double-blinded, the effect disappeared. This is a great example of how easily a researcher’s bias can alter the results of the study and how important properly designed double-blinded experiments are.

Meta-analyses run independently by A. Thachil, J. Vickers and C. Smith, and W. McCarney all concluded that homeopathy had no significant effect when compared to a placebo.

People’s anecdotal evidence for the success of homeopathy is also another key point that needs to be addressed. Proponents of homeopathy will often claim that they were suffering from a cold or a headache and after taking a homeopathic remedy it went away. They are committing the logical fallacy of “post hoc ergo propter hoc” or “after this, therefore because of this”. In that they took the homeopathic remedy and after that they felt better, therefore the homeopathic remedy made them feel better. These common ailments are often quite short lasting, usually only lasting a couple of days before your body fights of the infection by itself, with or without the taking of any homeopathic remedies.

What we are left with after all this is something that has no known possible mechanism and no known medicinal effect. Yet in just France and Germany over 400 million pounds is spent annually on homeopathic products. I do agree that further studies should be done on the effects of homeopathy, but until then companies should stop twisting the truth and peddling homeopathy to an unquestioning society.

References

http://altmed.creighton.edu/Homeopathy/Default.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Homeopathy

http://www.1023.org.uk/

http://www.skepdic.com/homeo.html#infinitesimals

http://www.wisegeek.com/how-does-a-vaccine-work.htm

http://www.besthealth.com.au/homeopathy.htm

Iridology

2010-01-19T23:19:00.000-08:00

Iridology is the belief that a person’s iris (the coloured area of the eye surrounding the pupil, named after the Greek Goddess of Rainbows) can be used to accurately map their state of health. Iridologists claim that each area of the body is represented by a corresponding area in the iris. Due to the lack of regulation from any governing body, the claims of individual Iridologists often differ. Some claim to be able to diagnose a patient’s current medical condition, while others only claim to be able to determine if a predisposition for certain diseases exists. The latter conveniently allows for misdiagnoses.

The story goes that Iridology or Augendiagnostik (eye diagnosis) was first discovered in 1861 when a Hungarian physician, Ignatz Von Peczley, noticed a similarity between a black mark he had seen in the eye of an owl with a broken leg, and a black mark in the eye of one of his patients who also had a broken leg. During the next 30 years he published several books and papers, including “Discoveries in the Field of Natural Science and Medicine, a guide to the study and diagnosis from the eye”.

If you were to see an Iridologist the experience would go something like this. The iridologist would either take a picture of or manually inspect your irides, and then compare them to an iris chart. The Jenson chart is a particularly popular chart and is shown below.

Based on any lines, spots, ridges or valleys they observe they will give you a run down on your current state of health and areas that you will need to focus on. Finally, of course, they will most likely try and sell you some of their natural remedies to cure your ailments and improve your quality of life.

So what science is there behind Iridology? Not much. The important distinction to make here is that although many diseases can have ocular manifestations, none of them are area specific and so can’t correlate to any Iridology charts. Diseases such as syphilis and herpes can alter the appearance of the entire eye, but the sclera (the whites of the eye) are the most commonly effected. The iris forms during gestation and normally won’t change much during an individual’s lifetime other than occasional spots due to ageing. The irides have potential as a form of identification as they are actually more unique then fingerprints (even identical twins will have differences).

The other issue with iridology is the range of diseases and ailments that are claimed to be diagnosable. As stated above, certain diseases can cause symptoms such as jaundice in the eyes, but most medical conditions have no known ocular manifestations. Iridology charts even have areas correlating to things like the hands, ears and sexual impulses. There is no known mechanism that would allow, say, a broken hand or an individual’s mental state to be represented in one’s iris. While the lack of a plausible mechanism is not enough to dismiss these ideas, it should make one sceptical of the claims being made and so would require substantial evidence before being accepted.

Several studies have been published on Iridology and its ability (or inability) to correctly diagnose patients.

“An Evaluation of Iridology” was published in JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association) in 1979. Three iridologists viewed slides of 143 patients irides of which they had no information concerning their medical histories. 95 of the subjects were free of kidney disease and 48 had severe kidney disease. The iridologists were asked to specify which patients had a kidney disease. None of the iridologists were able to diagnose patients with any statistical relevance outside of chance.

Paul Knipschild published “Looking for gall bladder disease in the patient’s iris” in the British Medical Journal during 1988. Coloured slides of 78 patients, 39 with gall bladder disease, were shown to 5 iridologists. Gall bladder disease was chosen as it is supposedly one of the easier medical conditions to diagnose through iridology. The iridologists were asked to provide a percentage chance of the patient having gall bladder disease. They scored only slightly higher than chance and there was no consistency between the 5 iridologists.

“An investigation of the relationship between anatomical features in the iris and systemic disease, with reference to iridology” was a study published in 1996 which used a computer program to analyse slides of patient’s irides who were suffering from ulcerative colitis, asthma, coronary heart disease or psoriasis, by comparing them to a set of controls matching in age and sex. There were no significant differences between any of the patient groups and the controls relating to the presence or absence of features of the irides.

In 2005 “Can iridology detect susceptibility to cancer? A prospective case-controlled study” was published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. In this study a single Iridologist looked at the irides of 110 subjects. This was done in person with the subjects present but with their entire bodies covered except for their eyes. Subjects were also not allowed to communicate with the iridologist in any way. 68 patients had breast cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, prostate cancer or colorectal cancer (several patients had 2 malignancies). Only 3 patients were correctly diagnosed and the study concluded that “iridology did not identify the cancer patients at an acceptable statistical level”.

The results of all these studies show that iridology is of no value in diagnosing patients. Iridologists had no better than chance percentage of correctly diagnosing a patient and would often give a false-positive, diagnose them with a disease that they didn’t have, which could cause a patient mental anguish as well being financially expensive. More dangerous of course are false-negatives, not picking up on a disease they suffer from. For these people, seeing an iridologist could delay the proper medical diagnosis of their disease which, worst case, could prove fatal.

References

Tassoma IS: The eye manifestations of Internal Disease. St Louis, CV Mosby Co, 1946, pp155-160

http://sandycarter.com/iridologynow/iridology-history.html

http://altmed.creighton.edu/Iridology/history_of_iridology.htm

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/iridology.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_systemic_diseases_with_ocular_manifestations

Knipschild P. Looking for gall bladder disease in the patient’s iris. BMJ 1988; 297: 1578-1581

Simon A, Worthen DM, Mitas JA. An evaluation of iridology. JAMA 1979; 242: 1385- 1389

Munstedt K, Can Iridology detect susceptibility to cancer? A prospective case-controlled study. JACM 2005; 11: 515-519

Buchanan T.J, Sutherland C.J, Strettle R.J, Terrell T.J and Pewsey A. An investigation of the relationship between anatomical features in the iris and systemic disease, with reference to iridology. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 1996; 4: 98-102

Science, Pseudo-Science and the Supernatural

2009-12-30T18:44:00.000-08:00

When debating claims of astrology, extra-sensory perception, ghosts, intelligent design, and religion, it is often argued that they are beyond science, that science doesn’t have the tools to study them. These arguments stem from a lack of understanding of how science operates.

Science is the gathering of observable, empirical and measurable evidence which is then used as the basis for establishing a hypothesis (a possible explanation for observed phenomenon). This hypothesis is then used to make further predictions for future phenomenon which can be experimentally tested or observed. Through experimentation these predictions can either be verified or falsified.

When the results contradict what was predicted, then a new hypotheses needs to be developed, along with further predictions (it is important to note that these predictions cannot have already been observed). If the results of the experiment verify what was originally predicted then the hypotheses becomes a working hypotheses, but must still undergo further testing. In both cases the experiment itself must be carefully analysed to ensure that there are no experimental errors.

These hypotheses through further verification evolve into theories, which are principles offered to explain phenomenon and provide accurate, predictive descriptions of the natural world. Science can never prove definitively that something is always going to happen, just provide a strong probability of that event occurring. An example would be that science cannot be used to claim that the sun will definitely rise tomorrow, just that it is extremely likely to, based on several thousand years of human observation leading to our current understanding of the orbits of the planets.

The opposite is also true in that science can never prove a negative, that is; science can’t prove that something doesn’t exist; it can just provide a probability of that event not occurring. Therefore science can’t state that there is no spaghetti monster, just that there is a very high probability that it doesn’t exist, based on the fact that so far no-one has found any trace of its existence despite our extensive exploration of the planet Earth.

Even the basic underlying principles of the scientific method cannot be claimed to be universal truths. It is only claimed that it is extremely probable that they will continue to work. Repeating an experiment with identical parameters has so far always generated identical results, but we cannot assume that this will always be the case, only that there is a very high probability of this occurring.

For something to be beyond science it would mean that there was no observable, empirical or measurable evidence for a hypothesis to be founded on. In this case the invisible, unmeasurable phenomenon would have no possible way of interacting with the physical world and affecting a person’s life in any way. It becomes something that is supernatural, literally above nature, and therefore of absolutely no concern to anyone. This is not to say they do or don’t exist, just that they cannot have any effect on the physical universe within which we reside, and therefore cannot be shown to exist or not.

An example of this could be in conversation with proponents of ghosts, spirits, specters or souls. It would be contradictory of them to state that they have seen ghosts or have seen things move inexplicably, and then state that they are beyond science’s ability to study and understand. If the phenomenon is creating an observable effect (moving things around the room or reflecting light waves to our eyes) then science can observe and measure these phenomena.

Using science, people will continue probing the universe, documenting what we find and building upon our already great wealth of knowledge. Current theories will likely be overturned and replaced as they have been in the past but this is just how the scientific process works. Scientists should never be personally invested in the outcomes of science but instead the scientific methodology from which these results are founded. As Carl Sagan said “Science is a way of thinking more than it is a body of knowledge”.

Aura Photography

2009-12-23T19:28:00.000-08:00

For any of you who have ever braved a psychic fair, you will have seen the booths inviting you to have a photograph of your aura. This aura is supposedly connected to the activity of your chakras (vortices of energy permeating from certain points of our bodies), and is able to reflect a person’s quality of consciousness, emotional state, thoughts and well-being (i).

Throughout history people have continued to claim that they can see and interpret a person’s aura, including Buddhist monks, Native American Shamans and Christian Priests, whose Saints were depicted with glowing halos. In the 20th century an aura was supposedly captured on film by two Russian scientists, Semyon and Valentina Kirlian. This was done by passing high voltage, high frequency electricity through an object resting on photographic film. The process is now referred to as Kirlian photography.

The rest of the article will be in three parts. The first describing the mechanism behind Kirlian photography and what is actually being captured on film, the second giving some possible medical explanations for how people might see an aura and the third explaining how aura photography at psychic fairs work.

Kirlian Photography

As stated above, Kirlian photography is achieved by passing high voltage, high frequency electricity through an object resting on photographic film. Below is a link to a site outlining how you could build your own simple Kirlian photography device.

http://www.imagesco.com/articles/kirlian/kirlian-photography-device.html

The ‘aura’ captured on film shown emanating from the object is actually a corona discharge, where the surrounding air becomes ionised allowing it to conduct electricity (ii) . This same principle can be seen in action around the toroid of a Tesla Coil. Testing whether this ‘aura’ is linked to the life force, emotional state or health of an object is a simple enough test, place any non-organic object that will conduct electricity (such as a key or coin)on the film and you will see the same corona discharge around the object.

Many believers in Aura photography will claim that it produces an effect dubbed the “Phantom Limb Effect”, where any recently removed parts of an organic object will still appear on film with an aura surrounding them. The following is an excerpt from a paper outlining Dr. Harry Oldfield’s (a Homeopathic Physician) process for capturing the “Phantom Limb Effect” in potato leaves.

“His original research with Kirlian photography focused on the phantom leaf effect: organic potato leaves were set up for Kirlian photography but then the leaves were removed from the stem. In many cases the energy outline showed the whole leaves, ie including the portions removed, thus showing a natural energy field corresponding to the physical structure and molecules of the leaf.” (iii)

Unfortunately there is a mundane answer for this effect; it is just the result of sloppy experimentation and a lack of understanding of the physics behind Kirlian photography. Kirlian photography works on organic objects due to their water content. This water allows the object to conduct electricity. By first placing the entire leaf on the photographic film and then removing part of it, you are leaving a water residue on the film which will still conduct electricity and emit a corona discharge. The “Phantom Limb Effect” disappears when the ‘limb’ is removed before placing on the film.

Aura’s in Medicine

People throughout history have claimed that they could perceive an individual’s aura without the aid of any modern technology. Whilst many of these people might be fraudsters and charlatans, a few may legitimately perceive some form of ‘aura’ at times. Around 1/5 of migraine sufferers have symptoms that include visual auras as well as auditory and olfactory hallucinations. These visual auras can manifest as flashes of black, white and occasionally colour (photopsia) or zigzagging lines (scintillating scotoma) (iv). Before migraines were properly understood it is easy to understand how people might believe that they were witnessing a divine act (followed by a severe headache) instead of visual hallucinations due to hyper-activity of brain cells.

Another possible explanation for perceived visual auras is synaesthesia. Synaesthesia is loosely defined as when one sense activates another unrelated sense. Synaesthesia can take many forms but the most common sub-sets are colour-graphemic; where numbers and/or letters (occasionally shapes) produce colours and simple patterns, and colour-auditory; in which auditory input, including voices, music, and random noise, produces colours, textures, and shapes (v). This could also be interpreted by those ignorant of the medical research as anecdotal evidence for the existence of auras.

Aura Photography

The aura photography you will see at psychic fairs is often thought to be Kirlian photography but it is actually nothing of the sort. For those of you not familiar with the process, you are asked to place both of your hands on metal plates, which are connected to a ‘black box’ and a Polaroid camera. Your photo is then given to you with bright colourful lights surrounding you, and a leaflet describing the meaning of all the different colours.

The metal plate you’re placing your hands on is actually a galvanometer and is simply measuring the skin resistance of your hands. This information is then fed into the ‘black box’ where it lights up a series of coloured LEDs to different intensities, which are then superimposed over the image of you. When pressed (give a man enough rope and...) the practitioners of this art will tell you that skin resistance measured at the different locations on the hand represent different organs/emotional states/states of being etc. There are no published peer-reviewed studies that show any correlation of this sort. A simple enough test would be to have two of these photographs taken, one with very dry hands and another after you have wet them. Both photos should turn out dramatically different due to the substantial difference of resistance between wet and dry hands.

Conclusion

Neither Kirlian photography nor Aura photography have stood up to any claims that they can capture someone’s aura on film. It is just another fancy light show designed to fool those that don’t question the scientific mechanisms behind such processes.

References

(i)http://www.auraimaging.com/fundementals/whatis.shtml

(ii)David G. Boyers and William A. Tiller (1973). "Corona discharge photography". Journal of Applied Physics 44 3102-3112

(iii)http://www.healthseminarsonline.com/attachments/583_dr_harry_oldfield_inventor.pdf

(iv)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aura_%28symptom%29

(v)http://www.bu.edu/synesthesia/faq/index.html#q3

http://www.imagesco.com/articles/kirlian/kirlian-photography-device.html

http://www.webmd.com/migraines-headaches/what-is-a-migraine-with-aura

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia#Grapheme_.E2.86.92_color_synesthesia