Swamped

Okay, so I'll admit it: I am freaking SWAMPED with busy right now! I am:

1. Studying for the rather intimidating NBCOT (National Board of Certification in Occupational Therapy) exam, so I can become a registered occupational therapist. This exam costs $500 to take, and if you fail, you have to pay again and wait 45 days before you can have another go at it.
   
2. Studying for my new job. I have to do a lot of training, and all of it is online, long, and involves taking tests over the material.
   
3. A fellow skeptic Zi Wang and I wrote this 2-3 hour workshop over divination with dowsing rods and pendulums. We're giving the workshop in a few hours. A friend of mine who is a budding director is going to videotape much of it to make a little promotional video, and it's expected that we will be giving workshops like it all over the country in little skeptic hubs.
   
4. I think I have writer's block or something! I think this happens to everyone who blogs at some point.
   
5. I've got some somewhat bizarre things going on in my personal life, unrelated to skepticism.
   
6. Flimsy and I are planning for our wedding!
   
7. I've got an interview for another job position.
   
8. I submitted the revisions of my manuscript (of my biomechanics research) to the journal.
   

One of the things surely on my mind is that if I write blog posts, I will be taking away time for something else, especially studying for this big scary exam. So this is why the blog posts have trickled down to almost nothing lately. Sorry guys!

Evidence of the Afterlife; I'm Skeptical - Introduction, Pt. 2

This is possibly the most important portion of the Introductory chapter.  Here, Jeffrey Long looks at the twelve most common aspects of a NDE, according to his research.  These are:

1.  Out-of-body experience (OBE):  Separation of consciousness from the physical body.
2.  Heightened senses.
3.  Intense and generally positive emotions or feelings.
4.  Passing into or through a tunnel.
5.  Encountering a mystical or bright light.
6.  Encountering other beings, either mystical beings or deceased relatives or friends.
7.  A sense of alteration of time or space.
8.  Life review.
9.  Encountering unworldly ("heavenly") realms.
10.  Encountering or learning special knowledge.
11.  Encountering a boundary or barrier.
12.  A return to the body, either voluntary or involuntary.

He goes into a bit of detail for each.

1.  Out-of-body experiences.  This is exactly as it sounds like.  I find that many, many people put stock in out-of-body experiences, so I might address this topic more closely on its own, in a brief post later.  Long claims that:

The NDERF survey asked 613 NDErs, "Did you experience a separation of your consciousness from your body?" In response, 75.4 percent answered "Yes."

My first question is, why only 613?  Long is very happy with the fact that he has over 1300 stories from people who have submitted the online form, which does ask about out-of-body experiences.  If he has the results from 1300 people, why does he include less than half than number in his statistic?  More than one question in the online form addressed out-of-body experiences; yet he only includes the number for this one question.  Why?

2.  Heightened senses.  Long claims that 74.4 percent of respondents indicated that they had "More consciousness and alertness than normal."

3.  Intense and generally positive emotions or feelings.  Responding to, "Did you have a feeling of peace or pleasantness?", 76.2 percent claimed "Incredible peace or pleasantness."  Responding to, "Did you have a feeling of joy?", 52.5 claimed "Incredible joy."  He mentions that a few people's NDE are "frightening."  He refers the reader to an end note, which refers the reader to a portion of his website, which contains a small section about frightening NDEs.  All he states in the actual book is that frightening NDEs are "beyond the scope" of his book.

Encountering frightening moments during a NDE is not rare.  The NDERF survey asked “During your experience, did you consider the contents of your experience (NOT the possible life-threatening event that led up to the experience) to be:”, followed by the options of “Wonderful”, “Mixed”, or “Frightening.”  Of the 613 NDErs responding to this question with a NDE Scale score of seven or higher, 62.5% selected “Wonderful”, 33.8% “Mixed”, and only 3.8% “Frightening.”  The finding that about one in three NDEs selected “Mixed” is surprising.  It has not been widely appreciated that such a high percentage of NDEs have such an apparent mixed emotional component.

You'd think this would be important information, especially as he uses these twelve points to . . . well, you'll see.

4.  Passing into or through a tunnel.  33.8 percent of respondents report an experience of this nature.

5.  Encountering a mystical or brilliant light.  64.6 percent report such a thing.

6.  Encountering other beings, either mystical beings or deceased relatives or friends.  57.3 percent report encountering other beings during their NDE.

7.  A sense of alteration of time or space.  60.5 percent report this.

8.  Life review.  Only 22.2 percent report experiencing something like this.

9.  Encountering unworldly ("heavenly") realms.  52.2 percent of respondents had such an experience.

10.  Encountering or learning special knowledge.  When asked, "Did you have a sense of knowing special knowledge, universal order, and/or purpose?" 56 percent answered "Yes."  31.5 percent said that they seemed to understand everything "about the universe."  31.3 percent said that they seemed to understand everything "about myself or others."

11.  Encountering a boundary or border.  31 percent of respondents claim to have encountered some kind of boundary or limiting physical structure.

12.  A return to the body, either voluntary or involuntary.  The online form asked, "Were you involved in or aware of a decision regarding your return to the body?"  58.5 percent answered, "Yes."

The main point I want to make about these is that a huge part of his argument is that NDEs are very, very consistent.  As we look at his argument in-depth in later chapters, keep these bits in mind . . . the most common elements of NDEs still only show up as inconsistently as above.  Many of them, like the out-of-body experience, are well-explained by modern neuroscience.  Keep in mind how inconsistent these elements are observed as we look at his arguments about how "consistent" NDEs are.

Evidence of the Afterlife; I'm Skeptical - Introduction

The first part in our new in-depth book review of Evidence of the Afterlife, The Science of Near-Death Experiences by Jeffrey Long and Paul Perry.

The Introduction is, ironically, one of the longest chapters of the book (which isn't saying much; the book is only about 200 pages long and no more than 300 words per page).  It gives a very summarized overview of what Long considers to be his very strong evidence for the afterlife.  Since he goes over these arguments and evidence in much greater detail in the rest of the book, I'll just comment, briefly, on some of the most note-worthy here.

He mentions that at the time the book was published, the data was from "more than 1300 people who had a near-death experience."  Long's website now claims it has received over 2000 such testimonials.  Yes, ALL of the data used in this "research" was submitted via an electronic form and testimonials from people who simply visited his website and claim to have had a near-death experience.  Readers, expect periodic lessons on the scientific method throughout these review posts.

We can comfortably dismiss the entire book on this basis alone.  How can Long not see what a spectacular sampling bias this would create?  I'll get into this in greater detail later, as he addresses this criticism directly at one point.

Entertainingly, he moves straight from the mention of the volume of testimonials and the method by which he collected them into this interesting claim:

More than 95 percent of respondents feel their NDE was "definitely real," while virtually all of the remaining respondents feel it was "probably real."  Not one respondent has said it was "definitely not real."

Isn't it obvious why this isn't saying anything?  Sampling bias.  Everything about the website screams in very emotional language that NDEs are evidence of the afterlife.  We would absolutely expect it to attract people who have little doubt that their NDEs has showed them a glimpse of the afterlife.  If a faith-healer had a website that stated everywhere that testimonials prove his healing power, and invited people who have been healed by him to submit their testimony via the website (and the website screens out anyone who they believe to be "fake"), we would absolutely expect the vast majority of the testimony to claim that the healing was "real."  This wouldn't be evidence for the "healings" at all.  It is also deceptively worded.  Nobody is debating that there were no NDEs.  Of course there were "real" NDEs.  What we are skeptical of is the claim that this constitutes any decent evidence of an afterlife.

A considerable portion of his writing is not evidence or argument, it's Long talking about how wonderful NDEs are, how much they change people's lives, what good news the existence of an afterlife is, etc.

The "scientific" principle that Long has used to "prove" the existence of the afterlife through NDEs is:  "What is real is consistently seen among many different observations."  He frequently states outright that NDEs are incredibly consistent.  Again, I'll address this in more detail later, when he makes his full argument that consistent details prove that NDEs show us the afterlife.  For now, I'll just say that he's quite wrong about NDEs being very consistent in their detail, even using his own data, gross sampling bias and all.

He specifies that he uses a definition of "near-death" to be "so physically compromised that they would die if their condition did not improve."  That language is kind of vague, isn't it?  Next, he says that "The NDErs studied were generally unconscious and often apparently clinically dead . . ."  Sigh.  "Generally" unconscious?  "Often apparently" clinically dead?  One of his first major arguments is that people experience things during a NDE, even though they shouldn't be able to, medically speaking.  Yet he can only say that they're "generally" unconscious?

Here's a hilarious bit; he claims in the book to have nine distinct lines of evidence proving the existence of an afterlife.  He says that the convergence of nine lines of evidence builds a much stronger case than only one.  Well, yes, Dr. Long, but you haven't shown any of your evidences yet.  He even does the math for us:

For example, suppose we had only two lines of NDE evidence.  We may not be 100 percent convinced that these two lines of evidence prove an afterlife, but perhaps each line of evidence by itself is 90 percent convincing.  Combined, these two lines of evidence by mathematical calculation are 99 percent convincing that the afterlife exists.

He even gives an end-note referring us to the back of the book, where he gives us an even more simplified version of the math, reaching the same result.  The argument here is that if just two lines of evidence can give us 99 percent certainty of a claim, how convincing are nine lines of evidence?  I find this suspicious; Dr. Long hasn't even given us his evidence yet, and he's already given us a suggested percentage rate of how convincing his arguments could be, and then tried to show how (because there's nine of them) they should rationally create virtual certainty!  Let's not jump the gun here, Dr. Long.  I'll take a look at your actual evidence first.  You'll understand if I carefully mentally discard your self-serving 90 percent figure for now, right?

Next; Dr. Long talks about the twelve common attributes of NDEs, and what he's found out about them in his research.

Random Poetry: Night Ghost

The clock

flashes 12:00

and I know

it's really 3:47 am.

The night did not wake me.

A sound

I picked out from other sounds of

the walls, the wind, the cars moving by

echoes in my head as if

on repeat.

I consider fear,

but roll over

and wait for the morning.

It was only my coat

Sliding from my bed as I kicked it.

Our Newest Book Project!

Some of the most fun and illustrative content that Ziztur and I have dived into on this blog were our grossly in-depth book reviews; You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think, by Ray Comfort, and the classic Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis.  Well, we decided that it's high time we started in on a new book.

Thus, Evidence of the Afterlife, The Science of Near-Death Experiences, by Jeffrey Long and Paul Perry.  This book has only been out since January 19, and became a best-seller almost immediately.  An in-depth review of this book appealed to us for several reasons.  For one, its cultural appeal is incredibly broad.  The arguments and evidence in this book, as well as a thorough, critical examination of it, are relevant to Christians, atheist, spiritualists, and everyone in between.  The arguments here are unique.  Ziztur and I have beaten all the old arguments for the existence of God to death, but an argument for the afterlife, based on near-death experiences, is something we haven't carefully looked at on the blog yet.

A few interesting notes:  Jeffrey Long seems to have assembled the data for this book by simply accepting people's near-death experience testimony via a form on his website (at least, that's what it says on the Near Death Experience Research Foundations's website).

Evidence of the Afterlife is by far the largest scientific study of NDE ever presented, and is based on researching over 1300 NDEs shared with NDERF.

Of course, Ziztur and I, being curmudgeonly skeptics who care about science, would point out that claiming a "scientific"conclusion based on anecdotes submitted to a website is as unscientific as it gets.  It would be very difficult for the authors to screw up the scientific method any worse if they actually tried.  We could reasonably dismiss the entire book's conclusions based on a sampling method as grossly biased as this, but of course we're going to take a closer look.

Look for us to dive into Jeffrey Long's specific claims and arguments soon.  If reading this kind of "evidence" and "science" makes you a feel slightly ill, laughter is the best medicine.  Thus, I leave you with the words of Tim Challies, a Christian reviewer of best-selling books, and his thoughts on this evidence of the afterlife.

The accounts are too common and too consistent to ignore entirely. So we see that such experiences do appear to exist and that they seem to lead directly away from what the Bible teaches us. What recourse do we have, then, but to state with some confidence that these experiences are somehow a trick of Satan?

I get email: Brad Harrub’s Student

I got this email a few weeks ago!

Ziztur,

Well, I just finished my 4th seminar with Dr. Harrub, and I think we agree on one thing... He can pack in the information. You may or may not agree with any or all, but your name popped up in a google search and I wanted to find out what were you top 5 issues with Dr. Harrub. I was looking for some of your blogs on his subjects.

I do have some questions, and I know you don't have to reply, but would you help me out with this question?

Are there only three possibilities for the universe beginning?

1. It didn't begin but always was..

2. It came into existence from nothing...

3. God created it..

You know I picked number 3, what do you think?

Will you carry on a conversation with me?

I didn't really want to be so formal. So here are some things about me. Last year I spent some time in St. Louis installing Glow Golfs in several malls around St. Louis. (I don't think they made it, putt putt that glows in the dark.)  I did enjoy my time there. I am married and have two children. I probably would agree that environment growing up had a big influence on my life. You grew up as you wrote in a secular home and I grew up in a Christian home. I would imagine both of us grew up in loving families. I totally think ziztur is cool and shows a positive relationship in your family. You're probably tired of me by now... So, if  you don't mind when you have time drop me an email. I would look forward to your thoughts.

Humbly seeking the truth.

P.S. I would definitely check out my posts on Brad Harrub's seminars - they are some of my best stuff!

I get email: homeopath

Today this email appeared in my inbox:

Respected Madam,

(I hope that you are the same person who did sleeping pill experiment)

The otherday, I watched the video of your experiment on homeopathic sleeping pills.

First of all, let me appreciate you for your interest in the evidence based medicine. As per the experiment done by you, the homeopathic sleeping pills can't induce sleep in a humanbeing. I fully agree with you. But, let me tell you the truth that, there are several patent preparations (combinations) marketed as homeopathic medicines. These are actually not homeopathic as per the principles of homoeopathy. The genuine homoeopathic medicines are totally different from these combinations and mixtures. Let me tell you the truth that, homoeopathy has suffered a lot from these non homoeopathic medicines.

A medicine becomes homoeopathic when it is selected on the basis of homoeopathic principles. Recently one scientist in India took a homoeopathic medicine and reported that the medicines could not produce any symptoms on him. This clearly proves that he was not susceptible to the medicine he had taken. If a group of people take the same homoeopathic medicine, only a small percentage of them will have the symptoms and others will not respond immediately. On the other hand, taking the same medicine repeatedly on regular interval can produce the symptoms in many, but here also a few will not be affected.

we can classify homoeopathy in to classical and modern homoeopathy. The classical homeopathy is the genuine one and the other is just an imitation of modern medicine, ie, suppresing the presenting complaints of the patient.

I am practicing homoeopathy since 8 years. Initially, my results were not satisfactory. But, after learning the real homoeopathy by joining BHMS (Bachelor of homoeopathic medicine and surgery), my results are excellent. Now I get different varieties of cases including the failed cases coming from the hands of modern medicine.

While going through your experiment, I feel that, instead of taking a "homoeopathic" patent preparation, you could have taken a genuine homoeopathic medicine for the experiment. The other option is (which will be the best and easy method for you), you notedown your own symptoms in detail and take a suitable homoeopathic medicine from a trained homoeopath or a group of homoeopaths. I am sure that this will prove the efficacy of homoeopathy.

After watching your video, many homoeopaths might have called you as skeptic or a critic funded by some allopathic drug manufacturing company. But, I am not in that category. I feel, if you experiment homoeopathy in a proper way, you will become the ambassador of this system; because most of the famous homoeopaths were once had critical attitude towards the same.

Eagerly waiting to get feedback from you.

Kind Regards.

Dr Muhammed Rafeeque, BHMS, PGNAHI.

Family Homoeopathic clinic

Kerala

India.

www.familyhomoeopathy.com

For Good Reason

Hey! Did you guys know that D.J. Grothe and the JREF have started a new podcast called For Good Reason?

They have already released their first episode, and I dare you to listen to it. It's awesome! The first podcast features Jamy Ian Swiss and James Randi.

Also, you'll hear me on there for a few seconds every week.

Cooking With The Host: Christ Crispies

Ingredients:
3 sleeves communion wafers
½ bag marshmallows (5 oz)
1 ½ tbsp margarine or butter

Supplies needed: 
1 medium saucepan
Wax paper or greased pan
Long-handled spoon

 
Directions:

Melt butter and marshmallows in saucepan over medium heat, being careful not to burn. Once marshmallows are melted, remove from heat and fold communion wafers in. Stir to coat. Allow Christ Crispies to cool for a few minutes. Using greased spatula or fingers, shape bundles of wafers into attractive mounds. Cool. Makes 15-20 treats. Enjoy with wine.

Nutritional information: Provides 50 calories, 10mg sodium, 345g blasphemy*, 10 g carbohydrates, 7g sugars. Not a significant source of piousness. 

 
*Not recognized by the FDA as a nutritional supplement.

Debate night!

Last night, my friends and I (which consisted of nearly the entire St. Louis ring of skeptical bloggers!) had a small debate night at my apartment in St. Louis. 9 People attended, and 2 groups of people debated 2 topics.

The first was a debate between Pastor Keith and War_On_Error. Their topic was "Does God Lie?" The debate dissolved into a group discussion before it finished, mostly because P. Keith and War more or less agreed! That's okay though, because instead of talking about whether or not god lies, we talked about the real point of the debate. The real point of showing that god lies (or deceives, if you are bothered by the word lie) is that people can be mistaken about what god wants. Out discussion was on whether or not it might be better (from a standpoint of convincing some people that they don't have a "special knowledge" trump card) to have a conversation about how hard Biblical interpretation is. If we can convince people that Biblical interpretation is hard, then maybe we can convince them – for example – that someone doesn't have absolute proof by mandate from their god that they should vote down civil rights for homosexuals.

Next, Saint_Gasoline and Inquiring Infidel debated the Kalam Cosmological argument, with Inquiring Infidel pretending to be William Lane Craig. While they were debating, I kept thinking that since lots of people don't know what "M-theory" and "string theory" mean in any detail, that Saint Gasoline, with all of his appeals to physics, would sound like, "blah blah blah blah" to Inquiring Infidel-Craig's more macro approach. I did think it was kind of amusing that Infidel-Craig brought up Hilbert's Hotel, calling such a notion absurd, when god is basically equally absurd, at least in the, "god is timeless, eternal, and ultra-powerful" sense. We speculated that a timeless being could not have thoughts, because thoughts entailed a time structure. Alas.

For the March debate night, Andrea_The_Nerd and I are debating gay marriage. The second debate is still up for grabs.

The debate night for April will be couples debate! Andrea and War will debate debating ("debaters are great!" vs. "debaters are wankers!") while Flimsy and I will be debating marriage ("Marriage is awesome!" vs "Marriage is for suckers!")

Also, the best part of debate night is Debate Kitteh! She decided to hang out on the lectern for the entire first debate, playfully batting at people's notes. 

Once of these days, I swear, we'll move to more public debates.

What if atheists left America?

This video is an interesting premise - what if all atheists left America, like some Christians want?

Dragon's Den ownage.

Here is an entertaining video in which the guys of Dragon's Den completely smash to smithereens all hope that this snake-oil salesman had of hawking his bullshit. Way to go!

A nail in the anti-vax coffin? Maybe...

I have two links of importance today regarding the anti-vaccination hubbub.

The first is a Discover Magazine blog entry on the full retraction of the Lancet Vaccine research article - the article that got the anti-vax movement really started.

The second is news that Andrew Wakefield, the primary author of the study, has been found guilty of medical misconduct and will likely lose his license. There is a long list of evil this man has done in the name of his own agenda, and it is good to see justice served.

This is probably not the final nail in the coffin of the anti-vax debate. I wish it were, for the world would be much safer if everybody got their vaccines.

Borba Skin Skeptic

The other day I was at Walgreens with Flimsy when I passed the section of open-air refrigerated drinks and became puzzled as to why an employee would accidentally shelve shampoo or body wash alongside Mountain Dew and Arizona Tea.

Upon closer examination, I realized that the shampoo-like bottle that had caught my eye was not in fact shampoo, but some kind of drink. Obviously, this is exactly the kind of thing that the makers of Borba Skin Balance Water want to happen, and I will shamefully admit that I totally fell for their unusual packaging – square with a square cup on top, clean simplistic labeling, and a certain opaqueness to the plastic bottle as to almost make the inner contents glow. Whoever designed this packaging is clearly brilliant.

Borba Skin Balance Water, at $2.99 a bottle, hurts your wallet like many other bottled drinks. I grabbed the Guanabana Fruit – Firming bottle, which reads on the front "Designed to promote skin's natural Smoothness * Elasticity * Nourishment"

The side reads, "HEALTHY SKIN FROM WITHIN BORBA SKIN BALANCE WATER FIRMING contains a revolutionary cultivated bio-vitamin complex along with a scientifically designed blend of nutrients intended to promote the skin's natural support system, helping to nourish and tone the skin. BORBA SKIN BALANCE WATER is formulated to work with your body's chemistry to promote healthy skin. This on-the-go, skin-care infused beverage combines simplicity and nutrition with the goodness of water. It's water with benefits."

"FIRMING – GUANABANA: the guanabana fruit, native to the Caribbean and South America, is known for its rich, aromatic flavor and nourishing benefits. Guanabana contains a healthful blend of nutrients, intended to promote more beautiful skin."

More text explains that it has "4 essential b-vitamins" that it is "infused with green tea and grape seed extract", that you can drink it daily to "enhance skin care from within", and that you can alternate it with the other flavors for "multiple skin care benefits".

On the other side, it says that it is calorie free, aspartame free, has no preservatives, 0 grams of carbs, is free of sodium, and has natural flavorings. A message from Scott-Vincent Borba reads, "There's more beauty within you. It lies in wait, on the other side of your skin. Borba Skin Balance Water activates your beauty while hydrating your body, bringing the natural attraction of your skin to the attention of the world. You're just a sip away from a more gorgeous you.

So, I'm skeptical that this drink could improve my skin and dude, what do you mean, "It's water with benefits?" It's as if the writer of this label were claiming water had no benefits unless it has vitamins in it. Unfortunately, the bottle only makes rather vague claims about what the contents are capable of doing. They don't mention any clinical proof, so I can't email them and ask for said proof. Darn! There is a great article in the NY Times about Borba – published back when Borba made specific claims about their elixirs. At one time, bottles of FIRMING claimed it was "scientifically proven to improve elasticity by an average of 24 percent." The NY Times article also cites some specific information on the independent studies, stating that they are available on the Borba website. I can't find them, though. If there were good research proving that this product made your skin prettier, it would be wise to promote it.


My opinion with skin supplements is the same as with any other supplement - as far as I am aware, your body likes to maintain homeostasis and so if you have an excess of a particular vitamin, you simply pee it out, just like if you have an excess of water. If you have too little of a vitamin, then you have a clinical deficiency. Most people don't have vitamin deficiencies, so most people won't really benefit from 500% of your daily value of Vitamin B-12. 


At least it tastes okay and comes in an amusing package, I guess.