Professor at my college has a degree in Homeopathy

[Keerax]

There is a Professor (Dr.) Sharma at my college who holds a degree in Homeopathy. I want to email him regarding the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge. I have in my posession a copy of a news article that he passed out to his students where he was quoted for his expertise in herbs (alternative medicine). I was wondering if, under the new guidelines, he could apply for the challenge or if confronting him about it with the James Randi challenge would be a waste of both of our time.

Thanks!

[headscratcher4]

Should be a cake-walk. Afterall, he's got a degree...in Science!

[Mojo]

I have in my posession a copy of a news article that he passed out to his students where he was quoted for his expertise in herbs (alternative medicine). Herbal medicine is not the same as homoeopathy. There is no question that many plants contain pharmacologically active substances, and no need to invoke the paranormal. Has he been quoted talking about homoeopathy?

BYW, what subjects does he teach?

[ben m]

Y'know, I don't think JREF should get involved in testing herbal medicines, no matter how wacky the health claims. Why not?

The predicted effects are always classic placebo-effects; "increased vitality", "more energy", "alleviates vague aches and pains". The only way to test a medicine for such effects is with a large double-blind study---basically what the FDA calls a "phase 3" clinical trial.

The problem: Phase-3 clinical trials cost millions of dollars. Here's why:

Imagine an herbal drug for which, say, 60% of takers feel "increased energy". Well, 50% of people feel "increased energy" after taking a placebo. Suppose you conduct a trial with N total participants. A fraction X of them will respond to the drug, and Y will respond (identically) to the placebo. After doing the test, how confident are you that Y is not equal to X---i.e., that the drug did something? The "number of standard deviations" of the double-blind trial is approximately

(X - Y) x N/2 / ( sqrt(XN/2) + sqrt(YN/2) ).

Randi's one-in-a-million dumb-luck criterion corresponds to finding a result at about 5 standard deviations. For our drug with X=0.6 and Y=0.5 --- pretty typical, I think, for vague herbal medicines --- you'll need a 10,000 person trial to pass Randi's criterion; if the medicine works, you'd give 5000 people the drug and 5000 people the placebo. 2500 placebo-patients would feel better, as would 3000 drug patients, and 2500 and 3000 are statistically distinguishable at the one-in-a-million level.

You can see that it's not something you can do in the JREF office in an afternoon. (Even real FDA trials don't often get 5 sigma results.)

There's also the issue, already mentioned, that some herbal medicines actually do things. There's nothing paranormal about chewing on willow bark to cure a headache, or drinking an infusion of Coffea arabica for increased energy. If your homeopath claims that he can simply *identify* homeopathic drugs with any accuracy, we can test that. If he simply claims that they work better than a placebo---well, it's testable, but not a good candidate for the JREF challenge.

[Brian Jackson]

Herbal medicine is more a challenge for the FDA, not the JREF. How would one realistically design a protocol to distinguish "paranormal" from "placebo?" You would better serve as an ambassador of reason than a presenter of challenge. As MOJO posted above, herbal medicine and homeopathy are not synonymous.

[Lisa Simpson]

From Futurama:

Civil Defense Bot: Calling all scientists. Calling all scientists. Be advised there will be a worldwide conference on global warming in Kyoto, Japan.
(Scientist runs up.)
Scientist: I've got a degree in Homeopathic Medicine.
Civil Defense Bot: You've got a degree in bologna!
(Sprays scientist with water hose.)

[Jeff Corey]

There is a Professor (Dr.) Sharma at my college who holds a degree in Homeopathy. I want to email him regarding the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge. I have in my possession a copy of a news article that he passed out to his students where he was quoted for his expertise in herbs (alternative medicine). I was wondering if, under the new guidelines, he could apply for the challenge or if confronting him about it with the James Randi challenge would be a waste of both of our time.

Thanks!

What college and department? We can check his credentials on the college's webpage. Want to get him fired? There are a lot of real scientists out there who can't get a job teaching.

[T'ai Chi]

I'd take a wild guess and imagine the professor would be more interested in the standard channels of science than a challenge by a skeptic club and magician, if the professor himself was even interested in proving the efficacy of homeopathy or herbal medicine.

[MRC_Hans]

I'd take a wild guess and imagine the professor would be more interested in the standard channels of science than a challenge by a skeptic club and magician, if the professor himself was even interested in proving the efficacy of homeopathy or herbal medicine.He certainly would. .... If he had any evidence. Since he hasn't publiched any, we can assume he hasn't.

Hans

[T'ai Chi]

Did this professor make any claim? It is not clear that he did.

[Solus]

Who gives out degrees for homeopathy anyway? I'd go with this suggestion. Give us more information and maybe something can be done about it.

What college and department? We can check his credentials on the college's webpage. Want to get him fired? There are a lot of real scientists out there who can't get a job teaching.

[T'ai Chi]

Sounds like harassment if you're trying to get him fired for his interests in homeopathy, given he teaches a different topic entirely.

[thomps1d]

Sounds like harassment if you're trying to get him fired for his interests in homeopathy, given he teaches a different topic entirely.

Not in the slightest, unless you have a different definition of harassment than everyone else. Note that there is a subtle distinction between "interests in homeopathy" and "a degree in Homeopathy". If this person was hired as a science professor and his only qualifications are a degree in Homeopathy, then he is occupying a position which could instead be filled by a degree in an actual scientific field.

Of course, all this depends on several factors - is this professor teaching science courses, or does he have other tertiary education which properly qualifies him to teach in other fields? If he is properly qualified to teach certain subjects, does he use his position to get up on a homeopathic soapbox? Is his degree truly in homeopathy at all, or is it in herbal medicine?

Given the facts that we have been presented, only a person with an inherently flawed understanding of skepticism and logical inquiry could come to the conclusion that further investigation - and possible pursuit of disciplinary action, if circumstances render it necessary - would be harassment.

[thomps1d]

Y'know, I don't think JREF should get involved in testing herbal medicines, no matter how wacky the health claims. Why not?

I may be mistaken on this (and if so, I'm sure I will be promptly corrected by more knowledgable forum members), but I don't believe that herbal medicine itself has been the basis for any forum challenge, given that it is not particularly paranormal.

Homeopathic medicines, on the other hand, are most definitely paranormal, and easily tested. Unfortunately, despite being two very different fields, many people (including both herbal and homeopathic practitioners) don't seem aware of the difference, and the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, even when it is not appropriate.

[T'ai Chi]

If this person was hired as a science professor and his only qualifications are a degree in Homeopathy, then he is occupying a position which could instead be filled by a degree in an actual scientific field.


If the person disclosed this to his employers prior to being hired, and his employers think he is doing a good job as has reviews to prove it, then there is no issue.

No issue other than some pseudoskeptics getting on their soapbox, irrelevantly screaming 'unfair!', that is.

[thomps1d]

If the person disclosed this to his employers prior to being hired, and his employers think he is doing a good job as has reviews to prove it, then there is no issue.

No issue other than some pseudoskeptics getting on their soapbox, irrelevantly screaming 'unfair!', that is.

If he disclosed it, and he has other qualifications that make him properly suited to teach at a post-secondary level, then there is no issue. If, on the other hand, he is teaching magic in a science classroom, then it's quite possible that his superiors are not aware of this, or are not aware of what homeopathy is. Both of these possibilities would be major issues.

Of course, as I (and the other skeptics in this forum) have noted, there isn't enough information present to make any determination about that yet. The only person who seems to have been screaming "unfair" is a pseudo-skeptic who thought it would be harassment to actually investigate into a possible problem.

It also occurs to me that since this part of the forum is dedicated to the MDC, either this discussion should be moved elsewhere, or we should get back on topic. As to the issue of whether this professor would qualify for the MDC under its new rules, I do not believe that he would - although he was quoted in a news article as an expert on herbal medicine, I believe he would need to be a homeopathy expert with some public fame before he would qualify. Randi is, of course, the arbiter of whether that's the case or not, but I'd suggest that he start with other paranormal challenges - if he is interested in demonstrating that homeopathy is efficacious, it would certainly be a good way to go about it, and would definitely open the door to the MDC.

[T'ai Chi]

If he disclosed it, and he has other qualifications that make him properly suited to teach at a post-secondary level, then there is no issue.


What is your evidence that he didn't disclose it and that he only has that qualification? That is, what is your justificaiton for going on a witch hunt without firm evidence?

[thomps1d]

What is your evidence that he didn't disclose it and that he only has that qualification? That is, what is your justificaiton for going on a witch hunt without firm evidence?

Do you understand the word "if"?

Do you understand the word "investigate"?

OK, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that your reading comprehension subroutine has momentarily crashed. Here is the situation thus far:

1) A professor has qualifications that may be insufficient for his job, and may interfere with his ability to do so.

2) We lack sufficient evidence to make a definite conclusion, so more investigation is required.

Now, how does that equate to a "witch hunt"?

[CFLarsen]

Did this professor make any claim? It is not clear that he did.

Do you realize what you just said?

:dl:

[Mojo]

I'd take a wild guess and imagine the professor would be more interested in the standard channels of science...


Has he put an advert in The Economist? That was how you seemed to be defining "proceed[ing] via more standard channels of science" in the case of Steorn (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64528).

[Mojo]

Sounds like harassment if you're trying to get him fired for his interests in homeopathy, given he teaches a different topic entirely.


What topic does he teach?

[T'ai Chi]

1) A professor has qualifications that may be insufficient for his job, and may interfere with his ability to do so.

2) We lack sufficient evidence to make a definite conclusion, so more investigation is required.

Now, how does that equate to a "witch hunt"?

So you admit you're wanting to go on a fishing expedition to find something.

Tsk. This isn't skepticism, but you knew that.

[thomps1d]

So you admit you're wanting to go on a fishing expedition to find something.

Tsk. This isn't skepticism, but you knew that.

You keep using this work, "skepticism". I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Mojo]

Sounds like harassment if you're trying to get him fired for his interests in homeopathy, given he teaches a different topic entirely.You say that "he teaches a different topic entirely". What topic does he teach?

[Jackalgirl]

You keep using this work, "skepticism". I do not think it means what you think it means.

Inconceivable!

[Foolmewunz]

Well, in absence of Keerax clarifying, and because it's a boring Sunday and Scooby Doo is over.....

Sharma is a Hindu name. He's likely Indian. So again the opening question from several posters - does he have an associate degree in something, but is a Biology, Physics, Chemistry/other professor. And, is the degree in Homeopathy or in Herbal Medicines/Remedies.

There are many Indians who are into both, but far more into legitimate herbal treatments than into homeopathy.

Some Sharma's in higher education in Tennessee (this is what I meant about passing a boring Sunday).....

Paul Sharma UoT(Knoxville) biological sciences
Rajesh Sharma UoT(Mem) opthalmology & neuroanatomy
G.K. Sharma UoT(Martin) biology
Payal Sharma(Knoxv) mathematics
Manika Sharma UoT(Martin) biology
R.K.Sharma UoT(Mem) MD, PHD Ass't Prof Neurology
Vijai Sharma
Kavarthy Sharma
M.G. Sharma

.... and a few dozen more.....
It seems that there are a lot of Sharmas teaching in Tennessee.

I found none that said "Homeopathic Crackpot" in the credentials, but they're not likely to in lists of university personnel.

[Zep]

So you admit you're wanting to go on a fishing expedition to find something.

Tsk. This isn't skepticism, but you knew that.You like a good s**t-stir, don't you.

[Klaymore]

What college and department? We can check his credentials on the college's webpage. Want to get him fired? There are a lot of real scientists out there who can't get a job teaching.

I hope Keerex comes back and answers these questions. It doesn't seem like it's going to be much of a discussion without some more information from the source...

[Keerax]

Sorry for the late reply. My girlfriend had a family emergency and I had to take her home. It's her professor and he's teaching Biology. I'm wanting to get him to test for Homeopathy but he was quoted in a paper for herbal ... "healing" advice? I.E. his opinion of what plants should be used to help/cure what. I only mentioned it because I seem to recall that in the new JREF rules you must have some sort of media presence.

All I really wanted to know was under the current guidelines whether or not this Professor is eligible to apply. I'm just wanting to try and discourage his teaching homeopathy and other "natural" cures to his students as sound science.

I'll read through these posts and answer whatever I can.

[Keerax]

What college and department? We can check his credentials on the college's webpage. Want to get him fired? There are a lot of real scientists out there who can't get a job teaching.

Nononononononononono. Getting him fired is not my intention at all. (For the record.)

I'd take a wild guess and imagine the professor would be more interested in the standard channels of science than a challenge by a skeptic club and magician, if the professor himself was even interested in proving the efficacy of homeopathy or herbal medicine.

My girlfriend took his Biology 2 course and reported that one day he spent approx. 20 minutes covering "actual" medicine and 2 days solid covering homeopathy (primarily) and other alternative medicines and pushing the virtues of such (non)medicines.


No issue other than some pseudoskeptics getting on their soapbox, irrelevantly screaming 'unfair!', that is.

I'm not screaming unfair. I just feel that his teaching alternative medicine as a viable substitute can be dangerous to his students as he's in a position of authority and they're there to learn from him.


Paul Sharma UoT(Knoxville) biological sciences
Rajesh Sharma UoT(Mem) opthalmology & neuroanatomy
G.K. Sharma UoT(Martin) biology
Payal Sharma(Knoxv) mathematics
Manika Sharma UoT(Martin) biology
R.K.Sharma UoT(Mem) MD, PHD Ass't Prof Neurology
Vijai Sharma
Kavarthy Sharma
M.G. Sharma


I will say that he's a professor on that list (good work by the way) but I'm not prepared to release his personal information because I don't want random people sending him possibly threatening messages. I repeat I don't want him to be fired. As I understand it, the rest of his course is fairly decent. I just disagree with his being allowed to teach homeopathy in a Biology course. I just figured the easiest way to start on the path of pointing out this bullsh*t to him would be with the JREF million dollar challenge.



Back to my original point. I just wanted to know if he'd be able to apply for the challenge under the new guidelines. If so, it'd make an easy way for me to start this correspondence with him. If not, I'll have to find a different excuse to start talking with him but I intend on doing it regardless. I don't want this drivel taught at my school and I don't want any of my fellow students getting hurt because of it.

[Klaymore]

You keep using this work, "skepticism". I do not think it means what you think it means.

True. But to TC's credit, he seems to have "obfuscation," "sophistry," and "sophism" pretty well mastered.

[Foolmewunz]

Nononononononononono. Getting him fired is not my intention at all. (For the record.)



My girlfriend took his Biology 2 course and reported that one day he spent approx. 20 minutes covering "actual" medicine and 2 days solid covering homeopathy (primarily) and other alternative medicines and pushing the virtues of such (non)medicines.



I'm not screaming unfair. I just feel that his teaching alternative medicine as a viable substitute can be dangerous to his students as he's in a position of authority and they're there to learn from him.



I will say that he's a professor on that list (good work by the way) but I'm not prepared to release his personal information because I don't want random people sending him possibly threatening messages. I repeat I don't want him to be fired. As I understand it, the rest of his course is fairly decent. I just disagree with his being allowed to teach homeopathy in a Biology course. I just figured the easiest way to start on the path of pointing out this bullsh*t to him would be with the JREF million dollar challenge.



Back to my original point. I just wanted to know if he'd be able to apply for the challenge under the new guidelines. If so, it'd make an easy way for me to start this correspondence with him. If not, I'll have to find a different excuse to start talking with him but I intend on doing it regardless. I don't want this drivel taught at my school and I don't want any of my fellow students getting hurt because of it.

I don't want to "out" the guy, BTW. I was just playing around... I thought there might be a single Sharma in the area, and was sort of interested to find that there were so many.

Homeopathy would qualify for the challenge, I gather. But I doubt that he's got a big enough target on his back, when there are so many better-known supporters/believers out there.

But you could engage him locally for the pleasure of helping to inform the students on the campus. There's enough material and links on this board to help you debunk most homeopaths. If you could interest your girlfriend or some other students, why not just invite him to a discussion on homeopathy. State your beliefs up front, and make it in the form of an open discussion. You could probably interest an opposing voice from within the faculty in the Sciences or Math area......

Again, all this assumes he's really into homeopathy... Herbal medicines do have their valid uses and applications.

[Klaymore]

I will say that he's a professor on that list (good work by the way) but I'm not prepared to release his personal information because I don't want random people sending him possibly threatening messages. I repeat I don't want him to be fired. As I understand it, the rest of his course is fairly decent. I just disagree with his being allowed to teach homeopathy in a Biology course... .

I don't want this drivel taught at my school and I don't want any of my fellow students getting hurt because of it.

"Get him fired" might or might not be hyperbole, but it doesn't matter. He teaches non-science in a science course. If you are sincerely worried about a fellow student being hurt by this, then you should do something. It's entirely up to you, though. You are an adult, and so are your fellow students. Personally, if I were shelling out the money for college again, I'd want my biology professor to teach biology.

However, since Professor S. has willingly shared his beliefs with his students in an open forum, there isn't any reason not to tell us who he is. Not doing so weakens your credibility. This is not a personal reflection on you; it is simply a fact of deductive (or for that matter, rhetorical) discourse.

And regarding your original question, the Million Dollar Challenge: Since you haven't told us who he is, or where the paper in which he was quoted was published, or what the exact substance of the paper was, or his exact contribution to it, or maybe just linked to the paper if it's available (which would, of course, reveal Professor S's identity)... Who knows whether he would meet the (still pretty vague) "Media Presence" requirement?

And even if he met the MP requirement, he would have to apply for the challenge and propose a testing protocol. He won't do that, though, because if he wanted to do it he would have already done it, since he certainly knows about the challenge already.

But my understanding is that you aren't trying to get him to actually apply for the challenge; you just want a pretext under which to approach him and tell him to stop teaching homeopathy in biology class. If that's the case, it doesn't matter whether he would meet the MP requirement or not. Just assume that he does. You just (admirably) want him to stop him from endangering his students by teaching pseudoscience as fact.

Any means you use to start that discussion: "Hey, have you heard about the MDC?" "Professor, want to win a MILLION DOLLARS?" "Wow, lot of weather we're having, huh?" is perfectly adequate, as long as by the end of the discussion, he remembers what his real job is, and resolves to start actually doing it.

[Keerax]

However, since Professor S. has willingly shared his beliefs with his students in an open forum, there isn't any reason not to tell us who he is. Not doing so weakens your credibility.

I'm not really sure how not releasing his identity to strangers on the internet reduces my credibility but, hey, if you say so. o_O


But my understanding is that you aren't trying to get him to actually apply for the challenge; you just want a pretext under which to approach him and tell him to stop teaching homeopathy in biology class. If that's the case, it doesn't matter whether he would meet the MP requirement or not. Just assume that he does. You just (admirably) want him to stop him from endangering his students by teaching pseudoscience as fact.

Any means you use to start that discussion: "Hey, have you heard about the MDC?" "Professor, want to win a MILLION DOLLARS?" "Wow, lot of weather we're having, huh?" is perfectly adequate, as long as by the end of the discussion, he remembers what his real job is, and resolves to start actually doing it.

Exactly! It's just that if I was going to use the, "Hey! You should apply for that challenge thing!" I wanted him to actually be able to look it up and go "Oh, I -can- apply for this." Just wishful thinking on my part. As I said though, I do still intend on starting a dialouge with him.

I think what I'm going to do is try to start a debate next semester (now that this semester has just ended, hurray for no more finals!) so that students can attend and questions can be asked. A fellow student of mine was able, last semester, to set up a debate forum where all semester long they discussed political issues. Perhaps I could start setting up Power Point presentations in the back room of the cafeteria and tackle a different woo-woo idea every other week. If I do that, I hope you all realize that you'll all be on tap for ideas. ;)

First up homeopathy!

[Solus]

Why would you think he would get threating letters because his name was mentioned here? If the man has tenure he won't be fired anyway so don't worry about him.

I do hope you try your presentation idea though.

[Jackalgirl]

IMO, and this of course is just my opinion, if this man is teaching homeopathy in a biology course, and he's presenting it as if it were a part of science, the faculty adminstration needs to know, especially if he is neglecting the teaching of actual biology to do so. Period. Please let them know. I wouldn't mess around with this at all.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If he is teaching pseudo science instead of real science in a scientific course then he needs to be warned and if he continues he SHOULD be fired. This should not be put up with and if you are withholding his name you are complicit in his actions.

[drkitten]

Getting him fired is not my intention at all. (For the record.)

My girlfriend took his Biology 2 course and reported that one day he spent approx. 20 minutes covering "actual" medicine and 2 days solid covering homeopathy (primarily) and other alternative medicines and pushing the virtues of such (non)medicines.

Unfortunately, the behavior you describe above is, literally, "incompetence."

It's a disciplinary offense. And it should be. It can -- it doesn't always, but it can -- be a firing offense.

I just feel that his teaching alternative medicine as a viable substitute can be dangerous to his students as he's in a position of authority and they're there to learn from him.

And that's why..


I just disagree with his being allowed to teach homeopathy in a Biology course. I just figured the easiest way to start on the path of pointing out this bullsh*t to him would be with the JREF million dollar challenge.

I'm afraid you're wrong there. The easiest way to start on that path would be to discuss it with the department chair (or the dean, if he's already the department chair). Allegations of unprofessional behavior -- such as this -- are fairly routine and routinely handled. If the teacher is otherwise competent but is introducing inappropriate material into their courses, then part of the job of the department chair is to tell him to stick to the syllabus.

If he's otherwise competent -- and suitably compliant -- it stops there.

Simply believing stupid things isn't a firing offense. Michael Behe is a tenured biochemistry professor at Lehigh University, despite being a poster child for creationism. His department dislikes that, but accepts that as long as he keeps creationism out of the classroom, he is still doing a valuable job as a teacher. So far, Behe hasn't crossed that particular line.



I don't want this drivel taught at my school and I don't want any of my fellow students getting hurt because of it.

Then I strongly suggest that you talk to the department chair. Because otherwise matters are likely to blow up much bigger if it can't be handled quietly in-house. You, the professor, and the chair would much rather have it be a private discussion that a formal complaint from an external reviewer..... "Getting him fired" is only about two-thirds of the way up the list of the trouble that I could cause for your university if I chose to take the time and effort.

[T'ai Chi]

If he is teaching pseudoscience, that is a big if.

What is your evidence for wanting to investigate him or warn him in the first place? You have to have some evidence, not just heresay, to not look like a psedoskeptic here.

[Mojo]

If he is teaching pseudoscience, that is a big if.

What is your evidence for wanting to investigate him or warn him in the first place? You have to have some evidence, not just heresay, to not look like a psedoskeptic here.I hate to break this to you, T'ai, but the purpose of investigation is to obtain evidence. It's what you do if you don't have evidence. You wouldn't want people to make up their minds about things without looking for evidence, would you?

[Mojo]

If he is teaching pseudoscience, that is a big if.

What is your evidence for wanting to investigate him or warn him in the first place? You have to have some evidence, not just heresay, to not look like a psedoskeptic here.

I hate to break this to you, T'ai, but the purpose of investigation is to obtain evidence. It's what you do if you don't have evidence. You wouldn't want people to make up their minds about things without looking for evidence, would you?


It appears that you actually do make up your mind about things in the absence of evidence. For example, I see from what you posted earlier in this thread that you made up your mind that Professor Sharma teaches a "different topic entirely" from homoeopathy without any evidence of what subject he actually teaches: Sounds like harassment if you're trying to get him fired for his interests in homeopathy, given he teaches a different topic entirely.

[Here_to_learn]

For example, I see from what you posted earlier in this thread that you made up your mind that Professor Sharma teaches a "different topic entirely" from homoeopathy without any evidence of what subject he actually teaches:Well, I'm sure you would agree that Biology is a "different topic entirely" from homeopathy.;)

[Mojo]

Well, I'm sure you would agree that Biology is a "different topic entirely" from homeopathy.;)Maybe, but homoeopathy certainly isn't irrelevant to life sciences.

[Klaymore]

If he is teaching pseudoscience, that is a big if.

What is your evidence for wanting to investigate him or warn him in the first place? You have to have some evidence, not just heresay, to not look like a psedoskeptic here.


Evidence in this instance:

1) Science professor with degree in Homeopathy;

2) Report (i.e., an eyewitness) from one of professor's students that he is teaching homeopathy in Biology class.

The term "hearsay" doesn't apply here. Hearsay is a legal term of art. The term is applied in most jurisdictions pursuant to Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/index.html#article_viii)

FRA 801(c) states in relevant part: "'Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."

The exact meaning and application of that definition have been the source of an entire body of case law, which T'ai Chi has not studied.

In a trial or hearing governed by the hearsay rule as recited above, Keerax would not be allowed to testify "My girlfriend told me that Dr. S teaches Homeopathy in Bio class," if the testimony were being offered to prove that Dr. S does, in fact, teach Homeopathy in Biology class, and if the testimony did not fall under one of the (numerous and varied by jurisdiction) exceptions to the hearsay rule.

On the other hand, "pseudoskeptic" is a term wholly owned by and proprietary to T'ai Chi. All you have to do to be a "pseudoskeptic" is disagree with T'ai Chi.

[Jeff Corey]

If he is teaching pseudoscience, that is a big if.

What is your evidence for wanting to investigate him or warn him in the first place? You have to have some evidence, not just heresay, to not look like a psedoskeptic here.
Oh no, wouldn't want to look like you.

[Foolmewunz]

If he is teaching pseudoscience, that is a big if.

What is your evidence for wanting to investigate him or warn him in the first place? You have to have some evidence, not just heresay, to not look like a psedoskeptic here.




Umm, in the opening post?

Professor at my college has a degree in Homeopathy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a Professor (Dr.) Sharma at my college who holds a degree in Homeopathy. I want to email him regarding the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge. I have in my posession a copy of a news article that he passed out to his students where he was quoted for his expertise in herbs (alternative medicine). I was wondering if, under the new guidelines, he could apply for the challenge or if confronting him about it with the James Randi challenge would be a waste of both of our time.

Thanks
Evidence?
I don't think you actually need evidence to want to investigate something or explore the topic. You need a hunch, hypothesis, suspicion, quandary, question, doubt, ......
You need evidence to indict or convict, but wanting to investigate something doesn't require such strict rules.

Evidence? (Next we'll have Claus posting "Interesting"...)

[Mojo]

What is your evidence for wanting to investigate him or warn him in the first place? You have to have some evidence, not just heresay, to not look like a psedoskeptic here.Evidence?
I don't think you actually need evidence to want to investigate something or explore the topic. You need a hunch, hypothesis, suspicion, quandary, question, doubt, ......
You need evidence to indict or convict, but wanting to investigate something doesn't require such strict rules.


Actually, T'ai's approach here ties in nicely with his support of ID. It's precisely how ID "science" works: for example, if we have no evidence as to how an "irreducibly complex" feature could have evolved naturally, ID's approach is to say that we needn't bother investigating it and just say that God an unspecified designer diddit.

[neon]

I would like to ask Dr. Sharma if he knows about that woman in Dan Hurley's book "Natural Causes" whose nose rotted because she used a bloodroot paste sold by Kevin Trudeau's company.

:eye-poppi

I wonder if anyone teaches a course on debunking homeopathy.

[Foolmewunz]

Actually, T'ai's approach here ties in nicely with his support of ID. It's precisely how ID "science" works: for example, if we have no evidence as to how an "irreducibly complex" feature could have evolved naturally, ID's approach is to say that we needn't bother investigating it and just say that God an unspecified designer diddit.

I'm beginning to understand. So Steorn's OU device is really a gift from The Creator, then?

[HypnoPsi]

Herbal medicine is more a challenge for the FDA, not the JREF.


And don't forget that most of the food you buy out of an Indian, Thai, Greek, etc., restaurant or take-away also contains the very same herbs that are very often sold for medicinal purposes. A lot of herbal medicine is perfectly safe and useful in the right dosage.

The real problem arises when people put all their faith in herbal medicine and won't see an MD who uses medicines drawn from animal, vegetable and mineral sources. Nobody should limit themselves to just one source (unless they're a strict vegan, I suppose).

That's just as bad as people expecting miracles from pharmacological medicine without making any effort to improve their diet and nutrition (and lose some weight, quit smoking, strop drinking or whatever as well).

You also have to remember the divide between native and foreign herbal medicine. (Anyone seen Deadwood? Doc Cochrane used herbs most of the time. :) Everyone used to be a lay herbalist at one point and doctors were considered experts.

And where does nutritional value end and herbal medicine begin with something like Parsley for example - or any food if you're deficient in any particualr mineral or vitamin?

The real problem for everyone - particularly genuine, hard working and concerned Medical Herbalists who have a strong leaning towards pharma-cognosy rather than 'energy medicine' - is foreign imports of substances hardly anyone has ever heard of or studied.

They're usually not produced under properly clean and controlled circumstances and the manufacturers all too often make completely outrageous claims.

I see herbal medicine (and it's nutritional cousin) as something that has been stolen and appropriated by the ultra New Age community in society.

When you look at the history of herbal medicine in Europe, in particular, the whole 'energy medicine' stuff just wasn't really there. Things like chakras and meridians have all been imported since the sixties.

_
HypnoPsi

[Mojo]

I'm beginning to understand. So Steorn's OU device is really a gift from The Creator, then?As are the laws of thermodynamics. ;)

Remember that Newton, who has been held up by such as Steve Fuller (and T'ai (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2586014#post2586014)) as an outstanding example of a scientist motivated by religion, wanted to discover the "laws" that an unspecified designer God had put in place.)

[Foolmewunz]

As are the laws of thermodynamics. ;)

Remember that Newton, who has been held up by such as Steve Fuller (and T'ai (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2586014#post2586014)) as an outstanding example of a scientist motivated by religion, wanted to discover the "laws" that an unspecified designer God had put in place.)

Ah, interesting! I'd love to discuss gut I have to get ready for work to go out and pray for a salary.
:spjimlad:

[drkitten]

What is your evidence for wanting to investigate him or warn him in the first place? You have to have some evidence, not just heresay [sic], to not look like a psedoskeptic here.

That's bollocks, to put it bluntly. Hearsay is evidence -- just not usually admissible in court.

If you went to the police and told them that your girlfriend told you that she had seen her professor selling drugs to another student out of his office --- or that her professor had offered her an 'A' if she slept with him, that's plenty of "evidence" for the police to start an investigation.

Or for the university.

[Mojo]

What is your evidence for wanting to investigate him or warn him in the first place? You have to have some evidence, not just heresay [sic], to not look like a psedoskeptic here. That's bollocks, to put it bluntly. Hearsay is evidence -- just not usually admissible in court.


Perhaps T'ai meant "heresy".

[bjb]

The students in the class can mention their homeopathy lesson in their class review. I had to fill out those forms at the end of every class and if the professor did something annoying, I'd be sure to mention it. Even if the prof has tenure, enough negative reviews can make a difference in how the professor conducts their class.

Talk to your girlfriend and see if she's willing to make mention of the homeopathy lectures in her reviews. Maybe she can get some friends on her side. It won't get the professor fired but perhaps one of his colleagues can have a talk with the guy. I don't see what else you can hope for in this case.

[Keerax]

The students in the class can mention their homeopathy lesson in their class review. I had to fill out those forms at the end of every class and if the professor did something annoying, I'd be sure to mention it. Even if the prof has tenure, enough negative reviews can make a difference in how the professor conducts their class.

Talk to your girlfriend and see if she's willing to make mention of the homeopathy lectures in her reviews. Maybe she can get some friends on her side. It won't get the professor fired but perhaps one of his colleagues can have a talk with the guy. I don't see what else you can hope for in this case.

Actually, she did mention it in her evaluation. The jist of her complaint was that, "He spent way too much time on alternative medicines." Not exactly the strongest complaint but it's something. :)

[T'ai Chi]

I don't think you actually need evidence to want to investigate something or explore the topic.


So a witchhunt it is then.

Where's the skepticism?

[Jeff Corey]

You don't know. You have no clue.

[Czarcasm]

Where's the skepticism?
Maybe this will help you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

[Madalch]

The students in the class can mention their homeopathy lesson in their class review. I had to fill out those forms at the end of every class and if the professor did something annoying, I'd be sure to mention it. Even if the prof has tenure, enough negative reviews can make a difference in how the professor conducts their class.
I doubt it. I've yet to see any evidence that universities actually pay attention to such evaluations unless the instructor is new, and they're wondering whether or not to keep the person.

In the first few years of teaching, an instructor will probably read every comment, and wonder what to change in his or her method of instruction. Then he'll realize that the majority of the students have nothing to say other than to express their (dis)satisfaction with their mark, and will generally ignore them. Students who do well will say "Yeah, he's fine. Whatever"; students who thought they should be able to pass the course simply by listening to the lectures (and not going to the extra work of cracking the text book, or even re-reading the notes at home) will demand that the instructor be fired. Add in the students that write such dizzying inanities such as "He should have brought us beer." or "PIZZA!" (in all caps across the entire page), or start complaining about the other professors, and you learn that evaluations are mostly there to make the students feel they have some feedback.

So I don't think the evaluations will do much in this situation.

[ProbeX]

I'd take a wild guess and imagine the professor would be more interested in the standard channels of science than a challenge by a skeptic club and magician, if the professor himself was even interested in proving the efficacy of homeopathy or herbal medicine.

Couldn't agree with you more T'ai: if this professor has a brain inside his head he would opt to test the strength of his health paradigm via formal medical (scientific) testing, rather than wasting his time w some informal, pseudo-objective, unscientific assessment by a magician and his bias organization.

[ProbeX]

The real problem arises when people put all their faith in herbal medicine and won't see an MD who uses medicines drawn from animal, vegetable and mineral sources. Nobody should limit themselves to just one source (unless they're a strict vegan, I suppose).

I agree.

That's just as bad as people expecting miracles from pharmacological medicine without making any effort to improve their diet and nutrition (and lose some weight, quit smoking, strop drinking or whatever as well).

I know this is slightly off topic, but you remind me of this fact: certain pharmacological (allopathic) agents are as statistically negligible in terms of being as, or more effective than placebos.

This may be the case, regardless of adjunctive moderate behavioral or dietary changes. It is also true that many of the pharmacological agents used (especially in psychiatric medicine) have actions that are partially understood at best. We still are unsure how certain medications create homeostasis in many popularly recognized pathological processes. If anyone would like specific examples, I will provide them.

I don't say this to defend homeopathic or other "alternative" remedies/agents as effective. Seems to me there needs to be increased FDA regulation and testing of alleged alternative health paradigms and products.

[steenkh]

Couldn't agree with you more T'ai: if this professor has a brain inside his head he would opt to test the strength of his health paradigm via formal medical (scientific) testing, rather than wasting his time w some informal, pseudo-objective, unscientific assessment by a magician and his bias organization.
First of all, the MDC is not a scientific assessment, but challenge for his belief system to perform as claimed. Secondly, if he was interested in real scientific assessment, he would have left homoeopathy by the roadside a long time ago: Homoeopathy has been tested and found wanting.

[Mojo]

Anyway, T'ai's idea of "the standard channels of science" appears to include the sort of thing that Steorn have been up to: placing adverts in financial journals, putting videos on the web, getting people to sign NDAs...

[Nick Bogaerts]

So a witchhunt it is then.

Do you believe it is appropriate for a university Professor to teach witchcraft?

[ProbeX]

First of all, the MDC is not a scientific assessment, but challenge for his belief system to perform as claimed.
A scientific assessment - specifically by the FDA and/or by a scientific/medical board of AMA / docs - is the appropriate channel needed to “challenge” a belief system that is medically (or pseudo-medically) based. This is one example of an area the MDC is lacking in “assessing” a belief system.

Secondly, if he was interested in real scientific assessment, he would have left homoeopathy by the roadside a long time ago: Homoeopathy has been tested and found wanting.

I should have been more clear in that first post. My statement extends to claims to healing agents in general.

Yes you are correct about homeopathy; it's pointless to present it for the MDC for the reason you mentioned, that it's already been tested and shows no quantifiable improvements to health, save the placebo effect.

I still maintain that the assessment of alleged claims/ beliefs involving “alternative” healing/ treatment modalities requires qualified, formalized, medical or scientific entities; rigorous scientific testing. Those findings then need to be published chiefly in medical journals (not on a magician‘s website).

It is impossible to get around the fact that the MDC is an inferior arena for the assessment (or “belief testing”) of claims to agents that improve health.

[steenkh]

A scientific assessment - specifically by the FDA and/or by a scientific/medical board of AMA / docs - is the appropriate channel needed to “challenge” a belief system that is medically (or pseudo-medically) based. This is one example of an area the MDC is lacking in “assessing” a belief system.
The MDC has a bonus of one million dollars to be awarded to a claimant who can pass two simple tests. This should be enough of an incentive for anyone who makes claims of the kind we are dealing with here. Even if passing the MDC would not provide a scintific proof of anything, it would surely generate attention that might put a claim on the road to scientific acceptance.

While the MDC is not a suitable vehicle for most health-related claims, most claims can be reduced to simpler claims that are easily tested. An example is how homoeopathic claims about curing diseases can be broken up into parts like the claim that homoeopaths can distinguish between homoeopathic remedies and their stock solvents. Confirming this claim will not prove the claim about curing, but it will definitely invigorate the research into homoeopathy.

The kind of claims that are well-suited for the MDC are claims that do not leave room for interpretation and are usually very basic. The practitioners use them every day, and they never fail. Accordingly, they should not fail in a test situation, just like my claim that I can travel 100m on a bicycle will not fail if I am tested, even in an antagonistic situation. A test of these claims would not be significant different from a scientific claim, except that the results will not be published in a scientific paper. But rest assured that the scientific papers will follow if a claimant will ever succeed in the Million-dollar challenge.

[ProbeX]

While the MDC is not a suitable vehicle for most health-related claims, most claims can be reduced to simpler claims that are easily tested.
No. First, a singular claim is, by definition, anecdotal. That is a huge limitation, mostly because it leaves room for innumerable circumstantial factors that could easily be used to explain away an alleged failure to meet the conditions of a claim. I will provide examples of this at your request.

Confirming this claim will not prove the claim about curing, but it will definitely invigorate the research into homoeopathy.
No, actually there is already a large body of homeopathic research completed under classically strict conditions; funded, executed by and overseen by impartial scientists and scientific foundations (none of whom are self-proclaimed "adversaries" to test subjects or tested paradigms). This formal approach also renders results that attain very high confidence because results are repeatedly tested via a strict “checks and balance” system by way of rigorous peer review.

… but rest assured that the scientific papers will follow if a claimant will ever succeed in the Million-dollar challenge.
No. You will not find an anecdotal finding published in an esteemed medical journal, that was executed w/in the context of an “adversarial” testing milieu. In fact it would be rejected outright based on a lack of applied peer review.

[steenkh]

No. First, a singular claim is, by definition, anecdotal. That is a huge limitation, mostly because it leaves room for innumerable circumstantial factors that could easily be used to explain away an alleged failure to meet the conditions of a claim. I will provide examples of this at your request.
I do not understand what you are thinking of here. I was thinking of how homoeopathic theory includes a number of easily tested claims, and if documented properly, the test of such a claim could be performed by an independent party elsewhere, and would not be anecdotal.

No, actually there is already a large body of homeopathic research completed under classically strict conditions; funded, executed by and overseen by impartial scientists and scientific foundations (none of whom are self-proclaimed "adversaries" to test subjects or tested paradigms). This formal approach also renders results that attain very high confidence because results are repeatedly tested via a strict “checks and balance” system by way of rigorous peer review.
Actually, it is my impression that strict "checks and balance" is not implemented as rigorously as you imply. Meta-analyses find a correlation between stricter controls and worse results for homoeopathy, where most tests are in the category of lesser controls.

No. You will not find an anecdotal finding published in an esteemed medical journal, that was executed w/in the context of an “adversarial” testing milieu. In fact it would be rejected outright based on a lack of applied peer review.
As far as I know, it is the medical journal that is supplying the peers for review, not the authors of the paper. I also believe that although most research in Supplementary, Complementary, and Alternative Medicine (SCAM) is performed by dedicated believers (thus accounting for the abysmal quality), some research is performed by non-believers, but it gets published, and is not rejected because of the “adversarial” testing milieu.

[Foolmewunz]

Couldn't agree with you more T'ai:
<<snip>>


Now there's a statement you don't see 'round here every day!

[Mashuna]

Now there's a statement you don't see 'round here every day!

I think T'ai makes that statement every so often :D .

[ProbeX]

I do not understand what you are thinking of here. I was thinking of how homoeopathic theory includes a number of easily tested claims, and if documented properly, the test of such a claim could be performed by an independent party elsewhere, and would not be anecdotal. “Homeopathic theory” cannot be scientifically deconstructed en masse by a small set of independent, “easily tested” claims. Even where the results appear to be amenable to a secondary or tertiary source.

Anecdotal refers to number of subjects being tested. Because each claim (in the context of Randi’s challenge) would be tested under independently designed conditions, each claim would qualify only as anecdotal in nature. Which is problematic: A body of evidence (for against a medical claim) needs to be gathered by numerous subjects, under uniform conditions. And to reiterate, such testing needs to be conducted by scientists (medical and related scientists), as it regards all medical claims.
Actually, it is my impression that strict "checks and balance" is not implemented as rigorously as you imply. Meta-analyses find a correlation between stricter controls and worse results for homoeopathy, where most tests are in the category of lesser controls.
There is well-structured and rigorous scientific methodology. Then there is careless, sloppy or intentionally duplicitous (quasi) science. This latter group, of course, does not qualify as authentic scientific methodology, and will often fail to be published in esteemed scientific journals. But … that the latter group exists (you are quite correct), by no means negates the value, justification, and ongoing need for rigorous scientific testing of medical - and other types of - truth claims.
As far as I know, it is the medical journal that is supplying the peers for review, not the authors of the paper. I also believe that although most research in Supplementary, Complementary, and Alternative Medicine (SCAM) is performed by dedicated believers (thus accounting for the abysmal quality), some research is performed by non-believers, but it gets published, and is not rejected because of the “adversarial” testing milieu.
Any study whereby the author explicitly states a position of “dedicated believer” is expressly unscientific in nature (just as is an openly stated “adversarial“ position is). Therefore you are plenty justified in being weary of the supposed results of alternative medicine “testing”. It is in conflict w traditionally rigorous medical testing models. Of course you should be equally weary of a self-proclaimed “adversary” s involvement (and/or support) in alleged formal and objective "truth" testing.

[ProbeX]

Now there's a statement you don't see 'round here every day!

Heh - your snip job makes me look like I agree w more than a single statement of his. Nice editing job :D

[steenkh]

“Homeopathic theory” cannot be scientifically deconstructed en masse by a small set of independent, “easily tested” claims.
Why not. Would you not say that it is crucial to homoeopathic theory that homoeopathic remedies can be distinguished from each other? Homoeopathy would not be proven if this is true, but it would surely be disproved if it is not true. Many other similar tests can be constructed.

Anecdotal refers to number of subjects being tested.

No, anecdotal refers to the documentation available. Some experiments in nuclear physics are performed with very few positive tests, but they are not anecdotal because they are very well documented.

Because each claim (in the context of Randi’s challenge) would be tested under independently designed conditions, each claim would qualify only as anecdotal in nature.
No. Besides, it is immaterial, because the JREF MDC is not designed as a scientific test. As I stated before, a successful claimant for the MDC would surely get tested under proper scientific conditions, so the MDC would lead to scientific results, even if it is not actually science in itself.

Any study whereby the author explicitly states a position of “dedicated believer” is expressly unscientific in nature (just as is an openly stated “adversarial“ position is). Therefore you are plenty justified in being weary of the supposed results of alternative medicine “testing”. It is in conflict w traditionally rigorous medical testing models.
It is not because they are believers that homoeopath papers are to be distrusted but because they are sloppy. It is the content that is important, not the intent behind the research. If the result is generating sufficient interest, it will in any case be repeated by some other researchers, and this is the most crucial test of all.

[ProbeX]

Why not. Would you not say that it is crucial to homoeopathic theory that homoeopathic remedies can be distinguished from each other?
Differentiating one alleged remedy from another, and/or measuring the alleged differences in potency/targeted action etc., is a matter of chemical analysis (of the various substances used in dilution and succession). … But that is different from quantifying the alleged impact on health (which requires classic scientific experimentation). Identifying and quantifying various agents is merely the observation process that precedes the crucial testing of their alleged action/s.
Homoeopathy would not be proven if this is true, but it would surely be disproved if it is not true. Many other similar tests can be constructed.
If someone informally tests the efficacy of one or more remedies and any or all appear not to have an impact on one person / small # of people, it does not guarantee their weren’t confounding factors that yielded false results. Ask me for examples and I will offer them.
No, anecdotal refers to the documentation available. Some experiments in nuclear physics are performed with very few positive tests, but they are not anecdotal because they are very well documented.
Unfortunately, even when well conducted, anecdotal testing / studies do not qualify as supporting evidence, rather it is used in the potential construction of a hypothesis for further testing. In medicine (which is apropos to this thread topic), “anecdotal” refers to a case report (limited to one subject). Such a study is only considered formal evidence following further, more rigorous scientific study, to include a large subject pool, under strictly controlled conditions - as I keep restating), dependent on peer review.

[ProbeX]

No. Besides, it is immaterial, because the JREF MDC is not designed as a scientific test [further down] … As I stated before, a successful claimant for the MDC would surely get tested under proper scientific conditions, so the MDC would lead to scientific results, even if it is not actually science in itself.
Again, this is incorrect: The “challenge” is designed as a “quasi-scientific” test because Randi ambivalently chooses to disclaim science as his method of truth testing, yet makes use of scientists / statisticians minus the classically controlled conditions of science, and w/in an adversarial context. He straddles the line between scientific testing, and informally improvised collaborative “testing“. It amounts to shoddy pseudo science.

… And as I’ve stated multiple times, without highly formalized scientific / medical rigor, the stated results (re: efficacy) of an alleged medical substance cannot be formally respected. A magician and his “team” who:

1. … creatively constructs a “lab” with “scientists” who don’t follow respected established scientific protocol
2 … co-creates testing conditions w amateur subjects (who largely - like him - lack scientific credentials or savvy)
3. … would be attempting to test medical claims re: medical substances, while lacking medical credentials or a medical oversight board
4 … delivers a “truth” verdict based on said “challenge“, w/out an independent review of his process and findings (in addition to all the aforementioned deficits)
&
5 … is adversarial in nature

… won’t yield respect in the world of authentic, respected science, even if the result/s turn out to be accurate (after all, most people w a brain can conclude homeopathy is likely a farce). It’s the comprehensive rigor of the testing process that is crucial. Such testing standards would clearly be outside the scope of Randi’s magical expertise. ... Not to mention there are already numerous studies concluding that homeopathic "remedies" are likely nothing more that placebos.

[steenkh]

Differentiating one alleged remedy from another, and/or measuring the alleged differences in potency/targeted action etc., is a matter of chemical analysis (of the various substances used in dilution and succession). … But that is different from quantifying the alleged impact on health (which requires classic scientific experimentation). Identifying and quantifying various agents is merely the observation process that precedes the crucial testing of their alleged action/s.
Interestingly, most homoeopaths do not agree with you that differentiating one remedy from another is a matter of chemical analysis. They do recognise that there is not a single molecule left in the higher potencies. Instead they hope for some other property, like the "memory" of water to hold the information they think is in the remedy. You are right that the differentiation is a crucial step, and that is exactly why it is useful to start with this crucial step on the road to recognition. Homoeopaths are acutely aware that since they cannot show that homoeopathy has an effect, at least they should be able to show that homoeopathy has some modus operandi, like "water memory" to store the necessary information. This is why the initial reports of water memory received such enthusiastic response from the homoeopathic community. What blew the bubble was exactly the kind of test like the MDC performed with James Randi as a consultant, although you seem to think that the "adversarial nature" would invalidate the test. The scientific community, however, did not see Benveniste's failure as a result of adversarial treatment, but as a result of poor scientific practice on the part of Benveniste.

If someone informally tests the efficacy of one or more remedies and any or all appear not to have an impact on one person / small # of people, it does not guarantee their weren’t confounding factors that yielded false results. Ask me for examples and I will offer them.
Who says that it has to be a small number of test persons for the MDC? That is up to the claimant. If the claimant claims he can get the desired results with a few test persons, it is his claim, and it will be tested as such. If he needs thousands of test persons, I am sure the JREF will accept. After all, it is the claimant who will pay all expenditures for the test.

Unfortunately, even when well conducted, anecdotal testing / studies do not qualify as supporting evidence, rather it is used in the potential construction of a hypothesis for further testing. In medicine (which is apropos to this thread topic), “anecdotal” refers to a case report (limited to one subject). Such a study is only considered formal evidence following further, more rigorous scientific study, to include a large subject pool, under strictly controlled conditions - as I keep restating), dependent on peer review.
I have claimed that a successful JREF claimant would get his scientific proof with peer reviews afterwards, because there will be lots of funding available when he has won credibility with the JREF test. I see nothing in your comments that goes against this claim.