So what is woo?

If I had to boil it down, I’d define woo as beliefs that clearly demonstrate magical thinking, uncritical acceptance of things for which no good evidence exists. This includes, but is not limited to, psychic phenomenon, ghosts, the paranormal, “energy healing,” the use of “colon cleansing” and “liver cleansing” to rid oneself of “toxins,” homeopathy (especially quantum homeopathy), and a wide variety of other mystical and pseudoscientific beliefs. Woo is resistant to reason.

Just back from TAM 2012 (The Amazing Meeting) and a Groupon ad for the “Authentic” Power Balance Wristbands appeared in my Email. There will be more about TAM 2012 tomorrow but right now let’s talk about the wristbands. If you absolutely need to wear one of these you can get them HERE for $4. They aren’t “Authentic” Power Balance Wristbands but they are exactly the same thing from the same manufacturer and work just as well (wink-wink-nudge-nudge). They are called “Placebo Bands.” If you clicked on the link and read the material presented by the SkepticBros, you’ll have some idea about how the purveyors of the “Authentic” Power Balance Wristbands use trickery to convince the unsuspecting public that they really work to improve balance, strength, and flexibility. They could make a whole host of other claims but those are the ones they tend to demonstrate on willing subjects. Remember, these are stage magician tricks that they are using to steal from gullible people.

The “Athentic” Power Balance Wristbands cost pennies to make and the maker ADMITS that the bands are worthless. A representative of Power Balance Australia issued a statement that read in part, “We admit that there is no credible scientific evidence that supports our claims. Therefore we engaged in misleading conduct.”

In this whack-a-mole world we live in, there is no way to keep the woo at check! ALL of the money made by the Australian company was returned to their customers and now the company is bankrupt. Every purchaser received the purchase price along with an additional $5 for shipping. Yet here they are attempting to make another run at preying on the gullible in search of profit.

Tomorrow, you’ll get to read about my experience at TAM 2012 but I won’t be covering the post TAM “Million Dollar Challenge.” I’ll do that here and now.

The JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) Million Dollar Challenge has an interesting history and some form of the challenge has been in existence since 1968. On the JREF site you’ll find the following short statement:

The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the “applicant” becomes a “claimant.”

To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.

You can also find the “Log of Applicants.” Not every applicant that ever attempted the challenge is listed but there are quite a few and there is quite a variety of paranormal claims being made. Check it out.

Here is where serendipity comes in…I just received an ad for a Power Balance Wristband and the post TAM “Million Dollar Challenge” was aimed at demonstrating a device similar to the “Authentic” Power Balance Wristband. The name of the claimant was Andrew Needles. He’s got a website selling his devices. Click HERE if you’d like to see Andrew attempting to demonstrate his “Dynactiv SR Standard.” It is only 50 seconds long but imagine what it was like to sit in the audience and watching him try out his device against a placebo using 10 different test subjects while remaining perfectly quiet. He had to be able to determine that his band was in play 17 out of 20 attempts but after the first 10 attempts he only had 4 correct determinations. Originally, it was agreed that he would go through all 20 trials but after 10 he threw in the towel. After it was all over, Banachek, the test director asks him if he felt that his device was effective. Andew didn’t miss a beat and proceeded to try and sell his magic bracelet to a room full of Skeptics that just saw him fail more times than he succeeded. Yes, yes he did!

Bottom line: If you think you’ve got a paranormal ability and can prove it under scientific conditions, there are a million dollars waiting to be claimed.

 A friend of mine, Philip “Space Museum” Olson, provided this for inclusion into this blog. Philip is a fellow member of Tucson Atheists Meetup Group, Skeptics of Tucson Meetup Group, FreeThought Arizona and is a panel member of the Desert AIR Podcast. As I post this, he is out in the desert with about ten other people. He is looking for wild life and enjoying the night air. He is sharing his love of nature with his friends and has promised to share future observations with the readers of this blog.

Whenever I talk to religious people, they tell me that for them, religion is a way to experience something wonderful and mysterious, and to glimpse the unfathomable. What’s unfathomable to me is that they have to look to religion for that. I’d be lying if I said every bit of science made me feel that way, but I think it’s no exaggeration to say that every single day, I get that feeling from science. If you can’t be bothered to read a book or go outside to see it for yourself, there are many, many videos out there on YouTube you can find that will give you the same feeling – Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot, videos showing relative sizes of stars, and much, much more.

As has been pointed out many times by people much smarter than me, one of the big reasons people dislike science is because it constantly tells us how important we are not. We don’t live on a flat earth with us at the center. The Sun and other planets do not revolve around us. Our Sun is not the center of the Milky Way, and ours is only one typical galaxy out of hundreds of billions in the known universe. Our species, despite any appearances to the contrary, is no different from any other at least, in terms of how we got here. No one created us or put us here for any purpose and that’s the crux of it all for me. The universe doesn’t care what I do with my time. It’s not going to pat me on the back or wag its finger at me. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a being up there in the sky to appease or anger. In the end, we all live in a world where we’re on our own. Our lives aren’t meaningful due to some external, supernatural force. If we want our lives to be meaningful, it’s up to us to make them so, and I think that’s pretty f’n amazing. That’s the only kind of world I’d want to live in.

Well said, Philip!

Will Rogers (Public Domain Photograph)

“It’s not what we don’t know that gets us in trouble. It’s what we know that ain’t so.”

― Will Rogers

As we approach the silly season when the news will be dominated by campaign rhetoric—half truths, spin, and framing. It would be a good time to look into the life and sayings of Will Rogers. Clicking on his name will likely bring up the Wikipedia article which will give you a good start. I’ll not talk extensively about him here but I do like the above quote as it applies to Skepticism.

Skepticism is important as is skeptical inquiry. A couple of weeks ago, it was suggested at the Skeptics of Tucson meeting that Skeptics shouldn’t take positions on anything. That’s not true, of course. Everyone takes positions on things. However, a Skeptic doesn’t jump on board at the first suggestion that something is true until they apply some critical thinking. Even then, once a Skeptic does take a position, it should be subject to change as more information becomes available. Skeptics don’t have a set of universal beliefs just as scientists don’t universally agree on all things. We understand that critical thinking is very important and that Skepticism is more of a process than a position. Whatever we’re doing with Skepticism must be popular because there are many people adopting the word and applying to not very skeptical positions.

Recognizing our own biases is tough but we got ‘em. It’s incredibly easy, however to identify possible biases in others. For example, I have a friend that I’ve known for many, many years. I have a lot of respect for that friend technically and personally. However, my friend is a mystery to me. On one hand, he is totally convinced that the story of Noah’s Ark is true. On the other hand, he believes we never landed on the moon and that the 9-11 tragedy was an inside job.

I want to use my friend to demonstrate how powerful biases can affect cognitive reasoning. Taking Noah’s Ark first, my friend has made several trips to Turkey looking for traces of the Ark. He’s come back with slivers of wood and some pictures of stones with holes drilled in them that he calls “anchor stones.” This and the Bible is all he needs to convince him of the truth of the story. Obviously, he wants to believe and these tiny, inconclusive fragments of “evidence” are enough to bolster his beliefs. On the other hand, he will summarily dismiss every bit of evidence that planes took down the twin towers, including video recordings and eye-witness accounts because of the existence of the Aluminum and Iron Oxide in the wreckage. I’m simplifying a bit but he puts more weight on an audio recording of a fire chief saying “Let’s pull it” than the video recordings that were made throughout the day. There is a similar discounting of evidence in claiming the moon landings never occurred.

I didn’t believe it when I first heard it. I knew about the trips to Turkey and even expressed some interest in the excursions but when he started talking about the moon landing and the 9-11 conspiracy, I was floored. How can one individual accept so much on so little while dismissing so much on so little? The answer had to be in his desire to believe. He’s a right wing religious fundamentalist. It’s easy for him to believe the Bible and it’s just as easy for him to believe that everything associated with the government is bad. In his world, the government is too incompetent to land someone on the moon yet as sophisticated and diabolical as to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes with the 9-11 tragedy. I often wonder how he can possibly keep the cognitive dissonance at bay.

I’m using my friend as an example but he’s not alone in the world. Recently, there is a continuing kerfuffle among the Skeptics just ahead of the largest meeting of Skepticism on the planet, TAM. There is a lot of “non-critical” thinking going on and I’m ashamed of many of those involved. However, people are people and emotions and bias are just as prevalent in the Skeptics community and in the society in general. It won’t keep me from going to TAM. See you at Penn Jillette’s Private Rock & Roll, Doughnut and Bacon Party 2 (and Friday the 13th Superstition Bash)

This is my fourth Skeptical Wednesday. I’ve introduced Skepticism http://tucsoncitizen.com/freethought-arizona/2012/05/09/skeptics-wednesday/, covered the argument from ignorance http://tucsoncitizen.com/freethought-arizona/2012/05/16/skeptical-wednesday-argument-from-ignorance/, and finally talked about begging the question http://tucsoncitizen.com/freethought-arizona/2012/05/23/skeptical-wednesday-for-may-23-2012-begging-the-question/.

This week: Scientific Skepticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism_), Rational Skepticism, or Skeptical Inquiry.

Scientific Skepticism starts with doubt. “Really?” is a very common expression of the Scientific Skeptic. “Can that be true?” and “I have to look into that!” are also common. Notice that the main motivation is doubt. On the other hand, there are many claiming to be Skeptics that don’t start with doubt. For example, there are those calling themselves “Vaccine Skeptics” that are more interested in bolstering their existing or desired beliefs than finding out what is really true. These “Skeptics” will pick through piles of data looking for only that which supports their initial position. No validated scientific research supports their claim that vaccinations cause harm and there are many, many studies that show the benefits of vaccinations. In the case of vaccinations, one is faced with real world facts and empirical evidence that vaccination has been beneficial to humanity. The controversy was created by people such as Andrew Wakefield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield), Jenny McCarthy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_McCarthy), and Meryl Dorey of Australia (http://meryldorey.org/). Many people have suffered and died needlessly. There is a webpage dedicated to the number of people that were hurt as a result of Jenny McCarthy’s campaign called Jenny McCarthy Body Count (http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html ) The other Tucson paper recently printed an article on the abysmal rates of vaccination in our public and charter schools (http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/editorial/it-s-disturbing-how-many-let-kids-go-unvaccinated/article_c114cc97-d1fa-561f-ac7d-43a04ef1e0e6.html) .

Please realize that I won’t be giving a full defense of vaccination here. This article is on Scientific Skepticism critical thinking. I’m using the anti-vaccination movement as an example where Scientific Skepticism might have been employed to reduce the damage caused by a small influential band of people. There is a great deal of discussion on how Skeptics should be arguing for vaccination. For example: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1720-how-should-we-argue-for-vaccination.html

The basic mechanism that makes vaccinations effective is the natural processes in the body that protect it from disease. Developing an immune response to a pathogen takes time but once the antibodies are in place the attacking disease doesn’t stand a chance. In most cases, a vaccination introduces something into the body that is harmless but looks to the immune system as an attacking microbe. The body creates the correct antibodies and is “locked and loaded” in case the body is exposed to that actual bug. This all makes sense to me. When I was in the military, we often did exercises to prepare for actual battle. The hope was that when the attack came we’d be ready for it with all our defensive operations manuals certified through simulated combat. Think of a vaccination as a disease exercise. Vaccinations are not always pleasant, just as our combat simulations were sometimes a pain. If the idea of a war exercise is repulsive, think of a fire drill. Fire drills are often inconvenient, yet we do them so that we’re ready “just in case.”

Whether you like the analogy or not, I think you get the point and why we do the vaccinations in the first place. What about the claims and the “mommy sense” that argue against vaccinations for everyone? As an example, Jenny McCarthy assumed that her child got autism from a vaccination. Autism is a spectrum disorder so that there are many degrees of the affliction. The symptoms are not always the same and the disease has no known cause. Genetics and environment are the usual suspects in most diseases and it is not clear which causes autism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_autism). Jenny noticed that the symptoms began of autism began in her son, Evan, shortly after receiving the normal childhood vaccinations. Her “mommy sense” was all that was needed to make the connection. Her son originally started having seizures and was diagnosed with epilepsy but she sought out a second opinion and Evan was diagnosed later with autism. There is a possibility that Evan may actually have Landau-Kleffner Syndrome instead since the symptoms are very similar to the ones described (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landau-Kleffner).

In any case, Jenny has received a lot of support and surveys state that 24% are influenced by her claims. Her evidence is anecdotal which doesn’t qualify as data in a scientific study and if it were a valid data point it would be a single sample. A basic tenet of Scientific Skepticism is: anecdotes are not data. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence)

Why does this work? How is it that a celebrity can sway public opinion in such a way as to cause great harm? Vaccines and autism are both mysterious entities. Vaccines are close to magic and autism has no definitive cause after years of research. It also attacks young children and has a serious emotional impact. There have been other diseases that struck young people. For example consider polio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_poliomyelitis). In 1979 the last case of “wild” polio in the United States was reported (http://americanhistory.si.edu/polio/timeline/index.htm). Ironically, the frequent devastating epidemics of polio ended with the vaccine that developed in 1955 and the incidents of the disease were reduced by 85-90% within 2 years. Perhaps a breakthrough will eliminate autism in our life time. If there is a fix, it will come from science and not a playboy model’s “mommy sense.”

Photo from Flickr and David Orban

An opinion from Jim Wilson:

John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. -Matthew 3:4

“I’d rather eat a big old bug! Than ever take a stupid drug!” -1998, anti-drug public service announcement

Industrial meat production is environmentally destructive, horribly cruel to the animals, unsanitary, a source of noxious odors, and highly inefficient. I have seen the environmental destruction that large scale hog facilities do to both air and water quality. I have heard countless stories of the livestock being over crowed, unable to move, and subject to painful body modifications. A Google search and will tell you that it takes around estimated 7 to 15 pounds of grain to produce a single pound of beef. Much of this grain of course is produced through agricultural systems which involve large supplies of chemicals including fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. It is time for to look for alternatives to the typical American diet.

The pros and cons of vegetarianism and veganism are well understood and I do not wish to explore those options here. We could eat more wild meat which can be a very positive thing since there are many places in the country where deer and other herbivores are in need of population control since we’ve killed off the natural, native predators. However, we wouldn’t be able to feed our large population with wild meat and sadly many do not have the time or ability to go to America’s wild lands and hunt or fish and there are those who simply do not want hunt or fish and find the killing of sentient beings objectionable.

There exists a very practical solution: Entomophagy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomophagy), the practice of eating insects as food. Insects have long been a major part of the human diet, and they are an excellent source of protein. While eating ants and beetles has become taboo in much of the western world, it is still a common practice in many parts of Central and South America, Africa, Asia, Australia, and New Zealand. Entomophagy has been documented in 80% of the world’s nations. There are currently 1,417 known species of arthropods edible to humans, making for endless variety. These include not only insects but arachnids and myriapods, the group that includes centipedes and millipedes.

Crickets, cicadas, grasshoppers, ants, various beetle grubs, caterpillars, and tarantula’s are common snack foods around the world. For example, Algerians collect desert locust, cook them with salt and water, and dry them in the sun. Australian Aborigines use Bogong moths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogong_moth) to make into cakes. They also use Witchetty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchetty_grub) grubs, for a snack that has be compared to almonds. The Japanese still use a number of insects including Silk moths, after they have passed the stage of producing silk, as food. Roasted crickets and grasshoppers are eaten in much of Africa, and I have been told, that fried or chocolate covered ants are eaten in a manner similar to pop corn in several places.

These are a good source, of Iron, Calcium, unsaturated fats, lysine, and many vitamins and minerals. They are also a much more efficient source of these nutrients than the meat of larger livestock. Mammals use a lot of what they eat to keep themselves warm and only around 10% of what cattle consume become parts of their bodies. With insects the range is 20-40% depending on the species. A study with house crickets found them to be 2 to 6 times as efficient as various forms of traditional food animals. They also, have the advantage of reproducing much faster. They require less space, food, and water than traditional livestock. These factors give insects food conversion efficiency nearly 20 times higher than beef.

Entomophagy, has gotten some exposure in recent years on reality TV but not in an appealing light. There are events, however, where people with much more sophisticated cooking backgrounds produce accessible insect based food. In any case the food production processes inevitably results in insects into our food and we have all ingested countless insect parts without realizing or ill effect. The USDA currently allows an average of 150 or more insect fragments per 100 grams of wheat flower.

One last thing, insect consumption is far more ethical than that of other animals in that you are not killing creatures with sophisticated brains or high levels self awareness. Contrast that to the common pigs which apparently are more intelligent than our dogs. Insects lack sophisticated mental hardware and there is little remorse associated with eating them, swatting them, or seeing them die. In that way they are a much more humane food choice than our cattle, lambs, chickens or pigs. You can expect that in this era of communication and epicurean adventurism, there will be many new and exciting dishes featuring them coming soon.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) This is a great logical fallacy. It’s used all the time but the name is confusing and misunderstood and it is rarely identified correctly. When someone asks, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” They are using the begging the question fallacy. The question includes an assumption that may not be true and the answer—either yes or no—doesn’t do anything to refute that assumption. The confusion in the name is caused by the term “begging.” In this case, “begging” actually means “avoiding.” (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/beg-the-question.html). The term, begging the question, is often misused to mean “raising the question.” Language changes over time with use and now more people are using the term incorrectly. When I point out this fallacy I often end up using more time explaining the fallacy than making my point. Due to the confusion, we need a new name for the “begging the question” fallacy. There are efforts to stop using the term incorrectly (http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/beggingquestion_4.htm) but it’s probably a losing battle. We definitely need a new name for it that is less confusing. The fallacy is similar to circular reasoning but not quite the same because the assumed premise is not necessarily the same as the conclusion.

Here’s a quote from the Skeptics Guide to the Universe webpage on the subject of logical fallacies (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx). This quote refers to Dr. Steven Novella’s appearance on the Dr. Oz show in April 2011 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/watch-steve-novella-on-the-dr-oz-show-on-tuesday/):

 In my appearance on the Dr. Oz show I was asked – what are alternative medicine skeptics (termed “holdouts”) afraid of? This is a double feature of begging the question. By using the term “holdout” the question assumes that acceptance is already become the majority position and is inevitable. But also, Oz begged the question that skeptics are “afraid.” This also created a straw man (see below) of our position, which is rather based on a dedication to reasonable standards of science and evidence.

 Here’s an unfair question that an Atheist might ask a believer, “Aside from religion, do you hold any other irrational beliefs?” By asking the question in this way, I get to assume the premise that religious beliefs are irrational without opening it up for discussion. I’ve thus “begged” or “avoided” the question.

Critical thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking) is not a passive activity and goes way beyond common sense. It is a skill that needs to be exercised at every opportunity.

Questions about logical fallacies and other subjects associated with critical thinking are often discussed at meetings of the Skeptics of Tucson (http://www.meetup.com/Skeptics-of-Tucson/) now being held at the Denny’s on Speedway just west of Alveron on the second Monday of the month at 7 PM. Of course, we don’t always talk about logical fallacies. Other topics include conspiracy theories, paranormal claims, UFOs, and alternate medicine, to name a few.

-James Randi

Magician/Author/Skeptic

“The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth.”

-Pierre Abelard

Medieval French scholastic philosopher, theologian and preeminent logician.

The argument from ignorance is often used to bolster paranormal claims. On the surface it seems convincing. The argument states something is true until it can be proven false.

For example, a friend might say, “I saw a ghost last night.” So, you ask, “Are you sure it’s a ghost?” To which he replies, “Sure it was. What else could it have been?” Then, after a brief description of the sighting you come up with no explanation and your friend says, “See, you can’t explain it therefore it was a ghost!”

Sound familiar? Sound frustrating? This argument is frequently made. A recent commenter on this blog denigrated the Skeptics because in his view the fact that the skeptics looks for worldly answers to mysteries is a close minded approach. He said that in looking for only mundane answers to mysteries, the Skeptic has already excluded the paranormal solutions. I suppose that’s true I’ve seen no convincing evidence of the existence of the paranormal. Every argument I’ve seen in support of the paranormal has been an argument from ignorance.

Realistically, the argument from ignorance would severely limit our understanding. Can you imagine what the world would be like if we had to believe everything that couldn’t be disproven? There is a lot we can’t disprove. Are there unicorns or leprechauns? Do you believe that Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster are real? Can you prove that they’re not?

The reasonable solution is to adopt the “null hypothesis” or default position approach to these claims. Using the null hypothesis approach to claims would mean adopting a position that would be taken if there is no supporting evidence for the claim. For example, in the ghost example, the null hypothesis would be that there is no ghost. Then the evidence and alternate explanations would be considered. If the evidence is insufficient then we must adopt the null hypothesis and say that there was no ghost sighting. This may not sit well with your friend, however.

The main problem with the Argument for Ignorance, however, is the fact that it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies solely in the hands of the claimant. When someone says that they can dictate the weather, you’re allowed to not believe them straight away. It is not necessary for you to prove that they can’t do it. When they say “Prove I can’t,” simply let him know that the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim.

Next Wednesday, unless something else comes up, I’ll discuss the “Begging the Question” fallacy.

“Do you understand that this elementary point only needs to be made because of wickedness enjoined by religion. The rabbi here’s a fairly humane guy. He wouldn’t—if he didn’t think God was involved—ever consider mutilating the genitals of a child, but because it’s a covenant with God, anything can be done. Now don’t you see—you laugh, but you should be crying. I said crying! Okay, suit yourself.”

-Christopher Hitchens

“If you want to saw off the end of your penis, you’re welcome. You’re not to do it to a child who hasn’t asked for it. Same with the genitals of a little girl. If she thinks later on she’d be better off without them, let her take, or have taken to her, a sharp instrument.”-Christopher Hitchens

Years ago, a rather bold, if not tactful, college professor made it known to the class that his wife would soon be giving birth to a baby boy. He just had one concern that he wanted to share with us, and that was what to do about, what he termed “the snake-muzzle”. The class was confused until, he explained that this means circumcision and whether or not he should have a doctor remove part of his new born son’s penis. He decided that, this was an appropriate issue to put up for vote among our class (and presumable his other classes). The response from the class, was generally in favor of going through with the procedure, with one male student shouting out “Cut it!” It was only myself and a few others who contributed to the no votes, and yes, this was often a rather unorthodox classes. Needless to say, I was never informed about how other classes voted, or the fate of my professor’s son’s genitals.

I would still have voted against it to this day. There seems to be something terribly unethical about removing body parts from people without their consent especially when the individual, in question, has no way of expressing approval or disapproval. In the United States, the Circumcision of newborn males was has been above sixty or even seventy percent for much of the twentieth century, the number has dropped down over last decade and to roughly 54.7 percent in 2010.

The prevalence of circumcision of newborns, in this country, seems largely to be an exercise of thoughtless conformity, as well just another thing that medical professionals can charge for. My Google search of the “cost of circumcision” revealed that the procedure tends to cost somewhere in the ball park of $150.00 to $300.00 for newborns.  In other words the practice is very profitable for medical professionals, despite it being completely unnecessary, for any tangible health benefits in this country.

There are, of course, some medical conditions, for which a circumcision is helpful, and this is termed therapeutic circumcision. These are not particularly common and the medical associations of the developed world do not recommend infant circumcision as a preventative measure. The American Medical Association points out that: “policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns.”

The American Academy of pediatrics states: “In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.”

The American medical organizations tend to neither recommend the practice nor argue against it. The Dutch go further. The Royal Dutch Medical Association states infant circumcision, “conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.” On the other hand, the Royal Australian College of Physicians states: “After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.”

In other words, there is no good medical reason for doctors in the developed world to be routinely cutting the genitals of male newborns. This is especially true knowing what is lost. Namely, the child’s right to make life long decisions about his body, and some of the more sensitive tissue of his sexual organs. There is also a good deal of evidence that sexual intercourse is more enjoyable for both sexes if the male is uncircumcised. Though a lot of this tends to be anecdotal, I would not want to rob this of child without, a great deal of thought and good reason. Unfortunately thoughtfulness and good reason are things lacking in the decisions of many Americans who cut parts of the male genitals off.

Many do it, because it is simply part of our culture. Is it not the challenging of cultural norms that cause societies to evolve? Furthermore, Jews, Christians, and Muslims tend to have a religious component to their decisions to take part in this practice. One does not have to read too far into the Old Testament, to see that its God had a bizarre foreskin obsession. The very idea, that a benevolent creator would create all male children with a part that needs to be painfully cut off, is too absurd to comment on. Apparently, this God passed on his foreskin obsession to his followers. In 1st Samuel we find: “Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king’s son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.”

I did not discuss female circumcision which is a truly a morally repulsive practice. However female circumcisions are performed only in cultures where men are circumcised. While it has been shown that circumcision does reduces the risk of getting HIV in AIDS ridden Africa, here in the developed world, the medical benefits do not outweigh the cost of altering a child’s body without their consent. A cynical individual would say that continuation of the century old practice is just a way for medical professionals to make more money on a worthless service and an example of mindless conformity among thoughtless parents.

I want to introduce Jeffery G. Berry. I met him for the first time at the FreeThought Arizona lecture and he expressed an interest in helping out with the blog. As it happens, he is studying journalism. I’ll post his review of the lecture presented by Thomas J. Lindell, Ph.D. followed by a few words about the Phoenix Comedy Festival.

 First from Jeffrey G Berry:

Firstly, I’d like to thank Thomas J. Lindell for having the courage to present his information to us all today at UMC. It isn’t an easy task standing up in front of a collection of strangers supporting a view that is not only expected to be in the minority, but a personal view as well.

Now, while Mr. Lindell seems almost to detest simple labels being pressed on his particular outlook on the convergence of theology and science, what I witnessed today was indeed a Christian scientist. I don’t want to sell him short by saying this; he had some good observations, and a good sense of humor about the whole thing.

What identified him as a Christian scientist were his transparent attempts to rationalize the concept of god with intellect. He goes about this by building a superb case against Christianity that would make one’s own grandmother blush, then reaches with favorably literal interpretations of words, phrases, and historical quotations to come to his solution. “God loved the universe into existence,” was said, and after being asked to explain this further his only response was that he didn’t have the language to express what he really meant. This seems to be a reoccurring theme with people defending the god concept. Firstly, if you are trying to prove the existence of god as a truth, one of the worst ways to go about it is to rationalize using adjectives that only express feeling. Secondly, in the Q&A follow-up – which I believe is also commendable – Mr. Lindell mentions that his own outlook has “Been useful to me.” I’m sure it has, but at what cost to all of the other people with the same attitude that have internalized more than just the crux of religion, and gone on to make important decisions for not only the state legislature, but society as a whole.

I think that using intellect in such a fashion is not only dangerous in validating the idea of god to some people, but it is an intentional undermining of the reason versus religion debate. “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways.” Corinthians 13:11, International Standard Version.

 Thank you, Jeffery! I’m looking forward to working with you in the future.

After the FreeThought Arizona lecture, my wife and I washed the Thunderbird and headed up the road to watch the Phoenix Comedy Festival. It was a benefit to support the construction and placement of the nation’s first monument to the Bill of Rights. The future monument will be placed near the capital. It will be composed of ten stones each with one of the amendments carved into its face. The entire project is the result of the hard work and good friends of Chris Bliss. You can find out more about the monument at the website: mybillofrights.org/arizona-project-programs/

The comedians that gave their performances for free to support Chris and the project included: Lewis Black, Bill Engvall, Bobcat Goldthwait, Dick Gregory, Kathleen Madigan, Tommy Smothers, Father Guido Sarducci, and Steven Wright. The “musical relief” was provided by Paul Barrere and Fred Tackett from the legendary band Little Feat. Somewhere in the middle, Chris Bliss told a few jokes and did his signature juggling routine.

We thoroughly enjoyed the festival and I doubt we’ll ever get a chance to see such a lineup of “top shelf” comics in one venue again. However, they ARE talking about doing the same thing next year…let’s hope. I promise to give the readers of this blog more warning next time.

Ted Cox actually did sign up for Straight Camp, he survived it and he’ll tell us the tale this Sunday. Nothing fails like prayer, so I’m sure we’ll get to hear about the absurd lengths these poor fools go to in the futile attempt to suppress their sexual urges.

We’ve got a full day of events planned – come by this Sunday, September 18th and meet us!

All events are at Duval Auditorium, 1501 North Campbell Avenue in Tucson.

Parking is free in the multi-tiered visitor parking structure.

8:00-9:15 am Cafe Inquiry. Open Forum. The hot topics of the day will be discussed. Moderator: Gil Shapiro

10-Noon: Lecture – What I Learned at Straight Camp

Speaker: Ted Cox

Starting in 2007, straight writer Ted Cox went undercover in Christian gay-to-straight therapy programs. He attended weekly support group meetings, conferences, and a 48-hour intensive retreat. His talk, which covers those experiences and examines the motives and background of the ex-gay movement, includes videos, music, audience singing, and a live demonstration of “healing touch” therapy. Ted’s work on this subject has garnered attention of The Huffington Post, Fox News Radio, NPR, and dozens of national and international media outlets.

About the Speaker

Ted Cox is an award-winning writer from California. After graduating from UCLA, he became a frequent contributor to the Sacramento News & Review, where he won a California Newspapers Publishers Association award for his coverage of Sacramento’s homeless population. Ted has covered religion, the environment, reproductive rights, sex, beer, drugs, and furries. He also writes frequently for AlterNet, the Silicon Valley Metro, and the Good Men Project magazine. He also runs the blog God Hates Protesters. When he isn’t typing, drinking beer, or writing bios in the third-person, he’s probably riding his bike somewhere in the San Francisco Bay Area.

1:00 – 3:00: Meeting about an exciting new transition from CFI-SAZ to FreeThough​t Arizona

Also, mark your calendars for upcoming talks:

October 30 – Marc Victor discusses the law suit filed against Jan Brewer

November 20 – Benjamin Radford will give his Reflections on a decade of Paranormal Investigations