But not when it comes to science or medicine. Or government policy.<\/p>\n In science, our instinct is to side with Thomas: the only acceptable basis for belief is seeing<\/em>. Show us the data is our mantra. Show us the evidence. No substitutes or alternatives<\/em> are acceptable. Now and then we might argue about the data and what it means. We might not even properly understand it. But that’s OK, because science tackles hard questions. By talking, debating, turning the problem over and over to see it from all sides and using the power of imagination as best we can, we construct new ideas about how the natural world works. And then put them to the test. To generate more evidence. And so it goes.<\/p>\n This sceptical, exploratory, testing method is the true glory of science. Our experience<\/em> is that this system has profoundly altered our understanding of the world around us and shaped our influence over it. Through the 19th and 20th centuries, the same interrogative approach has been applied to medicine. The method is imperfect and our understanding far from complete, but the advances in antibiotics, vaccines, organ transplants and fertility treatment are a lasting testament to its success.<\/p>\n And yet there are many who would demur, who cling to fanciful notions generated when medicine was in its infancy, notions that have seen little or no development since that time and are\u2014if anything\u2014a little shy when it comes to rigorous investigation. Fancies such as homeopathy and chiropractic. So-called alternative<\/em> medicines.<\/p>\n You might think that science could easily bat away such interlopers, who like borrow the vocabulary of science and medicine but are nevertheless easy to spot because, like a tourist on a package holiday, the accent is all wrong. But they defend themselves with vigour, even if it is sometimes with comedic effect.<\/p>\n On Wednesday 25th November the UK Parliamentary Select Committee on Science and Technology will examine the evidence for homeopathy. This is called an Evidence Check and the committee will hear submission from both sides. It promises to be a truly fascinating encounter (details here<\/a> catch it on parliament TV<\/a> ).<\/p>\n But the homeopaths are nervous and are trying to respond to this unwanted investigation in the only way they know how \u2014 with more woo. Gimpy’s blog reported<\/a> last week that there is a homeopathic plan to interfere with the committee’s hearing using\u2026 mind tricks! On the morning of the Committee meeting, between 9:05 and 9:15, they have asked supporters to participate in an Intention Experiment to sway the honourable members by focussing en masse on the following statement:<\/p>\n We intend the outcome for the UK homeopathy evidence check to be wholly and fully in favour of homeopathy. We intend for the vast and thorough body of scientific data supporting the efficacy of homeopathy to be seen, heard and recognised as valid, solid and scientific. This is so, and it is done.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yoda would have been so proud!<\/p>\n I’m not making this stuff up. But clearly the homeopaths are.<\/p>\n This sort of voodoo is all of a piece with a world view that is so strangely unworldly<\/em>. There was another taste of it last week from one of homeopathy’s most enthusiastic proponents, Richard L Milgrom (Ph.D., F.R.S.C., M.A.R.H.) in an article<\/a> in the Journal of Complementary and Applied Medicine in which he tried to reconcile homeopathy and biomedicine. Permit me to quote from the abstract:<\/p>\n Based on known observables, a rudimentary fractal model of the universe is proposed consisting of a series of self-similar integrated levels of reality, or \u201cwholes\u201d contained one within another like a set of Russian dolls. This model suggests possible contextualization of homeopathy and biomedicine’s observational stances.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The fractal model bears compelling similarities to the ancient Hermetic tradition encapsulated in the phrase, \u201cAs above; so below.\u201d In the context of this model, homeopathy’s observational stance includes a multidimensional range of symptoms from across several \u201clevels of wholeness.\u201d In contrast, biomedicine’s stance corresponds to exclusive observation of separate symptoms, each originating from one physical level of reality.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If anyone thinks they know how to explain what this means, please don’t bother to get in touch.<\/p>\n It is easy to laugh (and some would argue that is the only approach to take with these outlandish people) but there is a sober side to all this. In England and Wales, the freedom of the sceptic to poke fun or, more seriously, an inquiring finger is limited by our libel laws. Few here can be unaware of the case<\/a> brought by the BCA against Simon Singh when he wrote to challenge the evidence for the therapeutic reach of chiropractic.<\/p>\n That law suit is rightly mentioned in a report published on November 10th by The Libel Reform Campaign<\/a>. The campaign, sponsored primarily by English PEN<\/a> and the Index on Censorship<\/a>, has attracted a broad church of support and is striving to bring this country’s libel law up to international standards. Science and public health matters feature prominently among the recent cases used in the report to illustrate the way that the current law is too easily deployed to silence critics.<\/p>\n There is a concise and very readable executive summary<\/a> which enunciates a clear plan of reform. I can also recommend the succinct dissections of the report presented by Jack of Kent<\/a> and Simon Singh<\/a> himself, so I won’t go into much further detail.<\/p>\n The report is lucid and level headed. There are no strident calls for special pleading for science or any other sphere of human endeavour. There is a frank acknowledgement that protection from baseless defamation should certainly be enshrined in law. But the argument that the current defective libel law cedes too much censorious potential to powerful organisations and individuals is built of solid data. It’s not just Simon Singh who has been threatened. The dreadful impact of the libel law on critics of alternative medicine (such as Andy Lewis<\/a> of the Quackometer) or those who challenge medical or pharmaceutical companies (such as Peter Wilmhurst<\/a>) are particularly relevant to anyone who cares about having the freedom to debate and discuss the evidence<\/em>.<\/p>\n In common with many scientists, I don’t see myself as particularly at risk under the present libel regime (as long as I am careful<\/a>). My research is mostly of a fundamental nature and I am not likely to come into conflict with powerful vested interests. But I don’t see that as an excuse for inaction. As scientists we are particularly aware of the nuance and sophistication of our art, and of the contingent and incomplete nature of our understanding of the world. The necessity of being able to interrogate ideas remorselessly is so engrained in our scientific bones that we may sometimes forget it is there. But that freedom of interrogation \u2014 so prized by science \u2014 is not something that we can take for granted, especially when our work rubs up against powerful commercial and political interests.<\/p>\n So I would urge you to act<\/em>. Proselytise for science and the scientific method at every opportunity. And, if you have not already done so, please sign the petition<\/a> organised by Sense about Science to keep the libel laws out of science. The wider campaign for libel reform is no less important and appears to be gathering important momentum from across the political spectrum. There are statements of support from Jack Straw<\/a> (the Labour government’s Justice Secretatry), Joanne Cash<\/a> (Conservative) and the tireless Dr Evan Harris<\/a> (Lib Dem).<\/p>\n Evan Harris, who is a member of the of the parliamentary Science and Technology committee will, I hope, play a leading role in the interrogation of the evidence on homeopathy this coming Wednesday. He has a very clear understanding of the value of scientific evidence and supports not only Simon Singh but also Professor David Nutt, the recently departed independent scientific adviser, who’s pronouncements on the relative risks of different drugs have so challenged two Home Secretaries.<\/p>\n Harris and Nutt spoke at the second Westminster Sceptics in the Pub (SITP) meeting in The Barley Mow last Monday. It was an excellent meeting (as already reported by @jourdemayne<\/a> and @doctorblogs<\/a>): vibrant, thoughtful and good humoured. Both speakers provided fascinating insights into the facts about drug risks and the sometimes unbelievable difficulties in having a logical discussion on these contentious matters with government ministers. The Q&A session, deftly chaired by Jack of Kent, lasted a good hour and gave the audience a welcome chance to dig deeper. All of it lubricated \u2014 a delightful irony pointed out by @doctorblogs \u2014 with plenty of beer, one of the more harmful drugs on Prof. Nutt’s list.<\/p>\n Were they preaching to the converted? Probably, but the ‘sermons’ were nonetheless invigorating and inspiring. And provided us with some of the ammunition that we, the apostles of science need to take with us if we are to act in the world and make a difference.<\/p>\n The Westminster sceptics are gathering again on Tuesday<\/a> to discuss “What Next For Science Activism in the New Media?”.<\/p>\n It should be a good meeting, brothers and sisters.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" According to the New Testament account, after the crucifixion Thomas insists on seeing and touching the wounds of Jesus before he will believe in the resurrection. Jesus shows Thomas but gently upbraids him: “Because you have seen me, you have … Continue reading ![\"\"](\"http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/e\/e0\/Caravaggio_-_The_Incredulity_of_Saint_Thomas.jpg\")
<\/a>
\nCaravaggio’s “The incredulity of St Thomas” (from <\/em>Wikipedia<\/em><\/a>)<\/em><\/p>\n![\"Westminster](\"http:\/\/farm3.static.flickr.com\/2686\/4123710243_e6d6fdf07e.jpg\")
<\/a>
\nPreaching or teaching?<\/em><\/p>\n