Jan 9, 2022 08:23 PM
(This post was last modified: Jan 9, 2022 09:51 PM by C C.)
10 SCAM ‘discoveries’ that did not change the world
https://edzardernst.com/2022/01/10-scam-...the-world/
INTRO: In so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) we have an amazing number of ‘discoveries’ which – IF TRUE – should have changed the world. Here I list 10 of my favorites... (MORE - details)
"Wired" touts astrology as a practice that works
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/01/0...hat-works/
EXCERPTS (Jerry Coyne): The other day, when I criticized the op-ed in Scientific American that tarred E. O. Wilson (along with others like Mendel and Darwin) as a “racist”, I added the usual observation: the magazine is getting terminally woke and nonscientific. One hopes it would regain its former status as a sought-after place for laypeople to learn about science, but that won’t happen until they replace the Editor-in-Chief and/or get a new philosophy.
One commenter, though, suggested that a good replacement for SciAm is Wired. I haven’t read Wired much, and have no strong feelings about it one way or the other. But this new article—yes, an article, not an op-ed—suggests that Wired, too, may be the victim of woo, and bears watching. Click on the screenshot to read: "How do you practice responsible astrology?"
It’s the usual modern apologia for astrology, which can’t bring itself to admit that astrology is a “science” that cannot make accurate predictions, and also argues that astrology is much more than just a form of “cold reading” or therapy: the stars and planets really do affect our futures in some way we don’t understand. Since there is no evidence that tests of astrology, properly conducted, show any ability to predict personality or the future (see below) this is basically Wired magazine’s presentation of woo—without any criticism. It is touting astrology, which victimizes people who pay good morning for nothing.
It’s even worse, for the author is identified this way...
[...] For astrology, as with many species of woo, there is no evidence for it at all, much less “extraordinary” evidence. In this case, Wired is not only “unscientific”, but antiscientific... (MORE - missing details)
https://edzardernst.com/2022/01/10-scam-...the-world/
INTRO: In so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) we have an amazing number of ‘discoveries’ which – IF TRUE – should have changed the world. Here I list 10 of my favorites... (MORE - details)
"Wired" touts astrology as a practice that works
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/01/0...hat-works/
EXCERPTS (Jerry Coyne): The other day, when I criticized the op-ed in Scientific American that tarred E. O. Wilson (along with others like Mendel and Darwin) as a “racist”, I added the usual observation: the magazine is getting terminally woke and nonscientific. One hopes it would regain its former status as a sought-after place for laypeople to learn about science, but that won’t happen until they replace the Editor-in-Chief and/or get a new philosophy.
One commenter, though, suggested that a good replacement for SciAm is Wired. I haven’t read Wired much, and have no strong feelings about it one way or the other. But this new article—yes, an article, not an op-ed—suggests that Wired, too, may be the victim of woo, and bears watching. Click on the screenshot to read: "How do you practice responsible astrology?"
It’s the usual modern apologia for astrology, which can’t bring itself to admit that astrology is a “science” that cannot make accurate predictions, and also argues that astrology is much more than just a form of “cold reading” or therapy: the stars and planets really do affect our futures in some way we don’t understand. Since there is no evidence that tests of astrology, properly conducted, show any ability to predict personality or the future (see below) this is basically Wired magazine’s presentation of woo—without any criticism. It is touting astrology, which victimizes people who pay good morning for nothing.
It’s even worse, for the author is identified this way...
[...] For astrology, as with many species of woo, there is no evidence for it at all, much less “extraordinary” evidence. In this case, Wired is not only “unscientific”, but antiscientific... (MORE - missing details)