Crystal experiment

Here's a brief extract from my book Believing Bullshit.

Professor Christopher French and colleagues Lyn Williams and Hayley O’Donnell at the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths, University of London, conducted a study into the claim that crystals have unusual powers that can be detected when they are held. The resulting paper was presented to the British Psychological Society Centenary Annual Conference in Glasgow in 2001. The study compared the reactions of a group of volunteers who were told to meditate while clutching real crystals bought from “New Age” shops with a control group given fake crystals. Those given real crystals reported higher concentration powers, heightened energy levels, and better spiritual well-being. However, exactly the same feelings were reported by those holding fake crystals. This experiment repeated an earlier one in which the experimenter, Williams, knew which crystals were real and which were fake, and so it was not “double-blind.” This second study was double-blind. The result? Neither experiment found any difference in the effects reported between real and fake crystals. Richard Wiseman, a colleague of French’s, commented on the results: “The suggestion is that the power of crystals is in the mind rather than in the crystals themselves.”2 Let’s suppose you believe in the miraculous powers of crystals and, in particular, in the ability of people to sense the power of crystals that they physically handle. But you’re now presented with these experimental results that strongly suggest, as Wiseman notes, that the experiences people have as a result of handling crystals are a product of the power of suggestion, rather than anything in the crystals themselves. Oh, dear. What do you do? One commentator on a blog reporting the experiments responded like so:

There is much that exists beyond the visible spectrum of light, and beyond the five senses. Not being able to prove the existence of something does not disprove its existence. Much is yet to be discovered. You would do better to discover it by looking outside your narrow frame of reference.

This is a curious collection of sentences.The first three are, of course, all true—indeed they are truisms. Yes, there’s much that exists Playing the Mystery Card beyond the visible spectrum of light and beyond the five senses. X-rays, for example. It is undeniable that not proving the existence of something does not disprove its existence. And of course, who would want to deny that “much is yet to be discovered”? However, while the first three sentences are truisms, they fail to engage with the experimental results. What the experiment produced is some rather compelling evidence that some of the effects people typically report on handling crystals—increased concentration, spiritual well-being, heightened energy levels—are not a result of some special feature of the crystals themselves but rather of the power of suggestion. It is important to stress that what we are looking at here is not a mere absence of evidence for the claim that crystals have such effects, but rather that it is some positive evidence of the absence of any such effects. Yet notice how, in response to this experimental evidence, our commentator says “not being able to prove the existence of something is not to disprove its existence,” thus misrepresenting the results of this investigation as a mere absence of evidence.

What of the suggestion that there’s much that is “beyond the senses” (whether it’s a supernatural realm or merely more of the natural world is left open) that the methods of science are not well suited to discover (being too “narrow”). The thought seems to be that if we want to discover more about this undiscovered realm, we need to open ourselves up to other ways of knowing. But what other ways of knowing? A survey of crystal healing literature and websites suggests a combination of gut feeling and
intuition (see “I Just Know!”) and heavy reliance on various anecdotes about the effects of crystals, such as people being supposedly cured, and so on (see Piling Up the Anecdotes).

This is a fairly typical example of how people Play the Mystery Card in order to deal with compelling scientific evidence against their beliefs in miraculous or supernatural phenomena. The scientific method has a fantastic track record when it comes to revealing what lies beyond the visible spectrum of light and is hidden fromour ordinary five senses. As I say, scientists have discovered not only X-rays, but also subatomic particles, distant galaxies, and so on. We are given no reason to think the scientific method is not suitable when it comes to investigating the alleged powers of crystals.

Indeed, many of the claims made about crystals clearly are scientifically investigable because they have observable, empirically testable consequences. Moreover, science has produced good evidence that at least some of these claims are false. Still, our commentator sweepingly dismisses such scientific findings, misrepresenting them as a mere “absence of evidence.”

On no grounds whatsoever, and in the teeth of evidence to the contrary, our commentator insists that scientific methods are far too “narrow” to refute the various claims made about crystals. And of course, his dismissal of such scientific evidence is delivered with an air of humility and superior wisdom in contrast to
the implied know-it-all attitude of the scientific critics.

Martin Cohen's bizarre review - further thought

A further thought on Martin Cohen's review of my book Believing Bullshit (scroll down for my first comment).

I tell you what has surprised me somewhat. Although the book is provocatively titled, it is written in a fairly measured and qualified way, and certainly doesn't go round saying all religion is bullshit, etc. It's actually fairly polite about religion, I thought - I certainly intended it to be (I have no interest whatsoever in insulting religious people per se). But the book has provoked some very strong emotional reactions, and insults, from some religious (and non-religious) people (in fact other religious people have rather liked it, and said so).

So what explains Martin Cohen's astonishing review, packed full, as it is, with obvious falsehoods, blatant misrepresentations, etc?

I am thinking, perhaps unfairly, that Dawkins is onto something with his "viruses of the mind" idea. In effect, I am installing anti-viral software. The virus gets very aggressive when it detects what's going on, immediately takes command of the subject and sends out a warning message to other infectees not to expose themselves to the contents of the book - even telling barefaced fibs about it in order to prevent the virus being attacked in others.

It's as if Cohen has been taken over by a mind-bot of some sort (not necessarily religious, I should add). His review is so weird, it's almost like it's not him that's writing it, but the virus itself.

If so, then I forgive him.

P.S. This is pure speculation, of course (it's for, as those psychic hotlines put it, "entertainment purposes only").
P.P.S. Hope this doesn't mark me out as a "follower of His Holiness, Richard Dawkins".

Does anyone have good resource info on cell replacement?

Doing a kid's book and need to find out info on how quickly cells are replaced in the human body. I know that some turn over very quickly (liver or kidney) and others more slowly (bone) but that they are all replaced over a decade or two (well, I think so, anyway). Anyone know of a resource? I tried googling but could only find stuff on cancer, etc.

Martin Cohen's review of Believing Bullshit

Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked Into an Intellectual Black Hole

21 July 2011 Times Higher Ed Supplement.

Strong whiff of a weak argument

Martin Cohen finds an attack on irrationality worryingly unscientific in its methods

Do you believe in God? Or even wonder if there might be a purpose to the universe? Do you suppose that human consciousness is more than merely chemical changes in "brain states"? Do you think natural selection is a zombie theory or that alternative health remedies can sometimes work?

Then you believe in bullshit. That is the uncompromising message of Stephen Law's new book.

Continues here....

Very weird review as I certainly don't claim, and nor do I believe, that if you believe in God, or wonder if there is a purpose to the universe, then you believe bullshit.

Here's a passage from the introduction:

However, it’s worth emphasizing at the outset that I’m certainly not suggesting that every religious belief system is an Intellectual Black Hole, or that every person of faith is a victim. True, I illustrate how even core mainstream religious beliefs are sometimes promoted and defended by means of strategies covered in this book. But that’s not meant to show that beliefs in question are false, or that they couldn’t be given a proper, robust defense. Just because some religious people choose to defend what they believe by dubious means doesn’t entail that no one can reasonably hold those same beliefs.

Moving on, I don't claim, and nor do I even believe, that consciousness is "chemical changes in brain states". I do not, anywhere in the book, discuss critics of natural selection. And I do not deny, anywhere in the book, that alternative remedies "sometimes work".

And that's just the opening lines of Cohen's review. There's barely a line of the review that's accurate. Extraordinary.

What's really going on here, I wonder?! Might the fact that I am, according to Cohen, a follower of "His Holiness, Richard Dawkins" have coloured Cohen's vision somewhat?

Homeopathy survey

This via Chris French:

Homeopaths are doing a survey of public opinion at

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KJL3D2N

You might like to complete it? It's v quick. [it's also quite astonishingly worded S.L.]

He also points out there is another version of the same survey at

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TMKKV75

The latter has been put up by @skepticCanary (aka Tom Williamson) who claims that "homeopaths have a track record of abandoning ideas if they don't turn out the way they wanted". Surely not, Tom! But, just in case, you might like to complete that one too.

Also, information about the World Skeptics Congress in Berlin in May 2012 will be updated at the following site: http://www.worldskeptics.org/

In Korea

I am currently in Korea as keynote speaker at the ICPIC conference here in Jinju. Golly it is a long way.

Got picked up at airport 5.30am today, Sunday, and taken to Seoul station and put on train to Ggeongju, where I joined a tour organized by ICPIC. Everyone's been v friendly. Have missed two nights sleep though as I played drums for the Heavy Dexters Friday night at the Chester Arms pub, East Oxford, went home and 2 hours later had to get bus for Heathrow for 7.30am flight.

Talk in Oxford next Wednesday

SitP Oxford - Stephen Law: Believing Bullshit

When: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:30pm to 8:30pm UTC

Where: Copa of Oxford 9 - 13 George Street Oxford OX1 2AU http://www.copaofoxford.co.uk/ We use the upstairs function room. To find it, go up the spiral staircase - then look for the door immediately opposite you. Go through, up another flight of stairs and you will find us. There is a bar up here and it should be open. So no need to spill your pint on the spiral stairs.
Event Status: confirmed
Event Description: Skeptics in the Pub Oxford. For more information, see http://oxford.skepticsinthepub.org/Event.aspx/647/Believing-Bullshit SitP Ref [SitP647Event]