DOCSLIB.ORG

Why Skepticism? STEVEN NOVELLA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Why Skepticism? STEVEN NOVELLA ISSUES IN SCIENCE & SKEPTICISM: 40th Anniversary Celebration Why Skepticism? STEVEN NOVELLA wenty years ago, I became actively involved in the hand-in-hand with logic and skeptical movement when I and several others founded philosophy, and therefore skep- T tics also promote understanding a humble local skeptical group. We were inspired by of these fields and the promotion CSICOP (now CSI) and SKEPTICAL INQUIRER to add of critical thinking skills. what we could to efforts to make the world a more skep- Science vs. Pseudoscience: Skep- tical place. tics seek to identify and elucidate Over the past two decades, as possible in our beliefs and the borders between legitimate the skeptical landscape has opinions. This means subjecting science and pseudoscience, to changed quite a bit, but one all claims to a valid process of expose pseudoscience for what it constant has been the endless evaluation. is, and to promote knowledge of question: What is skepticism? Methodological Naturalism: how to tell the difference. What exactly do we do and why? Skeptics believe that the world Ideological Freedom/Free In- As the movement has grown and is knowable because it follows quiry: Science and reason can diversified, the question has be- certain rules or laws of nature. flourish only in a secular society come only more complex. The only legitimate methods in which no ideology (religious for knowing anything empirical or otherwise) is imposed upon individuals or the process of sci- What Is the Mission of the about the universe follows this ence or free inquiry. Skeptical Movement? naturalistic assumption. In other words, within the realm of the Neuropsychological Humility: I have come to understand that empirical you don’t get to invoke Being a functional skeptic re- scientific skepticism is a weird magic or the supernatural. quires knowledge of all the var- beast that is often difficult to Promotion of Science: Science ious ways in which we deceive understand, especially from the is the only set of methods for ourselves, the limits and flaws in outside. We are not exactly sci- investigating and understanding human perception and memory, entists or journalists or lobbyists the natural world. Science is the inherent biases and fallacies or educators, and yet we are all of therefore a powerful tool and in cognition, and the methods those things to some extent. one of the best developments of that can help mitigate all these I think the best way to ex- human civilization. We therefore flaws and biases. plain scientific skepticism is that endeavor to promote the role of Consumer Protection: Skeptics it is expertise in everything that science in our society, public endeavor to protect themselves can go wrong with science and understanding of the findings and others from fraud and belief, and it includes execution, and methods of science, and deception by exposing fraud and communication, education, and high-quality science education. educating the public and policy- regulation. It combines knowl- This includes protecting the makers to recognize deceptive or edge of science, philosophy, and integrity of science and education misleading claims or practices. critical thinking with special ex- from ideological intrusion or Addressing Specific Claims: pertise in flawed reasoning and antiscientific attacks. This Skeptics combine all of the above deception. also includes promoting high- to address specific claims that are To understand this better, quality science, which requires flawed, biased, or pseudoscien- here is a list of what scientific examining the process, culture, tific and to engage in the public skeptics promote and do. and institutions of science discussion of these claims. Respect for Knowledge and for flaws, biases, weaknesses, Cultural Memory: Skeptics as Truth: Skeptics value reality conflicts of interest, and fraud. a whole act as the cultural mem- and what is true. We therefore Promotion of Reason and Crit- ory for pseudosciences and scams endeavor to be as reality-based ical Think ing: Science works of the past. Such beliefs tend to 40 Volume 40 Issue 5 | Skeptical Inquirer repeat themselves, and remem- topics to address as part of my able moment criterion is pub- bering the past can be very use- skeptical activism. lic interest. The whole point is ful in quickly putting such beliefs Teachable Moment: One very to engage the public, and one into their proper perspective. important criterion is this: Would technique for doing so is to go Science Journalism: Many addressing a claim or topic pro- to where the people already skeptics spend a large portion of vide a useful teachable moment? are. The public is interested in their time doing straight science Since one (if not the) primary ghosts, cryptids, and UFOs, and communication and journalism, goal of skepticism is education, in fact they often learn patholog- which is important because sci- this is a crucial criterion, and in ical science from popular treat- ence is so central to our mission. fact it is often sufficient reason to ments of these topics. This is also an important skill to explore and develop because it is so rarely done well. Correcting and criticizing bad science news reporting, especially in the Inter- net age, has become a large part Ghosts and UFOs are of what skeptics do. the hook; the payoff is What Topics Do We Cover? scientific literacy and Traditional skepticism addresses the ability to think a very broad range of topics: all a bit more critically. of alternative medicine, parapsy- chology, cryptozoology, conspir- acy theories, scams, postmodern- ism, self-help, education, science and the media, neuroscience and address a topic. If we leave these popular self-deception, fringe science, This is the primary reason I subjects to the charlatans, they and a long list of topics that have never addressed issues such will happily spread scientific have political, religious, or social as ghosts, Bigfoot, astrology, or illiteracy unopposed. This is, implications: genetically modi- the Bermuda Triangle (classic however, a great opportunity fied foods, organic farming, free skeptical topics all). I honestly to teach the public about energy and other energy issues, don’t care at all about ghosts, and how science actually operates, climate change, creationism, mir- I agree that this has extremely mechanisms of self-deception, acle claims, faith-healing, proph- low priority as an issue. How- how to tell if a claim is valid, and esy, channeling—the list is mas- ever, ghost hunters engage in a how to detect pseudoscience. sive. variety of pseudoscientific activi- Addressing pseudoscience There has been frequent dis- ties and defend their claims with and the paranormal is a way to cussion about which topics skep- numerous logical fallacies. popularize science, such as writ- tics “should” cover. My approach There are many generic les- ing about the physics of Star has always been that everyone, of sons about science and critical Trek or the philosophy of The course, should feel free to cover thinking that can be learned by Simpsons. Ghosts and UFOs are whatever topics suit their inter- examining any pseudoscience, the hook; the payoff is scientific ests, motivations, and talents. and often the most obvious ones literacy and the ability to think a There are no right or wrong top- are the best examples. bit more critically. ics to cover. I have also found that by ex- Impact: The relative impact There are, however, many amining the full spectrum of or importance of an issue is defi- considerations worth discussing. pseudoscience, I have been able nitely important, and nothing I Skepticism is a method of apply- to see recurring patterns that en- write here should be interpreted ing science and critical thinking able me to understand pseudo- as dismissing or minimizing that to all areas. It is worth thinking science much more thoroughly point. In fact, as the skeptical about how those methods relate and then apply those lessons to movement has matured over the to any particular topic of interest. more important areas such as past few decades I have noticed a Here are some of the factors medicine. definite shift to issues of greater I consider when deciding what Interest: Related to the teach- social importance. Skeptical Inquirer | September/October 2016 41 ISSUES IN SCIENCE & SKEPTICISM: 40th Anniversary Celebration My primary issue is alterna- ing and speaking on their area of tend not to get attention from sci- tive medicine, the abject infiltra- scientific expertise. So, skeptical entists, who don’t want to waste tion of fraud and pseudoscience doctors focus on medicine, as- their time. Whether or not this into the institutions of health- tronomers on astronomy, biolo- is a reasonable position is debat- care. This results in the wasting gists on issues such as evolution able, but meanwhile skeptics are of billions of dollars and divert- and creation, physicists on free happy to fill the void. As a skepti- ing of research funds, and it energy, and so on. cal neurologist, for example, I am causes direct harm to the health If we have a bias, it is toward not going to spend my time delv- of individuals. the areas of expertise that also ing into and engaging in debate Other important issues we tend to attract people to the over the possible mechanisms of tackle regularly are vaccine re- skeptical movement itself, but Parkinson’s disease. There are fusal, global climate change, this is hard to avoid. It is also not scientists who are doing that. But genetically modified foods, our simple to correct, and straying I will engage with those claiming energy infrastructure, future outside of our areas of expertise is that near-death experiences are technology, teaching creation- not a good solution. At the very evidence for an afterlife because ism and other pseudoscience in least, it takes a lot more work to most scientists don’t bother to do science classes, issues surround- address an issue about which I am that.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Skepticism and Pluralism Ways of Living a Life Of
    SKEPTICISM AND PLURALISM WAYS OF LIVING A LIFE OF AWARENESS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZHUANGZI #±r A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN PHILOSOPHY AUGUST 2004 By John Trowbridge Dissertation Committee: Roger T. Ames, Chairperson Tamara Albertini Chung-ying Cheng James E. Tiles David R. McCraw © Copyright 2004 by John Trowbridge iii Dedicated to my wife, Jill iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In completing this research, I would like to express my appreciation first and foremost to my wife, Jill, and our three children, James, Holly, and Henry for their support during this process. I would also like to express my gratitude to my entire dissertation committee for their insight and understanding ofthe topics at hand. Studying under Roger Ames has been a transformative experience. In particular, his commitment to taking the Chinese tradition on its own terms and avoiding the tendency among Western interpreters to overwrite traditional Chinese thought with the preoccupations ofWestern philosophy has enabled me to broaden my conception ofphilosophy itself. Roger's seminars on Confucianism and Daoism, and especially a seminar on writing a philosophical translation ofthe Zhongyong r:pJm (Achieving Equilibrium in the Everyday), have greatly influenced my own initial attempts to translate and interpret the seminal philosophical texts ofancient China. Tamara Albertini's expertise in ancient Greek philosophy was indispensable to this project, and a seminar I audited with her, comparing early Greek and ancient Chinese philosophy, was part ofthe inspiration for my choice ofresearch topic. I particularly valued the opportunity to study Daoism and the Yijing ~*~ with Chung-ying Cheng g\Gr:p~ and benefited greatly from his theory ofonto-cosmology as a means of understanding classical Chinese philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    NO. 17-_____ In the Supreme Court of the United States EDWARD LEWIS TOBINICK, MD, a Medical Corporation d/b/a INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL RECOVERY, INR PLLC, d/b/a INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL RECOVERY, EDWARD TOBINICK, M.D., Petitioners, –v– STEVEN NOVELLA, M.D., Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI CULLIN A. O’BRIEN, ESQ. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS CULLIN O’BRIEN LAW, P.A. 6541 NE 21ST WAY FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33308 (561) 676-6370 [email protected] SEPTEMBER 1, 2017 SUPREME COURT PRESS ♦ (888) 958-5705 ♦ BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS i QUESTIONS PRESENTED In our age of the Internet, false disparagement against individuals and businesses can be lucrative. An Internet entrepreneur can funnel web-traffic for profit, through sophisticated uses of disparaging “click baiting,” “Internet trolling,” hyperlinks, hypertext, clickable banner ads, podcasts, Facebook, Instagram, email listservs and other systems. Individuals seeking legal redress from false Internet defamation can confront state court anti-SLAPP procedures that accelerate adjudication of the defendant’s “actual malice.” In contrast, businesses seeking federal court protection from false Internet disparagement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(1)(B), are entitled to the summary adjudication safeguards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The questions presented to this Court are: 1. When a defendant is sued for both common law defamation and business disparagement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), does the application of state civil court anti-SLAPP procedure irreconcilably conflict with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56? 2.
    [Show full text]
  • FDA, FTC, and the Regulation of Pseudoscience
    In Pursuit of Science-based Regulation: FDA, FTC, and the Regulation of Pseudoscience What does “natural” mean? The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has posed this seemingly innocuous question to the public in a recent request for information.1 Aside from it being a truly interesting, if overly philosophical question to ask the public, the move is emblematic of a recent trend, both from the (“FDA”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), to regulate based on some articulable scientific premise, rather than allowing various actors to make wide-ranging claims about their products without repercussion. 2 In particular, the agencies have begun targeting dietary supplement manufacturers, homeopathic remedies, and most recently, Lumosity. Lumosity and the FTC Lumosity advertises copiously on networks and websites that include “CNN, Fox News, the History Channel, National Public Radio, Pandora, Sirius XM, and Spotify.” 3 Created by “Lumos Labs,” Lumosity is a web-based product consisting of 40 games, which Lumosity claimed that, when played “10 to 15 minutes three or four times a week could help users achieve their ‘full potential in every aspect of life.’”4 The FTC got involved because Lumos Labs claimed playing Lumosity’s games would 1) improve performance on everyday tasks, in school, at work, and in athletics; 2) delay age- related cognitive decline and protect against mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease; and 3) reduce cognitive impairment associated with health conditions, including stroke, traumatic brain
    [Show full text]
  • Neurologica Blog » Why Are We Conscious?
    NeuroLogica Blog » Why Are We Conscious? http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/why-are-we-conscious/ Home About The Author – Steven Novella, MD Topic Suggestions Feb 06 2017 Why Are We Conscious? Published by Steven Novella under Neuroscience Comments: 26 In Daniel Dennett’s latest book,From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds, Dennett explores a number of issues surrounding consciousness. I have not yet completed the book and so may come back to it again, but wanted to discuss one topic that Dennett covers – why are we conscious in the first place? Dennett makes a distinction between competence and comprehension. Competence is the ability to perform some task, while comprehension is understanding the task and the process. The former is unconscious, while the latter is conscious. This touches on Chalmers’ “P-zombie” problem – if we can imagine an organism that can do everything a human does without experiencing its own existence (a philosophical zombie), then why did consciousness evolve at all? There are several possible solutions to this problem. The first is that humans were “designed” to be conscious by whatever agent made us. This introduces unnecessary elements and contradicts established science, so I think we can set that aside. The second solution is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon. We don’t need to be conscious, but we evolved consciousness as an evolutionary accident. This may be true, but is unsatisfying as it just side-steps the question of what use is consciousness. The third solution, which I find compatible with the evidence and compelling, is that consciousness is inherent to the functioning of our brains and brings with it specific advantages.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Age Case Study on Contested Models of Science
    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE QI EQUALS MC-SQUARED: A NEW AGE CASE STUDY ON CONTESTED MODELS OF SCIENCE, SPIRITUALITY AND THE ACQUISITION OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts in Anthropology By Garrett Sadler December 2014 The thesis of Garrett Sadler is approved: _________________________________________ ______________ Dr. Christina von Mayrhauser Date _________________________________________ ______________ Dr. Sabina Magliocco Date _________________________________________ ______________ Dr. Kimberly Kirner, Chair Date California State University, Northridge ii Acknowledgements There are many people to whom I am endlessly in debt for their guidance, wisdom, expertise, support, sympathy, counseling, therapy (lots and lots of therapy), and—simply put—genuine care for my success over the course of this project and, more generally, my graduate career. Thank you, Drs. Christina von Mayrhauser, Sabina Magliocco, and Kimberly Kirner. Each of you has played a significant role in developing and honing my skills and intellect in anthropological thought and, perhaps more significantly, in being a good person. Additionally, I would like to single out two students without whose friendship (more accurately, mentorship) I would not have completed this degree: Victoria Weaver and Kevin Zemlicka. Victoria and Kevin, I am honored to have you as such dear friends. From our mutual experiences in this program, I know that our bond is permanent. Please be prepared to keep assisting me with my many neuroses in the future. To all of those mentioned above, know that you have instilled in me aspects of character, personality, identity (or whatever the hell you want to call it) that will remain with me eternally.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Pseudoscience
    SKEPTICISM . SCIENCE . SOCIETY Vol 38, No 4. December 2018 Green Meanies? Environmental Pseudoscience +Phrenology, Hoaxes Energy & Skepticon 2018 Australian Skeptics . www.skeptics.com.au Skeptic_Cover_Dec18.indd 1 3/12/2018 8:19 pm The Skeptic December 18 Skeptical Groups in Australia NSW VIC Australian Skeptics Inc – Eran Segev Australian Skeptics (Vic) Inc – Chris Guest www.skeptics.com.au PO Box 5166, Melbourne VIC 3001 PO Box 20, Beecroft, NSW 2119 Tel: 0403 837 339 [email protected] Tel: 02 8094 1894; Mob: 0432 713 195; Fax: (02) 8088 4735 [email protected] Skeptics’ Café – Third Monday of every month, with guest speaker. Meal from 6pm, speaker at 8pm sharp. More details on Sydney Skeptics in the Pub – 6pm first Thursday of each our web site www.skeptics.com.au/vic month at the Occidental Hotel, York Street in the city, near Wynyard Park (meeting second floor) Dinner meetings are held on a regular basis. Ballarat Skeptics in the Pub http://facebook.com/groups/3978112230309544 Hunter Skeptics – John Turner Tel: (02) 4959 6286 [email protected] Geelong Skeptics Society Contact: James Rolton [email protected] Occasional social meetings at the Cricketers Arms Hotel, Cooks Online group: See Facebook for details. Hill. Those on the contact list will be sent details in advance. Hosting the Annual Surf Coast Summer Skepticamp (February) Currently meeting at 12.30 on third Sunday of each odd-numbered month. Gippsland Skeptics in the Pub Interested parties contact Mark Guerin or Martin Christian Power Blue Mountains Skeptics via the Gippsland Skeptics page: https://www.facebook.com/gr See Facebook for details.
    [Show full text]
  • SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Vol
    SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Vol. 1818,, No . 2No. 2 ^^ Winter 1994 Winter / 1994/$6.2$6.255 Paul Kurtz William Grey THE NEW THE PROBLEM SKEPTICISM OF 'PSI' Cancer Scares i*5"***-"" —-^ 44 "74 47CT8 3575" 5 THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER is the official journal of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, an international organization. Editor Kendrick Frazier. Editorial Board James E. Alcock, Barry Beyerstein, Susan J. Blackmore, Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, Philip J. Klass, Paul Kurtz, Joe Nickell, Lee Nisbet, Bela Scheiber. Consulting Editors Robert A. Baker, William Sims Bainbridge, John R. Cole, Kenneth L. Feder, C. E. M. Hansel, E. C. Krupp, David F. Marks, Andrew Neher, James E. Oberg, Robert Sheaffer, Steven N. Shore. Managing Editor Doris Hawley Doyle. Contributing Editor Lys Ann Shore. Business Manager Mary Rose Hays. Assistant Business Manager Sandra Lesniak. Chief Data Officer Richard Seymour. Computer Assistant Michael Cione. Production Paul E. Loynes. Asst. Managing Editor Cynthia Matheis. Art Linda Hays. Audio Technician Vance Vigrass. Librarian Jonathan Jiras. Staff Alfreda Pidgeon, Ranjit Sandhu, Sharon Sikora, Elizabeth Begley (Albuquerque). Cartoonist Rob Pudim. The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal Paul Kurtz, Chairman; professor emeritus of philosophy, State University of New York at Buffalo. Barry Karr, Executive Director and Public Relations Director. Lee Nisbet, Special Projects Director. Fellows of the Committee James E. Alcock,* psychologist, York Univ., Toronto; Robert A. Baker, psychologist, Univ. of Kentucky; Stephen Barrett, M.D., psychiatrist, "author, consumer advocate, Allentown, Pa. Barry Beyerstein,* biopsychologist, Simon Fraser Univ., Vancouver, B.C., Canada; Irving Biederman, psychologist, Univ.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue-03-14.Pdf
    SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Vol. 17. No. 3 Spring 1993/$6.25 FACILITATED COMMUNICATION ? Miracle or Mirage? Al Gore: Education tor Science Richard Dawkins: The 'Awe' Factor Evry Schatzman: A Threat to Science Martin Gardner: E Prime and Isness Donald Tarter: Sale Science with SETI CSICOP Dallas Conference Published by the Committee for the Scientific investigation of Claims of the Paranormal THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER is the official journal of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, an international organization. Editor Kendrick Frazier. Editorial Board James E. Alcock, Barry Beyerstein, Susan J. Blackmore, Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, Philip J. Klass, Paul Kurtz, Joe Nickell, Lee Nisbet. Consulting Editors Robert A. Baker, William Sims Bainbridge, John R. Cole, Kenneth L. Feder, C. E. M. Hansel, E. C. Krupp, David F. Marks, Andrew Neher, James E. Oberg, Robert Sheaffer, Steven N. Shore. Managing Editor Doris Hawley Doyle. Contributing Editor Lys Ann Shore. Business Manager Mary Rose Hays. Assistant Business Manager Sandra Lesniak. Chief Data Officer Richard Seymour. Computer Assistant Michael Cione. Production Paul E. Loynes. Art Linda Hays. Audio Technician Vance Vigrass. Librarian Jonathan Jiras. Staff Elizabeth Begley, Ron Nicholson, Alfreda Pidgeon, Ranjit Sandhu, Sharon Sikora, Glen Winford. Cartoonist Rob Pudim. The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal Paul Kurtz, Chairman; professor emeritus of philosophy, State University of New York at Buffalo. Barry Karr, Executive Director and Public Relations Director. Lee Nisbet, Special Projects Director. Fellows of the Committee James E. Alcock,* psychologist, York Univ., Toronto; Robert A. Baker, psychologist, Univ. of Kentucky; Stephen Barrett, M.D., psychiatrist, author, consumer advocate, Allentown, Pa.
    [Show full text]
  • Jennifer Forester, Faculty Mentor
    Pics or It Didn’t Happen: Sexist Hyperskepticism in the Modern Skeptical Movement Author: Jennifer Forester, Faculty Mentor: Clark Pomerleau, Ph.D., Department of English, College of Arts and Sciences Department and College Affiliation: Department of English, College of Arts and Sciences Pics or It Didn’t Happen 2 Bio: Jennifer Forester graduated summa cum laude from the University of North Texas with a bachelor’s degree in English with a specialization in writing and rhetoric. Jennifer was a member of the Honors College. She presented her research at University Scholars Day in April 19, 2013. She is proud of her service in the United States Marine Corps where she was a Corporal (Bandsman, Armorer) in Cherry Point, North Carolina. She is a mother of two brilliant, if often unruly, children. Her current plan is to find gainful employment, but promises that she will eventually return to college and obtain her doctorate in rhetoric with a particular focus on the ways that rhetorical studies can be applied to social justice. Pics or It Didn’t Happen 3 Abstract: In the skeptical community, there is an ongoing conflict over what—if any—actions are necessary to make the movement more welcoming to the growing numbers of women in its ranks. This conflict has brought a great deal of antifeminist sentiment to the surface, to include rape and death threats against prominent women who speak affirmatively on feminist issues within organized skepticism. The origins of this problem can be found in the grounding of skeptical dialogue on the superiority of a traditionally masculinized ideal of science and reason, which excludes the feminized personal narratives that serve as evidence for mistreatment of women within the community.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Alternative' Medicines 20 August 2014
    Experts denounce clinical trials of unscientific, 'alternative' medicines 20 August 2014 Experts writing in the Cell Press journal Trends in science-based medicine rather than evidence-based Molecular Medicine on August 20th call for an end medicine. Biologically plausible treatments should to clinical trials of "highly implausible treatments" advance to randomized clinical trials only when such as homeopathy and reiki. Over the last two there is sufficient preclinical evidence to justify the decades, such complementary and alternative effort, time, and expense, as well as the use of medicine (CAM) treatments have been embraced human subjects. in medical academia despite budget constraints and the fact that they rest on dubious science, they "Somehow this idea has sprung up that to be a say. 'holistic' doctor you have to embrace pseudoscience like homeopathy, reiki, traditional The writers, David Gorski of Wayne State Chinese medicine, and the like, but that's a false University School of Medicine and Steven Novella dichotomy," Gorski said. "If the medical system is of Yale University, argue that, in these cases, the currently too impersonal and patients are rushed medical establishment is essentially testing through office visits because a doctor has to see whether magic works. Gorski and Novella are both more and more patients to cover his salary and editors for Science-Based Medicine, an expenses, then the answer is to find a way to fix organization and blog dedicated to exploring the those problems, not to embrace quackery. complicated relationship between science and 'Integrating' pseudoscience with science-based medicine. medicine isn't going to make science-based medicine better.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Closes Tobinick Suit Against Dr. Steven Novella
    Case 9:14-cv-80781-RLR Document 288 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2015 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 9:14-CV-80781 ROSENBERG/BRANNON EDWARD LEWIS TOBINICK, M.D., et al, Plaintiffs, v. STEVEN NOVELLA, M.D., Defendant. / ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DR. STEVEN NOVELLA M.D.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Dr. Steven Novella M.D.’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 251]. The Court has reviewed the motion, the response [DE 272], the reply [DE 277], and the attached exhibits. The Court has also reviewed the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion [DE 251] is GRANTED. The speech at issue is not actionable under the Lanham Act because it is not commercial speech, and Plaintiffs’ unfair competition claims fail as well because they rely on a similar theory of liability. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, filed on August 1, 2014, brought five counts against four defendants. See DE 55. Many claims and defendants have been disposed of earlier in this litigation. The only remaining claims are: Count I for violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 Case 9:14-cv-80781-RLR Document 288 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2015 Page 2 of 10 1125(a), and Count II for unfair competition.1 The only remaining Defendant is Dr. Steven Novella, M.D.2 Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint are based on two articles written by Defendant Novella and published online at sciencebasedmedicine.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Exuberant Champion of the New Enlightenment
    Jan Feb 13 2_SI new design masters 11/29/12 11:26 AM Page 14 Exuberant Champion of the New Enlightenment KENDRICK FRAZIER countries around the globe. From the beginning he was deeply knowledgeable about, and directly in- volved in, scientific-based skeptical in- quiry. This energized our committee and SI as well. He had more energy and enthusiasm than three people. His output of writing was prodigious. He was overwhelmingly positive and optimistic. And courageous. And something else—exuberant. It was such a pleasure to be his colleague. Paul was my mentor and my friend. He brought me into CSICOP (now CSI). He strongly supported me and SI. A young CSICOP chairman Paul Kurtz, lower right, watches a younger Ken Frazier, then still editor ofScience He granted us editorial autonomy, pub- News but about to become editor of SI, speak at first CSICOP meeting in August 1977 in New York City. licly. When controversy came, as it often did, he always encouraged me. He felt Paul Kurtz had a broad and clear vision aggressive. He always emphasized the that if you are not creating some contro- for a return to Enlightenment values— positive. versy, you are not doing things right. And reason, scientific thinking, and reliance on By his own example of thoughtful he practiced his own humanist values. human thought, not authority or super- philosophical discourse and open- He was kind to me and my family in naturalism, for our ethical values and re- minded critical inquiry and by the caliber ways no one will ever know. sponsibilities to each other.
    [Show full text]