There is a line to be drawn — why I'm against "accommodationism"

Most people who meet me would, I think, consider that I'm a fairly easy-going chap, not prone to outbursts of vitriolic invective or uncompromising rage.

I'm usually prepared to accommodate people's foibles and make allowances for mild idiosyncrasies. This makes for a quite life, without avoidable friction. And it's fine as far as it goes. It's fine if others are prepared to be included in the give and take. But being easy-going doesn't mean you need to be a doormat. There comes a time when easy-going ceases to be a beneficial strategy. When others won't play by the rules, and take advantage of someone's attitude of tolerance, that's when the normally meek and mild need to take a firm stand.

Nowhere is this more important in today's multicultural world than in matters of belief — especially unsubstantiated belief. That's why, in the matter of the current belief/non-belief/accommodationist debate, I'm firmly on the side of Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers.

"Accommodationism" is all very fine and dandy, but it doesn't work. Giving leave to those who proclaim unsubstantiated belief to have sway over matters that are capable of objective substantiation simply opens the gate to mysticism and woo. Whether it's "alternative" medicine being endorsed by the National Health Service, or the validity of moral edicts derived from ancient scripture, those of us who base our lives on what is objectively true have a duty to point out unsubstantiated assertion, especially if someone is attempting to influence decisions that will affect other people. It's no good attempting to excuse behaviour of this sort with words of conciliation. Unsupported, dangerous nonsense should be stamped on, forthwith.

Believers in woo can be left to wallow in their fantasies, but the moment they become purveyors of woo they implicitly open themselves to public scrutiny, and we should not be shy in calling them on anything that appears to fail the evidential test. Assertions not grounded in evidence should be brought into the light of rational analysis, even to the extent of naming and shaming. The purveyors of woo, be they magical thinkers or faith-based dogmatists, should be made to account for their claims or else withdraw them. Those who refuse should be publicly shunned.

"But your reality isn't the only one," they say. "What's real for you, isn't necessarily real for us." OK, fine. Show me your "reality". Show me, in particular, what makes you think it's real. Show me the evidence. If you won't, then don't expect me or anyone else to give it credence.

There is a line to be drawn, and it's here. I'm an easy-going chap, most of the time. Rant over.

Simon Singh to appeal

It's great news that Simon Singh is to appeal the nonsensical ruling in the libel case brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association. We know that quack-merchants often resort to law when challenged, rather than produce evidence to support their claims. This diversionary tactic needs to be exposed.

English libel law is not an appropriate tool in such disputes, but I wonder if perhaps it has been unfairly mis-characterised. Some maintain that Singh is being asked to prove a negative, when all sceptics know that the burden of proof rests on those making the claim. But in this case Singh did make a public claim, that the BCA "happily promotes bogus treatments" - and the BCA has demanded, in a court of law, that he prove his claim. That the BCA would have difficulty in proving their own claims for the efficacy of chiropractic is a separate issue - strictly it's not their claims that are under examination here.

Singh's claim, however, is clearly justified: the treatments to which he refers are promoted by the BCA (and presumably they wouldn't promote these treatments if they weren't "happy" with such promotion), and plenty of trials, studies and surveys have shown that these specific treatments are indeed "bogus" - that is, "not genuine or true" (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, eleventh edition). The BCA may dispute the plethora of evidence that their treatments are bogus, and as a result may sincerely believe in the efficacy of the treatments, but bogus they remain. Contrary to the judge's interpretation, Singh made no claim in his Guardian article as to whether or not the BCA was knowingly promoting treatments that don't work.

It will be a scandal if Singh loses this appeal, because such a result would reinforce the erroneous idea that libel law is an appropriate instrument for quashing dissent and scientific scrutiny.

I think Simon Singh has a good case for defence - but I am not a lawyer. For comprehensive insight from someone who his, check out Jack of Kent. To sign the statement of support, go to Sense About Science.

Book review: Tricks of the Mind – Derren Brown

One thing any book needs to be to win me over, whatever its subject, is well written. A few years ago I read several articles by Sam Harris on the web, and regardless of his message, his prose delighted me. I wanted to read more of his writing, so I bought a copy of The End of Faith and wasn't disappointed.

Derren Brown's Tricks of the Mind isn't quite in Harris's class, but it is well written, its scope is definitely wider(!) plus there are more jokes. Brown relishes the literary trick (likely beloved of conjurors) of setting up a paragraph clearly pointing in one direction then entirely undermining it in the final sentence.

Wry humour and amusing tricks aside, this is a serious book from a master illusionist, mentalist and showman. Brown not only tells how a trick is performed, but goes on to analyse its underlying psychology, explaining not just how it works, but why. Don't expect him to reveal the intricacies of more complicated tricks, but his discussion of the psychology of conjuring is revealing in itself. He includes personal anecdotes throughout the book, though how much of the "real" Derren Brown these truly reveal is impossible to know, considering the man's profession.

Later on Brown explains memory systems, with many practical exercises that demonstrate they do actually work. He also covers hypnotism in depth, even inviting the reader to try it out. I've had my suspicions about the true nature of hypnotism, and was pleased to see them confirmed (though I appreciate that's hardly conclusive proof of what I suspected). After a diversion into self-help motivational techniques he moves on to unconscious communication and lie-detection, describing how it is possible for a skilled, practised and perceptive operator to tell whether or not someone is speaking the truth.

In the last part of the book he looks at pseudo-science, alternative medicine and scepticism in general, including critical thinking, statistics and probability. From there he moves on to comprehensive and passionate coverage of psychic mediums and cold-reading – laced, however, with irony and wit that make these serious chapters a pleasure to read. Finally we have a generously annotated reading list, plus references and an alphabetical index.

My recommendation? Read it – you'll be entertained as well as informed.

Tricks of the Mind, Derren BROWN, Channel 4 Books (Transworld) pb, 416pp, £7.99 ISBN 978-1-905-02635-7