One trait that humans all share when we are first brought into this world is our insatiable quest to understand what is going on in the world around us. Children ask repeated and often heartwarming questions which betray their innocence, almost following a non-systemic Socratic method. As we grow older, our beliefs become more fleshed out, our understanding of how the world functions becomes solidified in our learned minds. We stop asking questions, we know that certain natural laws govern, for instance, if you drop something it falls towards the Earth. In this essay, I want to introduce the non-skeptic to some basic principles of scientific skepticism. It should be abundantly clear from here that this is meant to be introductory, pushing towards further research on the part of the reader. Before we can properly examine any premise, understand that your emotion towards any particular idea is irrelevant to whether it is "true" or not. For example, it doesn't matter if you are sad that gravity exists. Gravity just exists. Your emotions or feelings on the matter are irrelevant. Essentially what I am getting at is that there is an objective truth to any belief or premise. Our brains might process the world subjectively, but the medium world itself contains objective truths. This isn't to say that there are easy answers and that everything exists on a binary black-and-white scale, but its important to shed the idea that there is no objective truth to be gained from our universe and to end the concept of wedding our beliefs to our emotions. Science is a great tool for understanding, because of its various methods of bias reduction and its razor-like ability to cut to the objective truth on any subject. I couldn't give a proper treatment of the scientific method here without greatly enlarging the scope of this essay, so I strongly encourage you to research the scientific method and the philosophy of science. Its also important to understand failures of reasoning, known as logical fallacies. When someone is trying to convince you of something, a good tool to figure out whether they have arrived at a belief or premise in error is to examine their reasoning for fallacious arguments. Its also important to minimize them with your own argumentation and reasoning. Once you understand the scientific method and logical fallacies, you can become a potent skeptic without even trying that hard or even needing to be a super intelligent person. Understanding how to think scientifically goes a lot further towards general understanding than rote memorization of scientific facts and again, doesn't require you to have an abnormally high level of intelligence. In closing, I urge you to read. Read everything, all the time, even things you don't agree with, even fictional stories or merely for entertainment. As our society becomes increasingly more scientifically and technologically advanced, less and less people are reading and by doing such a simple action, you can set yourself ahead of an ever growing mass of unliterate people. I contend that actually reading the Bible is the easiest way to become an atheist, because the vast majority of people who call themselves Christian have never sat down and read the Bible on their own or have not had verses spoon-fed and interpreted for them. Reading fuels skepticism and is food for the brain.
I have to hand it to Portland, its a nice place to live. It's arts and culture are a vibrant and welcome change of scenery compared to other large metropolitan areas. Its nearly a universal fact here that everyone either plays in a band, is an artist, or has a bohemian lifestyle. Progressive and intellectual thought is encouraged here in Woolandia, just don't go around challenging our tightly-held naturalistic beliefs or there will be hell to pay. We have one of the largest bookstores in the country (it takes up an entire city block for shit's sake) with small independent bookstores catering to all sub-genres and all tastes that can be found everywhere. So, why do we embrace so many anti-science and scientifically illiterate stances? It goes against all common sense. So lets go through all of the things this science class failing city embraces!
#1 - Anti-Fluoridation
Despite being the last of the U.S. top 30 most populated cities to not fluoridate its drinking water [1], Portland defeated (by a substantial margin) the recent measure to fluoridate this year and its been defeated here four times before (once voting in favor, then shortly after reversing the decision). Why would Portlanders defeat such a simple health measure when all of the scientific consensus is firmly in favor of fluoridation? Rampant "chemophobia" (or the irrational fear of chemicals), the appeal to nature (the logical fallacy that because something is natural it is inherently better), manipulative political campaigning combined with internet misinformation (Clean Water Portland, the anti-fluoride lobby here, has a name which contains a fallacious appeal), and—to beat a dead horse—a lack of scientific knowledge by the general public. In defiance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Dental Association universally hailing water fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century [2], the 65 years of studies in which the overall scientific consensus is that community water fluoridation is as safe as can be measured [3], and its incredibly low cost to high benefit ratio [4], Portland remains fluoride-free (except, of course, the level that already naturally occurs) and has no sign of swaying in favor anytime soon.
If there's something else that can inspire a knee-jerk emotional reaction (MONSANTOOOO!) out of people here, just mention GMOs. Thanks to a rigorous campaign of misinformation and fear-mongering from grocery stores like Whole Foods [6] and New Seasons [7], if there's one thing people fear ingesting more than trace amounts of fluoride, its genetically modified organisms. Sure, who doesn't want to conserve the environment and eat good, healthy food? But how does organic food address these issues? Environmentally, growing organic food is a less efficient use of land (numbers are varied, but a fair estimate is that organic food is somewhere around 25% to 35% less productive [8])—food production takes up a substantial portion of the Earth's surface (with estimates as high as 40% [9]). Land use and its maximization is something that organic food will be unable to match with modern agriculture. The fact shatters the idea that organic farming is more environmentally friendly, especially since more and more arable land will be needed for food production due to an ever increasing human population. Are GMOs dangerous or have they caused a single illness or fatality? Are they less healthy than organic food? Its an unequivocal no on all counts, hippies. There is no evidence whatsoever that any GMOs are any more dangerous or unhealthy than organic food [10]. The scientific consensus is broad and clear on this [11].
Often the same companies that mass produce organic food also have
products which are produced conventionally so the idea that buying
organic is some sort of consumerist rebellion against large corporations
and conventional agriculture is a myth. I consider myself to be an environmentalist and I'm strongly interested in preserving the Earth's extremely fragile and varied ecosystem. However, our current methods of organic food production are wasteful and costly to the environment. Its also important to note that I am not entirely arguing against organic food, rather the false modern science verses organic food ideological dichotomy. Obviously, using technology and engineering to splice genes together can have negative consequences and should be researched carefully, but its an option that needs to be explored if we're going to feed the planet and stop global warming. Every technology has risks, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take them, especially when the stakes are so high.
Welcome to Woolandia, where you can't throw a rock into a crowd without hitting someone who's studying acupuncture, naturopathic medicine, or reflexology. Everyone here is so healthy and supplements their organic, non-GM food with delicious multivitamins, echinacea, and homeopathic wellness pills. Acupuncture doesn't work [12], naturopathic medicine is pseudoscience [13], reflexology is not an effective treatment for any medical condition [14], most people who eat a balanced diet don't need nutritional supplements (they're basically expensive urine coloring) [15], and homeopathy is outright unethical quackery (you're buying pills that have nothing in them) [16]. But never mind all of that science stuff. Evidence doesn't mean anything in Woolandia!
This one is another belief straight out of the appeal to nature file cabinet. There are people here that actually believe vaccines are harmful, cause autism, or whatever despite the mountain (and its a giant fucking mountain) [17] of evidence that points to the contrary. The logic employed to justify these beliefs is often so riddled with fallacies that it becomes incomprehensible to any thinking person. Here in Woolandia, logic means nothing! You think vaccines don't cause autism? Well I got vaccinated and my foot hurts. How about that? Huh?!
Greetings Earthlings, it is I, the great lord Xenu, ruler of the Galactic Confederacy! 75 million years ago I brought billions of humans down to Earth in jetliner spacecraft. I stacked them around volcanoes filled with hydrogen bombs, which I detonated, which killed everyone's material bodies but their souls live on in you (they're called thetans) and they're the source of all human misery. You can only get rid of them through auditing (which is extremely expensive) but as you advance up in OT levels (also extremely expensive) you gain powers such as: immunity to disease, mentally increasing your body weight, healing by touch, ESP, telepathy and remote viewing, mentally project illusions into other people's minds, generate electricity with your body, and of course spiritual immortality.
An internet buddy of mine (who I know personally but wished to remain anonymous for fear of internet backlash) recorded this robotic phone poll last night. DOWNLOAD THE AUDIO HERE. Here is a transcript of the message:
[If you would vote] no or undecided. If you would vote yes press one.
Did you know the fluoridation chemical the water bureau would add to our water is called fluorosilicic acid and is not a naturally occurring fluoride mineral or even the pharmaceutical grade fluoride in toothpaste? Instead, fluorosilicic acid is an industrial by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry.
Press one if you are aware of this. Press two if you were not aware of this.
Did you know that following a major National Academy of Sciences report in 2006 the federal government called for a reduction of fluoridation concentrations by over 40% because of concerns people were getting too much fluoride?
Press one if you knew this. Press two if you did not know this.
Did you know that according to recent studies by the National Academy of Sciences and other leading researchers that even low fluoride levels can damage the brain, thyroid, and bones?
Press one if you were aware of these risks. Press two if you were not aware of these risks.
In light of these facts, has your opinion changed on the measure to add fluoridation chemicals and increase water rates? If the election were held today, how would you describe your position on the measure to add fluoridation chemicals and increase water rates? Voting yes, meaning to vote yes, voting no, meaning to vote no, or undecided.
If you would vote yes press one.
Thank you for your participation. This poll was paid for by Clean Water Portland PAC.
This is a very obvious case of push polling. It is an underhanded telemarketing technique where a political campaign, under the guise of conducting a poll, conveys innuendo and negative information about a particular stance. Very often there is no attempt at analyzing or interpreting the polling data and their sole purpose is to convey the negative information. Push polling is a form of negative campaigning (in the same category with smear tactics, fear mongering, and voter suppression) and is condemned by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) [1].
As for the information contained in the push poll, its loaded with scientific falsehoods and manipulating innuendo. They continually repeat "fluoride CHEMICAL" in an attempt to play on people's misguided and unscientific fear of the word "chemical". Chemicals are all around us, sugar is one and water is another, therefore it is irrational to fear them or to believe that the word "chemical" has any sort of negative connotation. Some continued internet reading on the subject here, here, and here.
The fact that fluorosilicic acid is a by-product of an industrial process does not make it inherently unsafe. A by-product is a secondary product derived from a manufacturing
process or chemical reaction. It is not the primary product or service
being produced. Hexafluorosilicic acid, once put into water, converts completely into fluoride ions (F-), hydrogen ions (H+), and sand[2]. It is scientifically impossible to separate naturally occurring fluoride ions from fluoride ions added artificially in this manner.
Addressing questions of artificial fluoridation, economics, risk-benefit
assessment, and water-treatment technology was not part of the
committee’s charge. (p. 2)
The committee only considered adverse effects that might result from
exposure to fluoride; it did not evaluate health risk from lack of
exposure to fluoride or fluoride’s efficacy in preventing dental caries. (p. 2)
The report makes no concrete claims to any negative effects of
fluoride at the normal accepted levels of fluoridation other than dental
fluorosis. It continually calls for more studies to be conducted.
It calls for more studies and concern over possible negative human
effects based off of animal studies in which rats were given extremely
large (10 mg for 30 days in one) dosages of fluoride. The average rat
weighs 550 grams while the average human in North America weighs 80.7
kg. Toxicity is weight dependent. That's 10 times the recommended
human dosage to an animal that weighs 146 times less.
It references the Chinese and Iranian studies linking lower IQ
scores to fluoride that can be discounted because of their poor quality.
It even states: Without detailed information about the testing
conditions and the tests
themselves, the committee was unable to assess the strength of the
studies. (p. 208)
Strong evidence exists that the prevalence of severe enamel fluorosis is
nearly zero at water fluoride concentrations to below 2 mg/L. (p. 346)
This study says nothing about the safety or efficacy of
community water fluoridation (at .7 ppm), it is a study measuring the
toxicology of high doses of fluoride. It cannot be used to back
negative arguments regarding the safety or efficacy of community water fluoridation because, I
reiterate, there is no evidence within the study that fluoride at the recommended .7 ppm level has any negative health effects whatsoever and the study explicitly states that it was not evaluating fluoride's efficacy in preventing dental caries.
Clean Water Portland is leading a campaign of false facts, negative campaigning, and fear mongering. While you may or may not be for water fluoridation, you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. The fact is the science is overwhelmingly in favor of water fluoridation, it is safe and effective. Clean Water Portland knows this and is resorting to improper campaign tactics in order to counter this damning fact. Vote yes on Measure 26-151, vote no on pseudoscience and fear.
Human sexuality is as diverse as the number of humans currently existing on the planet. Part of having such interesting brains as ours makes our personal sexual tastes all the more convoluted and complicated. At the most base, people either identify as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual (identification is also not synonymous with actual sexual activity [1]). But the fact of the matter is these terms did not exist prior the the 19th century and all of them are submerged in extremely murky water when you begin to examine scientific studies of human sexuality.
The Kinsey Reports, two separate books entitled Sexual Behavior in the Human Male [2] and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female[3], were authored primarily by Dr. Alfred Kinsey and Wardell Pomeroy (although there were a team of researchers involved with the study) in 1948 and 1953 respectively. Groundbreaking in its scope and contents, it is often considered one of the most influential scientific books of the 20th century. It also created the "Kinsey Scale", currently the most often used scale to rate sexual orientation. The scale goes from 0 to 6, 0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual [6]. Contained within contains the following enlightening quotation regarding human sexual orientation:
The histories which have been available in the present
study make it apparent that the heterosexuality or homosexuality of many
individuals is not an all-or-none proposition. It is true that there
are persons in the population whose histories are exclusively
heterosexual, both in regard to their overt experience and in regard to
their psychic reactions. And there are individuals in the population
whose histories are exclusively homosexual, both in experience and in
psychic reactions. But the record also shows that there is a
considerable portion of the population whose members have combined,
within their individual histories, both homosexual and heterosexual
experience and/or psychic responses. There are some whose heterosexual
experiences predominate, there are some whose homosexual experiences
predominate, there are some who have had quite equal amounts of both
types of experience. . . .
Males do not represent two
discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to
be divided into sheep and goats. Not all things are black nor all things
white. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with
discrete categories. Only the human mind invents categories and tries to
force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a
continuum in each and every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this
concerning human sexual behavior the sooner we shall reach a sound
understanding of the realities of sex. . . . [4]
The lines between heterosexual and homosexual are illusionary indeed. Although the original Kinsey Reports are somewhat dated and there are some modern criticism regarding its data collection methods, the findings are still very justifiable. People are not easily placed into one identifiable sexual category. What about a more modern study with perhaps a more rigorous data collection strategy? Well, there are several.
The American Psychological Association (APA) has a FAQ posted on their website with several observations based on empirical evidence:
Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation
ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to
exclusive attraction to the same sex.
Lesbian, gay, and
bisexual orientations are not mental disorders. Research has found no inherent
association between any of these sexual orientations and
psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are
normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many
different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of
stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed,
several decades of research and clinical experience have led all
mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to
conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human
experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of
human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago
abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed
concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To
date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that
therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called
reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it
seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces
stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and
bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay,
and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious
settings [14].
Another paper entitled Sexual Orientation and Adolescents by Barbara L. Frankowski MD published in the journal Pediatrics in 2004 contains many enlightening quotes on the issue of sexual orientation.
Homosexuality has existed in most societies for as long as recorded descriptions of sexual beliefs and practices have been
available. Societal attitudes toward homosexuality have had a decisive effect on the extent to which individuals have hidden or made
known their sexual orientation.
The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation
remain unclear, but the current literature and most
scholars in the field state that one’s sexual
orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be
homosexual
or heterosexual.
Sexual orientation is not synonymous with sexual activity or sexual behavior (the way one chooses to express one’s sexual
feelings). [5]
Another study entitled Patterns of Sexual Arousal in Homosexual, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Men measured self-identified heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual men's genital responses to different groupings of erotic videos to measure arousal patterns.
Of primary importance is the question of how best to define, and operationalize, sexual orientation (cf. Mustanski, Chivers, & Bailey, 2002). We chose to rely on self-identification in this study, as it seems to capture the‘‘gestalt’’of one’s sexual orientation. But as others (e.g., Sell, 1997;Weinbergetal.,1994) have pointed out, self-identification may be influenced by a number of variables and is limited by its categorical nature. The use of the Kinsey scale has also been criticized. As Kinsey et al. (1948) pointed out, there may be discrepancies between one’s sexual history, one’s physical reactions to relevant stimuli, and one’s self-reported sexual orientation[7].
And another study by the American Psychology Association (APA) entitled Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal? empirically confirmed the notion that virulent homophobia is associated with repressed homosexuality.
Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia --
the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some
ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the
result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either
unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American
Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence
that is consistent with that theory.
Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an
experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as
measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants
selected for the study described themselves as exclusively
heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.
Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic
stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian
videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of
sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which
precisely measures and records male tumescence.
Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by
the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video
showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant
difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred
when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The
homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile
circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control
[nonhomophobic] men did not.'
When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the
degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the three
videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely
with the results of the objective physiological measurement, with
one exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated
their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video [8].
So what conclusions can we draw from these studies? First off, the idea of a clear, categorized, life-long classification of sexual orientation is a mirage. People are not always entirely hetero or homosexual, their choice of orientation does not always match what actually sexually arouses them (mentally or physically), and their choice of orientation and what actually sexually arouses them may change over the course of a lifetime. Secondly, self-identification and classification is not accurate and very subjective. Finally, men who are the most outwardly homophobic are often harboring latent internal homosexual arousal patterns.
What is most interesting, following these findings, is that opposition to homosexuality and homosexual rights comes almost exclusively from the religious. Are the religious unwittingly hiding their homosexuality underneath a layer of virulent hate speech and religious dogma? Almost all of the world's major religions condemn homosexuality in their teachings and holy books and while a select few denominations may not consider homosexual sexual acts intrinsically sinful, they are almost universal in their rejection of gay marriage rights. A notable exception being Hinduism (and that's one notable exception because there are a shitload of Hindus in the world). I want to focus in on Christianity since it is the most religion prevalent in my country, the United States.
Homosexuality is frequently condemned in the Bible, which serves as many Christian's justification for their condemnation of homosexual activity and their opposition to gay rights, specifically Leviticus chapter 18:
18:22Thou shalt not lie
with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, two Angels visit a man named Lot who is living in Sodom. Lot's hut is surrounded by Sodomites who want to rape the Angels. Lot offers his two virginal daughters to the mob as appeasement. The Angels struck the mob with blindness and bid Lot to leave Sodom with his family immediately. God then rained fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying the cities and its inhabitants. The entire unabridged story appears in Genesis 19.
In Deuteronomy chapter 23 there are statements against homosexuality and prostitution:
23:17There shall be no
whore of the daughters of Israel,nor a sodomite of the sons of
Israel.
23:18Thou shalt not bring
the hire of a whore,or
the price of a dog,into
the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are
abomination unto the LORD thy God.
The word "dog" is biblical talk for a homosexual. In Samuel chapter 20 there is an interesting story of forbidden homosexual love between David and Jonathan:
20:3
And David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth that I
have found grace in thine eyes; and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this,
lest he be grieved: but truly as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth,
there is but a step between me and death.
20:4Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even
do it for thee.
David has found the Lord and Jonathan would be grieved, Jonathan would do ANYTHING for David. Oh why would that be?
20:11And Jonathan said unto David, Come, and let us go out into the field. And
they went out both of them into the field.
Hmmmm, I wonder what they're doing in the field...
20:17And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he
loved him as he loved his own soul.
Saul, Jonathan's father gets upset at this forbidden love and attempts to kill David with a javelin and fails.
20:35
And it came to pass in the morning, that Jonathan went out into the field
at the time appointed with David, and a little lad with him.
20:36And he said unto his lad, Run, find out now the arrows which I shoot. And
as the lad ran, he shot an arrow beyond him.
20:37
And when the lad was come to the place of the arrow which Jonathan had
shot, Jonathan cried after the lad, and said, Is not the arrow beyond thee?
20:38
And Jonathan cried after the lad, Make speed, haste, stay not. And
Jonathan's lad gathered up the arrows, and came to his master.
20:39But the lad knew not any thing: only Jonathan and David knew the matter.
20:40
And Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad, and said unto him, Go, carry
them to the city.
20:41And as soon as the lad
was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his
face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one
another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
20:42
And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both
of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and
between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and
Jonathan went into the city.
While there are some liberal denominations that accept homosexuality, I would argue that it would be more in line with Biblical texts to oppose it. Those who maintain that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality are straining. Even though it's pretty obvious of what my position is on religion or the Bible, its probably important for me to reiterate it in case there is confusion from my above statement: the Bible is mythology, organized religion is overall detrimental to society, and Christians are suffering from wholesale delusion.
Another facet of Christian homosexual oppression is their homosexual "rehabilitation" programs, psychotherapy and religious indoctrination that attempts to subvert homosexual desires. There are organizations like http://exodusinternational.org/ which states in their mission statement:
Mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality [9].
There are numerous hilarious controversies regarding this organization, including two "ex-gay" members, one of the founders and one of the leaders of Exodus International, leaving the organization to be together [10].
Another one involved another "ex-gay" Chairman of Exodus International who was kicked out of the organization for "exhibiting homosexual tendencies."
We believe
that our sexuality and its expression was designed by God at creation,
and that our sexuality and its expression was part of God’s original and
good design for mankind, and is clearly communicated to us in the
Scriptures. Male and female were both created in God’s image, and we
affirm that God’s perfect design for all sexual activity is between one
man and one woman in the context of the marriage bond. We recognize
that, as a consequence of the Fall, all men and women are sexually
broken and thus relate in twisted ways to God, self, others, and nature.
Therefore, all expressions of sexual activity outside of the bond of
marriage are sinful and are a distortion of God’s good design. This
includes all involvement with pornography, sexual fantasy, sexual
addictions, adultery, homosexuality, gender distortions and any other
sexual activity outside of marriage. All sexual sin grieves God and is
offensive to His Holiness, and all sexual sin ultimately harms people,
whether it is homosexual or heterosexual sin.
There is an entire subculture of supposed "ex-gays". Are they really reformed or are they lying to themselves? Is it even possible to forcefully change sexual preferences? First off, The American Psychological Association released a study that empirically proved that homosexuals are equally as mentally healthy as heterosexual people:
Hooker's work was the first to empirically test the assumption that gay
men were mentally unhealthy and maladjusted. The fact that no
differences were found between gay and straight participants sparked
more research in this area and began to dismantle the myth that
homosexual men and women are inherently unhealthy [11].
If there's nothing to cure, then what purpose do these "ex-gay" support groups and homosexual "rehabilitation" services serve? Homosexuals are sick almost exclusively in the eyes of the religious and this is certainly not backed by any psychology or current science. The religious organizations are pushing their religious doctrines onto homosexuals, making them feel guilty for their behavior by telling them that their behavior is somehow sinful and/or not in line with Biblical teachings, and then forming support groups of other oppressed homosexuals to reinforce their persecution. Another ADA survey, released in 2008 in response to a growing number of these homosexual "rehabilitation" programs, questioned what scientific evidence there was to whether someone's sexuality could be forcefully changed.
APA is concerned about ongoing efforts to mischaracterize homosexuality
and promote the notion that sexual orientation can be changed and about
the resurgence of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE).
SOCE has been controversial due to tensions between the values held by
some faith-based organizations, on the one hand, and those held by
lesbian, gay and bisexual rights organizations and professional and
scientific organizations, on the other (Drescher, 2003; Drescher &
Zucker, 2006).
In response to these concerns, APA appointed the Task Force on
Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation to review the
available research on SOCE and to provide recommendations to the
Association. The Task Force reached the following findings.
Recent studies of participants in SOCE identify a population of
individuals who experience serious distress related to same sex sexual
attractions. Most of these participants are Caucasian males who report
that their religion is extremely important to them (Beckstead &
Morrow, 2004; Nicolosi, Byrd, & Potts, 2000; Schaeffer, Hyde,
Kroencke, McCormick, & Nottebaum, 2000; Shidlo & Schroeder,
2002, Spitzer, 2003). These individuals report having pursued a variety
of religious and secular efforts intended to help them to change their
sexual orientation. To date, the research has not fully addressed age,
gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin,
disability, language, and socioeconomic status in the population of
distressed individuals.
There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether
or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual
orientation. Scientifically rigorous older work in this area (e.g.,
Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler, 1971; James, 1978; McConaghy,
1969, 1976; McConaghy, Proctor, & Barr, 1972; Tanner, 1974, 1975)
found that sexual orientation (i.e., erotic attractions and sexual
arousal oriented to one sex or the other, or both) was unlikely to
change due to efforts designed for this purpose. Some individuals
appeared to learn how to ignore or limit their attractions. However,
this was much less likely to be true for people whose sexual attractions
were initially limited to people of the same sex.
Although sound
data on the safety of SOCE are extremely limited, some individuals
reported being harmed by SOCE. Distress and depression were exacerbated.
Belief in the hope of sexual orientation change followed by the failure
of the treatment was identified as a significant cause of distress and
negative self-image (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Shidlo &
Schroeder, 2002).
Although there is insufficient evidence to
support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual
orientation, some individuals modified their sexual orientation identity
(i.e., group membership and affiliation), behavior, and values
(Nicolosi, Byrd, & Potts, 2000). They did so in a variety of ways
and with varied and unpredictable outcomes, some of which were temporary
(Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002). Based on
the available data, additional claims about the meaning of those
outcomes are scientifically unsupported [12].
With the available data we can safely conclude that these programs are not scientifically backed, that sometimes they can do more harm than good, and that they are not necessary from a psychological perceptive (self-identified homosexuals are equally as mentally healthy as heterosexuals when they haven't encountered any religious indoctrination). Another common argument against homosexual rights is that "it is not natural." Not only does this subject one to the naturalistic fallacy, but it's also patently untrue. There are literally thousands of different species of animals that have been recorded participating in homosexual activity. The list spans across the entire animal kingdom (mammals, fish, insects, invertebrates, amphibians, and birds) [13]. In light of this evidence, it is incorrect to say that homosexuality is unnatural because it occurs in a massive number of natural organisms. Also, Christians like to say that God created everything, if he did then he surely created a lot of homosexual animals and what does that say about whether God approves of homosexuality if he is a willing creator/condoner of it? But then again, logic tends to be entirely lost on most Christians (it's always Satan's fault when its something they don't agree with).
Finally, in light of all the evidence, a stance of being against gay marriage or gay rights is indefensible when looked through the lens of science and reality (not through the Bible goggles that Christians wear, "When I look at you I see a divine creation!", to which I retort, "When I look at you I see a bad upbringing, bad reading material, and extraordinarily bad logic"). Opposing gay marriage is morally equal to opposing interracial marriage or inter-caste marriage: it is prejudiced, unwarrantable, and it is an inevitable evolution in the march towards progress that gay marriage will become equal under the law. Marriage Equality Now!
Scientific skepticism is not limited to laboratory testing, gangly men in white lab coats, and only those with Ph.D.'s. It is a lens that anyone can use to view the world and a tool to dispatch fallacy. Scientific skeptics use science and the scientific method to investigate reality and believe it is the best way (that we're currently aware of) to arrive at truth. We discourage accepting claims on faith, anecdotal evidence, or shady logic. We attempt to remove our emotional biases from what we want to be true. Scientific skepticism is punk at its core. It is anti-authoritarian, critical of established beliefs, strongly individualistic (yet we understand the power of peer review), and non-conformist. In society there are many beliefs and ideas which are generally accepted as being factual or true that are false or do not have sufficient data back up their validity. By having a generally questioning, critical, and scientifically skeptical worldview, in the face of commonly held falsehoods and biased opposition, we are being punk.
Some would say that skepticism is an inherently negative activity, that we are calling into question people's deeply held beliefs which should be respected regardless of their factual validness. There is majesty in this way of thinking, however. By repudiating pseudoscience, faith, and uncritical thinking we are freeing ourselves from mental bondage. Occasionally scientists make mistakes, data becomes more and more refined, we may throw ourselves into a claim which may be reversed by further study, but at least we have the conviction to stand up and say "I was wrong!" Scientific skepticism is the freedom to view the world as close as we can approximate to how it actually is, not what we desperately want it to be. Punk rock is freedom.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not
rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather
than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts
science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we
respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for
their own sake.
While having an online discussion with an anti-fluoridation friend of mine, she offered up this video to vindicate her position. It includes interviews with 15 fluoridation authorities (doctors, dentists, and other professionals) essentially calling for the elimination of water fluoridation. The video was produced by FluorideAlert.org, also called The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), according to their mission statement:
The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) seeks to broaden awareness about the
toxicity of fluoride compounds among citizens, scientists, and
policymakers alike. FAN not only provides comprehensive and up-to-date
information, but remains vigilant in monitoring government agency
actions that impact the public's exposure to fluoride. [1]
They seek to "broaden awareness about the toxicity of fluoride among... scientists." Part of the scientific method is to attempt to remove inherent biases when conducting experiments and analyzing data. With the intention of influencing scientists to insert biases such as, "fluoride is toxic"they are invalidating any scientific research which they fund or are involved with. They "remain vigilant in monitoring government agency actions" a statement which panders to the conspiratorial mode of thinking.
Water fluoridation has been a rather hot button issue lately here in Portland. The city's drinking water already contains naturally occurring fluoride, but not enough to be considered effective at fighting cavities. Portland is also the last remaining metropolitan area in the US to have unfluoridated water. Late last year the City Council approved adding fluoride to the city's drinking water, effective March 2014, without calling for a citywide ordinance vote [2]. Opponents quickly rallied and gathered over 30,000 signatures to force a referendum and put the issue to a citywide vote in May 2013 [3]. In this essay, I want to examine the facts behind fluoridation. I will explore the claims made in this video by dissecting them using empirical evidence.
The introduction of the video begins with old newsreel footage consisting of various proclamations about fluoridation's health benefits. Quickly, the black and white footage switches to a talking head, "We're not dealing with a benign substance." "There's much too much risk and far too much benefit." proclaims another. This continues with switching between the positive newsreel footage on fluoridation and back to short quips from "the experts". "The dental community has no idea of the toxicology of fluoride." says a man with a mustache wearing scrubs. Well, your average dentist may or may not be aware of the toxicology of fluoride, but there have been several studies to determine the negative health effects of fluoride. The only clear and substantiated detrimental effect of fluoride at the commonly recommended dosage is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth (the most vulnerable period of exposure being between one and four years old with the risk ending around age eight), being mostly mild with minor aesthetic effects [4]. Every substance can be toxic at certain levels, a lethal dose of fluoride for most people is between 5 to 10 grams and can cause gastrointestinal distress at about a tenth of that dose. Chlorine, another commonly added chemical to drinking water, is lethal after 30 minutes 430 ppm (parts per million) when in gaseous form [5]. The current recommended amount of fluoride in water is 0.7 to 1 ppm [6]. When it comes to the actual causes of dental fluorosis, it is estimated that fluoridated water, directly or indirectly, accounts for around 40% of cases with around 60% being caused by other sources (namely toothpaste)[7].
The introduction continues with various blanket statements being issued. One female expert, a Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, states, "Fluoride is a neurotoxin." Directly after a computer generated graphic of a brain rotates around. The graphic is obviously provided to lend some sort of credence to the claim being made. A metadata analysis systematically reviewing water fluoridation compiled 32 studies which examined possible health risks such as Down's syndrome, mortality, senile dementia, goitre, and IQ. The quality of these studies were low (bias, lack of controls, and so forth). None of the studies had a prospective follow up or incorporated any form
of blinding. While 22 studies mentioned potential confounding factors,
only six used an analysis that controlled for them. Only 3 of the 32 studies found any significant effects (one found increased incidents of Alzheimer's, one found decreased incidents of impaired mental functioning [lower mental retardation rates], the third study found that the combination of low iodine and high fluoride
concentrations [probably well above the recommended fluoridation level] was associated with goitre and learning difficulties) and all can be discounted because of their poor quality [8]. There are no quality studies which supports the notion that "Fluoride is a neurotoxin." Fluoride is naturally occurring in water, food and is commonly used in toothpastes and other dental hygiene products. The idea that fluoride is a neurotoxin is ludicrous. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that fluoridated water has an overall positive effect on health [9].
The title to the next section of the video is "Fluoridation & Medical Ethics" and begins with a litany of experts essentially saying "Fluoride is a medicine/drug which is being introduced into the water supply to treat dental caries, unlike chlorine which is specifically introduced to treat/cleanse the water, not to treat the consumer of the water. It violates medical ethics because it is not specifically tailored to the individual." This is definitely a part of the video where if moves into an ethical grey area. As far as medical ethics are concerned, what they say in the video is true, fluoridation is not specifically tailored to the individual. You have to weigh the positive effects with the negative effects and try to arrive at a conclusion which benefits the most people. But, when you remove the conspiratorial thinking and examine the scientific consensus that says, "Water fluoridation is safe, reduces dental cavities, is inexpensive, and easy to implement." [11] the ethical question becomes less and less, "They're introducing a harmful chemical into our water supply." and more "Why are we not introducing water fluoridation?" Because a group of individuals, counter to scientific evidence, believe that it is harmful? Ethically, it seems to me that in most circumstances not introducing fluoridated water is more unethical than introducing it, given its proven effectiveness and lack of harm. It closes the gap between the prevalence of dental caries between rich and poor children. Less and less people here in Portland have access to proper health and dental care. Go and ask your dentist what they think of water fluoridation and try to shed your own biases and conclusions. Ethical questions are difficult, should be discussed, and should be informed by good science and reasoning. And by all means, I urge you to examine the evidence and see through the conspiratorial/bias ridden haze that surrounds this issue and come to your own conclusion as to whether water fluoridation is ethical or not.
The next section is entitled "Do We Need Fluoride?". The answer is unequivocally no. Our bodies do not need to imbibe or process fluoride in order to survive. The fact that the body doesn't need fluoride does not make water fluoridation superfluous. We do not need to imbibe chlorine, but it has obvious positive health effects when added to our drinking water. Chlorine is presently an important chemical for water purification (such as water treatment plants), in disinfectants, and in bleach. Chlorine in water is more than three times as effective as a disinfectant against Escherichia coli than an equivalent concentration of bromine, and is more than six times more effective than an equivalent concentration of iodine [10]. Once again, the scientific consensus is "water fluoridation is safe, reduces dental cavities, is inexpensive, and easy to implement." [11]. The section ends with Earl Baldwin of the British House of Lords stating "... it is not in the category of a vitamin and apart from everything it's miles more toxic than any vitamin." As stated above, fluoride at recommended fluoridation levels is not toxic. Any substance is toxic at certain levels. Niacin (Vitamin B3) produces side effects like gastrointestinal complaints, such as dyspepsia (indigestion), nausea and liver toxicity fulminant hepatic failure, have also been reported. These can manifest at dosages of 1.5 - 6 g per day [12]. Vitamin B3 is one of the 40 to 80 essential human nutrients.
Next up is "Does Fluoride Need to Be Swallowed?" and we are subjected to the drum beat of experts "The effects of fluoride are topical and it does not need to be swallowed." One expert boldly illustrates the notion "If you want to apply suntan lotion to avoid sunburn, you don't swallow the suntan lotion." While the analogy is entertaining, the effectiveness of water fluoridation is proven. Initial studies of community water fluoridation demonstrated that reductions
in childhood dental caries attributable to fluoridation were approximately 50%-60%
(94-97). More recent estimates are lower- 18%-40% (98-99) [9] the lowering of the figures is speculated to be related to the increase of fluoridated toothpaste and other fluoridated products.
"Do Most Countries Fluoridate Water?" The answer really has no bearing whatsoever on the efficacy and safety of water fluoridation. I'll report the answer dutifully however; It is a logical fallacy to think that because any particular country fluoridates their water, does not fluoridate it's water, or has rejected water fluoridation outright that therefore water fluoridation is safe or unsafe. Countries that have over half of their water fluoridated include the US, Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland, most of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, and Chile. Most European countries have rejected water fluoridation and the list includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Italy, Sweden, and Switzerland [13].
"Is There Less Tooth Decay In Fluoridated Countries?" Lower rates of tooth decay are uncorrelated with water fluoridation rates but the answer is much more complicated than that. Africa has low rates of dental carries, but Africans typically consume less refined sugars in their diet [14], have poor access to health care, and also have large areas where fluoride occurs naturally in groundwater at high levels [18]. India also has large areas of the country where natural groundwater fluoride levels are higher than recommended. Some European countries that have banned fluoridated water instead add it to their salt and its effectiveness is measured to be on par with water fluoridation [24]. Many European countries have universal health care. France rejects water fluoridation, is rated low in the prevalence of dental caries [15], and listed in the WHO's 2000 ranking of health care systems as number one in the world [16]. Italy too, rejects water fluoridation, is rated low in the prevalence of dental caries, and ranked as the number two health care system in the world. 66% of residents in the US receive fluoridated water [17], our health care system is ranked 38th (behind Saudi Arabia, Costa Rica, and Morocco) with the highest rank of expenditure per capita in the world, we consume copious amounts of refined sugars in our diets, and yet we still have a low rating for prevalence of dental caries. Research shows that drinking optimally fluoridated water is one of the
safest and most cost-effective public health measures for preventing,
controlling, and in some cases reversing, tooth decay [19].
"How Much Fluoride are We Ingesting?" Fluoride occurs naturally in groundwater at normal levels between 0.01 ppm and 0.3 ppm. Food contains fluoride at differing variables. This handy chart shows the levels of fluoride in commonly eaten foods [20]. A study by the Journal of Public Health Dentistry contradicts the idea that it is even possible to roughly calculate and optimize your fluoride intake.
With widespread water fluoridation and countless fluoride-containing
products available, quantifying the intakes of fluoride is much more
complex than it was several decades ago. In fact, obtaining data from
the Iowa Fluoride Study necessary for estimates of total fluoride intake
has been extremely complex. For example, fluoride concentrations varied
considerably within the same product category depending on site of
manufacture and distribution pattern, and many children utilized
multiple sources of water, often varying in fluoride concentration [21].
While this may sound troubling, the same study also called into question the idea that there is even an "optimal" level of dental fluorosis to avoid.
It should be emphasized that while almost all of the fluorosis cases in
the present study were mild, the level of esthetic concern among
individual cases likely also varied considerably so that, as
demonstrated in a previous study,
an “optimal” fluoride level to avoid fluorosis may differ depending on
the threshold used to define fluorosis. This is important because as
reported in a recent article,
mild fluorosis was associated with higher quality-of-life measures,
which suggests that avoiding all fluorosis may not be warranted [21].
"Are Kids Being Overdosed?" This section once again highlights the video's intention of omitting evidence which runs counter to their claim.They even have the audacity to do it directly on-screen. A graphic displays a 2005 press release from the CDC [22] and highlights only the following sentence: one-third of children and adolescents 6 to 19 years had enamel
fluorosis of their teeth. The full press release statement shown, on-screen mind you, is:
About one-third of children and adolescents 6 to 19 years had enamel
fluorosis of their teeth, although most was very mild. Enamel fluorosis
happens when the teeth absorb too much fluoride as they develop beneath the
gums. In its mildest form, fluorosis shows up as white spots on the teeth.
Moderate to severe fluorosis, where teeth are discolored and sometimes
pitted, was found in less than 4 percent of children and adolescents.
We are then bombarded by pictures of severe dental fluorosis, with no statement that only 4 percent of children and adolescents have moderate to severe fluorosis. The study which prompted the press release also reports:
The milder forms of enamel
fluorosis typically are not noticeable; however, more severe levels
might be objectionable for cosmetic reasons. Historically, a low
prevalence of the milder forms of fluorosis has been accepted as a
reasonable and minor consequence balanced against the substantial
protection afforded by dental caries from the use of fluoridated
drinking water and foods, beverages, and oral care products that contain
fluoride [23].
The video continues and attempts to make some sort of tenuous connection between dental fluorosis and harm to other bodily systems and areas. "To do that, impacting the enamel cells in the teeth, means that it can also impact cells elsewhere in the body." states the same "enlightened" expert who told us that fluoride is a nuerotoxin. "What's happening in the teeth is very likely happening in the bone as well.", says another expert. According to a systematic review by the Australian National Health and Research Council of 20 potentially relevant studies concluded that water fluoridation at levels aimed at preventing dental caries, and possibly at somewhat higher naturally occurring levels, appears to have little effect on fracture risk - either protective or deleterious[4]. Of course, there are dubious studies which hint at countering this conclusion but they are all of poor quality and can be dismissed. The video goes on, spiraling further outward, attacking the American Dental Association and calling into question the basic efficacy of the field of dentistry.
The video then refers to a report entitled "Fluoride In Drinking Water" by the National Academy of Sciences [25] which is hailed to be "one of the best reports to find out what Fluoride is doing to the rest of the body." The study makes plenty of key points, all of which are not discussed in the video.
Addressing questions of artificial fluoridation, economics, risk-benefit
assessment, and water-treatment technology was not part of the
committee’s charge. (p. 2)
The committee only considered adverse effects that might result from
exposure to fluoride; it did not evaluate health risk from lack of
exposure to fluoride or fluoride’s efficacy in preventing dental caries. (p. 2)
The report makes no concrete claims to any negative effects of fluoride at the normal accepted levels of fluoridation other than dental fluorosis. It continually calls for more studies to be conducted.
It calls for more studies and concern over possible negative human effects based off of animal studies in which rats were given extremely large (10 mg for 30 days in one) dosages of fluoride. The average rat weighs 550 grams while the average human in North America weighs 80.7 kg. Toxicity is weight dependent. That's 10 times the recommended human dosage to an animal that weighs 146 times less.
It references the already mentioned above study linking lower IQ scores to fluoride that can be discounted because of its poor quality. It even states: Without detailed information about the testing conditions and the tests
themselves, the committee was unable to assess the strength of the
studies. (p. 208)
The producers of the video either ignored the non-supportive contents of the study, totally misunderstood what the term "suggestive evidence" means and proper scientific method, or deliberately cited the study to lend authoritative support to the medical claims being made in the video and expected the audience not to read or properly investigate the study in question. The first two are mistakes out of ignorance while the third imparts willful misfeasance, although the first two are more probable considering the callous disregard of scientific thinking shown thus far in this video.
"Should Infants Drink Fluoridated Water?" There are several studies which show that mother's breast milk is healthier for infants than reconstituted baby formula [26]. An expert in the video states "I think the ADA's recent statement on warning against adding fluoridated water to baby formula is a watershed decision." While searching for the actual ADA press release which contained this statement, I found numerous false leads and even the Boston local news website which is flashed in the video which contained no links to the actual press release. The following is from the ADA Fluoride and Infant Formula FAQ:
If fluorosis occurs when teeth are developing, is it okay to use fluoridated water to reconstitute infant formula?
Yes, it is safe to use fluoridated water to mix infant
formula. If your baby is primarily fed infant formula, using fluoridated
water might increase the chance for mild enamel fluorosis, but enamel
fluorosis does not affect the health of your child or the health of your
child’s teeth. Parents and caregivers are encouraged to talk to their
dentists about what’s best for their child [27].
Its here where the video begins to reiterate many of the topics that I have already debunked and since I've lost my patience, I will begin to close. Water fluoridation is currently in an information positive feedback loop as the type described in Micheal Shermer's book Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. The amount of misinformation on the internet regarding water fluoridation is astounding. The misinformed people feed in misinformation which perpetuates the feedback loop cycling ever onward. It's time to throw a wrench in the gears.
What is astrology? How does it work and what sort of predictions can it make? People don't actually still believe in such superstitious nonsense, do they? In this essay I will answer these questions through the lens of reality, using science and data. Most people who believe in astrology are often very fond of using anecdotes to validate their claims as to its efficacy.
Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, as evidence that cannot be investigated using the scientific method.
The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal
evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can
determine how typical something is. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy[1]
What is astrology? Invented sometime around the third millennium BCE [2], astrology evolved into a conglomeration of different belief systems, all of which describe a predictive system from inferred positioning of planetary, constellation, and astronomical bodies. Astrologers believe that the arrangement of astronomical bodies, according to the time of your birth, can predict your personality traits. Whats more, they believe that they still have influences even after your birth.
Astromancy refers to a kind of astrological fortune-telling that views the stars as predicting an irrevocable destiny for the person having her or his fortune told. Modern astrologers tend to distance themselves from this tradition of predicting specific events. Instead of predicting events, most contemporary astrologers describe upcoming planetary conditions, with the understanding that clients have the free will to respond to planetary influences in different ways. Like meteorologists, astrologers can only predict trends and probabilities- not details. [3, pg. 54, italics mine]
So by making vague predictions about "trends and probabilities" they've rendered their divinations unfalsifiable, which makes them pseudoscientific claims. The idea that astrology can predict your personality is fortunately a claim that can be scientifically tested and, oh snap, they have! Here's a study published in the Telegraph hilariously titled "Astrologers fail to predict proof they are wrong"
For several decades, researchers tracked more than 2,000
people - most of them born within minutes of each other. According to
astrology, the subject should have had very similar traits.
The babies were originally recruited as part of a medical
study begun in London in 1958 into how the circumstances of birth can
affect future health. More than 2,000 babies born in early March that
year were registered and their development monitored at regular
intervals.
Researchers looked at more than 100 different
characteristics, including occupation, anxiety levels, marital status,
aggressiveness, sociability, IQ levels and ability in art, sport,
mathematics and reading - all of which astrologers claim can be gauged
from birth charts.
The scientists failed to find any evidence of similarities
between the "time twins", however. They reported in the current issue of
the Journal of Consciousness Studies: "The test conditions could hardly
have been more conducive to success . . . but the results are uniformly
negative."
A meta-analysis was conducted pooling 40 studies consisting
of 700 astrologers and over 1000 birth charts. Ten of the tests, which
had a total of 300 participants, involved subjects picking the correct
chart interpretation out of a number of others which were not the
astrologically correct chart interpretation (usually 3 to 5 others).
When the date and other obvious clues were removed no significant
results were found to suggest there was any preferred chart. [4]
This study often refers to astrology as being very similar to shamanism. Which is somewhat true, but often astrologers are teetering on the edge between pure magical thinking and reason. When you read astrological books, they often present the vague notion that its predictive capabilities are somehow scientifically attained by inserting complicated "science sounding" filler.
Aspect refers to the angular relationship between various points in a horoscope especially to a series of named angles, such as trines (120°) and squares (90°) The twelves signs of the Zodiac, in addition to being bands of astrological influence, also provide astrologers with a system for locating planets and other points of space. A circle contains 360°, each 12 star signs representing 30° slices of the circle. Hence, a planet located near the beginning of Aries, for instance, might be at 1° Aries; in the middle of Aries, 15° Aries; and so on. Earth, which is understood to be at the center of the horoscope (unless one is using a heliocentric or Sun-centered system), constitutes the vertex for any angle between planets or between other points in the chart. Thus, for example, if Mercury is located at 1° Aries, it would make it a semisextile (30°) aspect with another planet. [3, pg 40]
Let's just analyze these statements for a brief moment. All of the angles and names of angles are definitions of astrological aspects. They have not changed since Ptolemy made them up in the 1st Century AD [5] along with the positions of the twelve signs of the Zodiac. Due to the slow warbling of the earth on its axis, the length of time the sun transits through the position of a Zodiac constellation would vary in the number of days it would take to pass (traditional Astrology is supposed to be a set 30 days for each constellation). Also, there is actually not just 12 constellations, but 13 (Ophiuchus). [6]
Astrologers often dodge scientific refutations of their chosen subsystem with various astrological reasons, regardless, the scientific findings still call into question the very basic effectiveness of sun-sign astrology. When a basic predictive ability (of which all of astrological predictions are based on top of) is proven to be ineffective and you can only account for its ineffectiveness by piling on top of it pseudoscientific jargon that supposedly accounts for the fact that it still doesn't work, you have to dismiss any claims to its validity. The fact is, it just plain doesn't work. Nevermind about which forces are supposed to be influencing it (is it gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, or the electromagnetic force that makes planets and their particular alignment positive or detrimental to the human condition?). When the scientific data falsifies your predictions over and over again, you must dismiss any clinging threads of belief.
People don't actually still believe in astrology in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence do they? Actually yes, they do. According to a 2005 Gallup poll in the UK and the US, about one-quarter of the population agrees with the statement "Astrology or the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives." [7] With this many people believing that their personalities and destinies can be divined by planetary alignments when "Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified." [2] then rational minded individuals need to stand up and stop allowing it to pervade our newspapers and the minds of impressionable children.
The amazing Phil Plait, of BadAstronomy.com sums up the harm astrology does on our society very succinctly:
For one thing, it's estimated that hundreds of millions of dollars
are spent on astrology every year in the United States alone.
That's real money, folks, wasted on something that doesn't work.
For another, astrology promotes the worst thing in the world: uncritical
thinking. The more we teach people to simply accept anecdotal
stories, hearsay, cherry-picked data (picking out what supports
your claims but ignoring what doesn't), and, frankly, out-and-out
lies, the harder it gets for people to think clearly. If you cannot
think clearly, you cannot function as a human being. I cannot stress
this enough. Uncritical thinking is tearing this world to pieces,
and while astrology may not be at the heart of that, it has its role.
For a third, and this one irritates me personally, astrology
takes away from the real grandeur of the Universe. We live in an
amazing place, this Universe of ours, and it's quite fantastic
enough without needing people to make up things about it. Astrology
dims the beauty of nature, cheapens it.[8]
![[18]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Groundwater-fluoride-world.svg){kind=link}