Atheism is Freedom

Homeopathy for bigger boobies!

2010-03-08T14:18:00.001-06:00

I admit it.

I wondered the other day if people might claim that homeopathy could be used for "breast enlargement", so I Googled in order to bring you this latest bit of skepticism.

I know, I know, homeopathy is such an easy target, but it must be done nonetheless.

According to the makers of Elegance Elixer, one can use dowsing to determine if a product will give you more boobage. Once you determine that their product is right for you, you can grow 1-4 cups over 6-12 months, all for the low cost of $109.00.

Here's how it works: first, you use dowsing to determine if the product is right for you. Their version of "dowsing" includes "manual muscle testing."

"Manual muscle testing", unfortunately, is an occupational therapy and physical therapy term that has been hijacked by alternative medicine. In OT and PT, manual muscle testing is a way of grading muscle strength. Basically, during a manual muscle test, a trained therapist applies pressure to a client's upper or lower extremity, and grades their strength on a scale: 0 (no muscle activity) 1 (trace activity) 2 (part moves through full range of motion with gravity eliminated) 3 (part moves through full ROM against gravity) 4 (full ROM with moderate resistance) 5 (full ROM with max resistance).

"Manual muscle testing" to alternative medicine practitioners means "tapping the body's innate intelligence and determining thereby the energy levels of life forces that control the body." To do alt-med MMT, you ask your body to show you a "yes" response, while pressing on a part, typically an arm. The body is supposed to resist the force you apply. You then ask your body to show you a "no" response, and while applying the same force, the body does not resist the force you apply.

So, instructions from Elegance Elixir first teach you how to do alt-med MMT, and then instructs you to ask yourself, "Is elegance Elixir a means for my fastest and healthiest natural breast enhancement?" and, "is it possible for me to increase permanently by at least 1 cup using Elegance Elixir?" and your body simply knows the answer somehow.

If your body answers yes, then you are supposed to either purchase an ebook ($25) or purchase the nostrum.

The words, "RISK FREE" are written several times on this website. Apparently "risk-free" means that if your MMT tells you that Elegance Elixir will not work for you, then you don't buy it. It does NOT mean that you can try it to see if it works, and return it if it does not work for your money back. If you buy the ebook, you cannot return it for a refund. If you buy the $109 elixir, then you must return the Elixir without opening it to get a partial refund. The $109 price tag includes the price of the ebook, which is not refundable.

You also can't just return the unopened product, either. You have to verify a "no" response with the company:

"This system is only for the serious customer and is estimated to work for 85%+ of the general populace. However, there are unscrupulous parties may just 'change' their minds about using the product and say they indicate 'no'. Verification keeps things honest. Also, if you are not accurate, we can provide information to get you on the right track! We want to make sure that we enable your success as much as possible. Keeping the instructions is consolation and also an enabler- no one else offers that. Again, you can use the information to see if any other products will work for you."

No one else offers you to keep the .pdf of the instructions? Really… well I'm sold.

I cannot believe how ridiculous the return policy for this company is. They also claim that their products are organic and registered with the FDA. We'll see about that.

Elegance Elixir is also featured on this abysmally transparent advertizing website called "Pills research" which claims that some of the bonuses are "instructions." Awesome.

The pills supposedly claim Fenugreek and Saw Palmetto. According to the principals of homeopathy, substances which cause symptoms without dilution will cure those same symptoms if diluted and potentized. This means that smaller-than-you'd-like boobies must be an underlying condition to cure. Fenugreek and Saw Palmetto must then (according to the principals of homeopathy and the "law" of similar) cause your breasts to shrink when taken without dilution.

Help?

2010-03-08T10:09:00.000-06:00

I have a problem!

At the end of this month, Blogger (which I use to blog) will end FTP publishing (which I use).

I need someone to help redesign my blog for Wordpress. I have money! For you! If you help me!

Sex-offender chiropractors

2010-03-04T14:18:00.000-06:00

Can someone please explain to me why registered sex offenders can practice (with limitations) as chiropractors, but physicians cannot?

Reader Miss Lou sent me this interesting article, saying, "Apparently if you are a sex offender in Minnesota, the state law says you can't be a physician but you can be a chiropractor. He doesn't even have to tell his patients!"

The long and the short of the article is that a chiropractor who engaged in egregious sex offenses on the clock, while practicing his trade, went to prison for 2 years, had his license revoked for 6 years, but was granted his license again – with limitations – so that he may continue to practice as a chiropractor.

This month, more than six years after revoking Fredin's license for the felony convictions, the state Board of Chiropractic Examiners granted Fredin's request to get his license back. To protect Fredin's clients, the board said he cannot treat any female patients without someone else in the room. Fredin is working in Minneapolis, but he can't treat patients until regulators approve his new location.

Why do I care? Well, because it seems that the regulations for chiropractors regarding registered sex offenders is much more lax then that of physicians and other medical care providers.

Under state law, many professionals -- including dentists, psychologists and nurses -- can't be barred from practicing after a criminal conviction as long as they can show licensing boards they were rehabilitated.

I wish I had a complete list of those who can't be barred.

However, there are no second chances at the state Board of Medical Practice, which regulates 22,000 health-care providers, including physicians, midwives and acupuncturists. In 1995, the Legislature passed a law requiring the board to yank the medical license of anyone convicted of a felony-level sexual offense.

Personally, I think that the standards of practice for chiropractic ought to be the same as the standards for any other medical profession. While I would contend that chiropractic is medicine, the field of chiropractic certainly acts like and in many cases is treated as such. I also wonder if these standards are limited to Minnesota or if one can find lax sex-offender standards for "medical" professionals in other states. Ah, to do research…

The Atheist’s Way: makes kids burn churches?

2010-03-01T17:12:00.000-06:00

Sorry for the paucity of blog posts!

The other day I read on The Friendly Atheist and the news that there has been a recent rash of 11 church fires caused by arsonists.

This is, of course, very unfortunate. What I think is also unfortunate is the way some specific pieces of literature found in the home of the girlfriend of one of the arsonists has been handled.

Apparently much evidence was seized from the homes of the arsonists as well as the homes of anyone linked to the arsonists. One of the things seized was The Atheist's Way: Living Well Without Gods by Eric Maisel. This less than 200 page book has been the subject of news headlines everywhere: "Suspect in Texas Church Fires Reportedly Had Books on Atheism", Atheism books found in home of church fire suspect, "Atheist books indicated in charges of Arson."

Of course, my guess is that the main reason a headline might be written in this way is that it preys upon people's prejudices. Those prejudices being: Christians are good moral people and atheists are immoral, bad people. Christians (by the prejudicial definition) would never burn down a church, but atheists might. If you already think atheists are immoral, then headlines like these will only serve to reinforce your hatred and bigotry. Clearly, mentioning that an atheist book was found at the home of an arsonist is meant to lead the reader to believe that the books are linked to the aforementioned acts of arson. This is why we don't see headlines like, "Book on Cats found in home of church fire suspect" or, "Suspect in Texas church Fires Reportedly Had Bags of Ruffles."

What these headlines and most of the news stories associated with the arson do not mention is that 3 other books were also seized from linked homes.

If I were an investigator and I wanted to link a certain book to violence, I might read said books and see if any of the books advocate or promote violence.

I have a copy of The Atheist's Way, and can promise you that it does not advocate violence, arson, or anything other than upholding cherished values, and making your own ethics rather than parroting the ethics of someone else. The core of the book's moral philosophy is "expressing humanist values such as justice and fairness in a context of competing rights and interests, conflicting points of view, and complex circumstances." It advocates teaching moral philosophy to children by giving them the rare opportunity to think about ethics. I've also read about 20 books on atheism, and none of them advocate violence, arson, or the destruction of property. Ever. The only reason one might suspect that a book on atheism is linked to acts of arson can only be a matter of prejudice.

The other books, on the other hand, actually do advocate such violence. In these book, the main character – who is portrayed as someone readers should be as much like as possible, burns cities to the ground. He burns people to death. He explicitly commands that people be burned to death. The book also advocates praying that your enemies will burn to death.

If I were an investigator, I'd link the book that actually advocated setting buildings and people on fire to the arsonists rather than the book that advocates teaching children moral philosophy.

So which book did these arsonists have three copies of? The Bible. In the bible, God burns cities, burns people, commands his followers to burn people, and advocates praying that your enemies be burned. This kind of thing just doesn't occur in an atheist book.

It makes me sad. Atheists are not bad people. They are not more likely to burn down a church than a theist. These headlines only serve to reinforce hatred towards people who are just people.

Swamped

2010-02-20T11:31:00.000-06:00

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

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.

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.

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.

I think I have writer's block or something! I think this happens to everyone who blogs at some point.

I've got some somewhat bizarre things going on in my personal life, unrelated to skepticism.

Flimsy and I are planning for our wedding!

I've got an interview for another job position.

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

2010-02-17T17:06:00.003-06:00

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

2010-02-12T16:50:00.000-06:00

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

2010-02-11T08:00:00.000-06:00

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!

2010-02-10T08:00:00.003-06:00

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

2010-02-09T08:00:00.000-06:00

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

2010-02-08T11:36:00.003-06:00

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

2010-02-06T11:42:00.000-06:00

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

2010-02-05T19:17:00.000-06:00

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!

2010-02-04T12:00:00.002-06:00

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?

2010-02-04T08:00:00.000-06:00

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

Dragon's Den ownage.

2010-02-03T08:00:00.000-06:00

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...

2010-02-02T17:25:00.000-06:00

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

2010-02-02T14:47:00.001-06:00

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.

Meeting my peeps!

2010-01-31T06:21:00.000-06:00

One of the things I did in Buffalo, NY was meet Malimar, one of my very regular commenters!

See? Here's the proof.

It's so much fun to put faces to the people I communicate with. Plus, Malimar has the most entertaining combination babyface-insanity-mutton-chops-luxuriant-flowing-hair ever. He's nice! He even smells nice, ha.

My apologies for the Worst Picture Ever in the history of my blog – I didn't take my camera with me, so this picture is from my Blackberry.

Pants on Fire

2010-01-28T08:00:00.000-06:00

I stumbled upon this article from Bodie Hodge of Answers in Genesis from a couple months back. It asks the classic yet seemingly simple question of whether it's ethical to lie to Nazi soldiers in order to save a hiding Jewish family.

For most of us, including the vast majority of Christians (which I'll get to in a moment), I think that this is a pretty easy answer - the simple act of lying is nowhere near as unethical as directly endangering the lives of innocent people. Amazingly, AIG disagrees:

The most common example sent to me was envisioning the Holocaust and being placed in the position of lying to potentially protect someone’s life. Like most, if placed in such a difficult situation, it would be very difficult. In fact, I could never be sure what I would do, especially if it were a loved one.

Ah, it would be much easier to endanger the life of someone that you didn't know very well. Good to know.

But consider for a moment that we are all already sentenced to die because we are sinners (Romans 5:12). It is going to happen regardless. If a lie helps keep someone alive for a matter of moments compared to eternity, was the lie, which is high treason against the Creator, worth it?

It would be like sitting in a cell on death row and when the guards come to take your roommate to the electric chair, you lie to the guards and say you don’t know where the person went—while your roommate is hiding under their covers on the bed. Does it really help?

So there we have it. Knowingly causing the death of one or more innocent people is insignificant to offending God. As he points out, scripture is pretty clear on these priorities, after all.

I don't think I need to explain in much detail what's so wrong with this worldview. Thankfully, Hodge himself admits that such an action seems wrong to him, and that he's not at all certain what he would do if he found himself with such a choice. I sincerely hope that he never finds himself in such a position, and that if he does, he chooses the ethical course, and discards his God's wishes entirely.

He offers some other examples:

Stephen in Acts 6–7 preached Christ, and men came against him. This culminated with a question by the high priest in Acts 7:1 who said: “Are these things so?”

At this point, Stephen could have done a “righteous lie” to save his life so that he could have many more years to preach the gospel. However, Stephen laid a long and appropriate foundation for Christ—then preached Christ. And they killed him.

Obviously, I strongly doubt that this story took place exactly as it is portrayed. If we give it the benefit of the doubt, however, I still think that it's a pretty easy answer, especially considering that Hodge concludes that good came from Stephen's death - his martyrdom to the Christian cause.

Martyrs can be a source of great good, if a person's life is given in service to a worthy cause. The Revolutionary War, the Civil War and abolition of slavery, various civil rights movement, etc. are all good nominees for such causes.

I don't think that making people Christian is such a cause.

To put it bluntly, Stephen lost his life for almost nothing. Whatever positive effect could have occurred as a result of his death, I conclude that such hypothetical benefits are not greater than his worth as a person, and the lives of his family and friends.

I find it telling that Hodge specifically states that the good that would have come from Stephen lying to save his own life would come from his continued preaching and proselytizing. There's no mention of Stephen's own worth, or the effect on his loved ones.

Also, do I even need to say it? While we (arguably, potentially) have a right to choose to be a martyr, even in a cause of questionable worth, we clearly have no right to martyr other people to our cause. He could have even responded to the Nazis-hunting-for-hiding-Jews example with something about the value of those lives as martyrs to the cause of rallying support for the Nazi's defeat. He doesn't, though, he only considers the value of their lives vs. his religious doctrine.

Later in the article, even more disturbingly, he himself has to resort to lying outright about a passage in Exodus, to desperately try and prove his point that God always condemns lying, even to save innocent life (!).

In summary, Pharaoh has decreed to the Hebrew midwives that they put to death all male children that they deliver. They disobey, and when Pharaoh asks them why the cock they've got all these newborn Hebrew cocks running around, the midwives tell him that the Hebrew women are just giving birth really, really fast, too quickly for the midwives to show up. God wholeheartedly approves of this falsehood, and blesses the midwives for it by multiplying the Hebrew people.

Hodge claims that the midwives did not lie. His alternate explanation of the passage is that the midwives simply told Hebrew women that their sons would be in danger unless they managed to give birth very quickly, on their own, without a midwife, and they somehow managed to do so. Okay, okay, stop laughing. He also suggests that the midwives just took a really long time to get to a woman in labor. Of course, this would also mean that the midwives basically lied to Pharaoh (can anyone really claim with a straight face that deliberately dragging their feet and then claiming that Hebrew babies are like greased lightning would not be completely deceptive?).

Both possible explanations suffer from one glaring drawback, hence the clear fact that Hodge has lied about what the Bible says; the Bible passage clearly states that the midwives didn't simply show up late: "But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive."

This leads me directly to my main point - the Bible contradicts itself on this matter (no surprise there, I suppose . . .), but we have a Christian who, I think, knows what's right, as shown by his hesitation to hand over an innocent family to be murdered. However, he has concluded with all his rational faculties that the opposite is true - that lying to Nazis is a greater evil than letting an innocent family die. People, both religious and nonreligious alike, are quick to point out that many people would oppose gay rights based on their own bigotry regardless of whether they had religious doctrine to fuel it. That is absolutely not what we have in this case - Hodge has reached this grossly immoral conclusion exactly as a result of his religious doctrine.*

*Note that this last paragraph is completely philosophical in nature, and actually only represents what I sincerely hope to be the case. It is entirely possible that Hodge is, in fact, a violently bigoted closet-Nazi anti-Semite. I suppose we'll never know . . .

CFI report

2010-01-27T08:00:00.004-06:00

So today is the end of my second day at CFI. My brian is a little burned out at the moment, primarily due to lack of sleep (it's odd sleeping in a house by yourself when you're accustomed to sleeping in a shotgun apartment with 2 cats, 1 dog, and – most importantly – 1 Flimsyman.

My first day at CFI, I literally spent 8 hours talking with Joe Nickell on topics ranging from how unskeptical some atheists can be to how awesome it is when one comes across a rare bottle of "clairvoyant medicine" at an antique shop. We yammered at length about the ethics of investigation, and why skeptics need to avoid being armchair-ivory-towerists and actually get out into the world and participate actively in skepticism. Joe further convinced me that investigation should occur in the real world as much as possible.

Another thing we talked about at length is his Skeptiseum, and awesome, yet somehow sort of unknown – skeptical museum of the paranormal. The Skeptiseum features exhibits on alternative medicine, cryptozoology/mythical creatures, ghosts and spirits, miracles, pseudoscience, psychic phenomena, superstition, UFO's and aliens. In person, the Skeptiseum is a quirky collection of strange and mysterious items mixed in with a sizable collection of books in Joe's personal library. It's one of those things tucked away that I think needs more exposure.

My second day at CFI (today) was spent researching the holy grail relic the Sacro Catino. The Sacro Catino is a famous object preserved in Genoa, Italy, that has a spurious history. People at one time apparently believed it was carved of a large emerald, though most modern scholars believe it is merely glass. I'll assuredly write more about it later, but at the moment we're still trying to piece together a decent historical account of the thing.

Homeopathy: For insomnia

2010-01-26T08:00:00.001-06:00

Okay! I've had like 2 hours of sleep in the last 48 hours as I finish this post. So, if there are any glaring grammatical errors, I can't see them because my eyes are kinda crossed. I'll trust my fellow bloggers to fix any obvious ones. :)

Continuing on my series of articles outlining a recently published two-part special issue of the journal Homeopathy on the efficacy of homeopathy, this post is on an article [1] testing the effectiveness of application of homeopathy to chronic primary insomnia.

This research was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the primary purpose of which was to "evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic similimum in the treatment of chronic primary insomnia in terms of the patient's perception of the treatment, using a Sleep Diary (SD) and the Sleep Impairment Index (SII).

The Sleep Diary is defined in the study as a daily written record of the subject's sleep patterns, including sleep-wake times, time in bed, estimated period of sleep, quality of sleep, number of sleep interruptions, and daytime naps. The SII is a "7-item measurement tool that yields a quantitative index of sleep impairment." It relies on self-report of the subject's perception of "insomnia, its severity, level of distress and impairment of daytime functioning"

For the study, subjects were recruited and then asked to fill out a SII to provide a baseline measurement of the severity of insomnia symptoms. They were also instructed to record sleep data in the sleep diary for one week to provide a baseline measurement of other sleep variables. Their full homeopathic case history and physical examination were performed. For each subject, the homeopath was allowed to prescribe any homeopathic remedy that he or she felt would be beneficial to the subject. Potencies were not limited, rather the homeopath determined the most suitable remedy. The dosage took the form of

"three single-dose lactose powder satchet per consultation, one of which was dissolved sublinguially each night consecutively before going to sleep… each active powder sachet comprised 10 medicated lactose granules which were placed into the sachets containing lactose powder. The medicated granules were produced in accordance with Method 10 of the German Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia. Lactose granules were triple-impregnated with centesimal potencies of the relevant remedy contained within 96% ethanol… Each placebo powder sachet comprised lactose powder and 10 lactose granules impregnated with 96% ethanol alone and were indistinguishable from the active sachets in appearance and taste"

Impressively, the researchers in this group put a great amount of forethought into the blinding and randomization process. The researcher and research supervisor would discuss each case and determine which homeopathic preparation was most appropriate, based on "repertorisation (RADAR version 9) of the totality of symptoms presented". Then, the prescription was dispensed by an independent dispenser according to the randomization list. So, the researchers and subjects did not know if the subjects were receiving homeopathic preparations or placebos. Participants were instructed to begin taking the medications a week after the initial consultation (presumably so that they could fill out their week-long sleep diary). After two weeks, they returned to the clinic, where they were reassessed. At this point, the homeopath could modify the treatment as needed, so long as treatment still fell within the principals of homeopathy. Again, subjects went to a dispenser for either the homeopathic preparation or a placebo.

The subject group consisted of an initial recruitment of 45 subjects. 12 did not meet the inclusion criteria. Thus, 16 were allocated to the treatment group while 17 were allocated to the placebo group. Of these subjects, 2 were lost to follow up from the treatment group (due to scheduling difficulties and compliance) and one was lost from the placebo group due to scheduling difficulties. This left a total of 14 subjects in the treatment group and 16 in the placebo group.

At the end of the study, researchers analyzed the SD in terms of total hours slept per week. For the SII, subjects graded their sleep symptoms in terms of a 4-point severity scale (none, mild, moderate, severe or very much). The authors stated that they analyzed this data "in the form of summary scores as well as per individual question".

So, let's talk about statistics a little. The researchers set the P-value at .05, meaning that the researchers would be 95% certain that the data they obtained from groups were significantly different from one another. This is important to note because, as Petter so eloquently pointed out, most published research results are wrong, and so a p-value of .05 might be acceptable for preliminary work but is absolutely unacceptable for conclusive work, especially clinical medical studies. The researchers state that the groups did not differ significantly in terms of their baseline measurements of hours per week slept or SII reports.

For the treatment group, the weekly hours slept was as such: Baseline: 35, week2: 45, week3: 43, and week4: 41.

For the placebo group, weekly mean scores for hours slept were: baseline: 34, week2: 32, week3: 35 an week4: 35.

For the SII measures, the treatment group was: baseline: 3.34 week2: 3.14, week3: 1.47.

For the placebo group the SII measure was: baseline: 3.53, week1: 3.41, week2: 3.35

A major problem with these numbers is that while it looks like the treatment group got more mean hours of sleep than the placebo group, the reader is offered no numbers for standard deviation. That means that I can't calculate effect size to see if these numbers have any clinical relevance. For those of you who aren't researchers or statisticians – this is a big deal. One might be able to show that there is a statistical difference between groups, but whether or not this difference is clinically relevant can spell the difference between useless statistical noise and an actual worthwhile treatment. On the surface, those numbers look impressive, but without a standard deviation, we have no way of knowing how distributed the data were – we have no way of knowing, for example, if one or two subjects seriously skewed the data.

Was there a significant difference in any of the other factors of the sleep diary? You'll recall that the SD measured at least six different factors of sleep, yet the authors only chose to report on the mean hours of sleep per week. Not per day, but per week. Why did they not report on the other items in the sleep diary? My guess is that they did not find that any of those factors were significantly different, or perhaps even found that some of those factors were significantly different, but showed that the placebo group had a more positive outcome. We do not know, because they do not say. Regardless, if researchers mention that they measured something, it is prudent that they report on the results. In my experience, journal reviewers frown on the practice of mentioning variables early in a paper and then not reporting on the outcomes of those variables.

Things are a little more complicated for the SII measure. The researchers report contradictory and vague results, stating:

The SII is a 7-item measurement tool.
There were "significant improvements in 6/11 questions after 1 week" for both groups
There were "significant improvements in 10/11 questions" in the treatment group and significant improvements in 4/11 questions in the placebo group for week 2.
"When comparisons were made between Baseline SII scores and those at Week 4 (trial entry and trial completion), significant improvements in all (11/11) questions within the verum group were observed. Within the placebo group no significant improvements were noted for any of the questions (0/11) over the same period.

It's interesting that a 7-item measurement tool has "11 questions" – what's the deal with that? How is it that there were improvements in the placebo group, but then there weren't? The researchers claim that there was a significant difference between treatment groups between baseline and each follow up consultation. This seems to jive with their numbers (3.34, 3.14, 1.47) but they say that while initial improvement occurred in the placebo group (moving from 3.53 to 3.41) there was "no difference between baseline and final SII scores".

Say what? The scores were 3.53, 3.41 and 3.35. There is clearly a greater difference between baseline (3.52) and week 2 (3.41) and week 4 (3.35), but they say this is non-significant. Why? Also, why is it that they took baseline SD measures and then 3 follow-up SD measures, but only took 2 follow-up SII measures? From my perspective, the data in this study is starting to unravel. Once again, they only give the mean and not the standard deviation, so I am unable to calculate effect size.

The researchers also have a table of the specific homeopathic preparations they used, and to what frequency they were prescribed. They do not say to what potency the preparations are given, just that 23 were given at 30CH, 63 given at 200CH, 38 given at 1M, and 5 given at 10M. They are: Lachesis muta (8), Nux vomica (7), Medorrhinum (5), Sepia officinalis (5), Lycoposium clavatum (4), Carcinosin (4), Sulphur (3), Natrum muriaticum (3), Calcarea carnonica (2), Coffea cruda (2), Ignatia amara (2), Silica terra (2), Mercurius solubilis (1), Arsenicum album (1), Cannabis indica (1), Calcarea arsinicosum (1), Kalium carbonicum (1), Tuberculinum (1), Thuja occidentalis (1) and placebo (5).

Yes, they prescribe placebos intentionally. Apparently this was given as the "second prescription only; only if the first prescriptions was considered to be still acting." I'll let you guys make of this what you will.

One of the more fascinating results of this study is that the placebo group does not mirror the placebo effects of typical drug trials for insomnia. Why is it that the results of the placebo group are so negligible? In this study, the placebo treatment resulted in no significant increase in the duration of sleep and only tiny improvements in the SII scores. Quite, frankly, this is surprising and does not agree with other research on the placebo effect of treatments for insomnia. A strong positive placebo (and nocebo, for that matter) effect has been established in the treatment of primary insomnia [2] As such, I am skeptical that the verum treatment has been adequately compared to a placebo treatment.

I also take issue with the author's statement that homeopathy is a viable treatment for insomnia, given the small size of treatment groups and respective probable lack of power. Of course, since the researchers did not specify the standard deviation, I can't calculate power either. I think the correct conclusion of this study is that given the small sample size, this study is a pilot study that can be said to have determined that further study on the effects effect of homeopathy on the treatment of chronic primary insomnia may be warranted. I think that it would also be valuable to explore the surprising lack of placebo effect in the placebo group, as this is contrary to established literature.

Naude DF, Couchman IMS, Maharaj A. Chronic primary insomnia: Efficacy of homeopathic simillimum. Homeopathy 2009:99, 63-68
Perlis ML, McCall WV, Jungquist CR, Pigeon WR, Matteson SE. Placebo effects in primary insomnia. Sleep Medicine Reviews 2005:9;381-389

Off to New York

2010-01-24T08:00:00.000-06:00

The secret is out:

I am traveling to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI, the guys who produce Skeptical Inquiry Magazine) for an internship!

Today!

Now, I am fully aware that this is a Skeptic's dream internship. I'll be hanging out with Joe Nickell and lots of other cool people.The goal is to learn how to do pseudoscience, paranormal, and fringe science research and investigations.

16 months ago when I started this blog, I had NO idea where it might take me. To CSI is one of those places. There are probably about 200 people I should thank for giving me the awesome opportunity to be more than just an armchair skeptic, so I'll just say thanks to everyone - you know who you are.

Fear not, for I shall be blogging about my experiences at CSI. I'll also be bringing along my camera in the event that I come across some skeptical eyecandy. There are more interesting things in the works for the future, so keep checking back.

Bomb dowser inventor arrested

2010-01-23T08:00:00.002-06:00

Remember the recent blurb on our blog concerning a British company that sells bomb detection devices to developing countries that are nothing more than fancy-looking dowsing rods?

Well, the head-honcho of said company has been arrested on suspicion of fraud. Apparently he was questioned after someone complained that he misrepresented the devices.

Someone? Skeptics have been complaining about this tragic piece of quackery for years. Thankfully, someone finally listened.

Of course, the company owner is complaining that his device is being criticized not because it doesn't work, but because of it's appearance:

"We have been dealing with doubters for ten years. One of the problems we have is that the machine does look a little primitive. We are working on a new model that has flashing lights."

Oh! Flashing lights will totally convince us…

Jim McCormick (the owner of the company and inventor of the device) is evil, plain and simple. There is no evidence that the device works, and so giving people in developing countries an ineffective bomb-sniffing device puts them at risks that cannot be understated.

Does Objectification Equal Sexism?

2010-01-22T08:00:00.000-06:00

An interesting business was recently under discussion on Atheist Nexus and by our good friend The Nerd. That business is a small coffee shop, the Java Divas. Seriously, check out their site. Attractive women selling coffee in skimpy, suggestive costumes. The coffee even comes in large/medium/small cups identified by bra sizes. Another interesting tidbit - the owner and operator/fellow scantily-clad server is also a woman.

So . . . thoughts? Much conversation at the above-mentioned internet places has already revolved around the idea of objectification not being morally/socially good or bad in and of itself. Clearly, I sometimes objectify Ziztur, and she sometimes objectifies me. This clearly has no inherent sexism, for a large number of reasons.

The principle difference, pointed out several times already, is that the suggestively-clad women at Java Divas have nothing more than a financial relationship with the customers (presumably, at least in the vast majority of cases). There is at least a possible element of the women in question being resigned, by their financial situation, to working that job under these conditions.

My question, not to sugar-coat it too much, but: So the hell what?

I'm reminded of this incident (among others in other firefighting departments around the world) in which a woman or women came short of physical fitness requirements for the job the were doing or applying for. This particular case dealt with a distance run, and I've seen other cases dealing primarily with the immense upper-body strength required to be a firefighter. Basically, in a nutshell, by any reasonable standard, you have to be an utter hardass to be a firefighter.

Now, I'm certainly not going to say that gender bias and discrimination have never been a factor in firefighting; that would just be spectacularly ignorant. However, it's obvious to most people that these physical fitness standards are for the safety of the firefighters themselves and the safety of the public that they serve, and are not inherently gender-biased.

My question is this: How are the women at Java Divas, or any similar establishment, being objectified for their physical appearance any more than firefighters are being objectified for their physical strength? For that matter, why does the criteria have to be physical? If someone happens to have knowledge and/or experience of, for example, the insurance business, or of Occupational Therapy, and are hired for a job on that criteria, how is their employment not "objectifying" them on the basis of that knowledge?

So, what does it say about someone's attitude towards women, their attitude towards sex, or their attitude towards what they think is women's attitude towards sex (try saying that ten times fast . . .) when they basically claim that women aren't capable of choosing for themselves what to do with their potential physical attractiveness? Do these folks really worry about whether, to use just one example, firefighters (who after all are in much more physical danger on the job than baristas) are being exploited for their body strength, or are they basically, in effect, thinking, "Ah, well, they're men; of course they can make a mature decision about their own employment."?

Need I even mention that whatever "objectification" of the Java Divas employees that's occurring pales in comparison to a stripper, porn star, or prostitute? I think it's obvious that an almost puritan or religious restriction on what women can and can't do with their bodies is the more sexist attitude, not only because of it's anti-sex overtones, but also because of it's strong implication that those mentally weak wimminfolk just don't have the emotional maturity to deal with people looking at their bodies.

What do you guys think?