| |
Mindless Alternatives
— Assessing credibility
of alternative systemsAndrew Paterson—07/2005
|
| |
Just because a system is
alternative does not automatically give it credibility
or equivalence to established orthodoxies — most
alternatives out there are pretty mindless. |
| |
 F
YOU VISIT Truth Radio's Break for News,
a successful alternative news site on which you can
find alternative news and views on a variety of topics,
you will find a recording of Fintan Dunne's
monologue on "Nuclear Power and The Global
Warming Scam". On it, Dunne uses the opinions
of Professor David Bellamy, a high-profile British
environmentalist and botanist, to dismiss global
warming altogether. Central to Bellamy's claim
that global warming is a myth is the fact that "555
of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the
World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich , Switzerland
, have been growing since 1980." |
| |
| With information like this coming from a leading
environmentalist, Bellamy is a dream "rogue
scientist" for any government or corporation
wanting to justify rejection of profit-restricting
legislation, for example the Kyoto Treaty, which
places limits on human greenhouse gas emissions.
And I use the term "rogue" here because,
despite what the professional sceptics would have
us all believe, the reality of global warming and
its link to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission
is now accepted by the vast majority of climatologists. |
| |
| But quite apart from those who would use Bellamy's
alternative scientific opinion to avoid curbs on
greenhouse gases, there are also those who thrill
at any "alternative" evidence and opinion
that seems to buck prevailing orthodoxy. Judging
by his website, Dunne is most certainly in this category
as he seems to embrace, like many, all things alternative.
But the problem for Dunne in this case is that Bellamy — leading
environmentalist Professor David Bellamy no less — knows
as much about climatology as George Bush knows about
international diplomacy. And it doesn't take
a lot of digging to unearth this unfortunate fact,
as George Monbiot has so adeptly done in his article Junk
Science and his published correspondence
with Bellamy. |
| |
| Bellamy admitted to Monbiot that the source for
his global warming contravening data was ex-architect
Robert W. Felix's website www.iceagenow.com.
On it you will find the quote that 55% of all 625
glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring
Service in Zurich , Switzerland , have been growing
since 1980, but absolutely no reference as to where
it came from. In fact, Monbiot shows that its originator
was most likely Professor Fred Singer, who vaguely
attributes it to "a paper published in Science
in 1989" but a paper that Monbiot was unable
to find any trace of despite scanning through every
edition of Science during that period. And even Bellamy
had to admit to Monbiot that his "555 of all
the 625 glaciers" was probably a mistype of "55%
of all the 625 glaciers" — after all, "%" shares
the same keyboard key as "5". In other
words, Bellamy didn't just quote spurious data,
he quoted it inaccurately! |
 |
| This problem arose because Bellamy is a lateral
thinker who enjoys the parry of challenging orthodoxy,
and whilst it is invaluable to inject new ideas and
viewpoints into the scientific community for discussion,
when creative but undeniably spurious information
is put out to the public with regards to an issue
such as global warming — an issue that could
scupper the Earth's entire life-support system — then "alternatives" can
be quite deadly. Bellamy's case highlights
the fact that just become something is alternative
and challenges orthodoxy does not automatically give
it credibility or even equivalence to the orthodoxy
it challenges. But unfortunately, it is a lesson
that is being ignored by much of the alternative
community, who prefer to take Orwell's position
in 1984 when he wrote, "Orthodoxy means
not thinking — not needing to think. Orthodoxy
is unconsciousness," and to use this position
to happily give legitimacy to the wildest of alternatives. |
| |
| In this case, Bellamy's arguments could
be easily challenged because he presented them scientifically.
In other words, as a scientist making scientific
statements, his opinions had to be based empirical
evidence — and evidence can be checked. In
this case, the evidence does not stand up to scrutiny,
and therefore his whole rejection of global warming
resting on this evidence comes crashing down. |
| |
| But that does not mean that global warming isn't
a myth or that Robert Felix won't eventually
be proved right. It does mean that the empirical
evidence we have so far, and the scientific models
from which we make predictions from this evidence,
seem to suggest that anthropogenic global warming
is a real phenomena. This may change in the future
as science evolves and gathers more data, but considering
what is at stake if we get this one wrong, most would
agree that it is better to err on caution and cut
emissions (unless you in the oil industry, in motor
vehicle manufacturing or a Christian Zionist from
the deep South). |
|
| * * * |
| |
| Yesterday, a friend of mine rang me up all excited
about a new electronic healing device that she had
found on the web called AIM or EMC2 invented by Stephen
Lewis and Evan Slawson, who have set up an organisation
based around this "technology" called
the Energetic Matrix Church of Consciousness (www.energeticmatrix.com).
AIM is basically an electronic device (at least I
presume it is electronic because you can't
actually find much information on it) that transmits
healing frequencies to anybody who registers for
around $1000 a year. When you sign up, you send in
a picture of yourself or whoever you want healing
for, and the picture acts as an "anchor" or "target" for
the healing frequency generator. You never see the
technology, but you can rest assured that it is working,
somewhere in the world, for your 24-hour benefit… talk
about a brilliant insurance policy. (This system
is actually working around the principles of voodoo.) |
| |
| There is nothing new about this: a friend of
mine in her eighties has been sending healing to
friends and family using a frequency generator and
a target picture for many years. The difference is
the Lewis and Slawson have created a whole "cargo
cult science" — to borrow a Richard Feynman
term — around their energetic concepts, and
a great money-spinner to boot. And if you think I
am insulting Lewis and Slawson by calling their system
a cargo cult science, have a look at their brochure
which carries the following disclaimer, "The
devices used by EMC2 and the techniques associated
with these devices have no acknowledged scientific
or medical value whatsoever. The energetic concepts
of the EMC2 ministry are a matter of faith…" |
| |
| So why are so many scientific terms and concepts
sprinkled through the AIM system literature if it
is, by the inventors' own admission, not scientific
but rather a matter of faith? The answer to this
is that this is precisely because their system relies
largely on the faith of those that participate in
it: science and pseudoscience (the average person
cannot tell the difference) automatically convey
an aura of authority and legitimacy on any belief
system or technology (pseudo or otherwise) associated
with them. So if faith is an important factor, that
faith is likely to be far stronger for the average
person if the system is presented scientifically.
Lewis and Slawson are unusual in that they declare
their pseudoscientific status, a status reflected
by the fact that the technology behind their system
has been written up, not in a factual book or a scientific
paper, but in a novel! |
|
| Just because this alternative healing system
is based around faith does not of course mean that
it doesn't work or that there is no scientific
basis for their system. With faith we can move mountains — modern
science tries to eliminate the placebo effect when
in fact it should be trying to reinforce it because
studies have shown that it is a much bigger factor
in the equation than previously thought. (This also
could imply some sort of link between mind and matter.)
Lewis and Slawson have produced a "technology" that
really might help those that believe it can. |
| |
| It is also possible that the AIM inventors have
found, by intuition, a technology that relies on
yet-undiscovered laws of physics. But until that
can be scientifically proven, it is pure fantasy.
So how do we assess this type of alternative? The
truth is that we objectively can't: this sort
of alternative relies on presentation and testimonials
to attract individuals into using it. And ironically,
if a system relies on faith, articles like this one
that question that system are counterproductive to
those who would believe in them. My friend who introduced
me to this system is one such person, and to her
I sincerely apologize. There is a time and a place
to assess a system that relies on the placebo effect — not
when someone is in need of healing and wants to give
it a go. |
| |
| * * * |
| |
| Orthodox viewpoints are not always in the public
interest, and often benefit only those that uphold
them. For example, orthodox medicine, especially
in the cases of chronic illness, is not usually the
wisest choice, but it is a "choice" that
is usually made by default because it is so strongly
promoted by a trillion-dollar pharmaceutical industry
and an orthodox medical profession controlled by
its money. Alternatives, on the other hand, give
us an opportunity to break out into real choice which
can be to our individual and collective benefit. |
| |
| The problem for those interested in alternative
systems is how assess them in relation to each other
and in relation to corresponding orthodox systems.
This process of selection can mean life and death
to some people — for example, in choosing the
treatment for cancer — and so it is important
that we know how to make comparisons. It might at
first glance seem straightforward: we just examine
the scientific data and see which alternative is
more effective in the case of medicine, or which
system corresponds most closely with observed reality.
Often, however, alternatives will have little or
no scientific data, and this is not necessarily because
they are ineffective or inappropriate but because
examination of them has either been discouraged or
avoided, or because they are based on systems that
do not operate at a level open to direct scientific
assessment (the benefits of homeopathy, for example,
are notoriously elusive in scientific tests but millions
of people seem to attest to its effectiveness). |
|
| In the two earlier examples of alternatives,
the first — Bellamy's climate claim — most
certainly is open to scientific assessment and it
is relatively easy to see that his reasoning is false.
His conclusion might turn out to be correct — who
knows? — but the scientific reasoning that
he uses to reach it is based on spurious data. Bellamy
is a scientist making unscientific assessments. This,
of course, does not stop those wanting no restrictions
on greenhouse gas emissions — car manufacturers
for example — as using Bellamy's opinion
and his standing as a leading environmentalist to
fight their corner. And it also does not seem to
stop those, like Truth Radio, who just love to promote
any alternative just for the sake of bucking the
trend… and increasing audience figures. |
| |
| The second example — the AIM healing system — is
not open to scientific assessment as we know it because
it is not a system based on any known science. But
because it presents itself as science — using
standard scientific models and terminology in its
literature — it opens itself up to being rejected
on these grounds. This system is more akin to a talisman
than any real technology; and as everyone knows a
talisman works only if the holder believes that it
works. So we can safely reject the AIM healing system
on the basis of how it is marketed. (Once again it
may work by faith, but the authors' scientific
justification just does not hold scientific water.) |
| |
| So assessing alternatives involves judging them
from the paradigm or belief-system by which they
are presented or marketed. If a talisman is marketed
as a talisman, then our acceptance or rejection of
its effectiveness comes down to our personal belief
in talismans. But if that talisman is presented to
us as a scientific system, we can certainly reject
that presentation on scientific grounds. Taking this
approach allows us to rationally assess alternatives,
even those that rely on faith and belief, which is
important as there are so many out there jostling
for our allegiance. |
| |
So those of us focused on alternatives might
do well to remember that just because a system is
alternative does not automatically bestow credibility
upon it — most alternatives out there are actually
pretty mindless. |
| |
| |
|
|
| "Orthodoxy means not thinking — not
needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." |
| George Orwell |
| |
| "Most alternatives
are just as thoughtless and unconscious." |
| Andrew P |
| |
| |
| |
| Andrew Paterson is an independent writer currently living in London. He has no affiliation to any religious or political organisation. To contact him, please email . |
|
|
