Why Don't You Atheists Criticize Islam?

This is a question that I hear a lot, actually. And not just from Christians who want to redirect criticism—also from former Muslims who are frustrated by what appears to them to be a softness in the way some white, middle-class atheists (like me) treat Islam. For example, a friend of mine recently wrote on Facebook:

If you apply the principles of critical thinking to Christianity but not to Islam because Muslims are generally not white, you are probably a racist. ‪#‎Atheists‬

This is a complex topic, so I reached out to my friend for clarification. I asked if he had a particular example in mind when chastising his fellow atheists for failing to apply critical thinking when it comes to Islam, because I was having difficulty coming up with such an example. It strikes me that the reason for this might have to do with a fundamental disagreement about our priorities and about our approach. (And, as an aside, I'm not convinced that a failure to identify or levy just criticism as described above would qualify as racism, even if it does occur as described.)

To be fair, I certainly know some atheists who focus their criticism on the religions with the most influence in their area, and others who are more concerned about further marginalizing groups of people in their community who already face a significant amount of discrimination—but neither of those seem to be due to a lack of critical thinking. I myself am perfectly willing to say that I think that the metaphysical beliefs of inherent in Islam are misguided, and that the teachings of Muhammed are often inaccurate and frequently seem to have social repercussions that are downright awful.

But when I make these criticisms (and sometimes I do) I also try to be careful in the way that I phrase them, because I don't want to simply add my voice to what seems to be (even from an outsider's perspective) a cacophony of hatred and xenophobia that many Muslims are already subjected to. To reframe the idea in a different context, tweeting legitimate criticism (which does exist!) of games journalism under the #GamerGate hashtag will probably drown out whatever nuanced point you're making in a torrent of hate. We risk not only making the lives of these people more difficult, but also—and this is important—we give those who would rather ignore our concerns a convenient excuse to dismiss the very real and important criticisms that we level at their religious ideologies.

For me, personally, I'd rather not make anyone's life more difficult (particularly when they belong to a group that already has to deal with a lot of persecution). But I'd also rather give my message the best possible chance of being heard. And for that, I must think carefully about how I present my criticisms.

It turned out that this particular post was sparked by my friend's frustration at the Yale Humanists' involvement in a recent attempt to cancel an address by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. According to Hemant over at Friendly Atheist, "they called for her speech to be limited to her own experiences (meaning she wouldn't be allowed to speak about her perception of Islam in general) and for another speaker with 'academic credentials' to also be invited." Neither request was accepted, and her speech went forward as planned.

Personally, I don't think that I would be particularly interested in hearing Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak. But that's has more to do with her professed admiration for Henry Kissinger and Benjamin Netanyahu, and the fact that she's a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute: it has nothing to do with her criticism of Islam. (And that's not at all to say that her stance on Islam is wrong simply as a result of those associations, or that we shouldn't expose ourselves to views that we disagree with—absolutely we should! But we all get to decide how we spend our time, and frankly I think I'd have a better time if I did something else.) I do not support the Yale Humanists in the stance that they decided to take.

Getting back to the subject of exercising care in the way we address Islam, this friend of mine concedes that while my view is a common one among the "liberal left", he does not agree with it. He recommended that I read this Huffington Post article by Ali A. Rizvi, a writer and physician whom I often find entertaining and informative: A Conversation Between Two Atheists from Muslim Backgrounds. Here, unfortunately, I'm hard pressed to find things that I agree with, outside of the broadest of strokes.

The article claims that liberals believe that "the United States is the worst country on Earth" and that "we are no better if not worse than the Middle East when it comes to women's rights and gay rights". Both of these statements strike me as totally absurd straw men (and they are not the only ones). I can only guess that these ideas are borne out from observing liberals (like me) criticize the treatment of marginalized groups in North America, when those same groups are treated so much worse elsewhere. I'm having trouble seeing a substantive difference between this sentiment and "Dear Muslima", which is completely awful for reasons that should be obvious.

PZ Myers points out a few of the problems with the false dilemma presented here:

That the US is not quite as bloody-minded domestically (we’re pretty bloody-minded when it comes to foreign policy, unfortunately) as, say, Afghanistan does not mean we need to shut up and not worry about cleaning our own house. It does not mean we must live in denial about the diminished career opportunities for women in America because women in Saudi Arabia are being stoned to death for adultery.

We must remain focused on injustice everywhere. We cannot excuse a lesser crime here because a greater crime occurs somewhere else.

Even if you’re focused entirely on the greatest offenses against humanity, there are good practical reasons to address them everywhere. For example: Ireland is a western democracy; I’d rather live there than in the Sudan, or Uganda, or Iran. It’s a very nice place, for the most part, with some ugly history and unfortunate relics of theocracy lurking about, like their blasphemy law and their acknowledgment of a deity in their constitution. Minor problems compared to countries that are actively and oppressively theocratic, right? But some Islamic nations love to point to the blasphemy laws in Ireland as legitimizing their own tyrannical laws.

Further, the Irish people can work to change their laws to a more enlightened state; Irish or Americans or French people can’t do much to change Iranian law, other than by setting a good example, or more unfortunately, throwing threats and bombs at them until they change (and the record shows that those tactics aren’t particularly effective).

...

How would Muslims feel if we declared that they have to shut up and stop with the pity party until North Korea is cleaned up? Because of course there is only room for one Hell on earth, and all the rest of the planet is a paradise.

I worry that this talk of the problems with some hegemonic "liberal left" serves to distract us from the conversations that we need to have. There are very real problems, social and political, both locally and abroad, that are exacerbated by religion (among other ideologies): I see Islam as a major player, here. So we need to honestly ask ourselves and each other, as fellow human beings, how these problems can be best addressed. We need to be free to criticize the ideas of others honestly, and we need to keep our goals in mind.

I'm not just trying to middle-road this: my views on this subject are complex, and resist the simple caricature presented in Rizvi's article. Some of them were expressed in the episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else that that I hosted last year where we talked about Québec's proposed (now failed) "Charter of Values". If you're interested in what I think, it might be enlightening.

---

Addendum: As pointed out on Twitter by @Cynicalreality, a more concise and equally accurate response to the titular question here is simply, "we do". Unfortunately, I've never been much good at "concise", and there were a few related issues that I wanted to talk about anyway.

---

Second Addendum: If you want a nuanced critique of some of the problems these discussions face, I recommend reading this guest-post on Pharyngula by Sadaf Ali of Ex-Muslims of North America: Ben Affleck, You Are Not Helping.

Write Canadian MPs to bring Clinical Trial Transparency to Canada

Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

The fine folks at AllTrials have an important reminder for you. Act now! (Stay tuned to the next episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, when we discuss some of these issues in a bit more depth.)

We have just heard that we have a chance to improve clinical trial transparency in Canada. Bill C-17 or “Vanessa’s Law” is being considered this Tuesday and there’s a chance to get clinical trial transparency measures added to it.

We urgently need you to write to the MPs on the Standing Committee on Health to tell them how important clinical trial transparency is. A template letter is below, followed by the emails for the MPs on the committee. We’ll keep you posted about the Bill’s progress, but please send your emails today.

They have a sample letter that you can send on their website. Because I'm also concerned about Vanessa's Law ignoring potentially-dangerous natural health products, I sent a slightly modified version, below:

Ben Lobb, Chair ben.lobb@parl.gc.ca
Libby Davies, Vice-Chair libby.davies@parl.gc.ca
Hedy Fry, Vice-Chair hedy.fry@parl.gc.ca
Eve Adams eve.adams@parl.gc.ca
Claude Gravelle <laude.gravelle@parl.gc.ca
Wladyslaw Lizon wladyslaw.lizon@parl.gc.ca
James Lunney james.lunney@parl.gc.ca
Dany Morin dany.morin@parl.gc.ca
David Wilks david.wilks@parl.gc.ca
Terence Young terence.young@parl.gc.ca

Dear members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health:

I'm writing to you regarding Bill C-17, known as "Vanessa's Law". I am pleased that Parliament is considering a number of new measures such as the power to recall drugs that will significantly improve patient safety; however, I strongly believe the Bill needs key amendments to fully protect patient safety.

Specifically, it is clear that the bill needs to be amended (1) to require that all clinical trials and observational studies are publicly registered before they begin; (2) to mandate that all trials have their full methods and results reported after completion (preferably within one year); and (3) to include provisions for natural health products (NHPs) to be recalled in the same fashion as pharmaceuticals.

Results from around half of clinical trials have never been published and many have never been registered. New laws in the United States and Europe require the registration and reporting of future clinical trials but in Canada there is no legal requirement to register or disclose the results. Information on what was done and what was found in these trials could be lost forever to doctors and researchers, leading to bad treatment decisions, missed opportunities for good medicine, and trials being repeated (at great cost). Further, the regulator's interpretation of the evidence must be publicly available when it approves, refuses or recalls a drug from the market.

Further, it's very important to ensure that information about clinical trials and observational studies is not considered confidential. This information is generated because people participate in trials in the hope of advancing knowledge. If we treat this information as private property, it ignores the contribution that clinical trial participants make.

Finally, it is my understanding that the law currently exempts natural health products (NHPs) from the same level of scrutiny that it applies to pharmaceuticals. To be clear, NHPs are drugs. They are pharmacologically active, they can be dangerous in certain circumstances, and they can have negative drug-drug interactions with pharmaceuticals. For this reason, it is vital that we not exclude NHPs from close scrutiny and potential recall simply because they are "natural".

I understand that Bill C-17, in its current form, lacks these important measures. For this reason, I'm writing to you, in your capacity as a member of the Standing Committee, to urge you to consider amending Bill C-17 to make sure Canada's drug regulatory system is transparent and to ensure that Canadians are protected from all drugs, whether they're "natural" or not. These critical amendments would ensure that the evidence base behind all drugs are open to scrutiny, physicians and other health care providers are adequately informed about the risks and benefits, and patients are better protected from harm.

Sincerely,
Gem Newman
Winnipeg

Hat tip to Ian Bushfield from Sense About Science.

Health Freedom and Food Intolerance Testing

Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

I've talked about IgG testing previously, but in case you need a refresher, an IgG test is a blood test that proposes to improve your health by identifing food "intolerances" (not necessarily allergies). I'll leave the rest of the primer to Scott Gavura, a Canadian pharmacist who writes for both Skeptic North and Science Based Medicine:

IgG blood tests like Hemocode and YorkTest are clinically useless for diagnosing food intolerances, yet pharmacies imply otherwise. These tests claim to identify sensitivity to hundreds of products – yet not one has been validated. That’s because there no proven correlation between positive results on an IgG blood test and a true food intolerance. Not only are these tests use to shape dietary modification, they’re also used to sell supplements – another unproven use of IgG testing. Yet despite recent cautions against this testing, it continues to be offered.

A host of professional organisations including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy, the British Dietetic Association, and many more have all recommended that consumers avoid using these tests to diagnose allergies or intolerances, because the evidence just isn't there.

In response to my previous post about Dr. Elaine Chin's scientifically bankrupt endorsement of IgG testing, a reader going by the pseudonym "Still Searching" had this to say:

Many people suffer from chronic conditions that traditional medical practitioners have been unable to alleviate. [Although] the relationship between chronic health conditions and IgG response and use of IgG test results may not be proven, there is a significant amount of anecdotal evidence of dramatic improvements in health through use of elimination diets and similar. Should we wait decades for medical proof before investing $200 in a simple test that might lead to a change in diet that might significantly reduce chronic depression? Pharmaceutical companies will gladly invest the millions of dollars to fund scientific studies because they stand to make 100′s of millions of dollars in profits from successfully patented drugs. Who is going to fund expensive scientific studies that result in reduced drug use and changes in diet? Such studies will come slowly. Meantime, I think this is a small investment, with much better odds than, say, continuing to seek advice from doctors who have been unable to help for years. It’s important to know this testing is unproven, but we all need to inform ourselves before choosing any course of treatment, and make our own informed choices.

While I'm sympathetic to some of the sentiments that this person has expressed (and I certainly appreciate the courteous and thoughtful manner in which it was done—it's a rarity hereabouts), I do not share the commenter's apparent optimism that the results of IgG tests are at all useful in determining intolerance to foods, for reasons that I think are quite clear by now.

Should we wait decades for medical proof before investing $200 in a simple test that might lead to a change in diet that might significantly reduce chronic depression?

The $200 is a reference to the fact that another commenter mentioned that he or she wasted that much money on an IgG test that proved worthless. For many people, $200 is rather a lot to pay, but potentially worse is the fact that any given IgG test is sure to prompt the customer to eliminate certain foods from their diet, probably unnecessarily, which is a major inconvenience at the very least.

And a change in diet might significantly reduce chronic depression? Well, whether it's worth the $200 depends on how likely it is that you'd see an improvement. And for that, we want to see clinical data. If you disagree, I have a rock for sale that may interest you: it might prevent tiger attacks.

Pharmaceutical companies will gladly invest the millions of dollars to fund scientific studies because they stand to make 100's of millions of dollars in profits from successfully patented drugs. Who is going to fund expensive scientific studies that result in reduced drug use and changes in diet? Such studies will come slowly.

They're certainly not going to bother funding such studies when they realise that they can just sell the service to people whether it works or not. That's why so many companies that sell nutritional supplements are owned by major pharmaceutical corporations: because of the way the these products are regulated (hint: very, very poorly), they don't have to invest the research dollars before they turn a profit. (Alacer Corporation, the manufacturer of "Emergen-C", is owned by Pfizer for example.) Which brings up another point: While patented drugs are great for the bottom line, you can still turn a tidy profit on something that is not patentable (or whose patent has expired). Vitamins and supplements aside, Aspirin still makes quite a lot of money for Bayer, despite the fact that Bayer's patent on acetylsalicylic acid expired 96 years ago.

I find it troubling that while this commenter is quick to point out the profit motive of major pharmaceutical companies, he or she seems to ignore the fact that the companies who provide these testing services are making boatloads of cash from selling these tests, all without bothering to do all of that pesky science to make sure they actually work.

Because the relationship between chronic health conditions and IgG response and use of IgG test results may not be proven, there is a significant amount of anecdotal evidence of dramatic improvements in health through use of elimination diets and similar.

I'm curious as to why this person is so quick to dismiss the many professional associations in relevant medical and nutritional fields (those qualified to assess the state of the evidence) that have determined that IgG tests are worthless. More details are provided by Scott Gavura over at Science Based Medicine.

As for there being "significant anecdotal evidence" for the efficacy of IgG tests, I'll simply point out that there also seems to be "significant anecdotal evidence" against the efficacy of IgG tests. (Not to mention actual, non-anecdotal evidence to that effect.) While anecdotes are certainly useful in pointing research in new and potentially fruitful directions, they are not in and of themselves especially useful in determining efficacy.

When you get right down to it, this is an argument about health freedom and informed consent, but everyone isn't going to be well-informed on every topic all the time. For this reason, I'm of the opinion that health products should be subjected to robust regulation, with emphasis placed on both safety and efficacy (and without dubious exemptions for products marketed as "natural"). There will always be Kevin Trudeaus* and Leonard Coldwells trying to sell nonsense disguised as medicine, and we should be trying to make it as difficult as possible for them to do it.

It's important to know this testing is unproven, but we all need to inform ourselves before choosing any course of treatment, and make our own informed choices.

I could not agree more.

---

* Or would the proper plural of "Kevin Trudeau" be "Kevin Trudeaux"? Perhaps "Kevins Trudeau"?

LUEE Episode 70: The Science of Arguing

Episode 70: The Science of Arguing

In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Greg Christensen discusses the science of argumentation and persuasion with Richelle McCullough and special guest Seren Gordon.

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.

Links: The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science | Tim Ball | The Dunning-Kruger Effect | The Backfire Effect Shows Why You Can't Use Facts to Win an Argument | Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument | Study: To the Human Brain, Me Is We | Argument: When Losing Is Winning | A Field Guide to Climate Change Skeptics | Image: President Bush Welcomes President-Elect Obama, Former President Clinton, Former President Bush, and Former President Carter to the White House | LeVar Burton Explains How Not to Be Killed by Police | When Prophecy Fails, by Leon Festinger

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | Stitcher | RSS Feed

Online Skeptical Activism: Does It Work?

Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

The Winnipeg Skeptics is first and foremost about community: until 2010, skeptics, critical thinkers, science enthusiasts, and curmudgeons in Winnipeg didn't really have a group to call their own, and so we created one. But many of us also care passionately about skeptical activism—and one of the easiest places to "do skepticism" is online.

In addition to our Facebook page (which you should "like", by the way), we also have a Facebook discussion group (which we welcome anyone to join). I always enjoy engaging in critical discussions on scientific topics in the comments section of the blog, where I recently had an extended conversation about the purported dangers of radiofrequency EMF. (It's worth noting parenthetically that "how do i start an anti wifi group" is currently one of the top web searches that leads to the Winnipeg Skeptics site.)

But one of the questions that I frequently encounter when discussing online skeptical activism is simply: Does it work?

I believe that it's important to counter misinformation wherever and whenever we find it (especially when it seems likely that those who are misinformed may come to serious harm), and confronting pseudoscience on social media serves a valuable role. While you may not persuade those with whom you're arguing directly (not immediately, anyway), you can prevent bystanders and passers by from being convinced by shoddy evidence, and you can help curtail the spread of bad science.

Members of the Winnipeg Skeptics are always doing battle against pseudoscience, and so I thought that I might share some of our recent social media escapades. I'll note that a few of the snippets that I'll present have been reordered slightly. This is because in some cases many people were posting to a thread simultaneously and responding to each other's comments, and I'd like to present sufficient context for the discussion without forcing the reader to wade through every single comment. I'll also link to a full screenshot of each discussion for those readers who would like to see each comment in its original context. I have also redacted the names of those participants who I don't know to be "out" as skeptics. On the one hand, that's sort of a shame, because there were a fair number of very solid points made and credit should go where credit is due. On the other hand, I feel that leaving these people's names in there without permission would be rather rude.

We'll start off with a discussion on the Little Remedies Canada Facebook page from a couple of months back. In their original post they claim that, flu season having arrived, squeezing a clove of garlic into your child's food would give their immune system a "super boost". (Full discussion.)



Next, I'll present a brief exchange that Richelle had with the proprietor of Calgary's The Naked Leaf tea house, in which they slyly claim-without-actually-claiming that their tea treats high cholesterol and high blood sugar. (Full discussion.)



The response is classic: they promote nonsense, they're called on it, and they responded with the old, "Well now, we're not making any claims! We're just letting other people make claims on our behalf!" (This is standard operating procedure for multilevel/network marketing schemes, incidentally.)

The last discussion that I'll cite in detail comes from the Facebook page of Planned Parenthood Waterloo Region. At the end of last month they announced, "Planned Parenthood is proud to be hosting 'Night with a Homeopath' on Tuesday February 26th ... [to] discuss what a homeopathic practitioner is and what they can do for us." PPWR described the event as a great chance to learn about "alternatives to 'modern medicine'." The skeptical response was swift and decisive, with Rebecca Watson and members of the Winnipeg and Ottawa Skeptics spreading the word on Twitter and Facebook. (Full discussion.)



That first comment pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?



All of that took place within an hour of the announcement. It seemed like Planned Parenthood Waterloo Region wasn't going to back down, given the fact that they opened with the "you're not being open minded" gambit, entreating us to just hear the homeopath out. But we were determined to spread this story far and wide, and just a few minutes later links to the announcement returned this:



And this announcement followed soon after:



How's that for a win?

And this news came just a few days before it was announced that the Ottawa Regional Cancer Foundation had dropped notorious anti-vaccine crank Jenny McCarthy from their Bust a Move charity fundraiser in response to pressure from groups like the Ottawa Skeptics and Bad Science Watch. The #dropjenny campaign, spearheaded by the Ottawa Skeptics' Chris Hebbern, took place almost entirely on Twitter.

So, online skeptical activism: Does it work?

It certainly seems to.

LUEE Episode 33: News Update

Episode 33: News Update

In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Ashlyn Noble is joined by Brendan Curran-Johnson, Mark Forkheim, and Gem Newman to discuss local and international news of interest to skeptics, including teaching kids to program, women banned from Iranian university programs, Amish hate crimes, the Ig Nobel awards, and more!

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.

Links: Back to School Request: Teach Kids to Code | The Mechanical Turk | Anger as Iran Bans Women from Universities | Organic Food No More Nutritious Than Conventional Food (Winnipeg Free Press, The Guardian, The Atlantic) | Amish Guilty of Hate Crimes in Ohio Beard-cuttings | Ig Nobel Awards (Improbable Research, Wikipedia)

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed

A Brief Summary of my Thoughts on the Subject of Organic Agriculture and Its More Conventional Alternative

We've been trying to get an episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else on the subject of Organic Agriculture together for quite a while. But, as this is a very complicated topic, and I am very busy, we haven't recorded it yet.

Image (CC BY-SA 3.0) by Bluemoose via Wikipedia

My friend Ali (who you may remember from the LUEE episodes Leaving Faith Behind and Justice and Hate Crimes) asked for my thoughts on the subject, specifically focusing on the question, "Is organic agriculture more environmentally friendly?" And so, here are my thoughts. I've tried to keep them brief. But I'm not very good at that. I also tried to stay on topic. But I'm not very good at that, either.

Is "organic" better for the environment? The answer to that seems to be: it depends. Probably, but it's very complicated.

There have been several large studies that seem to show that the production of organic foodstuffs is no more environmentally friendly than conventional agriculture (and may in some cases be more harmful). See this recent study, for example.

These summaries of the evidence, by Brian Dunning, are pretty good in my opinion:

Organic Food Myths
Is it a revolution in health and the environment, or a counterproductive fad?

Organic vs. Conventional Agriculture
Is organic agriculture truly safer or better for the environment than modern farming?

Amy Davis Roth of Skepchick also did a pretty good job with this Q&A: Ask Surly Amy: Genetically Modified Plants.

My provisional view on the matter is that when it comes to safety or health, there doesn't seem to be any real difference between organic and conventional agriculture. When it comes to environmental concerns, I tend to lean more toward conventional agriculture, as I am persuaded by the argument that centralized distribution is more efficient, and by the argument that while yields may not be substantially bigger with conventional crops, they tend to be hardier and require fewer "inputs" (fertilizer, etc.). My concerns come in when you have large and aggressively litigious agribusiness companies controlling large swathes of the food supply (which we now do), who have patented certain organisms and who force farmers to be completely dependent on them for seeds year-by-year. This is bad, for a plethora of reasons, most of which should be obvious.

I'll conclude with a few stray observations about "organic" foodstuffs.

Turning to safety, there was recently a completely terrible study published claiming that GE corn resulted in cancer in rats. For a lengthy discussion (and takedown) from a skeptical oncologist, I recommend reading this. Additionally, a large meta-analysis was recently published, finding no significant nutritional benefits from organic produce.

I am annoyed by the "organic" label, because the term "organic" has a very rigorous and well-defined meaning in chemistry, but not so much when it comes to agriculture. But that's mostly just me being a linguistic prescriptivist, and I recognise that this position is untenable. (On a side note, the French term, "biologique", translates as "biological", which is even worse.)

I am supportive of the "free range" movement. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell "free range" isn't a regulated term, so there's no guarantee that the animals involved are actually better treated.

I am concerned that use of antibiotics in livestock may be excessive, and are in some cases used to "enhance productivity" instead of to "target an identified pathogen". The issue is complicated, however. (This whitepaper has some fairly good summaries, in terms of antibiotic use in agriculture; it does disclose that the conference that generated it was partially funded by Pfizer, etc.)

Also, I advise against using terms like "GMOs" (Genetically Modified Organisms), because every agricultural product is genetically "modified" in some way, via hybridization and/or artificial selection (either intentional or unintential). Instead, I prefer to speak about "GE" foodstuffs (Genetically Engineered).

So, in my mind, there may be good reasons to avoid the products of big agribusiness companies like Monsanto: but these criticisms tend to have more to do with big business and less to do with science.

There remains, of course, much more to be said (about the various things that "organic agriculture" can mean, for example, or the several disparate ideologies that may motivate some people to choose organic), but that incomplete (and probably flawed) analysis of this complex topic will have to stand. For now.

The Dangerous Truth Behind Cooked Food

Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

Brevity is not one of my strengths. For this reason, what often begins as a minor correction or a response to a question in the comments section often becomes its own blog post (the character limits imposed by various blogging platforms also plays a role).

This is a follow-up to a post from several months ago, in which I discuss the shortcomings of an article from the hilarious TruthTheory.com: The Not-So-Dangerous Truth Behind Microwaves. Here, I respond to some criticism that I received.

This blog is no more an authority than the ones you mocked.

Excellent.

Seriously, that's great! I'm just some beardy dude who likes science and occasionally has the opportunity to do science, but my specialty is in artificial intelligence (although recently I've been helping out with research in robotics and psychology). I make no claim to either authority (something that's pretty much worthless in matters of science) or expertise (something that's a little more relevant) in this (or any) subject. I'm trying to instill in people an appreciation for science and critical thinking generally. If you think that I want people to consider me an authority on matters scientific in any domain, either I'm not getting a properly skeptical message across (certainly debatable) or you're not paying attention.

Firstly, lets define "harmful": carcinogens are harmful...

Granted.

...as well as, destroying phytonutrients that the body needs to sustain itself and strengthen defenses.

I do not grant that the reduction of phytochemicals in food is harmful. Stipulating that the compounds in question are healthful, it does not stand to reason that reducing the phytochemical content of a given food is harmful unless it is also established that the subject has a deficiency.

To illustrate by example: I would not consider a carton of pasteurized orange juice to be "harmful" (although its high sugar content may be problemmatic for some), despite the fact that the pasteurization process destroys much of the vitamin C content in the juice (and not all manufacterers add supplemental vitamin C to their juices)—unless, of course, the person consuming the product were deficient in vitamin C and counting on the orange juice in this regard.

Returning to the point about carcinogenicity, I'll remind the commenter that many common methods of cooking are implicated as cancer-causing, to some degree or other, including pan-frying, grilling, or barbecuing meat (source), smoking meats, roasting coffee beans, or even cooking with vegetable oils (source), or simply heating carbohydrate-rich food by means other than boiling (source).

This is complicated by the fact that several foods contain both compounds found to be carcinogenic and anticarcinogenic compounds.

What's worse, these phenomena are much better established both epidemeologically and from a basic science standpoint than the carcinogenicity of some microwaved foods. So why the outcry over microwaves? If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it's because they're scary and new and complicated, and people tend to distrust things that they don't understand. Luckily, I'm under no obligation to hazard such a guess, so I won't.

Name the evidence that would be good enough to convince you there is "proof"?

The word "proof" is in scare quotes, as though to imply I'm asking for proof. I'm not. Science doesn't deal in "proofs": it deals in evidence, and no level of evidence constitutes "proof" in any sense but the colloquial.

But here's what I think would qualify as good evidence that microwaved foods are harmfully carcinogenic (for example): Replicable (and replicated), peer-reviewed studies establishing from a basic science standpoint that carcinogenic compounds are formed in foods heated or cooked in microwave ovens (and that these compounds are not formed in foods heated by other conventional methods), followed by epidemiological studies showing both statistically and clinically significant correlations between microwave use and cancer incidence.

That's a lot to ask for, of course, but I'd be happy to give my provisional assent to the proposition if it looks like a consensus is forming in the literature. It would also help if the IARC recognised microwaved foodstuffs as even potentially carcinogenic (Group 2B); but, as it stands, microwaved foods don't even make the list of things that the IARC can't rule out.

Is it possible that some foods are less nutritious when microwaved? Of course! I'd say that it's likely! But the same could be said for boiling, for frying, or for just about any other method of cooking, depending on the food.

Is it possible that some foods are carcinogenic when microwaved? Again, of course! But let's look at the specifics, and let's not forget (while we make sweeping generalizations), that the same is also already well established for many popular methods of cooking.

Do these admissions run contrary to my previous article on the safety of microwaves? Hardly. Even if it were (somehow) conclusively "proven" that microwaved food was harmful, that would not make the article I was critiquing "true" in any meaningful sense!

As I've said several times now, my problem with the original article had nothing to do with its conclusions and everything to do with the fact that it put ideology first and evidence second. It was horrendously sourced, made sweeping generalizations, got the basic science wrong, and cited as sources sites that were (to put it very mildly) disreputable and dishonest.

Unstuffing the Straw Man

This site currently employs the Blogger publishing platform. While I occasionally appreciate the fact that it enforces a strict character limit on commentary, it does occasionally hamper my ability to respond in detail.

After I advocated that Winnipeg City Hall discontinue the practice of invoking supernatural magic at City Council meetings, a reader by the name of Froben responded to the effect that the majority can do whatever it damn well pleases.

In my rebuttal, I tried to emphasise that (1) Canada has a commitment to religious and cultural pluralism, (2) the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms serves to protect the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority, (3) government should avoid, where possible, marginalising minority groups, (4) abolishing government-sanctioned prayer does not in any way prevent City Councillors from praying either privately or publicly, and (5) failure to endorse Christianity does not constitute an endorsement of atheism.

While Froben neither conceded or addressed many of the points above, he has reaffirmed his position as a strict majoritarian (a position that I find rather sinister):

I suppose having been pressed in my vagueness I must flesh out my position a bit:

1: A government cannot afford to be neutral about absolutely everything, and in taking necessary positions will necessarily offend. Further, even when we clearly delineate the actual duties of the government in very limited terms, we find these limited duties demanding that the government take even more positions.

1.1: For an example: It is clearly the duty of the government to provide for the national defence and to wage war, if war be just and necessary. But it is apparent that the waging of war offends certain groups, both secular and religious, who for one reason or another espouse pacificism. Further, though it is now the practice (though it wasn't always) to give these pacificists duties which did not involve combat, nevertheless these pacificists clearly have as citizens in some measure to support the government, and thereby the government's official actions (if only by paying taxes which contributed to defence spending, even prior to the war), even against their conscience.

2: It seems apparent, then, that it is not within the government's power to protect absolutely the conscience of any man, even in matters of great importance.

3: To the question of my advocating a kind of majoritarianism, I plead only that Mr. Newman has convicted himself of the same position! I read that "the idea that a position endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the population should be the government's 'official stance' is dangerous," but in the very next paragraph I read that I should not be a majoritarian because, at some point in the past, a majority of Canadians passed a certain Charter.

3.1: Surely there was opposition to the Charter as it stands, if not among the legislators, at least among the nation at large? But that opposition, however small, undoes Mr. Newman's point: like it or not, we do take the position of the overwhelming majority to be the government's official stance, even as we also protect (read: tolerate) minority opinions to the extent that is possible (as in the case of the pacifists).

4: But, I contend, toleration is itself not a sufficient position from which to make any policy, to enact any law, or to carry out any functions of the government. Banking is out, for Muslims and strict Christians forbid usury. Taxation is out, for there be libertarians amongst us (I took "deists who believe in a non-interventionist god," as well as atheism, as representing philosophical positions rather than religions and so include adherents to various philosophies among those who might be offended). Motorcars are out, for an Amish man or Luddite might (heaven forbid it!) take offence. Consider that the government doesn't just allow motorcars; it builds them roads, provides infrastructure for them; plans cities around them!

4.1: So it is apparent that in many cases the government *must* take a position beyond simply tolerating diverse positions, and that this will offend people. It simply won't offend the majority of the citizenry, and it should make as much provision as possible to respect the consciences of the others.

5: Much can also be said about the philosophical and, yes, often theological baggage (but certainly moral) which underlies and must inform all of these positions.

6: Nevertheless, I am willing to discuss prayer in public meetings as an individual issue; I take issue more with the premises from which it was argued than the conclusion per se.

As the bulk of his argument is built on a straw man, I'll largely limit myself to this premise:

A government cannot afford to be neutral about absolutely everything, and in taking necessary positions will necessarily offend. Further, even when we clearly delineate the actual duties of the government in very limited terms, we find these limited duties demanding that the government take even more positions.

I'm not arguing that the government should be neutral about everything, or that it should avoid offending minorities at any cost. There are clearly many positions that the government must take, and all are bound to be unpopular with someone.

But it is not necessary for the government to take an official position on all matters. It is unnecessarily divisive for the government to take as the "official" position any position held by the majority of Canadians, especially when that position does not have any demonstrable impact on the functioning of the government. The government doesn't require an official position pro or contra the chocolate iced cream question, nor does it need to come down in favour of Edward or Jacob.

If taking a certain position is in the public interest or is otherwise required for the functioning of government, then surely the government must do so. But picking a favourite fairytale doesn't fall into this category.

Questions of whether to wage war or how much to tax the citizenry are questions that every government must answer. While Froben seems to be in favour of a strict majoritarian answer to these questions, I am not. If the government were to decide to conscript only Mulsims and to tax only Jews, this would not be permissible under the Charter, even if it were the will of the majority, yet Froben seem rather enamoured of his majority-rules mentality.

This is a form of bullying that is intolerable.

To the question of my advocating a kind of majoritarianism, I plead only that Mr. Newman has convicted himself of the same position! I read that "the idea that a position endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the population should be the government's 'official stance' is dangerous," but in the very next paragraph I read that I should not be a majoritarian because, at some point in the past, a majority of Canadians passed a certain Charter.

Oh, how cute!

While it is not strictly true that a majority of Canadians passed the Charter, I will certainly grant that it was passed by their representatives (and thereafter signed into law by the Queen). But that is hardly relevant! If a king abdicates in favour of a representative democracy, turning around and saying that the people are still effectively governed by a monarch because he was the one who installed the democracy is utter nonsense. Whether the protections afforded minorities were put to law by popular vote or not, they still serve to protect the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority, and are thus not "majoritarian" in nature. To argue otherwise is to commit the genetic fallacy.

He seem to be arguing for a form of strict majoritarianism. I wonder how he can fail to see how dangerous this is. If the majority were in favour of legislation that, for example, required adherents of certain religious or cultural minorities to wear clearly identifiable articles of clothing, or that forbade them from holding public office, would the fact that it is the "will of the people" be enough for him?

Froben's majoritarian view would make Canada in some official capacity a white nation (for now). How would he feel if, instead of a prayer, governmental meetings were opened with a solemn affirmation that caucasians were the naturally superior race? After all, "to a [white person] it would be equally inconceivable and indeed offensive to undertake any public work without the invocation of the relevant [racial superiority]". I should hope that he would be at the very least uncomfortable with such a position, if not as outraged as I would be.

Froben might well reply that a majority of caucasians do not feel that their "race" (such as it is) is superior, or require such an invocation, but this misses the point. Despite the fact that Canada, as a nation, has a Christian majority, I don't believe for a moment that a majority of its citizenry would be offended if government just got down to governing, instead of speding its time patting them on the back for being Christian. But he are effectively arguing that if the majority were in favour of just such an affirmation, that would (or should) make it okay. That is monstrous.

I'll also note that the sort of majoritarian bullying that Froben advocates may feel good while he is in the majority, but that's not a position that he can count on maintaining.

In Which My Position Is Untenable

A reader by the name of Froben took issue with my recent discussion of prayer at Winnipeg City Hall.

This position is rather untenable, isn't it, as to a religionist it would be equally inconceivable and indeed offensive to undertake any public work without the invocation of the relevant God or gods?

Likewise, however, such an invocation would offend an atheist, and even, as you say, a non-interventionist deist (somehow: I'm not quite convinced that the atheist and the non-interventionist shouldn't just view it as a meaningless exercise that's more than a little humourous and leave it at that. I'm not sure where the offence really lies).

In light of that, doesn't it make the most sense to allow for a state in which the views (and I'm not suggesting this obtains presently in Canada, bear in mind) of the overwhelming majority (say a really, really Catholic country like, oh, Vatican City) are enshrined in law and practiced not simply on a private basis but in civil society and government functions, but which tolerates the freedom of conscience/thought &c. of all the citizens as private citizens?

It just seems unfair to assert that the lack of prayer, the secular position, is somehow the neutral course here, by which no one could be offended. Most well-developed moral casuistry will have some notion of peccatum omissionis, and certainly it would be thought "omiss" and grossly offensive by most of the citizenry for a state comprised mostly, but not exclusively, of religionists to neglect its God or gods at important functions of state.

Froben's comment is indicative of a certain majoritarian arrogance that I find troubling. We don't live by simple "majority rules", and the idea that a position endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the population should be the government's "official stance" is dangerous.

Canada, as a nation, does not simply "tolerate" freedom of conscience and of thought. While these are clearly foundational prerequisites for any free society, we have chosen to specifically protect certain minority rights in this country. Cultural and religious plurality are specific planks of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A 2008 Canadian Press survey found that no more than 72% of Canadians profess belief in a god, while 23% are atheists. Even if all of those who believed in a god or gods could agree upon a prayer that offended none among them (surely an impossible feat, as I briefly outlined in the article above), 72% certainly does not constitute an overwhelming majority (as Froben himself indicates might be the case).

Froben says that he is "not quite convinced that the atheist and the non-interventionist shouldn't just view it as a meaningless exercise that's more than a little humourous and leave it at that". But the fact that governmental prayer is a meaningless waste of time isn't the salient point. If City Councillors routinely opened their meetings by throwing cream pies at each other (something equally ridiculous, to be sure), I would still be dismayed at the waste, but at least it wouldn't serve to further marginalize minority groups, or to endorse a specific position in a way that runs contrary to the spirit of the Charter.

And finally, I must contest Froben's premise that "to a religionist it would be equally inconceivable and indeed offensive to undertake any public work without the invocation of the relevant God or gods" on two points. First, I never suggested that prayer at public meetings should be forbidden. Far from it! I even mentioned that individual councillors should feel free to pray. However, I maintain that no prayer should be led as a part of the official proceedings. Second, it is hardly uncommon for religious people to carry out their jobs (whatever they may be) without insisting that their coworkers join them in prayer before the work day begins. Froben's assertion to the contrary is absurd.

"Secular" doesn't mean "atheist", and it isn't a dirty word. Secularism doesn't oppose religion; it simply does not address religion. Failure to endorse a specific religion at the outset of a City Council meeting is indeed the neutral course of action, as it neither affirms nor denies any religious position.

The Not-So-Dangerous Truth Behind Microwaves

Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

I received the following message the other day from a close friend of mine.

Hi!

I saw this and for a moment was terrified until I remembered that I'm friends with YOU and therefore a much more rational person than I might otherwise be just by sheer proximity. Regardless, please remind me again that microwaves aren't destroying my baby and various loved ones.

http://truththeory.com/2012/01/27/the-dangerous-truth-behind-microwaves/

The link she provided was The Dangerous Truth Behind Microwaves by Mike Barrett of TruthTheory.com. Ah, EMF scare-mongering. It's been too long, old friend!

I didn't have much planned for the next few minutes (aside from playing some Super Meat Boy), so I dove right in.

The article is, as you might expect, riddled with misinformation. That misinformation, however, is crammed cheek-by-jowl with accurate statements, leading me to suspect that the author is guilty only of sloppy research, and readily accepted claims from both scientific and unscientific sources—with perhaps a modicum of cherry-picking thrown in. (This is borne out upon an examination of his source list, but we'll get to that later.)

How Microwaves Work

Let's start with the author's description of the process by which microwave ovens heat food:

In order for something to heat in a microwave oven, water must be present within the substance. If water is not present, heating will not occur and it would remain cool. The reason for this is that water molecules within the food vibrate at an incredible speed, creating molecular friction which is responsible for the heating of the food. The structure of the water molecules are torn apart and vigorously deformed. This is much different than any other method of cooking, as other methods such as convection ovens heat up food by transferring heat convectionally from the outside inward.

This description is almost correct, but is guilty of much hyperbole. First of all, it is not true that, lacking water, heating will not occur. What we're talking about is dielectric heating. While it's true that dielectric heating works best on water or substances containing water, it will also work on fats, sugars, and anything that contains electric dipoles.

Second, while stating that "the structure of the water molecules are torn apart and vigorously deformed" sounds scary, I've been unable to find any evidence that this occurs, and it's unclear what the dangers would be even if it did. While the molecules certainly do increase in kinetic energy (they move), the author seems to be suggesting that the molecular bonds are actually broken, which would cause the water to decompose into its component hydrogen and oxygen, as occurs in electrolysis. This is a fairly incredible claim that I've been unable to substantiate.

The Dangers of Radiation

The author admits that microwaves are not a form of ionizing radiation, although he stresses that non-ionizing radiation can still effect physical alterations. Sure! Like cooking stuff! He then says:

Other forms of ionizing radiation are visible light, ultraviolet and infrared waves, and waves emitted from televisions, cell phones, and electric blankets.

This is completely false. These are forms of non-ionizing radiation. While it is certainly possible that this was simply a typo, it remains irresponsible misinformation.

And then the real absurdity begins:

Although we've conducted study after study concluding that no amount of radiation is safe, we don't really know what all of this means in the long term.

I'm not even sure the author knows what he means, here. He seems to be conflating all forms of radiation, and then stating that the body of scientific literature on the subject concludes that there is no safe amount of any form of radiation.

Of course some amount of radiation is safe! If there were no radiation, we would be blind and we would freeze to death! Just lumping all spectra of electromagnetic radiation together is eggregious, irresponsible nonsense.

The author claims that "Tissues directly exposed to microwaves are subject to the same deformities molecules go through". This is very misleading.

Sure, microwave radiation can cause burns: that's why microwave ovens have doors on them specifically designed to block microwave radiation. You don't want to bathe your hand in high intensity microwaves for the same reason that you don't want to stick it in a campfire: it'll burn.

Now you might be worrying that your microwave door could be broken or cracked, and you're being exposed to dangerous invisible microwaves without your knowledge! Well, stop fretting. If this were happening, you'd know it pretty quickly, because the microwaves would literally be cooking your flesh, and that's something that we humans tend to notice.

Remember: microwaves are non-ionizing. They don't cause cancer: they cause heat.

"Microwave Sickness"

The author of the article then provides a laundry-list of nonspecific symptoms that he attributes to so-called "microwave sickness":

• Impaired cognition
• Nausea
• Vision problems
• Depression and irritability
• Weakened immune system
• Headaches
• Dizziness
• Insomnia and/or sleep disturbances
• Frequent urination and extreme thirst

Sound familiar?

This so-called "microwave sickness" is just a repackaging of electrosensitivity syndrome, a discredited (and probably psychogenic) disorder that has been shown in controlled trials to no correlation (let alone a causal relationship) to EMF exposure.

Here's the list of symptoms attributed to electrosensitivity:

• Fatigue and mental impairment
• Poor memory and reduced concentration
• Headache
• Altered sleep pattern
• Skin rash

And here are some of the (many, many) symptoms linked to so-called adrenal fatigue:

• Excessive fatigue and exhaustion, chronic fatigue
• Sleep disturbance, insomnia
• Sensitivity to light
• Difficulty concentrating, brain fog
• Low immune function
• Low blood pressure
• Sensitivity to cold or frequent influenza
• Anxiety, irritability, or depression
• Reduced memory

Dr. Steven Novella calls these "the common symptoms of life". Talking about this purported adrenal fatigue, Dr. Novella notes:

Some of these people may have a real underlying disease, and can get distracted from pursuing a proper diagnosis by the offer of a simple fake one. Many people need lifestyle adjustments, and that is where they should focus their efforts – not on magic supplements to treat nonexistent syndromes.

And finally, just for fun, here are the purported symptoms of being attacked by a psychic vampire:

• Leaky or diminishing aura
• Dizziness
• Loss of energy
• Muscle tension
• Mental confusion
• Headaches
• Chronic fatigue
• Sleep disturbances
• Irritability
• Depressed mood
• Physical illness

I'm convinced.

And while we're on the subject...

It's true that mobile phones, WiFi, etc. use radio waves in the microwave spectrum, but they are hilariously low-intensity. One of the ways that you can tell is that even the tiny bit of radiation that leaks out of a microwave oven is enough to interfere with wireless router traffic: and, as I said earlier, that's obviously not enough to do any damage.

Cell phones and WiFi, and their related impact on health, are heavily scrutinized, and there is no strong or even middling evidence linking these devices to health problems such as cancer. There are a small number of studies by a few fringe researchers which have failed reproduction by the scientific community. Many of these experiments have startling methodological flaws. Dr. Steven Novella has a great summary of some new research on the subject here.

Also worth noting: any case or covering that purports to block the EMF emitted by cell phones, laptops, etc. (and such devices are popular!) will fall into one of two categories: (1) it won't do anything; or (2) it will work, and your cell phone/WiFi will immediately stop working, because its signal is blocked.

So... keep that in mind.

The Nazi Connection

And this is where the author of this article really jumps the shark:

Microwaves were first invented by the Nazis in order to provide a method of cooking for their troops during World War II.

Godwin always makes me laugh. Also, I can find no evidence that microwaves were invented by the Nazis, and substantial evidence to the contrary.

The Sources

The author of this article has obviously taken no care in choosing his sources, which all seem to share strong (and fairly transparent) ideological convictions that bias them against good science. They are also uniformly hilarious.

Here are the websites linked to in the "Sources" section at the bottom of the article:

• Relfe: "Valuable natural health, mind, spirit, financial and other information unifying the whole, rather than just educating a part of the whole." The main page contains multiple embedded Alex Jones videos, which describe in detail exactly how the government and the scientific establishment are trying to kill you.
• The Library of Halexandria: "Halexandria is a Synthesis of new physics, sacred geometry, ancient and modern history, multiple universes & realities, consciousness, the Ha Qabala and ORME, extraterrestrials, corporate rule and politics, law, order and entropy, trial by jury, astronomy, monetary policy, scientific anomalies, religion and spirituality, and a whole host of other subjects ranging from astrology and astrophysics to superstrings and sonoluminesence to biblical and geologic histories to numerology, the Tarot, and creating your own reality." Need I say more?
• Lita Lee: The website of "nutritionist" (and Ph.D. chemist) Lita Lee. She would love to sell you all sorts of herbal concoctions, so why not mosey on over?
• Global Healing Center: An online pharmacy! Except it only seems to stock those shady end-cap items that cause pharmacists to hang their heads in embarrassment, saying "We don't decide what to stock, it comes from corporate." Lots of cleanses and detoxifying foot pads!
• Natural Society: This site seems to be the evil twin of Skeptic North.

And here is a list of the peer-reviewed literature cited by the author:
 
 
 
 
 
 

That is all.

Humanists, Skeptics "Attack" Youth for Christ

Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

Jeff Olsson and I were interviewed yesterday by Michael Gryboski of the Christian Post (the most Christian of posts) for a piece he was writing on the subject of the Youth for Christ recreational centre that is preparing to open in downtown Winnipeg.

The article, entitled "Humanists, Skeptics Criticize New Youth For Christ Rec Center", has now gone live. This is what Jeff and I had to say:

Youth For Christ will soon be opening up a rec center in Winnipeg, Manitoba, which has stirred attacks from residents via the Winnipeg Free Press. Complaints ranged from a preference for a secular facility directed towards helping disadvantaged youth to concerns over it being built via government assistance.

"I agree with the numerous criticisms being leveled at Mayor Sam Katz and Youth For Christ," said Jeffrey Olsson of the Humanist Association of Manitoba to CP. "This Youth for Christ center is yet another example of government intrusion into private citizens religious lives because they have no other recreation center to use."

Olsson compared the YFC facility to that of past efforts by Canadian Christian organizations to evangelize aboriginal children, which he said resulted in thousands of disaffected youth.

Meanwhile, Gem Newman of Winnipeg Skeptics said that while he did not oppose YFC establishing their center, he was concerned about the government involvement.

"Instead of providing the youth in the area with a place they can feel comfortable, whatever their religious or philosophical inclination, the mayor has instead effectively given Youth For Christ a megaphone for their religious message," said Newman.

Notwithstanding the fact that the author decided to characterise legitimate criticism as an "attack", I think that the article was fairly balanced; certainly more than I expected. Jeff and I were asked to respond to criticisms levelled against the centre in this Winnipeg Free Press article. Although we were only given a few sentences, I don't think that our positions were misrepresented in any way. All the same, some of our more cogent criticisms were not included in the final article. For that reason, I'll include the text of the interview here.

Do you agree with the concerns and criticisms published in the Winnipeg paper?

Jeff: I agree with the numerous criticisms being leveled at Mayor Sam Katz and Youth For Christ. I will explain below in detail.

Gem: I do. I'm always wary when a sectarian religious organisation is given government funds, because this results in undue entanglement between the religious goals of the organisation and the (presumably) secular goals of the government. It can result in the appearance of government endorsement of the religious or philosophical perspective of the organisation.

Do you know of any connections the rec center has to the state? That is to say, was it built with tax dollars, jointly operated by city council, etc.?

Jeff: The Youth for Christ center was built with federal and city money ... and was partially backed by private donations directly to the religious organization. It is completely controlled by YFC, with no city or federal direction being given for day to day operations.

Gem: To my knowledge, YFC has received [much] of its roughly $13.5 million budget from the government.

During the interview Jeff and I ballparked the amount of government funds that YFC received, but as we were on a very tight schedule I didn't have the opportunity to look it up until afterward. While it's tough to get an exact number, it appears that the centre received $3.2 million in federal funds and between $3.2 and $4.2 million in municipal funds, for a total of $6.2–7.2 million. The total cost of the project has been variously quoted as $9.6 million, $11.7 million, and $13.2 million. (Source, source, source. If any readers have access to more precise information on this subject, feel free to leave links in the comments.)

Specific details aside, it seems that the project is majority funded by federal and municipal tax dollars.

Do you believe that groups like Youth for Christ have good intentions? Do you believe they do much good for the communities they serve in?

Jeff: Of course YFC has good intentions. The central premise of their mission is that by bringing christ into the lives of youth, they will help to mentor and apostle youth and help them, to become better members of society. There is simply no evidence that this is true. There is evidence that drawing children further away from their parents, and removing them for their traditional cultural beliefs does damage as it divides the house hold on religious lines. Canadians have plenty of experience with this after the tragic residential schools program that forced 150,000 aboriginal youth into christian residential schools. This resulted in thousands of disaffected citizens, thousands of broken homes and a federal class action law suit against the Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and United churches, and the federal government costing taxpayers billions of dollars. The law suit was won and payments are currently being made to tens of thousands of former students. Point Douglas residents have politely raised this issue at public hearings for the YFC center, only to be dismissed. Government intrusion into the religious lives of Canadians is just not unacceptable. This Youth for Christ center is yet another example of government intrusion into private citizens religious lives because they have no other recreation center to use. They could have built and funded a small recreation center and everyone would have been ecstatic.

Gem: The youth in this area are at serious risk. While I find the idea of preaching to those who are vulnerable in this way to be distasteful, I recognise the rights of a religious institution to attempt to sway those to whom it gives aid toward its philosophical perspective. What I find most troubling, however, is that the government is effectively amplifying Youth for Christ's message. If the government had spent its [money] to build its own recreational centre, youth in the area would have two places they could go: a small sectarian centre and a large secular one. Instead, they have only a large sectarian centre, funded mostly by the government. Instead of providing the youth in the area with a place they can feel comfortable, whatever their religious or philosophical inclination, the mayor has instead effectively given Youth for Christ a megaphone for their religious message.

Jeff: A bit of history: Until YFC arrived, there was no recreation complex in Point Douglas, the poorest area of Winnipeg and this YFC center was put forth as an alternative by our Mayor, Sam Katz and federal officials. Area residents had asked government for funding for a small a recreation/sports centre with paid staff and they instead got the YFC center. Community leaders had also asked for more money for youth programs to be directed to aboriginal youth and monies for those programs are being diverted for the YFC center. The youth drop in centers I refer to were not religious in nature, anyone would feel comfortable there.

A large number of the residents in this area are aboriginal and follow traditional aboriginal teachings rather than Christianity. Winnipeg has a population of 675,000 people of which 72,000 are aboriginal. Point Douglas has the highest percentage of aboriginal people in all of Winnipeg and is one of the largest urban gatherings of aboriginal people in North America. Aboriginal religious leaders for the areas are very concerned that this center will have an undue religious influence on their youth, leading them away from traditional beliefs. Parents are worried that YFC's large multimedia stage will be used to send an overtly Christian message to any child who would attend a function at the center.

Meanwhile funding for aboriginal youth drop in centers has been dropped to at least two small organizations since the announcement for the new YFC center was made causing the, to close. Concerns have also been raised at other YFC locations in Winnipeg because the organization evangelizes aggressively, stopping sports events for a paid volunteer to lead "prayer time" and deliver a Christian message. Some youth who are not christian are pressured to participate in the ritual or be ostracized, where they have to leave while the message is being delivered. There is no simple way to opt out of the religious instruction. As president of the Humanist Association of Manitoba I have heard these complaints personally and I take such matters very seriously, especially when tax dollars are being used as a basis for funding.

Finally, there is the issue of tax dollars being used to Fund an evangelistic religious organization. This is a concern from a civil liberties perspective. Canada, is by definition multicultural we are not a "melting pot" as you are in the US.

Gem: I'm glad that the youth in the area have some place to go, but I think that government money is best spent on secular approaches to problems to avoid undue entanglement between religion and government. When I donate money to a charitable organisation, I want to know that it is going toward helping people in empirically demonstrable ways, rather than toward indoctrination. Canada already has a troubled history when it comes to religiously motivated mistreatment of aboriginal youth, and I'd hate to think that we haven't learned from our mistakes.

So, what do you think? Were Jeff and I totally off base? We're interested in hearing your thoughts about the article, what we had to say, and about the youth centre itself.

---

Edit: I amended the second paragraph above to include the title of the CP article, as several commenters on Facebook and the WS blog had assumed (because of the title of this post) that the title of the CP article was "Humanists, Skeptics Attack New Youth For Christ Rec Center". I used the word "attack" in scare quotes here because it had been used in the CP article to describe legitimate criticism of the youth centre. Sorry for the confusion!

Potent Nonsense

Pseudoscience has teamed up with erectile dysfunction to wipe several species of rhinoceros off the face of the earth.

A dead Javan rhinoceros. Public domain image courtesy of Wikipedia.

From the Telegraph:

The International Union for Conservation of Nature, which publishes an annual 'red list' of endangered species, said the Western Black Rhino could soon be joined by the Northern White Rhino of central Africa which is "possibly extinct" and the Javan Rhino which is "probably extinct." Though overall numbers of black and white rhinos have increased, the three subspecies are particularly vulnerable owing to a lack of political will in their habitats and poachers who target their valuable horns which are used in Asian medicine.

When this article first appeared, I linked to it on Facebook, with the title, "Fuck you, Traditional Chinese Medicine."

An acquaintance from my dinner theatre days (with whom I've always been on friendly terms) took umbrage. What follows is a transcript of the short discussion that ensued.

Brandi: The sad part is, western medicine and antibiotics kill and harm ALOT more animals than chinese medicine will ever do. And to add to that, western medicine also kills human beings. Just a way of looking at the other side of things!

Gem: Good to know where you stand on the whole real medicine versus fake medicine thing.

Brandi: Lol my comment was not meant to be offensive or opinionated but rather to shine a light on the subject. Facebook is tough for that!! I do not agree with senseless killings. People could argue for days about what medicine is real and what medicine is fake but the key is education and as I mentioned, there are certainly outs to allopathic medicine as much as anything else. I always say, you bring me your research and I'll do the same! Only then can one really get into it;)

Gem: Bring you what research? I don't do medical research, and I'm not qualified to evaluate it. Luckily, we have physicians and medical researchers whose expertise lies in just those areas. I'm certainly always interested in learning more about so-called "alternative" medical practices, [but] citing a positive study or two is unlikely to persuade me of efficacy, because cherry-picking is rampant in the alt-med community and I understand what a p-value is and I recognise that we expect the occasional false-positive. Not only that, but alt-med studies tend to be poorly blinded and controlled. I suggest that if you're interested in learning more about science-based medicine, you visit http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/.

The fact that you use the absurd and discredited term "allopathic" to describe modern scientific medicine illustrates your biases on the subject. This pejorative term was coined by arch-quack Samuel Hahnemann to distinguish the (in many ways prescientific) medicine of his day from his new (and absurd) "homeopathy". (For more on the subject of homeopathy, feel free to read this: http://www.startleddisbelief.com/2010/04/winnipeg-skeptics-presentation.html.) Hahneman asserted that allopathic interventions were those that treated the symptoms, rather than the cause, of the disease. Most science-based medical treatments today do not conform to this definition, because they either seek to prevent illness or they remove the cause of an illness by acting on the etiology of disease.

Occasionally, remedies that were once labelled "alternative" are integrated into science-based medicine—but this should happen only after a large body of medical research has demonstrated that the intervention is effective to a reasonable degree of certainty. And it's always important to consider each study in the context of the entire body of the medical literature. To quote the wonderful comedian/musician Tim Minchin, "By definition ... alternative medicine ... has either not been proved to work, or has been proved not to work. You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine."

Brandi: Lol clearly you have decided to take this much further than it needs to go:) There are plenty of scientific studies to support every field of medicine. I understand how to read them and I can tell you by the abstract alone whether it's even worth reading the entire study, or if it's a waste of time:) It's nice to see you take an interest in the subject as well, hopefully you didn't need to fork out the thousands of dollars that I did for the education:) I would like to say that using words like "absurd" to color what I have said, clearly states you are not up for the open minded discussion that I was after. I'm always interested in facts and any science to back them up, however I've also learned that it's really not about a cold competition when there are so many things to learn on all sides. I'm sorry to have sparked such a battle, that was not my intention, clearly it's not something you take lightly. Nor do I:) So let's leave it here? If we ever run into each other I think the topic would make for some good conversation!!! Hope you are doing well and kudos on the Clue (party?) that was awesome! Was that for Halloween? And who's idea was it? Good stuff!!!!

Scott: ‎"western Medicine" aka scientifically-shown-to-work-medicine is backed my empiracal evidence. If Chinese medicine doesn't kill people directly it's probably because it doesn't actually do anything, so it would kill people directly in the fact that whatever health issue the person has isnt actually being treated.

Scott: Either a treatment has.

Gem: I'm not being "closed-minded" or dogmatic about this, Brandi. I will gladly change my mind about any given intervention when large, reproducible, randomized, well-controlled studies can consistently demonstrate efficacy. That's called being intellectually honest.

And if you don't consider homeopathy absurd, I would wager that either (a) you don't know anything about it or (b) you have some sort of vested interest in it. It is mathematically hilarious and the body of the medical literature demonstrates that it works no better than placebo.

Gem: Brandi seems to have deleted all of her comments. Interesting.

You'll note that I ignored her offer to move the discussion on to a more friendly subject, which I'd imagine was what prompted her to stop responding and delete all of her comments. And fair enough; she doesn't owe me a response! But I think that this is a very important subject, and I was unwilling to be derailed.

Scott later pointed out to me that not only does she work at a health food store (that's fine, I suppose), she's also attending the Canadian School of Natural Nutrition. As I'm married to a Registered Dietitian (you know, one of those science-based nutritional experts) and I'm a nutritionist myself (not that that means anything) I find quack colleges such as these distasteful.

And yes, in case you're wondering, that's the same Scott who blogs for the Winnipeg Skeptics and who co-hosts our new podcast, Life, the Universe, and Everything Else (Facebook, iTunes).

Luckily, I still had the comment thread open on one of my other computers when Brandi deleted her comments, so the discussion is preserved here, in case there's anything to be learned from it.

The bottom line is that these animals almost certainly would not be dead if it weren't for the idiotic notion that rhino horns (and other phallic objects) can aid those suffering from erectile dysfunction. Even if it were true (it's not!), it would still be horribly unethical to kill these animals for their horns.