I haven’t posted a Daily Read for a while – sorry about that. Let’s get back on track with this great article from science blogger Yvette d’Entremont, who blogs as the Science Babe. Writing for Gawker, d’Entremont makes short work out of debunking the unbelievable bullshittery hawked by Vani Hari, otherwise known as the Food Babe (I won’t link to her site but you can Google it if you really want to look). Hari has made a career out of scaring people about what is in their food and taking advantage of the general public’s overall ignorance about science (I don’t say this as an indictment of the public, just as a factual observation). Hari seems to be utterly incapable of understanding science, nutrition, health, or any of the subjects about which she rails so hysterically. D’Entremont’s article abounds with examples of Hari’s stupidity (I can’t call it ignorance in this case, because she’s been corrected by experts too many times to count and still holds to her irrational beliefs). People like Hari are a danger to the public because they play on people’s fears and employ scientific-sounding words to generate sophisticated nonsense (h/t to Steven Novella of The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe for that phrase). Hari’s recent popularity is frightening and bad news for critical thinkers everywhere.
Author: Ranthropologist
-
Daily Read: A Video Argument
Today’s Daily Read is actually a video. I ran across it at random on my Facebook feed from the page for the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe (which is a great page to follow, by the way. I also highly recommend their regular website and weekly podcast). The video, which comes from Bite Size Psych’s YouTube channel, explains a few things I’ve already written about. In particular, it shows in a quick 3 minutes and 35 seconds why arguments about issues like vaccination and global warming are usually doomed to not only fail, but strengthen people’s belief in their own argument. It’s the best, most succinct explainer of the backfire effect that I’ve seen and for that reason alone it’s worth watching (I also wrote about the backfire effect here and here). But I also appreciate it for what it recommends when talking to people whose beliefs differ from your own: actual dialogue and critical thinking. It turns out that when you engage people and ask them to explain their side in detail, not only do you learn more about what they believe, you both may be more likely to realize that you have a lot to learn about what you think you know. This is exactly what I try to do with people who disagree with me online. I’ve had friends on FB stop following my page because they get so angry at other people’s comments, but this is why I do it! Anger makes things worse; conversation and engagement can make things better. Please take just a few minutes to watch the video.
-
Daily Read: Critical Medicine
In this article from Vox, Julia Belluz uses the example of medical research to highlight the problems with mainstream media reporting on science. The article points out that reporters have a different idea of what is newsworthy than scientific researchers do, and that is reflected in the way medical “breakthroughs” are reported. Scientists write their reports and articles for a very specialized audience, while reporters must present scientific findings in ways that are accessible to the public. Furthermore, reporters are looking for a hook in their reporting – something that will get eyeballs on their stories. This means that there is often a profound disconnect between the actual findings of scientific research, and the way that research is reported to the general public. The upshot, according to Belluz, is that the general public needs to take reporting on medical studies with a grain of salt because many, if not most, of the most apparently breathtaking findings turn out to be undermined or disproven by further research. This is also true of the seemingly endless stream of reports on diet, exercise, supplements, etc. I can’t stress enough that revisions and refinements of existing research are actually the biggest strengths of science; yet, when the media reports that previously promising treatments or techniques turn out not to work, the general public loses faith in the scientific community. I empathize with Velluz’s rumination on whether it’s a good idea for these studies to even be reported: “I often wonder whether there is any value in reporting very early research. Journals now publish their findings, and the public seizes on them, but this wasn’t always the case: journals were meant for peer-to-peer discussion, not mass consumption.” She is right that early reporting is harmful for the false hope it can give people and for the damage it does to people’s faith in science.
This is why you shouldn’t believe that exciting new medical study
-
Daily Reads: Pest Control
Today’s article is a must read because it is reporting on an issue that has become divisive in the public eye. A new review of the research on glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup, shows that it is probably a human carcinogen. As Dan Charles from NPR’s The Salt points out, while this news sounds bad, the truth is really much more nuanced. Yet, as expected, this news is already being trumpeted by those opposed to Monsanto, the company that manufactures Roundup. Monsanto also creates and sells seeds for the genetically modified (GMO) crops that are resistant to glyphosate. To those opposed to the use of GMOs, Monsanto is the devil. So now, there is a review that seems, on the surface, to prove that both glyphosate and by extension, GMOs, are unsafe for humans. Critically, this is not actually what the review concludes. This is a perfect example of how selective reporting on scientific research can confuse and mislead the public. This is incredibly important, because both sides of a debate can leverage these reports to bolster their side, when the truth is usually somewhere in between. I’ll leave it to you to read the article, but here are some of the most important takeaways:
“…the IARC is saying that glyphosate probably could cause cancer in humans, but not that it probably does.” “… society often chooses simply to accept certain hazards. Among the other things that the IARC says probably cause cancer are burning wood in home fireplaces, disruption of circadian rhythms by working overnight shifts and working as a hairdresser.” What this means is that the dose makes the poison: yes, glyphosate causes changes in cellular DNA that could lead to cancer, but the report does not say under what circumstances and at what dose. This is a very important area for more research, because there are countless substances in our daily environments that are technically carcinogens, but that you’d have to be exposed to in huge quantities to actually be put at risk.
“…studies of human health records did not turn up convincing evidence of glyphosate’s cancer-causing potential. A long-running study of farm workers, for instance, did not show higher rates of cancer among those exposed to the chemical.” This conclusion from the report will definitely not be showing up in the responses from those organizations that are anti-GMO and anti-Monsanto.
“…Glyphosate residues on food, however, are not of great concern. The chemical is used in the early stages of growing crops like soybeans, corn, and canola. Those crops, if they even reach human consumers at all, are heavily processed first, destroying any glyphosate residues.” Again, this fact is not likely to be highlighted by those who are motivated to cherry-pick only those parts of the report that fit their beliefs.
All this said, I also want to point out that I am disappointed (although far from surprised) in Monsanto’s response that the report is biased and constitutes “junk science.” The research cited in the report does show a probable carcinogenic effect that needs more study, and it’s disingenuous for Monsanto to dismiss it simply as bad science. Monsanto has an agenda too, so they are just as likely to cherry-pick as the anti-GMO crowd. True skepticism and critical thinking means taking account of all the data; but I realize that’s a lot to ask when it comes to these controversial issues. If you are anti-GMO or if this report scares you, please read the article and realize that this is not the final word, and that frightening buzzwords like “carcinogen” and “cancer” should not derail your responsibility to think critically.
-
Daily Reads: Coffee Talk
Unless you live under a rock, you’ve heard of Starbucks’ new initiative to have their servers (I refuse to call them baristas) start conversations about race with their customers. This is a terrific example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz means well, but this campaign is beyond tone deaf. Starbucks has already received a barrage of criticism, so I could have picked any number of articles to share as a Daily Read, but this one by Terrell Jermaine Starr on Alternet stuck with me. Starr points out what should have been obvious to Starbucks: racial inequality is not going to be solved during a chat over coffee. Obviously, Starbucks knows this; but to even position this campaign as helpful reveals just how little CEO Schultz and his staff seem to understand about the depth and breadth of this country’s racial problems. Starr addresses those problems from his perspective as a Black man, and because I have no desire to summarize and potentially coopt what he puts so well, I will leave it to his words to explain it. Let me just add, obviously and cynically, that as well-meaning as Starbucks may be, this is just another example of brandwashing.
Dear Starbucks: Black People Do Not Need to Participate in #RaceTogether
-
Daily Reads: Religious Racism
I have become a huge fan of the writings of Arthur Chu, whom most people know as the guy who pissed people off with his winning strategies on Jeopardy! His articles are very well written and always thought provoking. In this contribution to Salon, Chu discusses how racism and religious intolerance are being conflated into extremely disturbing and sometimes violent acts of harassment towards those who are assumed to be associated with Islam – in particular, Sikhs. Chu correctly notes that many apologists for religious intolerance claim that it is not racist, since religions are not races (which, while technically true, does not provide a reasonable excuse for targeting people based on their religion). But the very harassment that targets Sikhs (or other people who appear exotic or foreign to many Americans) shows that people do associate religion with race – that is, a person who looks a certain way must be a Muslim, and therefore, a terrorist. Chu’s overall point is that, while it is possible to rationally disagree with the tenets of Islam, it is not accurate to say that there is no racial/ethnic basis for people’s assumptions about who is Muslim; therefore, it is a dangerous perpetuation of racism to claim that disagreement with Islam has no racial basis or consequences. (For more on race and why it has no basis in biology, but is clearly very relevant culturally, read this post).
I wrote about something similar in this post, and I still hold to what I said there: I think it is disingenuous to claim that people committing terrorism in the name of their religious beliefs are not true practitioners of that religion. A Muslim terrorist is a Muslim, even if the majority of Muslims disagree with the terrorist’s radical interpretation and the acts committed in support of it. But I also agree with Chu that we are wrong – so very wrong – to attack every individual who we perceive to be of that faith. Read the article. It’s important.