This is not really anything new, but it is taking on a new scope. The WSJ recently wrote about The Rise of ‘Conspiracy Physics’ (hat tip to “Quasiparticular” for pointing to this in the topic suggestions), which discusses the popularity of social media influencers who claim there is a vast conspiracy among academic physicists. Back in the before time (pre world wide web), if you were a crank – someone who thinks they understand science better than they do and that they have revolutionized science without ever checking their ideas with actual experts – you would likely mail your manifesto to random academics hoping to get their attention. The academics would almost universally take the hundreds of pages full of mostly nonsense and place it in the circular file, unread. I myself have received several of these (although I usually did read them, at least in part, for skeptical fodder).

With the web, cranks had another outlet. They could post their manifesto on a homemade web page and try to get attention there. The classic example of this was the “Time Cube” – the site is now inactive but you can see a capture on the wayback machine. This site came to typify the typical format of such pages – a long vertical scrawl, almost unreadable color scheme, filled with boasting about how brilliant the creator is, and claiming a conspiracy of silence among scientists.

With web 2.0 and social media, the cranks adapted, and they have continued to adapt as social media and society evolves. Today, as pointed out in the WSJ article, there is a wave of anti-establishment sentiment, and the cranks are riding this wave. If you read the comments to the WSJ article you will see evidence of some of the contributing factors. There is, for example, a lot of “blame the victim” sentiment – blaming physicists, or scientists, academics, experts in general. They did not do a good enough job of explaining their field to the public. They ignored the cranks and let them flourish. They responded to the cranks and gave them attention. They are too closed to fringe ideas that challenge their authority.

Continue Reading »

Avi Loeb is at it again. He is the Harvard astrophysicist who first gained notoriety when he hypothesized that Oumuamua, the first detected interstellar object, might be an alien artifact. His arguments were pretty thin, not taken very seriously by the scientific community, and mostly did not pan out. However, Oumuamua has left the solar system and so any unanswered questions will remain forever unanswered. But Loeb has been riding his fame and his alien artifact narrative ever since, founding the Galileo Project dedicated to looking for alien technological artifacts. Recently, NASA discovered the third every interstellar object, and the first interstellar comet, 3I/ATLAS. (“3I” is simply the nomenclature for the third interstellar object, and “ATLAS” for the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System that made the discovery.) Loeb recently published a paper and is blogging that this too shows “anomalies” deserving of exploring the ET technology hypothesis. And again – I am not impressed.

Let me jump ahead a bit and say up front – I am not against exploring the alien hypothesis, pretty much in any context. Even though the probability may be low, the payoff would be huge, and it’s worth a consideration. I am not against looking for alien technological signatures. This may, in fact, be the best method for detecting an alien technological civilization. I also think that serious academics and scientists should be taking such efforts seriously and there should be no academic shame in engaging in them. So I am with Loeb to that extent.

What bothers me about Loeb is that his arguments are so terrible. He is just another classic example of an academic and scientist who has no apparent experience with scientific skepticism and therefore is falling for common pitfalls. He also appears to not have learned anything in the last seven years, which is greatly disappointing. In fact, I would argue that he is hurting his stated greater cause (with which I largely agree), to make searching for alien technology academically respectable. Loeb is essentially engaging in anomaly hunting, and shows no signs of understanding what that means. Let’s take a look at his latest list of apparent “anomalies” to see what I mean.

Continue Reading »

One potentially positive outcome from the COVID pandemic is that it was a wakeup call – if there was any doubt previously about the fact that we all live in one giant interconnected world, it should not have survived the recent pandemic. This is particularly true when it comes to infectious disease. A bug that breaks out on the other side of the world can make its way to your country, your home, and cause havoc. It’s also not just about the spread of infectious organisms, but the breeding of these organisms.

One source of infectious agents is zoonotic spillover, where viruses, for example, can jump from an animal reservoir to a human. So the policies in place in any country to reduce the chance of this happening affect the world. The same is true of policies for laboratories studying potentially infectious agents.

It’s also important to remember that infectious agents are not static – they evolve. They can evolve even within a single host as they replicate, and they can evolve as they jump from person to person and replicate some more. The more bugs are allows to replicate, the greater the probability that new mutations will allow them to become more infectious, or more deadly, or more resistant to treatment. Resistance to treatment is especially critical, and is more likely to happen in people who are partially treated. Give someone an antibiotic to kill 99.9% of the bacteria that’s infecting them, but stop before the infection is completely wiped out, and then the surviving bacteria can resume replication. Those surviving bacteria are likely to be the most resistant bugs to the antibiotic. Bacteria can also swap antibiotic resistant genes, and build up increasing resistance.

In short, controlling infectious agents is a world-wide problem, and it requires a world-wide response. Not only is this a humanitarian effort, it is in our own best self-interest. The rest of the world is a breeding ground for bugs that will come to our shores. This is why we really need an organization, funded by the most wealthy nations, to help establish, fund, and enforce good policies when it comes to identifying, treating, and preventing infectious illness. This includes vaccination programs, sanitation, disease outbreak monitoring, drug treatment programs, and supportive care programs (like nutrition). We would also benefit from programs that target specific hotspots of infectious disease in poor countries that do not have the resources to adequately deal with them, like HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, and tuberculosis in Bangladesh.

Continue Reading »

It’s probably not a surprise that a blog author dedicated to critical thinking and neuroscience feels that misinformation is one of the most significant threats to society, but I really to think this. Misinformation (false, misleading, or erroneous information) and disinformation (deliberately misleading information) have the ability to cause a disconnect between the public and reality. In a democracy this severs the feedback loop between voters and their representatives. In an authoritarian government it a tool of control and repression. In either case citizens cannot freely choose their representatives. This is also the problem with extreme jerrymandering – in which politicians choose their voters rather than the other way around.

Misinformation and disinformation have always existed in human society, and it is an interesting question whether or not they have increased recently and to what extent social media has amplified them. Regardless, it is useful to understand what factors contribute to susceptibility to misinformation in order to make people more resilient to it. We all benefit if the typical citizen has the ability to discern reality and identify fake news when they see it.

There has been a lot of research on this question over the years, and I have discussed it often, but it’s always useful to try to gather together years of research into a single systematic review and/or meta-analysis. It’s possible I and others may be selectively choosing or remembering parts of the research to reinforce a particular view – a problem that can be solved with a thorough analysis of all existing data. And of course I must point out that such reviews are subject to their own selection bias, but if properly done such bias should be minimal. The best case scenario is for there to be multiple systematic reviews, so I can get a sense of the consensus of those reviews, spreading out bias as much as possible in the hopes it will average out in the end.

Continue Reading »

A recent BBC article highlights some of the risk of the new age of social media we have crafted for ourselves. The BBC investigated the number one ranked UK podcast, Diary of a CEO with host Steven Bartlett, for the accuracy of the medical claims recently made on the show. While the podcast started out as focusing on tips from successful businesspeople, it has recently turned toward unconventional medical opinions as this has boosted downloads.

“In an analysis of 15 health-related podcast episodes, BBC World Service found each contained an average of 14 harmful health claims that went against extensive scientific evidence.”

These includes showcasing an anti-vaccine crank, Dr. Malhotra, who claimed that the “Covid vaccine was a net negative for society”. Meanwhile the WHO estimates that the COVID vaccine saved 14 million lives worldwide. A Lancet study estimates that in the European region alone the vaccine saved 1.4 million lives. This number could have been greater were in not for the very type of antivaccine misinformation spread by Dr. Malhotra.

Another guest promoted the Keto diet as a treatment for cancer. Not only is there no evidence to support this claim, dietary restrictions while undergoing treatment for cancer can be very dangerous, and imperil the health of cancer patients.

This reminds me of the 2014 study that found that, “For recommendations in The Dr Oz Show, evidence supported 46%, contradicted 15%, and was not found for 39%.” Of course, evidence published in the BMJ does little to counter misinformation spread on extremely popular shows. The BBC article highlights the fact that in the UK podcasts are not covered by the media regulator Ofcom, which has standards of accuracy and fairness for legacy media.

Continue Reading »

At CSICON this year I gave talk about topics over which skeptics have and continue to disagree with each other. My core theme was that these are the topics we absolutely should be discussing with each other, especially at skeptical conferences. Nothing should be taboo or too controversial. We are an intellectual community dedicated to science and reason, and have spent decades talking about how to find common ground and resolve differences, when it comes to empirical claims about reality. But the fact is we sometimes disagree, and this is a great learning opportunity. It’s also humbling, reminding ourselves that the journey toward critical thinking and reason never ends. On several topics self-identified skeptics disagree largely along political grounds, which is a pretty sure sign we are not immune to ideology and partisanship.

I spent most of the talk, however, discussing the issue of biological sex in humans, which I perceive as the currently most controversial topic within skepticism. My goal was to explore where it is we actually disagree. Generally speaking skeptics don’t disagree about the facts or about the proper role of science in determining what is likely to be true. We tend to disagree for more subtle reasons, although often the reason does come down to a lack of specific topic expertise on questions that are highly technical. The most important thing is that we actually engage with each-other’s arguments and positions, to make sure we truly understand what those who disagree with us are saying so that we can properly explore premises and logic.

Jerry Coyne, author of the book and blog Why Evolution is True, was also at CSICON and gave a talk essentially taking the opposing position to my own. His position is that biological sex in humans is binary, that this is the only scientific position, and anything else is simply ideology trumping science. His talk was after mine so I was very interested in how he would respond to my position. He essentially didn’t – he just gave the talk he was going to give and then included a single slide with his “responses” to my talk. Except, they weren’t responses at all, just a list of standard talking points that really had nothing to do with my talk.

Continue Reading »

How certain are you of anything that you believe? Do you even think about your confidence level, and do you have a process for determining what your confidence level should be or do you just follow your gut feelings?

Thinking about confidence is a form of metacognition – thinking about thinking. It is something, in my opinion, that we should all do more of, and it is a cornerstone of scientific skepticism (and all good science and philosophy). As I like to say, our brains are powerful tools, and they are our most important and all-purpose tool for understanding the universe. So it’s extremely useful to understand how that tool works, including all its strengths, weaknesses, and flaws.

A recent study focuses in on one tiny slice of metacognition, but an important one – how we form confidence in our assessment of a situation or a question. More specifically, it highlights The illusion of information adequacy. This is yet another form of cognitive bias. The experiment divided subjects into three groups – one group was given one half of the information about a specific situation (the information that favored one side), while a second group was given the other half. The control group was given all the information. They were then asked to evaluate the situation and how confident they were in their conclusions. They were also asked if they thought other people would come to the same conclusion.

You can probably see this coming – the subjects in the test groups receiving only half the information felt that they had all the necessary information to make a judgement and were highly confident in their assessment. They also felt that other people would come to the same conclusion as they did. And of course, the two test groups came to the conclusion favored by the information they were given.

Continue Reading »

I am not the first to say this but it bears repeating – it is wrong to use the accusation of a mental illness as a political strategy. It is unfair, stigmatizing, and dismissive. Thomas Szasz (let me say straight up – I am not a Szaszian) was a psychiatrist who made it his professional mission to make this point. He was concerned especially about oppressive governments diagnosing political dissidents with mental illness and using that as a justification to essentially imprison them.

Szasz had a point (especially back in the 1960s when he started making it) but unfortunately took his point way too far, as often happens. He decided that mental illness, in fact, does not exist, and is 100% political oppression. He took a legitimate criticism of the institution of mental health and abuse by oppressive political figures and systems and turned it into science denial. But that does not negate the legitimate points at the core of his argument – we should be careful not to conflate unpopular political opinions with mental illness, and certainly not use it as a deliberate political strategy.

While the world of mental illness is much better today (at least in developed nations), the strategy of labeling your political opponents as mentally ill continues. I truly sincerely wish it would stop. For example, in a recent interview on ABC, senator Tom Cotton was asked about some fresh outrageous thing Trump said, criticism of which Cotton waved away as “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.

Continue Reading »

It’s been less than two years (November 2022) since ChatGPT launched. In some ways the new large language model (LLM) type of artificial intelligence (AI) applications have been on the steep part of the improvement curve. And yet, they are still LLMs with the same limitations. In the last two years I have frequently used ChatGPT and other AI applications, and often give them tasks just to see how they are doing.

For a quick review, LLMs are AIs that are trained on vast amounts of information from the internet. They essentially predict the next work chunk in order to build natural-sounding responses to queries. Their responses therefore represent a sort-of zeitgeist of the internet, building on what is out there. Responses are therefore necessarily derivative, but can contain unique combinations of information. This has lead to a so-far endless debate about how truly creative LLMs can be, or if they are just stealing and regurgitating content from human creators.

What I am finding is that LLMs are getting better at doing what they do, but have not broken out of the limitations of this regurgitation model. Here is a good example from the New York Times – an author (Curtis Sittenfeld) wrote a short story based on the same prompt given to ChatGPT, and published both to see if readers could tell the difference. For me, I knew right away which story was AI. The author’s story was interesting and engaging. ChatGPTs story bored me before the end of the first paragraph. It was soulless and mechanical. It reminded me of a bad story written by a freshman in high school. It got the job done, and used some tired and predictable literary devices, but failed to engage the reader and lacked any sense of taking the reader on an emotional journey.

This reinforced for me what I suspected from my own interactions – LLMs are getting better at being LLMs, but have not broken out of their fundamental limitations.

Continue Reading »

This kind of abuse of deepfake endorsements was entirely predictable, so it’s not surprising that a recent BMJ study documents the scale of this fraud. The study focused on the UK, detailing instances of deepfakes of celebrity doctors endorsing dubious products. For example, there is this video of Dr. Hilary Jones used to endorse a snake oil product claiming to reduce blood pressure. The video is entirely fake. It’s also interesting that in the video the fake Jones refers only to “this product” – as if the deepfakers made a generic endorsement (ala Krusty the Clown) that could be then attached to any product.

This trend is obviously disturbing, although again entirely expected. This use of deepfakes is deliberate fraud, and should be treated as such. Public figures have a right to their own identity, including their name and likeness. Laws vary by country and by state, but most have some limited protections for the use of someone’s name or likeness. In the US, for example, there is a limited “right of publicity” which limits the use of someone’s name or likely for commercial purposes without their permission. This can also extend beyond death, with the estate holding the rights. Even imitating a recognizable voice has been successfully sued.

This means that using a deepfake clearly violates the right of publicity – in fact it is the ultimate violation of that right. There are generally three legal remedies for violations – monetary damages, injunctive relief, and punitive damages.

How good are the deepfakes? Good enough, especially if you are viewing a relatively low-res video on social media. And of course they are only getting better. We cannot wait until deepfakes are good enough to fool most people, right now they are high enough quality to constitute fraud. So what do we do about it?

Continue Reading »