Topic: Episode #327

[Chew]

When you use GPS there is no single clock you are using;

You use multiple GPS signals to compute a position but didn't the paper mentioned CERN and OPERA used one satellite to measure the event timing?

The paper does seem to imply that they used one satellite to measure time, but it doesn't make any sense to do it that way.  Even if you are only measuring time, more satellites are better than one.

By using one satellite each center could determine the distance to that satellite and adjust for the time of flight and thereby adjust their clocks so they read the same, regardless if their clocks were different than any national standard of time, since only CERN's and OPERA's clocks need to be the same.

Also, in the paper van Elburg adjusts the satellite clock for the effect of special relativity, but totally ignores the effects of general relativity.  The gravity field is weaker at 20,000 km compared to the surface of the earth.  This means that there is another relativistic effect on the satellite clocks. 

Which can be ignored by using the same satellite. Besides, GPS satellites clocks are manufactured to correct for general and special relativistic effects. Which raises the question: since the GPS clocks are already adjusted for the speed of the satellite doesn't this negate van Elburg's hypothesis?

When computing a position the GPS receiver corrects for the light propagation velocity through the atmosphere (light travels about 90 km/s slower in air than in a vacuum). That can be complicated by atmospheric conditions and that is why GPS satellites transmit on 2 frequencies with known atmospheric propagation characteristics. Did CERN/OPERA correct for the difference in flight time caused by the satellite's elevation? The lower the satellite's elevation the more air it has to traverse through.

[Fast Eddie B]

Well, I haven't noticed Homeopathy being treated with more respect/dignity than reiki in these parts (if anything, with considerably less).

Point: I'd say she came around in spite of the lack of "respect/dignity" regarding homeopathy, rather than because of. I know my wife pretty well, and I can see the shields/defense mechanisms kick in when her beliefs are attacked in a sarcastic manner.

Counter Point: “Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Its a fine line, and no mode of discussion is going to sit equally well with varied audiences. I was really just making an observation about one particular listener's take.

[Steven Novella]

Eddie,

We think very hard about the tone question and appreciate all feedback.

So - our feedback is, generally, that people enjoy our humorous (snarky) tone except when we turn it on something close to home (whether they believe it or someone close to them does). Then they want us to suddenly be dry and humorless.

But also we get many e-mails from people who we converted from true believer despite our snarkiness. This info is all self-selective and unscientific, but it's what we have to go by.

I do tend to think that if someone is open to logic and evidence, the snark won't matter. And for those who have no intention of giving up a belief, the snark is just a convenient excuse to ignore the logic and facts, and they would find another one if they had to without any difficulty.

We also try to keep things in proportion, and to focus our criticism on promoters more than believers. My criticism was for the authors of the study who were being intellectually dishonest in spinning the data the way they did. They deserved ridicule.

[Diagoras]

The data was interesting, and Karen wanted to hear that part. But it turned her off when it got condescending, sarcastic and snarky. Her main objection is that they focused on a single study. Dr. Novella opined that it was the best he could find, and I accept that. I do not accept Reiki as a valid therapy, but Karen, for now, does.

Well, you can't exactly go over an exhaustive review of the literature in a short segment. It made sense for Steve to focus on what he decided was the best study, even though that's never convincing to anybody who believes there's a treasure trove of good studies that prove their favorite pseudoscience.

As an example of a small "win", Karen accepted homeopathy - largely, I think, because she didn't understand exactly what it meant. To be honest, I didn't either, conflating it with "natural". Now that podcasts like this and Quackcast have defined it and shown its implausibility, it's joined a list of things she used to believe in. If shows like this want to claim this as a "win" and be proud of themselves for it, I'm only suggesting that the form of the presentation has a lot to do with its effectiveness.

And like I said, ridicule can be effective too. It's probably more effective on fence-sitters, sure, but just because true believers don't respond well to it that doesn't mean it's ineffective, or that skeptics should censor themselves anytime they want to ridicule a ridiculous pseudoscience. If you just want a dry discussion of the facts and the data, there's definitely a place for that, but you won't always find it on the SGU. Reiki absolutely IS magical thinking, nonsense, and a waste of time, and somebody needs to be out there saying that bluntly.

Besides, Quackcast is not exactly a podcast that goes light on the ridicule. I mean, it has "quack" right in the name, and this is the description for its episode on reiki: "Reiki and Therapeutic Touch. Energy Therapies abound in SCAM’s. Here are two. Reiki and Therapeutic Touch."

[Evan]

Lightbulbs - I could have phrased my words better, I only meant that the classic incandescent bulb we recognize today was born from the Edison invention. No disrespect to Swan or others. I found about a half-dozen stories on prototypes dating back to the early 1800's, but none of those inventions were economically viable.

[vespine]

I just want to say I'm a massive Richard Wiseman fan. I've only seen him once on stage when he MC'd TAM London 2010 and he was fantastic: he is so incredibly sharp and quick on his feet, it's almost hard to keep up, I was short on breath from laughing on more then one occasion, one of the wittiest people I've ever seen.

[Caffiene]

Lightbulbs - I could have phrased my words better, I only meant that the classic incandescent bulb we recognize today was born from the Edison invention. No disrespect to Swan or others. I found about a half-dozen stories on prototypes dating back to the early 1800's, but none of those inventions were economically viable.

I actually thought you did a pretty good job.

I went into that segment with the thought "but Edison didnt actually invent the lightbulb" and expecting to be a bit bemused by the end, but you seemed to make a particular effort to say that Edison's accomplishment was to make the lightbulb long lasting enough to be a viable product, not that he invented it. If you said that he "invented the lightbulb", I didnt notice.

[GrantB]

The progress in Senegal on getting rid of female genital mutilation is great news .. but I notice a distinct lack of the word "female" in a lot of the headlines, including the SGU show notes. There is another kind that barely gets mentioned, and even seems to be approved of by many of the people who condemn FGM.
<snip>

Prompted to add to this post by something that Steve said around 32 minutes. Something about "being isolated in the West from this barbaric behaviour". Which is true when talking about FGM... but when talking about male circumcision, I believe that in the 'West' (or at least the US), mutilation of male infants is still relatively common place.

That's not to say that I equate the relatively harmless practise of circumcision to the horrors of amateur FGM conducted in 3rd world countries, but still seems relatively little discussion of this quasi-religious based oddity left over from history, but which American doctors seem to happy to continue doing with little supporting evidence of benefit to the patient.

Personally, I am happy to be a fully intact adult male. As a parent, I would never consent for my son to be circumcised unless there was a clear medical need. If people really wanted to get bits of their genitals cut off, then as a consenting adult they could undergo elective surgery in a similar way to other body modification. I suspect however, that if it was solely down to men choosing for a doctor take a scalpel to their penis, then the circumcision rate would decline rapidly     

Oh, as a New Zealander, any dislike of Rugby expressed by Steve / Richard must be considered deeply offensive. 

[Old Hoplite]

Male circumcision and female genital mutilation (FGM) are not equivalent.

The male equivalent of FGM  would be a penectomy.

[Anders]

Not true. There are many forms of FGM and some of the one's on the less-invasive part of the spectrum really are equivalent.

[Old Hoplite]

Not true. There are many forms of FGM and some of the one's on the less-invasive part of the spectrum really are equivalent.

Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, with or without partial or complete removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy); Type II, removal of the clitoris and inner labia; and Type III (infibulation), removal of all or part of the inner and outer labia, and usually the clitoris, and the fusion of the wound, leaving a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual blood—the fused wound is opened for intercourse and childbirth.

Comfort Momoh, Female genital mutilation (Abingdon, UK: Radcliffe Publishing, 2005), 6

So the even a type one would not be just removal of the foreskin but part or total removal of at least the glans.

[Silly Llama]

Not true. There are many forms of FGM and some of the one's on the less-invasive part of the spectrum really are equivalent.

Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, with or without partial or complete removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy); Type II, removal of the clitoris and inner labia; and Type III (infibulation), removal of all or part of the inner and outer labia, and usually the clitoris, and the fusion of the wound, leaving a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual blood—the fused wound is opened for intercourse and childbirth.

Comfort Momoh, Female genital mutilation (Abingdon, UK: Radcliffe Publishing, 2005), 6

So the even a type one would not be just removal of the foreskin but part or total removal of at least the glans.

Additionally there are documented benefits to male circumcision that would, at the very least, merit a reasoned cost/benefit analysis.  As I understand it there are no known benefits to FGM, making it easy to reject the practice entirely.  Below is a link to the abstract of a study that reviewed the literature and concluded that male circumcision might be the best way to slow the spread of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22014096

[Anders]

There are too many methodological issues with studies like these to make me sanguine about sanctioning permanently scarring surgery on infants. Did they look at education and condoms as alternative means?

[Trinoc]

When I was young, it was expected that almost everyone would have one or both of tonsillectomy and appendectomy in the first 15 years or so of their life, with all the dangers of complications from general anaesthetics and infections (I never did find out why my tonsillectomy at age 8 involved me being unconscious for over 12 hours). These at least were for conditions which were serious and could only be treated by surgery at the time, although I understand surgery for tonsillitis is rarely necessary these days.

I remember asking why, if one was almost certain to have to go through these ordeals at some time, the tonsils and appendix of every child could not be removed around birth to pre-empt the problem. The objections I was told were cost, and the ethical problems of surgery without consent where there is no illness to treat. Oddly, I don't remember anyone suggesting that the danger of babies dying was an objection. I think the subject of people of dying from medical treatment was something nobody liked to talk about then.

If surgery on an infant to prevent serious or life-threatening illnesses in the future could not be justified on ethical grounds, how is it then regarded as perfectly justified to perform surgery on infants for reasons of religion or social convention?

[Fast Eddie B]

Dr. Novella,

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I don't think I was necessarily even suggesting a change, so much as making an observation.

Knowing your audience is important, and I think you cater to your particular audience pretty darn well.

For my wife, it sometimes comes across as, "Ha, ha...we're so smart and they're so dumb".

Which may, in fact, often be the case.

Anyway, if you have a chance, maybe listen to that Reiki segment again, and try to imagine listening to it with a friend that you know believes in Reiki, and imagine how it might come across to them.

I may have an analogy in mind, but let me wait until I'm at a real keyboard to propose it.