Detoxes Dont Work, In Skeptisism We Trust

DETOXES DON'T WORK

A common headline at this time of year.

This is generally said by a scientist of the evangelical skepticist type. Or by one of their disciples.

Of course they say this strutting along with their heads held high in the knowledge that they alone are saved from the fiery pits of superstition and are living in the kingdom of true and everlasting knowledge.

But as is often the case with those who state absolutes, their absoluteness makes them wrong.

In science there is not The Truth, there are only competing bodies of evidence. I have read evidence supporting some types of detox (fasting), no doubt the skeptics have some evidence that shows some types don't work, probably, or maybe not, some scientists are just as religious as the rest of us: once they have formed a set of beliefs they will dismiss or fight alternative beliefs and will criticise perfectly valid research. Once the scientific / medical world ridiculed the idea that washing hands before performing a medical procedure was a good idea!

OK, actually I want to make something clear, science is good and useful, it is dogmatic belief which is not. Science done properly is a remedy against dogmatic belief: if evidence comes to light that contradicts your beliefs you should take that evidence seriously and question your beliefs. Sadly in practice this isn't always done, instead evidence that contradicts beliefs is treated harshly while evidence that supports those same beliefs is warmly accepted no questions asked.

So anyway, if lots of people feel better after doing a detox it is no good going up to them, slapping them in the face and telling them to stop feeling good because actually their liver was doing a good enough job of detoxing them anyway. OK, the word detox is very poorly defined, and the money addicts are of course cashing in on this as much as anything else, but the statement 'Detoxes don't work' is wrong. Saying some detoxes or detox products don't work may very well be true, but for some people some types of detox do have a positive effect - or so I believe anyway!

Harvard referencing for pubs

As many readers are no doubt aware, vast quantities of insightful information is often obtained whilst in a pub. Sadly however, this information is generally not regarded as reaching high academic standards and often information is not properly attributed to rightful author (often being just vaguely attributed to 'the lads'). In order to clear up confusion and to reinstate pub gained information to its rightful place the current author has produced the following suggestions as to how the Harvard referencing system could be used for benefit.

Referencing one author (male)

Important information to include is the author, the year it was said, the title of the revelation, the pub where it was stated, and the amount of alcohol the author had consumed. An example follows.

In text reference:
My mate Bob (2006) said that the government is making cows fart more to stop global warming

End text reference:
Bob (2006) You know wot mate, wot that them gover, govermunt doin bout clum clum climate thingy. Queen's Head pub: 7 Pints

Referencing two authors (male)

This is done in the same way as above, but including both authors

In text reference:
Last week I was having a drink with my mates and they said that immigrants are stealing all the trees (Bob and Shad, 2007)

End text reference:
Bob and Shad (2007) Them bluddy foreigners. The King's Arms Pub: 6 pints, 7 shots of Whiskey (total)

Referencing more that two authors

Often the knowledge gained at a pub will be the result of the efforts of several person and much alcohol. Often it is not clear who was actually present at the time and so for referencing this type of information the expression 'the lads' can be used instead of names. An example will be given

In text reference:
I was down the pub last week and the lads (2008) decided that football would solve world hunger because everyone would stop fighting and eat more hot dogs.

End text reference:
The lads (2008) Did you see the match? The Harvester pub: 17 pints (total)

Referencing female authors

Although times are changing, women, though often admired and talked about, can often not be included in conversation in a typical pub and lager environment. They can be included at times through them being in a relationship with one of 'the lads' present. An example of how they are referenced is given below.

In text reference:
Although some present reckoned that America should declare war on all Muslim countries my mate Bob's missus said that that is was a really stupid idea showing both needless cruelty, a lack of understand and respect for different cultures, and an emotional and mental intelligence of an angry wasp

End text reference:
Bob's missus (2008) Bob you're drunk and you're talking crap. The dog and Bear pub: 1 glass of white wine

Secondary referencing

Although often cited as a reliable source, being often revered as the fount of absolute knowledge, the Daily Mail (often referred to as just 'The Mail') is about as reliable as the average drunk person and by being quoted by a drunk person it is often distorted even further; time and effort is saved by merely referencing the drunk. An example is given below.

In text reference:
It must be true that Britain is being destroyed by allowing all these foreign doctors and nurses into the country, i read it in the mail (cited by Mat, 2006)

End text reference:
Mat (2006) I don't trust the lot of them. The Curry House: 5 pints, 3 whiskeys and five bottles of some strange fluorescent blue stuff.

A final note from the author

If you have any suggestions in the furthering of this important cause, please do not hesitate to leave a comment below. It is the sincerest wish of the author that information gained from 'the lads' or from 'my mate bob wot knows this stuff' receives the full attention it is worth. It is left to the reader to decide how much that is.

Mark

Do we have ideas, or do ideas have us?

Right, we obviously like to think that humans are the center of the universe, much like thinking the sun and the planets, indeed the whole universe, rotates around OUR planet, but here is a little problem that has just occurred to me: ideas seem bigger and more dominant than humans, with humans just forming little parts of an idea. Let me explain...

When we are born we largely inherit beliefs of our parents, for example, if your parents happen to believe in creation as opposed to evolution you will likely do the same. So the idea was inherited, you didn't create the idea, you were born into it. Beliefs like this are also self-sustaining, controlling your interpretation of evidence: if you believe in creation you are likely to dismiss evidence for evolution and visa versa. Now add this to the fact that often ideas control how people live their lives and you have to start asking who is the boss!

An idea may be formed of millions of people, controlling all of them to an extent, might pass itself from one group of people to the next, have its individual participants develop and spread it, will resist its members transferring from one ideology to another.

Of course this doesn't just apply to religion but to all ideas, often with the bigger the idea the bigger its power. All is dependent on what information or ideas you come in contact with and often there is little choice - it depends on the community you were raised in and the media you come in contact with. It also seems very unlikely for anyone to know enough information to be able to choose for themselves and be unbias enough to choose freely between ideologies.

So which is bigger and more in control, our ideas or us that hold the ideas?

It would seem often it is the ideas; often, but not always.