No Sacred Cows

by David G. McAfee

  “We must be ever on our guard against the halo effect, which is that tendency to ascribe to individuals who are distinguished in one field an authority which they do not deserve in others,” Carter wrote, pointing out that Albert Einstein, an expert in astrophysics, was not necessarily an authority in politics or philosophy. “It shouldn’t lend much weight to either believers’ or nonbelievers’ arguments that this famous person or that one was ‘on the right side’ on matters of religious belief.”

  The simple fact is that, whether you are clinging tightly to something you were taught as a child or you’re convinced by forged data and emotional arguments, it’s easy to be deceived and even easier to stay that way. All we can do is try our best to consistently and regularly apply scientific principles across the board, leaving no idea exempt from inquiry and experiment.

  CELEBRITIES AND SCIENCE

  Even scientists have blind spots when it comes to their beliefs, so what can we say about celebrities, who aren’t required to have any scientific training, yet are often infinitely more likely to shape ordinary citizens’ beliefs? The terrifying fact is that many people who are famous, whether they are actors, singers, politicians, or anything else, spread false beliefs to their trusting fans every day via their large platforms.54 The more popular a celebrity is, the more damaging he or she becomes when promoting bad ideas or attacking science in general. The phenomenon reminds me of something John F. Kennedy once said. He (almost prophetically) stated, “If you scoff at intellectuals, harass scientists, and reward only athletic achievements, then the future is very dark indeed.”

  We already learned about Jenny McCarthy and her dangerous conceptions regarding life-saving vaccinations, but she isn’t the only one in Hollywood who’s on the anti-immunization train: her ex-boyfriend and actor Jim Carrey hopped on board in 2009 when he endorsed the repeatedly debunked claim that the MMR shot, used to inoculate people against measles, mumps, and rubella, “may be causing autism and other disorders.”55 Comedian and TV show host Bill Maher, known for his critiques against religion, has also made comments against vaccinations based on his unsupported beliefs. He started publicly denouncing them in 2005, when he told CNN’s Larry King that the flu shot was “the worst thing you can do.” Maher made a number of other similar statements and, four years later, he upped the stakes during an interview with then-Senator Bill Frist (R-TN). Perhaps due to his ignorance about biology, combined with his tendency to automatically distrust The Government, Maher condemned vaccines in general.

  “Why would you let them be the ones to stick a disease into your arm? I would never get a swine flu vaccine or any vaccine,” Maher said. “I don’t trust the government, especially with my health.”

  Unfortunately for Maher’s diehard fans (and the public in general), the star’s false beliefs don’t end with his steadfast opposition to vaccinations. In February 2016, he introduced to the world Australian doctor Sam Chachoua, who wasn’t licensed to practice medicine in the United States but claimed to have cured actor Charlie Sheen and many others of HIV. Chachoua told Maher that, although Sheen went back on his antiretroviral medications after the supposed cure, the infected goat milk-laced treatment he administered had been verified and was “more than 99 percent effective.” Maher not only gave Chachoua a platform of more than 4 million people with whom to share his false claims, but he also called the doctor’s purported decision to inject himself with Sheen’s infected blood “confident,” and not crazy, despite the fact that his safety relied on the efficacy of injected vaccines that Maher previously condemned. So, in addition to the children and immunocompromised people endangered by his recommendations to skip essentially all approved immunizations, Maher is now putting AIDS patients at risk through his promotion of a different vaccine that is both unregulated and unsupported by evidence. It’s worth noting that Sheen, less than two weeks after Chachoua was featured on Real Time with Bill Maher, renounced the doctor and admitted that he was “not cured.”

  “He would have stuff delivered at all hours of the night, and I was an idiot to keep taking it. It was just the BS started to really pile up with this guy,” Sheen said on The Dr. Oz Show.56 “I think what we’re observing from him is an absolute grand work of fiction. I think guys like him are dangerous. I’m not going to be trading my meds for arthritic goat milk. I’m just saying.”

  Actress Gwyneth Paltrow also made headlines when she began promoting a false health tip, which in her case was an herbal vaginal steam treatment that she said “balances female hormones.”57 As if that weren’t enough, Paltrow later promoted the idea that an infrared sauna could cure the flu to her 1.3 million followers on Instagram. This suggestion was criticized by a number of medical professionals, including Weill Cornell Medical College clinical instructor in medicine Alexandra Sowa, who said dehydration “can be a very real complication of the flu.”

  “All saunas, whether traditional (warming the area around you) or infrared (warming your skin directly) have the same result: They increase body temperature to stimulate sweat production and an elevated heart rate,” Sowa wrote for Slate.58 “In a patient with the flu, this will cause further dehydration and possibly significant complications.”

  In 2016, Paltrow’s organic skincare company, Goop, also began promoting a face cream that is said to undergo “extensive prayer, meditation, and music before ever appearing on shelves.” Slate contributor Ruth Graham pointed to the price tags of the unproven, mystical products.

  “A wee 1.7-oz. jar of Sodashi ‘enzyme face polish’ will run you $121, while 0.34 oz. of de Mamiel’s ‘altitude oil’ is a mere $44,” Graham said.59 “But take heart: the snake oil is free, and it’s glorious.”

  There are plenty of celebrities who believe ridiculous things, many of which have nothing to do with medicine or health. Take Australian cricket veteran Shane Warne, for instance, who revealed on a TV show in February 2016 that he doubts evolution and believes humans are the result of extraterrestrial experimentations. Speaking with a noticeable misunderstanding of evolution, Warne asked, “If we’ve evolved from monkeys, then why haven’t those ones evolved?”

  “Because [of] aliens,” he answered, adding that the pyramids are “perfectly symmetrical” and couldn’t have been built by people.60 “Whatever planet [or] planets they’re on out there, they decided that they were gonna start some more life here on earth and study us.”

  Fran Drescher, who played the leading role in the 1990s sitcom The Nanny, also has some out-there beliefs when it comes to aliens. She says she and her husband were both independently abducted by aliens and implanted with some sort of a microchip.61 There’s also Megan Fox, known for her roles in the first two Transformer films and in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles films, who advocates strongly for the existence of Bigfoot;62 pop singer Ariana Grande, who insists she had a “demonic experience” at a cemetery in Kansas;63 and many, many more. As you can see, there is no shortage of famous people with unsupported beliefs and platforms with which to spread them to the masses (see chapter 15).

  HOW DO WE KNOW THINGS?

  Science isn’t magical or incorruptible. It is merely a means to uncover information or processes that are, at that moment in time, unknown to us. Science is a tool we use to look at the world in a more objective manner, to give us a perspective that is less likely to be influenced by biases or a lack of information. It’s not infallible, though. It has its own issues. However, as Carl Sagan explained, science is still the best system we have for discovering the truth.

  “It is not perfect. It can be misused. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything,” Sagan said of the scientific method.64 “It has two rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised. We must understand the Cosmos as it is and not confuse how it is with how we wish it to be.”

  Sci
ence isn’t perfect, but that’s okay because we aren’t looking for some magical process that reveals all the secrets of the world with the press of a button. To think like a scientist doesn’t mean you must use the scientific method to answer every problem or form every opinion, and it doesn’t mean you should treat science like a belief system, because it isn’t one.65 What it means is that, when evaluating scientific claims—assertions that can be proven or disproven through observation and analysis—you weigh the evidence accordingly. But what types of evidence are important? Anything can be considered “evidence” (although it may be weak evidence), including first- and second-hand testimonials, unverifiable ancient texts, and hearsay—so what matters most? To the scientific skeptic, the answer is simple: results from experimentation. The most famous, well-respected academics can be shown to be wrong, and logical-seeming arguments can fall flat in the face of new data, but science provides us with a level of certainty other systems just cannot. This idea is not a new one. In fact, it was detailed simply by Roger Bacon, a philosopher and Franciscan friar, in his Opus majus sent to the Pope in the 1200s.66

  “Without experiment, nothing can be adequately known,” Bacon wrote. “An argument proves theoretically but does not give the certitude necessary to remove all doubt, nor will the mind repose in the clear view of truth, unless it find it by way of experiment.”

  Hundreds of years later, the traditional importance of experimentation in science lives on and thrives throughout the scientific community. In fact, physicist Richard P. Feynman echoed this simple yet important detail when he said, “If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.”

  “In that simple statement is the key to science,” Feynman explained. “It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.”67

  THE PROCESS OF SCIENCE

  We know science relies heavily on experimentation, but how does the process itself actually work? It all starts with a question in the scientist’s mind. The question could be anything, from “Why are the oceans getting warmer?” to “How does this toy dog move?” Next, the researcher studies the question and the elements involved, noting curiosities and important details. Eventually, a hypothesis is born. It’s not much more than a guess, but it usually has at least a hint of viability or perceived support based on personal experience. The next step is tricky, but it’s also the most important. The scientist has to design and execute an experiment, putting the hypothesis to the test. They must carefully weed out the possibility of bias during this step and take all precautions necessary to keep the results free from outside influence, including using control groups where necessary. In the area of medical research, this is accomplished through the use of double-blind studies in which both the subjects and scientists are unaware of the details surrounding the application of the experimental medication or procedure. After the tests, the scientist tries to make sense of the data. They look at the information and draw a conclusion that best fits the results. Finally, our researcher is ready for the last step: communicate the information to other scientists, who can test it out for themselves and confirm or debunk the results. The scientific method is a process we use all the time in our daily lives, sometimes even without noticing it, but it can also be applied to humanity’s discoveries as a whole. The scientific community thrives on this system of discovery, which, while flawed, has been responsible for some amazing things. In Cosmos, Neil deGrasse Tyson commented on the impressive accomplishments that have been made through science in only 400 years.

  “The scientific method is so powerful that, in a mere four centuries, it has taken us from Galileo’s first look through a telescope at another world to leaving our footprints on the moon,” Tyson said.

  In the scientific community, new studies purported to have scientifically significant and technically sound results are subjected to peer review by one or more expert referees before publication as an initial form of validation. If a study passes peer review, it is published. Upon publication, the study is open to evaluation by every competing person in the field (and related fields), including those in direct competition (whose own research may be in conflict with the study). These competitors in turn must refine or alter their own hypotheses and research in light of this new evidence if they cannot scientifically discredit the published idea or finding.68 This means that, when a scientist publishes a finding or study, thousands of other, rival scientists are encouraged to attempt to duplicate—and perhaps expose flaws in—the documented experiments. That way, they can either verify the results or, in the alternative, debunk them entirely. The peer review and publication system isn’t perfect,69 but it is the best way to verify scientific findings—as well as to correct issues within the process itself.

  To sum up: through time and scientific research, we reach tentative conclusions that can be refined with more time and more research. Once enough data is gathered, some ideas are published and examined by other experts. If all goes well during publication and peer review, it’s possible for an idea to eventually take one of the most important steps in science: it could become a scientific theory, which must reliably explain a component of the natural world and is therefore by definition supported by vast amounts of evidence. Unlike a scientific law, which describes a natural phenomenon (e.g., gravity), a theory provides an explanation of the how or why of an observed phenomenon (e.g., evolution by natural selection), giving us a deeper view of how the world really works and helping us advance our understanding more rapidly. Some opponents of science will say these valuable scientific conclusions are crazy, dismissing evolution and other foundational concepts as “just theories,” while other people will decide to learn about them in detail and possibly comprehend their importance. No matter what you personally believe, however, it won’t affect the veracity of the ideas at issue. Tyson explains how a scientific theory differs from a general theory, or a guess.

  “Some claim that evolution is just a theory, as if it were merely an opinion. The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact,” he said on Cosmos. “Evolution really happened. Accepting our kinship with all life on earth is not only solid science, in my view, it’s also a soaring, spiritual experience.”

  Science isn’t perfect, but it has been shown to be incredibly helpful in separating falsehoods from facts. The fact that science is a rigorous system built on ongoing challenge and correction is part of what makes scientific observation, as Jonathan C. Smith said, “one of our best reality-checking tools.”

  “When you test an idea, you often use science. When you try to find out what works and what doesn’t work, you use science. When you take a pragmatic or practical approach to solving a problem, you use science,” Smith wrote. “Doctors use science to diagnose illness and prescribe treatment. Detectives use science to solve crimes. Auto mechanics use science to fix cars. Students use science to decide on courses, career paths, and even weekend dates.”

  Smith added that sources and logic “can provide impressive support for a claim.”

  “However, all are trumped by scientific observation, tests of hypotheses as well as explanations and theories. The famous expert can be proven wrong. A logical argument may be sound, but based on false premises.”

  SKEPTICISM VS. GULLIBILITY

  One reason the scientific method is so important is that it is a sort of vaccine that protects us from our own natural gullibility, the tendency to be easily tricked or manipulated. We all have the potential to be gullible, and we all have a desire to believe certain things. Some people are good at overcoming credulity and seeking more extensive evidentiary support, while others find the process difficult or even against their nature. In fact, in 2015, cognitive psychologist Gordon Pennycook and his team at the University of Waterloo set out to test whether some people are more receptive to “pseudo-profound bullshit,” which they s
aid consists of “seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous.” In the study, Pennycook and the other researchers presented “bullshit statements” to participants with proper sentence structure but no discernible meaning and found that some people were much more likely to rate them as profound.70 The scientists also discovered that the profundity ratings for the nonsense sentences were “very strongly correlated” with responses from actual quotes by Deepak Chopra, the so-called New Age guru with millions of followers on Twitter.

  “Chopra is, of course, just one example among many. Using vagueness or ambiguity to mask a lack of meaningfulness is surely common in political rhetoric, marketing, and even academia,” the authors of the study wrote in its conclusion. “The construction of a reliable index of bullshit receptivity is an important first step toward gaining a better understanding of the underlying cognitive and social mechanisms that determine if and when bullshit is detected.”