Fitbit goes woo

As a Fitbit user I regularly get notifications to 'go Premium', which I ignore as I have no reason to pay for features I don't need. But if anything is likely to make me consider going in the opposite direction — that is, ditching Fitbit altogether — it's their latest embrace of arch-pseudoscientist Deepak Chopra.

And when it comes to the mind-body connection, there’s no one more knowledgeable than the pioneer of integrative medicine, Deepak Chopra. That’s why we’re thrilled to announce Deepak Chopra’s Mindful Method for Fitbit, our new partnership with the world-renowned well-being expert and founder of the Chopra Foundation, exclusively for Fitbit Premium members.

Fitbit Premium? No thanks. Deepak Chopra? Definitely not. 

Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0/Wikimedia/Mitchell Aidelbaum

 

4thought.tv: "Should creationism be taught in schools?"

Back in June Channel 4's daily two-minute opinion film-clip slot, 4thought.tv, covered intelligent design. I blogged about it at the time, and we covered it on the Skepticule Extra podcast. A couple of weeks ago the subject was "Should creationism be taught in schools?"

Monday's clip was 18-year-old student Sam Scott Perry:

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/sam-scott-perry

Young Earth Creationist Sam Scott Perry believes the world is only between 6,000 to 10,000 years old and that dinosaurs roamed the land with humans. Sam thinks creationism should be included in schools in order to allow children to make up their own mind.

He believes that humans were formed from dust by God because that's what the Bible says, and wants creationism to be taught in schools in the interests of "fair and objective science." From these and other comments it's clear he has no notion of what science is — he admits that he gained his A* in GCSE Biology by writing the answers required even though he doesn't believe they are true. He believes humans walked with dinosaurs because dinosaurs are land animals and the Bible says that land animals and humans were created on the sixth day. This, according to Sam Scott Perry, is "logical". He also floats a weird conspiracy theory that creationism is not currently taught in schools because of fears it might convince people the Bible is true. Are his views typical of 18-year-old creationists? Perhaps not, but Channel 4 naturally go for the extreme case with which to start off this series.

Conspiracy theories are picked up by Tuesday's contributor, Stephen Law:

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/stephen-law

Stephen Law is a Lecturer in Philosophy who believes creationism is scientific nonsense. Stephen says it is wrong to teach children something he thinks is quite clearly false.

"Creationism is pernicious scientific nonsense." Stephen Law states simply that teaching creationism as fact is teaching things known not to be true, and goes on to suggest that clinging to the Biblical story of creation in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary could be interpreted as symptomatic of mental illness. (He has pointed out elsewhere that he didn't intend to imply that all creationists were mentally ill.)

Randall Hardy of "Creation Research" is another creationist who thinks that children should be allowed to make up their own minds:

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/randall-hardy

Creationist Randall Hardy wants children to be taught that God made the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Randall thinks evolutionists and atheists fear Creationism being taught in schools because children will find it convincing.

Creationists often play the "academic freedom" card, but in schools it's not appropriate to teach something that isn't accepted science. Otherwise the science curriculum would be full of phlogiston theory, the luminiferous aether, the four humours and all sorts of other unscientific stuff like alchemy and astrology. Students are free to investigate pseudo-science after school — they can even go on to study it at university. Randall Hardy displays appalling ignorance of evolution when he talks of cats bringing forth cats, dogs bringing forth dogs. He's also wrong when he claims people when they are born believe naturally in a creator. Leaving aside the fact that the existence of a belief has no bearing on whether that belief is true, what children are born with is an innate tendency to ascribe agency (to inanimate objects as well as people and animals). This is an evolved instinct — it supports evolution rather than creation.

Next we have Rev Canon Rosie Harper, who says that creationism is based on a literal reading of the Bible, and is an unnecessarily narrow viewpoint:

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/rev-canon-rosie-harper

Reverend Canon Rosie Harper believes teaching creationism to children is selling them short. Rosie thinks literal interpretations of the Bible are dangerously wrong-headed and risk bringing mainstream Christianity into disrepute.

She doesn't want creationism taught in schools, but she's one of those wishy-washy Anglicans about whom one might say, "there but for the grace of God goes an atheist." In this debate however, she's on the right side.

Laura Horner is the founder of CrISIS — Creationism In Schools Isn't Science:

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/laura-horner

Laura Horner is an Anglican and the founder of CrISIS; Creationism in Schools Isn’t Science. Laura started the group after a creationist movement visited her son’s school. Laura believes creationism discredits religion as much as it discredits science.

She's a Christian who believes creationism is bad religion as well as bad science, and makes the important point about valid science being falsifiable, while creationism isn't.

Saturday's clip was by Abdul Aziz, a maths teacher:

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/abdul-aziz

Muslim Abdul Aziz is a Maths Teacher who believes evolution is not convincing as a scientific theory. Abdul wants creationism presented alongside evolution in the classroom, so that children get the opportunity to make up their own minds.

He claims that belief in evolution is based on a "leap of faith" and comes out with the usual creationist micro/macro-evolution objection. His whole argument is one from ignorance — it appears he's never read a book about evolution (I'd suggest The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins). He also says (like Randall Hardy) that children should be allowed to make up their own minds, which from a teacher is a shocking misunderstanding of what education is about.

Finally we have Michael Reiss, who does not want to see creationism taught in schools, but he's not averse to it being discussed (though thankfully not as a science in science lessons):

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/michael-reiss 

A Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education, University of London, Michael Reiss welcomes open discussion of creationism in the classroom provided it is made clear that it has no scientific basis whatsoever.

He complains that some materialist scientists can't understand what it's like to have a religious faith. What he's implying, I think, is that a hard-line atheistic attitude is alienating children with creationist beliefs, to the extent that they will not be open to the scientific evidence. Michael Reiss made similar comments when he was the Royal Society's Director of Education, which caused a bit of an uproar, and shortly afterwards he stepped down from his post. Although the 4thought.tv website makes no mention of it (except, someone has noted it in the comments), Michael Reiss is a minister of religion.

Creationism does seem to bring the wackos out of the woodwork, as the comments on these clips show. I posted a brief comment on the first clip, and found myself in a protracted exchange with a user named Phillip, who — though extremely polite — seemed to have no conception of how to distinguish what's true from what's false.

Maplin Electronics selling quack medical devices?

I popped down to my local Maplin Electronics store today. I needed a few odds and ends in the electronics line, and found them quickly, but as I usually do I allowed time to browse around the store for anything particularly interesting. I did find a Freeview PVR that apparently records to external USB drives, which I thought was neat, though expensive at about £50 (considering it comes without storage). But that's by the by.

While browsing I noticed something on display called an "eye massager". I didn't pay it much attention, though I did wonder if it physically touched your eyes in some way, or simply showed you some soothing pictures. Then I forgot about it.

I don't go to the Maplin shop very often, so I picked up a copy of their Spring/Summer 2009 catalogue as it usually contains lots of useful info on all kinds of electronics-related stuff. Back home I continued my browsing, but this time in more detailed, printed form. And what did I find on page 529, in the Health section of the catalogue?


The Eye Massager is also on the Maplin website, and I reproduce the entry for this device below:

Product Features

• Ideal for users of computers, long distance drivers, equipment operators and students and office users alike
• Helps ease tired eyes, including swollen, sore, dry and over-sensitive eyes
• Aids sleep by relaxing the brain and the eyes to induce a state of deep relaxation
• Music therapy by listening to the soothing sounds of nature
• Improves poor circulation around the eyes
• Various operation states, including anti-clockwise/clockwise movement, gentle, intermediate and strong effect and wave effect
• Timer function allows you to set the required workout time
• Intensity adjustment adjusts the vibration

Eye strain is common with people who use a computer for long periods of time, when reading, long-distance drivers and when concentrating, which can lead to headaches or even migraines. It makes you feels tired, lethargic and reduces concentration.

Using this eye massager regularly can ease the problems above, making your eyes feel rejuvinated and ready for the hours ahead.

Now, here’s the science behind it all. Magnetic field, in the form of physical energy, when applied on special acupuncture points, can activate the function of the cell, enlarge the blood capillary and raise the level of oxygen supply, improving the nutrition state of tissues of cells, and balance the self-disciplined nerves.

Applying the above theory, and combining the curing theory of channel acupuncture in traditional Chinese medicine, this product uses both the magnetic acupuncture and mechanical acupuncture to activate the important acupuncture points around the eyes and harmonise the blood, thus improving the adjustment functions of the eye muscles and the eye nerves.

The state of relaxtion is further enhanced through musical therapy as you listen to the soothing sounds of nature for a complete stimulating sensation.

Powered by 2 x AA batteries, supplied

Bulk Prices Quantity Price including VAT :
1 £17.99
10 £15.83

Notice the paragraph beginning, "Now, here's the science behind it all." This paragraph and the one after contain some of the most nonsensical woo-woo pseudoscience I've ever come across. It has been shown beyond any scientific doubt that acupuncture doesn't work - its effects are no more beneficial than the effects of placebo. I am not a doctor, but "self-disciplined nerves"? "Harmonise the blood"? Harmonise with what?

Maplin's website has a FAQ section in the description of their products, and someone named Mick has asked one:

Q- Will these eye massagers relieve a migraine too? - Mick

Answer- This would depend upon the type of migrane you had and the severity but yes this should work.

Pardon me for being sceptical, but isn't this a little irresponsible? There's no disclaimer on the page (web or print) regarding the medical qualifications of the person answering the question. Maybe the type of migraine that the eye massager will relieve is the type that is susceptible to placebo. But considering the popular interpretation of "migraine" is that of a severe, throbbing headache accompanied by nausea and disturbed vision, I doubt the device would have any effect at all.

Nevertheless, I'm willing to be proved completely wrong on this. If anyone has references to decent quality clinical trials, studies or surveys that show that this eye massager is anything other than electronic snake oil, please post them in the comments.

(One last point to ponder: if the device was as effective as Maplin claim, I'd expect it to cost more than £17.99.)

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