Let's start from the beginning

I feel like I'm repeating myself.  Okay, maybe it isn't a feeling.  I'm repeating myself.  I'm repeating myself.

Often when someone brings up Homeopathy, Prayer, Healing Touch, Psychics, etc., a "believer" in the item being discussed will argue a couple ways:

1.) Quantum mechanics/Quantum physics explains how it works
2.) We don't have instruments to test how it works so we shouldn't dismiss it/As instruments get more precise, we'll see how it works

But, they will forget to argue about the most important point.

It is true that there are a number of things that "happen" or "work" but we don't know how they happen or work even though we know that they work.  We may not know, precisely, how a particular medicine works but that is not the first part to be discussed. 

There are many things about our world and the human body that we know and there are many things that we do not know but that doesn't mean we should simply accept or reject claims based on our current knowledge (or lack of knowledge).  We use our current knowledge and models to come up with potential methods of action for new drugs/treatments and then do studies to determine effectiveness/usefulness BUT not everything that we expect to work, works and not everything that seems slightly implausible, fails to work. 

Things that work, we try to figure out how they work so we can apply this knowledge to other potential drugs or treatments.  Things that don't work, however, we don't give a shit how it is supposed to work. 

In other words - present the evidence (real evidence, not just stories) that it works, FIRST.

So, for people who claim 1 or 2 above, let me say this.  You're wrong.  Quantum physics/mechanics does not explain Homeopathy, Prayer, Healing Touch, Psychics, etc. because they don't work and there is nothing to explain.
Quantum physics doesn't explain how Homeopathy works because Homeopathy doesn't work.
Quantum physics doesn't explain how prayer works because prayer doesn't work.
Quantum physics doesn't explain how Healing/Therapeutic Touch (TT) works because TT doesn't work.
Quantum physics doesn't explain how Psychics work because Psychics are lying scumbags (http://www.stoprobbie.com/).
Quantum physics doesn't explain how anything works if it doesn't work. (Quantum physics might explain why something doesn't work, however! But only if it doesn't work!)

Before you argue about or claim 'evidence' for how something works, please, please, please, please present the evidence that it actually works.

We know why Homeopathy doesn't work (no possible method of action, no active ingredient left, biologically implausible).  We know why prayer doesn't work (too many non-existent gods to choose from). We know why TT doesn't work (no possible method of action - it's not even f'ing touching!). We know why Psychics don't work (dead people are mute). 

(And, to deal, in advance, with the standard arguments:
1.) I've tried it, and it didn't work for me. It's stupid.
2.) It didn't work for you.  You need to learn about logical fallacies ('post hoc ergo propter hoc', 'argument from authority', 'argument from antiquity', 'argument from popularity' for sure), regression to the mean, the natural history of the disease and learn about spontaneous remission, misdiagnoses of the initial condition (thanks Tim Minchin), confirmation bias, anecdotes vs. data, proper blinding, placebo, etc.
3.) I'm not a Big Pharma shill.  I don't get paid to do what I do here - helping to stop the abuse of others is payment enough.)

Two things that 'Therapeutic Touch' isn't

1.) Therapeutic
2.) Touch

More on Therapeutic Touch.

Homeopathic remedies that work - complete list

Consult the following list of symptoms and the proven homeopathic remedies.

Symptom - Remedy
1.) -

End of list.

(Note: Thick wallet syndrome is not a recognized condition though all homeopathic 'remedies' can alleviate its symptoms.)

Looking for a REAL psychic - check out this list

Before you contact a psychic, be sure they are a real psychic - consult this exhaustive list of proven psychics. If they're not on this list, they aren't psychic.

1.)

End of list.

If you think you're psychic, you can get your name added to this list by going here. Successfully complete the challenge and we'll add you to this list.

How to tell if your house is haunted

It isn't.

Indoctrination is not choice

Discussing reasons for belief with people of faith is a touchy subject - not only because we are questioning the core beliefs of people but because it often isn't clear what their argument (or basis for argument) is (or even the definition of their god).  I have tried to address this topic in other blog entries and, I'm sure, it will be a topic that we face for years to come.  One point that is often neglected is not why someone believes but what made them believe in a particular god.

We (atheists) have a number of different arguments to make regarding belief in a god but I don't think we argue (often) enough about the method used for "making" believers - indoctrination.

It is almost always unfair for an atheist to ask what it was that brought a believer to believing in their "god" just as it is generally wrong for a believer to suggest that they "chose" to believe in the particular "god" that they follow.  Religion relies heavily on indoctrination - teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically. 

For the majority of believers, they follow the "god" that their parents followed - they stick to the religion that their family was a part of.  Though some move to different denominations of churches, very few actually change the "god" that they worship. 

To suggest "choice" it would have to be clear that one was given.  Most families don't teach their growing children comparative religions and fewer families, I submit, consider leaving discussions/information about religion until the child is old enough to reason his or her way through the claims.  In societies/religions where children were excluded from the religious rituals, practices and "instruction" until adulthood, Christianity and other religions were able to take hold and (almost) completely replace the previous/traditional faiths of those regions.

Indoctrination is not a choice.  It is the circumvention or avoidance of choice.

Richard Dawkins and others have argued that it is a form of child abuse (and with good reason).  Even ignoring the idea that children are being threatened with eternal damnation and hellfire - the abuse of a developing child's mind when it comes to reasoning and questioning is reason enough to see it as harmful.  Though some religions are (or claim to be) in favour of science, one of the greatest potential harms to a future scientific career would be to teach someone to simply accept something without evidence - this is the core point of religious faith.  To circumvent the skeptical view or to push the argument from authority before a child is even old enough to understand reason and logic is not the path we should be taking.  But I digress...

When discussing beliefs with a believer, are we naive, then, when we try to make the "how do you know your "god" is the true "god"?" point?  They didn't choose their "god" so the reasoning was never there to be questioned.  As is often said, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to.  This is made even more difficult because of the destruction of reason and logic in the indoctrination process.

The argument, although completely hypothetical, that we may really need to make is this: 
Suppose you were not indoctrinated into your particular religion.  When presented with the information and books for the different religions at this point in your life, would you have selected your current religion/"god"?  Would you be able to accept the primary claims made by any of the major religions?

Since most people were not given the choice, the "what if" scenario might be a difficult one to get across or for them to imagine.  Some will counter with the idea that they didn't really "believe" any of it until later in life when they were "born again".  I would argue that if the child had not received the original indoctrination they wouldn't have had any pre-planted idea of it being true for them to return to later in life. 

I seriously doubt that many adults could be reasoned into accepting some of the "amazing" stories presented in the Koran, Bible, Torah and other religious books without the predilection to "believing" miraculous claims without evidence - a penchant that was created during their indoctrination as a child. 

I don't doubt, however, that people will suggest on this blog and elsewhere that they were 1.) raised as a non-believer, were not indoctrinated and 2.) reasoned themselves into accepting their "god".  (I doubt that the claims are complete and accurate but I don't doubt that people will make them.)

If you believe in "god", is it the same one that your parents believed in?  If you claim to have "chosen" your "god", what actually brought you to believing in that "god"?  Had you researched the other religions/gods? (Over 2800 of them?)  Why did you dismiss the others?  I am, honestly, interested in the answers to these questions.

Robbie Thomas: Old Predictions Still Wrong (Crosspost)

Take a look at this link we just received from a follower of the blog:

Psychic story questioned

Posted 3 years ago

Sir: Re: The article "Putting killers behind bars" (The Observer, Dec. 31, 2007)

I see that local, self-described psychic Robbie Thomas has again been allowed free advertising in your paper. With the exception of two paragraphs, this article becomes nothing more.

In these paragraphs, Mr. Thomas claims he provided Louisville, Ky., police with key information regarding the abduction, on June 29, 2007, of a four-year-old boy, with no result given. Together, with the headline of this article, the implication seems to be that his tip led to solving the case, but a visit to his website further elaborates to show his disappointment with police for not investigating his information. (The boy's body was discovered by trash collectors on July 6 and a suspect was arrested on Dec. 6.)

I don't see any evidence of his assistance in solving the case.

He may well possess the powers he claims, but perhaps he could publish some verifiable details of cases that he has helped solve, as inferred by the headline.

Mr. Thomas also states in the article that his predictions "have never been proven wrong," yet in an article from June 1, 2005, regarding his investigation of the (still) unsolved Karen Caughlin murder, he predicts "the case will come to a close in six months."

Could it be that some "psychics" are using well-documented methods to take advantage of people at their most vulnerable? Does a fee of $200 per half hour sound reasonable? Caveat emptor.

It has been almost 6 years since Robbie Thomas claimed that a case would be closed within six months (see what the Caughlin family has to say about Robbie Thomas). The case, still, remains open and unsolved. The other case that this letter writer was referring to was that of Cezar Cano.

For those who've read this blog for a while, this will come as no surprise to you. Robbie Thomas is not psychic - just a liar and a huckster.