The Debate About The Debate

Debate is healthy. Most of the time. It can either reaffirm your beliefs, change them, or even tear them down (and the world would be a much better place if fewer people were afraid of that last point). A wider debate would be appreciated in, say, the Daily Express, where stories like "NOW ASYLUM IF YOU'RE GAY" are classed as news, when, in fact, they are mostly speculation and opinion. However, today Ann Widdecombe reversed the problem, as, rather than confusing opinion with fact, she confused fact with opinion.

So what do we learn from Ann's piece, aside from the fact that either she or The Express possesses a shocking inability to use capital letters (I'm not one for grammatical pedantry, but "Really, Mr sanderson?"? The "NHs"? Really??)? Well:

Last week it was reported that the British Humanist [A]ssociation [BHA] has condemned an award given to Noah’s [A]rk Zoo, a creationist centre near Bristol.

Yes, there is a creationist Zoo in North Somerset. You can read a review of it here. For the most part it is exactly what you'd expect from a zoo, except for the fact that it teaches that everything was designed by God, and contradicts evolution with posters like "“30 reasons why apes are not related to man”. And it is described by Widdecombe as "a moderate, education-focused organisation".

But those nasty secularists want to shut it up. They want to stifle the debate. And this is the problem with her argument. There is no debate. The Theory of Evolution is pretty much as sound a theory as we can plan for, with evidence in fossils, genes and anti-biotic resistant bacteria to name but a few sources. It is, to all intents and purposes, undeniable.

"Ah wait", say the creationists, "We're only asking for our opinion to be heard, and for people to make up their own minds". But if you are going to present people with one load of bollocks instead of facts, why stop at Christianity? There's a whole world full of rubbish that might have created everything.

Actually, to be consistent, why stop at the debate over evolution? The same argument is used by anyone going against scientific fact, and particularly pseudo-scientific groups -- that they want people to make up their own minds. Homeopaths are let on to the BBC to "debate" the science behind their magic sugar pills in an effort to remain impartial. Carrying this on, surely every time the Royal Family do anything, David Icke should come on to explain why they are actually acting to further their lizard-alien schemes? Otherwise, are they not just picking and choosing the topics they think open for debate?

Creationism and homeopathy are just conspiracy theories with a lot of followers, but just as careless a disregard for the facts. To claim that anyone wanting to get facts right is "bigoted" would be laughable were it not for the fact that it is such a popular idea, but it is only with these facts that you can have any basis for debate.

writerJames got here first. And better. But I wasn't going to tell you that before you'd read this.

The Agony of Choice

This blog is in response to this Early Day Motion, which essentially is in support of homeopathy in the NHS, and specifically to Caroline Lucas's signature, a politician whom I otherwise greatly respect.

I am more disappointed by her signature than any other, since, as a campaigner for Green issues, she must surely have come into contact with bad science before. You don't need me to tell you that there are thousands of people out there who provide misinformation to muddy the waters, others who claim that it's too late too act, and millions more who believe it, and are willing to argue that point. Ms Lucas must have seen through that, to the important facts of man-made climate change, and so I fail to see why it is that she can support the homeopathic cause.

Of course, there is always the argument of choice; that we should always offer people all the options, and allow them to make up their own minds. "Choice" seems like the friendly thing to do -- after all, who would want to go into a restaurant with one item on the menu? But choice is only a good thing if there are benefits on both sides ("I might like the pasta, but I also might like the rice"). If I were to offer you many options as viable alternatives to each other, but with positives only coming from one, it makes the situation needlessly complicated, and potentially dangerous ("I might like the pasta, but I also might like whatever ricin is").

You might think that that last image is a little excessive for the choice between conventional medicine and homeopathy, but the placebo effect (and I'm sure I don't need to point out that homeopathy offers NOTHING beyond the placebo effect) can only go so far. If an NHS doctor legitimises it by prescribing it, and this later makes one person consider homeopathy above conventional medicine for a life-threatening but treatable disease, then this is a life lost needlessly (and, I might add, painfully). The homeopathic industry makes enough money to publicise their sugar-pills themselves. They do not need the support of the NHS.

Andy Lewis put it well on Twitter when he described taking homeopathic medicine as "an act after being misled". In order to work as a placebo, it has to be presented as effective. In other words, doctors need to lie to patients about the effect the drugs have in order for them to have any effect at all, which would surely erode confidence in their profession. And of course, returning to the earlier issue, this actually presents patients with a false choice, as they would not be able to make their choice based on all of the relevant evidence.

Caroline Lucas tweeted her response here, saying:

EDM is about lack of BMA's consultation & argues that local NHS better placed to know patient needs, based on objective clinical assessment

But how can any "objective clinical assessment" support the use of placebo? Quite clearly, you should prescribe something that has an effect beyond placebo. Homeopathy is also as much a placebo at local level as at national, as is witchcraft (not on the NHS, but what the BMA likened to homeopathy, kicking off this row), so in taking action against homeopathy, the BMA were acting entirely within their remit.