The (pseudo)Science of Homeopathy

This is a great mashup of homeopathic nonsense mixed with Star Trek mumbo jumbo and other technical bullshit jargon.

A mashup of Charlene Werner’s and John Bennet’s profound explanations of the science of homeopathy with similar levels of technical understanding found in popular media.

Charlene Werner’s website:

Charlene Werner on the uncut video. Hilarious on its own.…

John Benneth’s YouTube page:

John Benneth is also Jack Hammer on Liveleak:…

Is John Benneth a performance artist pulling a fast one by pretending to be a homeopath, or has he really swallowed the extremely diluted Kool-Aid? I have no idea.

Via Pharyngula

Not News: When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away

Research results not consistent with your world view? Then you’re likely to believe science can’t supply all the answers

Ben Goldacre writes, “What do people do when confronted with scientific evidence that challenges their pre-existing view? Often they will try to ignore it, intimidate it, buy it off, sue it for libel or reason it away.”

The entire editorial is a good one. Read it here.

Here’s another highlight:

How deep do these views go, and how far do they generalise? Professor Geoffrey Munro took about 100 students and told them they were participating in a study on “judging the quality of scientific information”, now published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology. First, their views on whether homosexuality might be associated with mental illness were assessed, and then they were divided into two groups.

The first group were given five research studies that confirmed their pre-existing view. Students who thought homosexuality was associated with mental illness, for example, were given papers explaining that there were more gay people in psychological treatment centres than the general population. The second group were given research that contradicted their pre-existing view. (After the study was finished, we should be clear, they were told that all these research papers were fake, and given the opportunity to read real research on the topic if they wanted to.)

Then they were asked about the research they had read, and were asked to rate their agreement with the following statement: “The question addressed in the studies summarised … is one that cannot be answered using scientific methods.”

As you would expect, the people whose pre-existing views had been challenged were more likely to say that science simply cannot be used to measure whether homosexuality is associated with mental illness.