Leaving The Land of Woo Ebook

Leaving The Land of Woo
Bob Lloyd
You can order a hard copy of
Leaving the Land of Woo
from Amazon or from
www.leavingthelandofwoo.com.
Copyright © 2009 Bob Lloyd

Published by Synogenes.com
editorial@synogenes.com
All rights reserved
The moral right of the author has been asserted
Cover design by Claire Lloyd

ISBN: 978-84-613-5099-5
This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or
otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the
publisher's consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it
is published and without a similar condition including this condition being
imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
Contents
Preface.......................................................................................1
The Land of Woo......................................................................3
But you have to believe in something...................................4
Academic Woo and anything goes.......................................5
Fiction and reality.................................................................7
Summary..............................................................................7
Clearing the ground.................................................................10
How do you dislodge an idea?............................................11
Proof and disproof..............................................................14
Anecdotal evidence............................................................15
Observational evidence......................................................15
Evidence from measurement.........................................16
What's an hypothesis?........................................................17
Controlled, double-blind, randomised trials.......................18
Summary............................................................................19
Medicine and mysticism..........................................................21
The difference between magic and science.........................21
But everything's possible, isn't it?.......................................24
Physical laws and what they mean................................25
If Woo is right, science is wrong...................................27
Alternative medicine..........................................................29
Strange forces and unseen causes..................................30
Pseudoscience, sham theory, and wishful thinking.............35
Scientists have proved........................................................38
Hobby Woo and delusional Woo........................................40
The harm of Woo...............................................................42
How to spot Woo................................................................44
Food Woo................................................................................48
Human nutrition – the basics..............................................49
Oxidation, antioxidants and free radicals............................51
Toxins and detox................................................................52
Can eating things detox you?..............................................53
Cholesterol, fats and fatty acids..........................................54
Colonic irrigation...............................................................57
Chelation therapy...............................................................57
Metals.................................................................................58
Dietary supplements...........................................................59
The essential elements of Food Woo..................................60
Summary............................................................................60
Religious beliefs and theories about the world........................62
Religion and reality............................................................63
Biblical versus geological time...........................................63
The flood............................................................................64
Evolution............................................................................65
Religion and the immaterial...............................................66
Alternative hypothesis...................................................67
People and souls.................................................................68
Meditation..........................................................................70
Prayer.................................................................................71
Spirits, Ghosts, Angels, Leprechauns.................................71
Religion and morality.........................................................73
Do religious people behave morally?.................................74
Where do morals come from?.............................................75
Where do souls come from?...............................................77
The spark of life............................................................77
Evolution gets in the way again..........................................78
Theology is not theory........................................................80
Summary............................................................................81
Psychic Woo............................................................................83
How can we check psychic claims?....................................83
Supernatural apparitions.....................................................84
Explanations for visual apparitions.....................................85
Mediums and séances.........................................................86
Exorcisms and consecrations..............................................87
Psychic abilities..................................................................89
What counts as statistically significant?.............................90
Predicting cards and other random events..........................91
Psychics and the military....................................................92
Psychics and the police.......................................................93
Summary............................................................................93
Rational thinking.....................................................................96
The advantages of rational thinking....................................97
Attitudes to the rational......................................................99
Rational equals unemotional?......................................100
Creativity opposed to rational thinking?......................101
Either artistic or logical?.............................................102
Summary..........................................................................103
A short compendium of Woo................................................104
Acupuncture...........................................................104
Alexander Technique.............................................105
Apitherapy .............................................................105
Applied kinesiology ..............................................105
Aromatherapy ........................................................105
Astrology ...............................................................106
Ayurvedic medicine...............................................106
Bach flower therapy ..............................................106
Chiropractic ...........................................................106
Chromotherapy ......................................................107
Colloidal silver therapy .........................................107
Colon hydrotherapy – colonic irrigation.................108
Crystal healing .......................................................108
Cupping .................................................................108
Dietary supplements ..............................................108
Dowsing ................................................................109
Ear candling ..........................................................109
Faith healing ..........................................................109
Fasting and detox...................................................110
Feng shui................................................................110
Hatha yoga ............................................................111
Herbal therapy .......................................................111
Holistic medicine ...................................................111
Homeopathy ..........................................................112
Iridology ................................................................112
Macrobiotic lifestyle ..............................................112
Magnet therapy ......................................................113
Massage therapy ....................................................113
Medical intuition....................................................114
Naturopathic medicine ...........................................114
Neuro-linguistic programming ..............................114
Orthomolecular medicine ......................................115
Osteomyology .......................................................115
Osteopathy .............................................................115
Polarity therapy .....................................................116
Prayer ....................................................................116
Psychic surgery .....................................................116
Reflexology ...........................................................117
Sclerology .............................................................117
Therapeutic touch, Reiki........................................117
Traditional Chinese medicine.................................117
Conclusion........................................................................118
Leaving the Land of Woo......................................................119
Sniff Therapy – an alternative con....................................121
Taking apart Sniff Therapy...............................................122
The obvious verdict on Sniff Therapy..............................125
What have we learned from this?.....................................128
Summary..........................................................................130
Why this stuff matters............................................................132
Protecting the gullible.......................................................134
Conclusion........................................................................136
In lieu of references and footnotes.........................................139
Suggested reading topics..................................................140
Human Biology...........................................................140
Basic Science...............................................................141
Evolution.....................................................................142
Religion.......................................................................142
History of Science.......................................................142
Personal Note........................................................................144
Preface
This short book doesn't have lots of footnotes and references

and you don't need to have been to college to be able to read it. It's
about thinking for yourself, thinking rationally and clearly, and
getting your head out of medieval beliefs and rituals. If you are
religious, I hope this book will help you to question your beliefs.
Even if you remain religious at the end of it, and I hope you won't,
you will have seen how religious ideas can be subjected to critical
appraisal in the same way as any other ideas.
If you are one of the many people who are tempted to try
homeopathic medicine, a trip to the chiropractor, or maybe sample
that new special kind of therapeutic massage, this is for you. If
you have ever parted with your hard-earned cash in exchange for
some therapy that had mystical explanations, you owe it to
yourself to read this book.
My intention is to encourage you to question what you have so
far taken on trust, to move from a position of believing to one of
being sceptical. Instead of believing until otherwise convinced, I
want to persuade you to question beliefs at the outset and I'll show
you that, far from being an outrageous point of view, it is the basis
of how we safely negotiate our way around the world.
It's not a difficult ride, and you don't need to learn lots of new
things. If you follow the argument of this book, you will emerge
at the other end with a healthier, sceptical attitude. You will be
less gullible, and more cautious about extraordinary claims. You
will understand something about evidence, the methods of science,
clinical trials and physical laws, and you will understand what
Woo is and why many of the claims from the Land of Woo are
without foundation and should not be trusted.
You can still enjoy the fun of entertaining fanciful theories of
how the world works in the Land of Woo, but you won't be paying
for it. Enjoy the book and keep your mind open. Just don't let any
fool fill it up with nonsense.
Preface 1
Acknowledgements
My grateful thanks go to the many people who have tolerated
and sometimes even encouraged my questioning of their theories
and beliefs, and put up with my annoying questions and
objections. In the process they have helped me to clarify my own
reasoning.
My heartfelt special thanks must go to my wife Claire, who has
by now read the manuscript at least as many times as I have, and
whose remarkable attention to detail has immeasurably improved
it. But her contribution is much greater than that. Over many
years she has engaged with the ideas of the book, countered them,
defended them, challenged them, and found many errors and
omissions, and her path has inevitably informed my own. I hope I
have done justice to the quality of those conversations.
I also acknowledge my debt to my father, Reg Lloyd, who
encouraged me from a very early age to think for myself, to
question theories, to look for and evaluate evidence, and to build
knowledge on secure foundations, always being open-minded and
ever willing to be proved wrong. I had absorbed this central tenet
of science before I even knew what it was called.
Disclaimer
There are many genuine practitioners who honestly believe they
are providing effective care for their customers, whether or not
they are correct in this belief. This book is concerned with the
ideas and theories underpinning those beliefs, and assessing their
rationality, not with claims made by specific individuals or groups.
I have taken every effort to establish the accuracy and fairness
of the information presented here but it is in the nature of the
subject that explanations from Woo practitioners are scarce and
flimsy. In expressing my opinions throughout the book about the
rationality of claims and the effectiveness of the therapies, I draw
on the available evidence but it is for the reader to decide which
practitioners and therapies to trust, if any, and to investigate their
specific claims themselves. The burden of proof ought to be with
them to demonstrate the evidence for their claims.
Preface 2
CHAPTER 1
The Land of Woo
The world abounds in interesting, curious, fascinating, and

challenging phenomena. There are so many areas of human
study and knowledge that we have insufficient space even to
list them. So much is known about our world and even our
universe that it already far exceeds the capacity of any single
individual. Much of that knowledge came at considerable cost
and effort to those pioneers who asked the questions and sought
the answers. As never before, we can build on the foundation
of a deep understanding of physical, chemical and biological
processes, and we can direct our efforts at finding out more and
more. The fascination and wonder arising from our study of the
natural world, far exceeds anything that we can deliver as
fiction. Science fact really is stranger and more challenging
than science fiction.
Nevertheless, there are many people who have not had
access to this world of knowledge, or who perhaps through
disenchantment with their early experience of science, have
remain closed to its progress. Despite being intelligent, well-
educated, thinking people, they do not approach extraordinary
claims sceptically. Sometimes it is because they do not realise
that such claims are indeed extraordinary, and that they demand
explanation and evidence. For example, someone who does not
know what the liver does, will be far more susceptible to
misinformation about detox.
What we are calling The Land of Woo is that growing sector
which relies on mystical or unfounded beliefs about how the
world is, and how it works. It includes religions because these
are based on substantial claims not just about how we ought to
live, but about how the world actually is. Most religions claim
various things about original causes, supernatural beings,
apparitions able to change the course of human destiny, souls,
extra-terrestrial places like heaven and hell, angels and demons,
The Land of Woo 3

miracles, and omniscient beings.
There is a commercial sector of Woo which includes those
businesses based on alternative medicine and therapy which
propose radically challenging theories of how the human body
functions, and there are also those people who make claims
about paranormal activities including ghosts, and psychic
phenomena.
The Land of Woo is a very popular tourist destination for
those seeking a different landscape, maybe for a mental holiday
but perhaps for some people a place to live permanently. The
intention of the chapters that follow is to take a critical look at
these claims and to assess the credibility of the theories that
underpin them. It is my hope that in helping readers to adopt a
sceptical viewpoint, to look at and assess the evidence, to
criticise the theories, they will be able to see the Land of Woo
for what it is - a land of superstition and ignorance, where the
gullible or simply the unwary are encouraged to take on trust
extraordinary and unfounded claims about the world we live in.
But you have to believe in something...

Sceptical thinking has always had a bad press. Debunking
unreasonable claims is rather like taking the sweets from a child
or telling them that Father Christmas doesn't exist, and it leaves
people feeling betrayed, made a fool of, exposed for their
gullibility. The killjoy sceptic is of course a tiresome
individual because fantasy forms an important part of our lives.
Sometimes we just don't want to be reminded of how the world
really works.
But at the same time we make decisions in our lives which
are important to us, and we want them to be made on the right
basis. We decide what to do based on what we believe. We all
need to believe something, just in order to function in the
world. When we get on a plane, we need to believe that it will
fly rather than simply that it might fly. When we have an
operation, we need to believe that the anaesthetic will actually
make us unconscious. For those decisions, we have to have
The Land of Woo 4

very strong justifications for the belief. Of course, when our
lives depend on it, we demand very good reasons. Having the
pilot tell us he believes the plane will fly is not enough. We
want the plane to be designed and tested according to rigorous
engineering standards, based on the known principles of
aerodynamics.
We choose what we want to believe in, but when we take
important decision we are very critical of the reasons. The
more important the decisions, the better reasons we demand. If
we are making decisions about our morality, our conduct, our
health, our safety, our children, we owe it to all concerned to
look long and hard at the reasons. We do have to believe in
something but it has to lead to predictable and reliable
knowledge about the world. Yet in the Land of Woo, we are
continually expected to accept theories of the world for which
there are no good reasons.
There is nothing negative about being sceptical. By
rejecting unfounded theories and wacky ideas, you are
affirming your rationality, your creative constructive thinking,
your involvement in the real world, your active participation in
knowledge, experience and society.
Academic Woo and anything goes

It was fashionable in the academic world of the 1980s and
90s to consider all approaches to knowledge to be equivalent
and they were referred to as discourses and narratives. For
these academics, knowledge consisted not in something
objectively verified against the properties of the real world, but
subjectively. These academics called themselves post-
modernists and their philosophical approach was called post-
modernism.
But if everything is just an opinion, all theories are
equivalent and all of them are equally likely to be right. Or so
they argued. Therefore, they said, scientific theories should not
be given any priority in establishing what is and is not the case.
For many years, this movement held sway in academia,
The Land of Woo 5

convincing otherwise rational people that they could no longer
trust scientific theories, that scientific research was self-
justifying and therefore unable to provide what they saw as the
truth. They were largely unaware of how scientific theories
were tested and corrected through open review and challenge,
through experimental testing against predictions in the real
world.
Although the scientific world carried on without them,
continuing to make substantial progress, the attitudes
engendered by this academic movement pervaded many aspects
of society.
The media translated the deliberately obscure language of
the post-modernist writers into articles glorifying any and every
wacky idea. On the grounds that academics were claiming that
scientific research did not necessarily find the real causes, the
media felt entitled to support and promote any and every
alternative theory, however groundless.
It was a heyday for Woo. Suddenly, all theories were
considered equivalent, however absurd, contradictory and
bizarre. The conflict with present knowledge was simply one
of those things, not to be taken seriously.
By the 1990s, scientists had realised that such academic
nonsense needed to be addressed. Two physicists, Alan Sokal
and Jean Bricmont, created a storm in the academic world when
they submitted a completely absurd spoof paper to a journal
called Social Text containing pseudoscientific gibberish and
contradictions buried in obscure language. Amazingly, it was
taken seriously, accepted and published. When Sokal and
Bricmont themselves identified it as a hoax, the post-
modernists were exposed for the poseurs they really were.
Such ideas still persist in the dusty corners of some
university literature departments. Unfortunately though, the
more important and wider damage was already done. A
generation of students, without any scientific background, were
taught that the scientific method was little more than opinion,
where scientists simply argued they were right. Newspaper and
magazine articles no longer paid attention to evidence, clinical
The Land of Woo 6

trials, testing hypotheses, providing the reasons to support
extraordinary claims. Just like many of their readers, they were
off in the Land of Woo.
Fiction and reality

It seems strange that we should have to discuss the
difference between fiction and reality but unfortunately many
people assume that it doesn't really matter how things are.
Once we dispense with the need for evidence, theories are
nothing more than acceptable stories.
But there is a fundamental difference between fiction and
reality. We can change fiction with almost no effort. We can
change the plot, the characters, the motives, the actions, the
locations, and so on. It's simply a matter of rewriting it.
Unfortunately reality is not like that. We cannot simply rewrite
how the human body works, or how chemicals react, or how
physical structures behave, or how gravity acts. The external
real world constrains us.
The Land of Woo is a fictional land in which theories are
offered as stories of how some people think things are. We
might recognise some of the character names like bone and
blood, liver and brain, but we soon see that their characteristics
are quite different from those in the real world.
Whereas in the past, we had no alternative but to offer the
best theories available, theories that we now know to have been
fictions, nowadays we have a wealth of accumulated
knowledge. We don't need to make up stories to explain what
we already know.
Summary
We've identified the Land of Woo as a place where we find
extraordinary claims about how the world is, its history, and the
nature of reality. We find extraordinary claims about how the
human body works. We find claims that there are therapies
which, with the minimum of intervention and fuss, can bring
The Land of Woo 7

about extraordinary improvements in conditions which
conventional medicine apparently fails to address.
Religions ask us to believe that there are non-material super-
beings who are omniscient and all-controlling, with
extraordinary powers to change the nature of the universe.
These superbeings can simultaneously listen in on the thoughts
of all humanity and apparently suspend all physical laws.
In each of these cases, we are asked to believe something for
which we have no good reasons. We are expected to believe
them because someone else says it is so. In other areas of our
life, such a strategy would be dangerous, possibly even fatal.
Suspending our scepticism is a serious step and we should not
do it lightly. All of these extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence before we can take them seriously.
We have also seen how misguided academic theories such
as post-modernism undermined the value of scientific enquiry
and provided a cover for irrational alternative theories.
Although post-modernism is now thoroughly discredited, there
are many university-trained non-scientists who retain their poor
understanding of the scientific method, and the prejudiced
opinion that science is just another narrative. Some of those
people may well be in positions of power, running companies,
governments, and educational establishments, making policy
about science investment and training.
Fiction is different from reality. We can change fiction to
suit ourselves. Reality though constrains us, and we can't
simply ignore the way the human body functions, how chemical
reactions take place, how physical laws operate.
When there's a conflict between theory and reality, we have
to change our theories, not make up fanciful stories about how
the world works. We formulate experiments to test the
predictions we get from our theories, put them in the public
domain along with the results we've obtained ourselves, and
invite peers to try to reproduce the results, criticise our ideas,
and come up with better theories.
In short, we do everything we can to eliminate bias in our
understanding of how things really are. We subject our ideas to
The Land of Woo 8

tests in the real world to see if they are right.
But as we'll see in the chapters that follow, Woo is not like
that at all. In every case, it follows a short-cut to the
conclusion, avoiding any test with reality, with how things
really work. Very different rules apply in the Land of Woo.
The Land of Woo 9

CHAPTER 2
Clearing the ground
In the modern world, our mental space is up for grabs.

Anyone who comes along with a catchy idea, however wacky,
competes for our attention because, more often than not, there's
money involved. Ideas sell commodities and whoever can be
persuaded to go along with those ideas will be in the market for
buying something.
Women who are persuaded that they have cellulite, or even
might have cellulite, will be inclined to spend large sums of
money trying to get rid of it. If someone tells you that your gut
needs “good bacteria” and you believe it, then you'll probably
go and buy some yoghurt.
We are all bathed in the ideas that pervade our culture and
we are encouraged to go along with them. It's often a lot easier
that way. Sometimes we can see the really silly ones from a
long way off and we just ignore them. But when ideas are so
pervasive that almost everyone goes along with them, we are
led to believe they are actually true. Sometimes they are not.
We're being had.
A very simple example comes from medicine. In the UK
and right across Europe throughout the seventeenth century, the
medical treatment of bleeding, draining blood from veins or
removing it with leeches, was considered completely
acceptable. No self-respecting doctor would question the
treatment. It wasn't until a fellow called Alexander Hamilton
counted the death rates and found that more patients died with
the bleeding than without, that the idea was gradually
questioned and then abandoned. It was a silly idea that had
taken root and had remained unquestioned.
In some countries, such as the United States and Iran, the
dominant ideas are religious and people are expected to trust in
one or more deities, to observe religious rituals, and to behave
Clearing the ground 10

according to a religiously approved code of behaviour.
Depending on which religion you choose, there are different
codes of conduct, different rituals, but a substantial overlap in
the values.
But is it reasonable to go along with such ideas? Do we
have reasons for accepting them, or should we apply the same
critical standards as we employ in other parts of our lives?
How do you dislodge an idea?

Once an idea gets into our heads, it's very hard to shift it.
We invest a certain amount of psychological capital in being
right and being wrong makes us feel bad. So we tend to
support our own ideas once we have them. Some folks will
argue vigorously for what they believe in, even in the face of
overwhelming evidence. That's the power of our own
psychology. We want to be right. But sometimes we're not.
The question is, how do we find out? And having found out
we're wrong, what do we do about it? These were difficult
questions in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries because the
dominant ideas of society were being questioned by all kinds of
events. There were revolutions in the nineteenth century all
across Europe and things were being questioned which had
been previously unchallengeable. Whether it was about the
right of kings to rule, or the power of the established church,
people were asking for reasons.
In nineteenth century England, the universities were
controlled by the church. If you wanted to be a professor, you
needed religious sponsorship or you had no hope. That meant
that universities would be well-advised not to question the ideas
promoted by the religious institutions. But some people braved
the hostility of the academic and religious community and
thought the unthinkable. Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin
each advanced theories that questioned the account of the
history of the world given in the Bible. It was considered
outrageous, and the simple fear of the reaction kept Darwin
from publishing his own work for more than twenty years.

In order to break down the idea that the world was only
6000 years old, Lyell amassed huge quantities of geological
evidence, travelled all over the world, and did exhaustive
research. Darwin too, from the early voyage of the Beagle
through more than twenty years of detailed research, drew
together an enormous quantity of evidence.
During that century particularly, a method was refined that
was designed to allow the free questioning of ideas, without
allowing powerful bodies to influence the result. It separated
the authors from the responsibility of what the evidence
showed.
Researchers would advance their ideas to explain
observations already seen. They would advance theories to
explain how things worked, and make predictions which they
could test to see if those theories could point to new
discoveries. Once the theories were in the public domain,
everyone was invited to reproduce the results of experiments
and offer their own observations. If the theory was inadequate,
it would be modified or even abandoned. No longer was it
acceptable to simply assume, you had to take account of the
facts. The Royal Society's motto was Nullius in verba, a Latin
phrase that means “take no-one's word for it”.
Sometimes a theory would adequately explain some things
but not others. Researchers would be encouraged to update and
modify the theory based on their own experimental
observations and the whole review process would repeat itself.
This method has been the most productive ever for establishing
how things work, how natural processes occur, the structure
and functioning of living organisms, the properties of materials,
and all of our technological progress. It is called simply the
scientific method. It's not fancy, difficult, nor secret. But it is
unbiased. You cannot produce biased results if you follow the
scientific method correctly. It's not easy to do science though.
You have to think very carefully about the design of
experiments and eliminate the sources of bias, question
assumptions, ask others to check your results, open your
investigation to public scrutiny. It takes a great deal of personal

courage to advance a theory and present your evidence
knowing that the rest of the scientific community will take it to
pieces looking for weak points, questioning your evidence,
posing alternatives, and adopting that sceptical viewpoint.
Now let's get back to business. Suppose I believe that there
is a supernatural entity which created the world, can read
everyone's minds simultaneously, is omniscient, all-powerful,
and invisible. How do I go about questioning this, subjecting it
to scrutiny? How can I tell if this theory is one worth
supporting and defending?
There are two directions we can come from. The first is the
believer viewpoint. We start by saying I'll believe anything
until I'm persuaded otherwise. The second is the sceptical
viewpoint where we say I don't believe things unless there is a
good reason. If we think we are in between, then we've already
started to apply sceptical reasoning, but perhaps not yet
consistently.
We are brought up initially to believe because as children,
it's a matter of safety that we believe our parents and follow
what they tell us to do. Parents are the source of much of our
knowledge of the world and so we naturally trust what they tell
us. We resist the temptation to eat certain things because we
are told they are poisonous. We avoid fire because we are told
it will burn us. If they tell us there is a God, we will believe it.
If they tell us the moon is made of cheese, we believe it... until
we have reason to doubt it. But once we do have adequate
reasons to doubt it, we'll stop believing. That's the believing
viewpoint.
Parents tell their children not just what they know to be fact
but also their own particular beliefs. Even in the absence of
any convincing evidence, parents will pass on their beliefs to
their children. Provided that the children are dissuaded from
questioning them, those beliefs will persist and will pass from
generation to generation. Religions are transmitted across
generations largely by parental action and supported by social
acquiescence. It is therefore very difficult for individuals to
challenge religious beliefs because they are often implicitly

challenging what their parents taught them. There is a
psychological resistance to questioning what our parents told
us. So to give up religious ideas involves more than simply
changing your mind.
The sceptical approach is one which we naturally adopt
when we are considering new phenomena. When we are trying
to work out how something operates, we typically look for
justification for our ideas. This lever moves that wheel because
it's connected at that point. When we study animals, we carry
out observations and try to explain behaviour based on them.
We draw our theories from experimental and observational
results. We are looking for predictability and order which we
can use in our interactions with the world. This is a natural and
productive way to accumulate knowledge and test theories.
We abandon theories when we can disprove them. Our
theory remains acceptable so long as it completely explains the
currently known data. As soon as data are found which
contradict the theory, the theory is found to be inadequate and
is re-examined.
Proof and disproof

There has always been an entertaining debate about whether
or not it is possible to prove the existence of an invisible all-
powerful god. Without direct evidence, you have to rely on
indirect evidence. We can't see electrons but through the
secondary effects we can be certain they exist. Religious
people have often suggested a similar argument for the
existence of a god. Creation, the richness of nature, its
complexity, its diversity, are all to be considered evidence of a
creator.
So let's take a minute or two to consider what evidence is.
Evidence is anything which can be presented to establish or
demonstrate the truth of a statement. It can be strong or weak,
direct or indirect, circumstantial, credible, reliable, unreliable,
incomplete, valid or invalid. It comes in many forms of
varying quality.

Let's quickly take a look at some different types of evidence
and what weight we ought to give them.
Anecdotal evidence
We've all heard the stories of someone who drank water
from a certain place and suddenly their cancer went into
remission. Or someone who went to some kind of alternative
therapist and reported remarkable improvement in their
condition. That's called anecdotal evidence, it's a report from
an individual of their personal impression of what happened to
them.
Anecdotal evidence is a very fickle type of report. It relies
on the individual faithfully reporting what in fact happened to
them but it is inevitably affected by their opinions, feelings,
perceptions, assumptions and beliefs. All these can and do
affect the quality of anecdotal accounts. For example,
someone who has paid for a treatment and who believes it
works or desperately wants it to work, will be unlikely to report
that it doesn't. Anecdotal evidence, with the best will in the
world is always subject to bias, both positive and negative. For
the account to be considered trustworthy, that bias somehow
has to be removed.
Observational evidence
When we observe events, animals, behaviours, we pay
attention to what we are interested in and record what we see.
That's observational evidence. For example, we watch the
thermometer when we boil water and observe and record that it
reached 100 degrees Celsius. This is a strong form of evidence,
providing that it can be reproduced.
Where an observation cannot be reproduced, we are in doubt
as to whether it is representative of what actually takes place. It
might be an experimental error. Reproducing evidence is an
important part of the scientific method because it eliminates the
likelihood of experimental error (unless everyone is similarly

mistaken).
Evidence from measurement

Sometimes there are aspects of the world we can directly or
indirectly measure. This is a very precise form of observational
evidence which can be used to test the predictions of theories.
If our theory predicts that a certain force will be of some
particular magnitude, then if we can measure it directly, we can
tell if our theory stands up or falls down.
A great deal of scientific work goes into refining
measurement, at greater and greater degrees of accuracy,
because of its value in disproving theories.
We have a variety of forms of evidence which will
contribute to supporting or disproving a theory. If we want
good evidence, we have to do the work of removing bias so that
the same evidence is obtained regardless of the opinions and
beliefs of the observer. But there is another criterion which is
used as well and that is consistency.
Theories are expected to explain at least as much as the
theories they replace. So for example, a theory that suggests
there is a cosmic force that pervades everything (let's call it Qi)
has to also explain how that relates to known forces such as
electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Theories that do not
address the question of consistency with the known and
demonstrable laws of physics are not saying anything useful
about the real world.
In the case of the proposed force, Qi, we have to be able to
demonstrate firstly that it exists and that requires that we show
we can reliably detect it. It has to be a bias-free, reproducible
observation for us to trust it as evidence. In other words,
someone needs to explain how it can be detected and then let
others also detect it. Next, we need to measure its effects.
Once we are at that stage, we have established it as a real
phenomenon, a proper object of scientific study and one which
requires an explanation. That's when our theorising comes in.
Scientists do not believe in science - because there is no
requirement for any scientist to believe anything. Their

theories and evidence must stand up independently without any
reference to the beliefs, values, or opinions of their proposers.
Science is NOT faith-based.
So given a theory, how do we go about testing it? We use
hypotheses.
What's an hypothesis?
When we use the word in conversation, we often just mean
an idea, a suggestion or an opinion. But when we are being
serious about establishing the truth of some claim, it's much
more precise.
An hypothesis is a statement which can only be either true
or false. It is a statement that can be tested and most
importantly, proved wrong not proved right. As an example,
take the hypothesis:
All swans are white.
This hypothesis cannot be proved true but it can be proved

false. It can't be proved true because we cannot physically
check all of the swans in the world. But it can easily be proved
false by finding a single swan that is not white.
That's how hypotheses work. They are statements which
can be disproved.
Finally we come to a very long-established principle about
how complicated a theory needs to be. What is known as
Occam's Razor (after William Occam, 1285-1349), is a simple
enough rule. Whenever you are proposing a theory, it should
be complicated enough to explain all the available data, but no
more complicated than that. In other words, we don't put
unnecessary bits into a theory. If we are explaining an illness,
and a specific bacterium can be shown to cause it, we don't
need to add to the theory other possible causes such as spirits or
undetectable essences. Keep it simple, but keep it sufficient, is
another way of saying the same thing.
There is a good reason for Occam's Razor apart from

keeping things simple. If the theory has other irrelevant details
in it, then testing it becomes much more difficult and even on
occasions impossible. Introduce any undetectable essences or
forces into a physical theory, and it becomes untestable. The
moment you appeal to immaterial essences or undetectable
forces in any theory, you are really saying I don't want to know
how it really works.
Controlled, double-blind, randomised trials

That mouthful sounds very imposing but it's shorthand for
the kind of experiment that produces genuinely unbiased
results. Over decades, scientists have worked hard to find ways
of getting experiments which are completely independent of the
opinions and beliefs of the experimenters, and also of any
patients. The ideas are very straightforward and they are
invaluable in sorting out real from fake science. Please think
about these three following points carefully because we will use
these ideas throughout the rest of the book.
When we are evaluating treatments, we want to organise
tests so that other people can do the same ones and check our
results. If we are wrong, we want to know about it – remember
we are trying to disprove, not prove our theories.
Controlled means that there is one group of people who
don't get any of the test treatment but everything else. This is
done so that if the illness cleared up on its own, we'd know
about it, and also we can use it as a baseline to compare any
differences attributable to the treatment given.
Double-blind means that neither the patient nor the person
giving the treatment knows whether they are actually giving
and getting the real treatment. This is done so that neither the
patient nor the person giving the treatment can influence the
results.
Finally, it's randomised so that there's no pattern between
those allocated to real and non-existent treatment so no-one can
predict the results.
There are real problems with any clinical research that

doesn't comply with these conditions.
If there is no control group for example, we cannot tell if our
treatment had any effect at all. Any effect seen could have been
caused by anything else at all. When we organise a control, we
have two groups that are identical except for the test condition.
If they end up different, it was because of the treatment.
If we don't make it double-blind, then either patient or
therapist or both, know about the treatment and the placebo
effect can skew the results. The placebo effect is where the
patient's belief that they are receiving treatment makes them
behave as if they had actually received it, and they therefore
persuade themselves that they feel better. Without double-blind,
we cannot rule out the placebo effect. Their behaviour could
have been influenced by the knowledge or expectation of what
was happening.
If we don't randomise, then it is possible that either the
patient or therapist could have worked out which group the
patient was in. Then whether consciously or not, the views of
either could have interfered with their perceptions of the results
or their behaviour during the trial.
Scientific and medical journals demand these standards of
the research they publish because they know how important it is
to have unbiased results. Any publications which do not
uphold these standards are publishing untrustworthy results.
Summary
Where does all this leave us? We know that in the past we
have accepted many of our ideas uncritically and that some of
them will have been wrong. We looked at how we consider
new phenomena, from the believing and sceptical viewpoints,
and we've thought a little about what evidence is. We looked at
the approach taken by science based on reproducible evidence,
and we've thought about how theories are developed to explain
observational and experimental data. We've also looked at why
some evidence is stronger and some is weaker. We looked at
bias and the need to remove it before we take evidence

seriously.
We also looked a little at how we prove or disprove
something and discovered, perhaps surprising some people, that
in fact science disproves theories rather than proves them.
We've seen that science does not depend on believing, and that
it is independent of the beliefs, values, and opinion of scientists
themselves.
Then we had a glimpse at Occam's Razor, that principle that
keeps theories just simple enough to explain what they need to
explain and nothing more, which stops us adding in
unnecessary and untestable assumptions.
Finally we looked at the gold standard of clinical research,
the controlled, double-blind, randomised trial. We looked at
why this is not an optional standard, but a vital requirement for
medical research to be considered trustworthy. Publications
that don't meet this standard could be publishing biased and
untrustworthy results.
We now have a good set of thinking tools to look at all sorts
of extraordinary claims. We have an easy and consistent way of
considering all sorts of theories, and of assessing whether they
make sense and should be supported. Now we're ready to move
on.

CHAPTER 3
Medicine and mysticism
At various times in our past, illnesses have been attributed to

an imbalance of the humours, to the anger of gods, to a miasmic
cloud, to magic, to sin, and to a variety of other malevolent
influences. During those dark times, the human response to
illness was governed by those beliefs. People were ostracised,
bled, chanted over, subjected to rituals and ordeals, and though
some survived, many died of their illnesses or their treatment.
The Land of Woo was teeming with a plentiful supply of
theories about what caused bodies to get ill, and clear
recommendations about how to treat them. It was the best we
had to go on at the time.
Those who survived the ordeals and recovered were
immediately identified as evidence that the treatment was
effective. Those who died were victims of the illness and were
unlucky. And that's as far as it went. Anecdotal evidence was
given the status of proof. If someone had survived the illness,
and the treatment, then clearly there was every reason to
continue using the same methods. But we all now know how
badly flawed that reasoning is.
The difference between magic and science

We have already referred to the dangerous practice of
bleeding patients. Not only did it not cure people, but in some
cases directly led to their death, as in the case of George
Washington, who had five pints of blood removed in an attempt
to treat pneumonia.
We can look back to how illnesses were treated in the past
and we now view some of those attempts as totally bizarre. But
why do they appear that way to us now? Surely there must
have been some reason why intelligent people supported them?
They couldn't be so unreasonable, surely? The reasons are
Medicine and mysticism 21

interesting and help us to understand the difference between
magic and science.
If a child complained of toothache nowadays, we would take
them to a dentist to have the tooth examined, perhaps X-rayed,
and any tooth decay treated. But in the absence of our
understanding of how tooth decay occurs, what the effect is on
the nerve in the tooth, what needs to be done to prevent the
decay spreading, and the technology that needs to be employed
to relieve the pain and repair the tooth, in the absence of all
that, we might have reasoned very differently.
We might have decided that the pain in the head is caused
by madness. Or we might have decided that it was a curse, put
on the person to prevent them telling further lies. Or we might
simply assume that the tooth was bad and had to be pulled out.
We would base our judgement on what we thought we knew.
And if we did not rely on evidence for our knowledge, in many
cases it would simply be wrong. Reasonable people believed
incorrect things because the foundation of their knowledge was
inadequate. They did not yet know how to test and confirm
their knowledge, to distinguish between theory and fact. They
lacked the investigative methods and tools needed to challenge
existing ideas.
At some stage, someone studied the growth of tooth decay,
identified the agents that caused it, and produced a theory based
on that knowledge. Because it was a testable theory, they could
predict that if those causes were absent, tooth decay would be
reduced. It may be that there were other as yet unidentified
causes, but reducing the known causes would have a noticeable
effect. The use of scientific study enabled us to gather
knowledge of how things actually work. The theories of old
came under scrutiny and better, testable theories were proposed,
then investigated.
That's what happened in the case of the treatment of
bleeding patients. If you bleed weak patients already suffering
from an illness, more of them will die. That was no longer
simply an opinion – it was based on observational clinical
evidence. And so the practice was dropped.

Magical thinking is attributing causes to supernatural
entities and forces. It often involves mistaking correlation for
causation.
When two events often occur together we say they are
correlated. For example, we could say that when ice cream
sales increase, so do the rates of drowning. That's not
causation, because ice cream does not cause drowning, but it is
correlation because they often occur together. When one event
inevitably brings about another, we use the term causation. For
example, removing seven pints of blood from a human being
causes death. To accept causation, we need not just the
correlation, but also a statement that if the cause was absent, the
consequence would not have occurred.
So, back to the magic. Magic relies on an unsubstantiated
assertion about the cause and there is no way to test the claim.
Anger from the gods, a curse from a witch, sin? No way of
testing these theories! But if any of them is believed, it will
lead to actions which may prejudice the health of the
individual. Science is altogether a safer option. If the theory is
wrong, then searching for contradictory evidence has a good
chance of exposing it. Scientific theories are forced to self-
correct because everyone is invited to disprove every theory.
Medicine is based on the idea of identifying causes and this is a
very effective way of understanding how to treat illness.
Identifying the symptoms and then isolating the causes
provides the basis for diagnosis and therefore points to possible
treatments. But if we fail to identify the relevant symptoms
and/or fail to identify the testable causes, we have no chance of
selecting an appropriate treatment. Therapies that do not have
an efficient, repeatable method for diagnosis will not identify
illness correctly and will therefore be unable to relate treatment
to the cause. In reality this means that each practitioner could
diagnose something different from the same set of symptoms,
each diagnosis being unrelated to the real cause.

But everything's possible, isn't it?
We hear many claims that science doesn't know everything
and that there are lots of things that are possible but haven't yet
been discovered. That's a perfectly reasonable viewpoint which
every scientist would agree with wholeheartedly. However, the
collection of human knowledge may be modest but there are
very many things we know a great deal about. We can identify
the chemical composition of stars. We can detect and measure
subatomic particles. We can decode the genome of living
organisms. We know the age of the universe within less than
1% error. We can do brain surgery, create artificial limbs,
replace hearts, cure devastating illnesses that once ravaged
human populations. We certainly don't know everything but
that doesn't mean we know nothing.
Because our knowledge is built up painstakingly, by
observation, experiment and testing, we are building on firm
foundations so our knowledge is cumulative. It may surprise
some readers to hear that we know that the physical laws apply
throughout the universe so we don't expect elements to behave
differently on other worlds. Chemistry and physics are the
same throughout the universe. This is not an arrogant claim but
a scientific conclusion based on painstaking research and the
accumulation of evidence. That means that it is not true to say
that everything is possible. Some things are definitely not
possible.
We already know very many things which we can
demonstrate to be true. Our knowledge of human anatomy tells
us for example that blood is pumped around the body by the
heart. We know enough now to be able to replace the valves
inside human hearts when they are damaged. That existing
knowledge allows us to treat medical conditions that would
previously have been fatal.
So how should we react to a claim that people are using
strange, powerful, but mysterious forces to bring about cures?
Given our well-established and tested knowledge of the forces
we can detect in the universe, what are the implications of the

discovery of these new forces and energies?
Of course, science progresses year on year and there are
always refinements and sometimes even upheavals in our
understanding of the laws of the universe. When someone
proposes a new force, previously undiscovered, it is right and
proper that the idea be taken seriously and then be subjected to
critical evaluation.
We know of three fundamental forces: gravity,
electromagnetic, and nuclear. Energy comes in the following
forms: mechanical, gravitational, thermal, electrical, chemical,
nuclear, and mass. Energy can be converted between different
forms but the total amount of energy remains constant. Forces
and energy are governed by universal physical laws, and they
are considered laws because we have evidence, and justified
theory, that they cannot be broken. Einstein's theory of
relativity, a remarkably consistent, accurate and powerful
theory, relies crucially on the law of conservation of energy.
The discovery of additional new forces or energies would tip
the world of physical science upside down. All of our existing
understanding of the physical world would be affected. For
example, if someone could show that there was a universally
available energy source (such as Qi), then it would necessarily
need to be accounted for in the law of the conservation of
energy.
So whilst it is true that there is a great deal we do not yet
know, it simply isn't the case that all things are possible, nor
that fundamental physical laws can be broken. If our
understanding of those laws is incorrect, then it is experimental
science that will provide the evidence.
Physical laws and what they mean

When we went to school, we learned certain physical laws
which we were told applied throughout the known universe. In
our science classes, we were given countless demonstrations of
the reliability of that knowledge. When we boiled pure water, it
really did boil at 100 degrees Celsius. And when we froze it, it
really did freeze at zero. We could test it any number of times

and we always had the same result. Some laws were always
true and the great scientists were collecting them and showing
us the consequences.
Based on our knowledge of these physical laws, not only
could we understand how things worked, but we could predict
how they'd behave as well. When we turned a coil inside a
magnet, we could generate electricity but we could even work
out how much, and then measure it. By using our scientific
method together with the laws we had already established, we
could build on our knowledge. You can't build anything on
magic except illusion.
Any new theory has to be able to explain what we already
know at least as well as the existing theory. Sometimes, we
speculate. We think outside of the box, ask “what if...”
questions, propose fanciful strange ideas, postulate bizarre or
unusual possible causes. But before we take them seriously, we
do some work to see if we can test the predictions against the
real world. Magic stops after the first fanciful step. Whether
it's claiming that there is a mystical force called Qi, or claiming
to be able to see an aura around people, or detecting an
imbalance in life forces, or whatever, these are simply magical
claims. For them to be taken seriously, we have to go a stage
further, formulate them into a theory and make testable
predictions.
There are some physical laws which we have established by
continuous observation, which we come to believe to be
universal. We typically need to refine them as we make better
measurements. For example, the laws discovered by Newton
need corrections provided by Einstein when applied to very
small or very large scales. These laws are approximations
which get better and better with increasingly accurate
measurements.
In many cases, mathematics alone suggests the presence of
physical laws which can then be tested empirically. For
example, in the field of particle physics, mathematics is an
indispensable tool.

If Woo is right, science is wrong
The founder of chiropractic, D. D. Palmer, claimed in the
1890s that 95% of human illnesses were caused by
misalignment of the spinal cord. That's a claim that is very
easy to test, and of course disprove. Very few honest health
practitioners would support that claim because they will be
aware of the vast accumulation of medical knowledge which
contradicts it. But the basis of chiropractic health care still
depends on the central idea that the alignment of the spine is
able to affect the state of the rest of the body. With no adequate
explanation of how such alignment affects the rest of the body,
the claim is magical, pre-scientific, and as such compares with
theories such as blood-letting.
Acupuncture is very popular, based on the idea that there are
meridians, energy lines which cross the body, which can be
stimulated by gently rotating needles inserted through the skin.
Acupuncturists have failed to agree on the specific locations of
these meridians and are unable to provide any means of
detecting their presence. In the absence of any means of
detecting these energy lines, their very existence must be in
doubt.
So how do the claims of unorthodox medical cures shape up
when examined scientifically? If new energy fields and
channels cannot be detected, there is neither anything to
measure, nor any means of detecting their consequence. If we
cannot show that there is some consequence caused by them,
we have no possible means of detection. The scientific
approach to such a problem would be to search methodically
for the evidence of existence and publish the results. Without
this evidence, no claims can be made.
If we cannot detect these strange energy fields and channels,
we clearly cannot make statements about whether or not they
are aligned or misaligned. Crucially, we cannot tell if or when
anything we do has affected them. We cannot honestly claim to
be able to use them in any form of treatment or therapy.
But there is a more serious problem for some of the claims
from the Land of Woo. If causes are attributed to some magical

energy, then this challenges those theories that already explain
what we know. Often there is a conflict between what we know
to be true, and what these alternative Woo theories claim.
One example will illustrate this clearly. Homeopathy relies
on the notion that a small quantity of a poison or toxin that
causes an illness will bring about its cure, and that diluting that
small quantity repeatedly actually increases the potency of the
treatment. We can demonstrate the falsity of the first claim
directly. A small quantity of mercury or lead or arsenic does
not cure poisoning from mercury, lead or arsenic. It makes it
worse. And it is easy to demonstrate arithmetically that the
levels of dilution in commercial homeopathic preparations
ensure that there is no trace of the original material remaining.
For homeopathy to work, it must therefore be possible for a
non-existent agent to have an effect on the physical world. This
contradicts the known laws of physics. Either homeopathy is
right, or our accumulated body of scientific knowledge is right
– but they can't both be right.
And this is the case whether we are talking about Reiki, ear
candles, feng shui, chiropractic, homeopathy, Ayurvedic
medicine, and all the other characters that populate the Land of
Woo. If any of them are right, science is wrong. It's not simply
that there may be some knowledge that these people have that
has evaded science. They are saying that science is based on
physical laws that are not laws at all.
Just as the parting of the Red Sea would have required an
abrupt rewriting of the laws of physics, all of these practitioners
would be suspending the known laws of the universe during
their consultations. Most of them are completely unaware of
their radical challenge to the whole of scientific knowledge and
are singularly ill-prepared to consider it at all. Many have
simply learned and believed a sales script. They simply believe
and expect their customers to believe and pay. We are justified
in demanding why they have not already collected their Nobel
Prizes for science.

Alternative medicine
There are many motivations for people to consult what they
see as alternative medicine. Not least is their frustration when
having consulted their doctor, they are given generic
medication and sent away without a clear diagnosis of their
condition. They feel they have not been treated effectively.
Sometimes this is a fair complaint, but often it is not. When
a patient goes to the doctor with what is clearly a bacterial
infection, then a broad spectrum antibiotic is likely to be the
most effective treatment. It is a pointless and costly waste of
time and money to go through the process of identifying exactly
which bacterium is responsible for the symptoms, because the
treatment will be the same in every case. So although the
doctor may not know exactly what caused the symptoms, their
recommended treatment is, for good rational reasons, the best
available.
Sometimes of course, the patient is frustrated that the doctor
cannot alleviate the problem. People who go to the doctor with
persistent back or joint pain often feel that the conventional
general practitioner has little to offer. In some cases that is
perfectly true. Not enough is known about how to manage
chronic pain, or the causes, and doctors themselves
acknowledge that physiotherapy and pain killers are often the
best they have to offer.
Sometimes, the patient is frustrated by the lack of individual
attention given to them by busy local practitioners. In the
doctor's waiting room, there are many people who will get
perhaps five minutes each. In order to meet their targets, the
doctor will diagnose quickly and will often prescribe generic
medicines as the most likely effective treatment. The patient
feels as though they have been moved down a production line.
Sometimes the patient is led to believe by propaganda in the
media that there are alternative causes which the GP is
ignoring. The patient is encouraged to doubt the advice of the
GP, to assume that there is a another world of medicine, an
alternative world which offers greater chance of relief and cure.

This is a powerful marketing message broadcast by a very large
industry.
So there are clear reasons why people want something better
and will be attracted to advertisements which talk about holistic
approaches and patient-centred treatment. The contrast between
queues and individuals, between the patient and the person,
between treatment and attention, are all very alluring. That's
the kind of consultation the consumer-patient wants. A one-
hour consultation, with lots of questions about the person's
lifestyle and activities, gives the impression of being a much
more thorough examination. But is it?
The word holistic means entire, total, all. In medicine it
reflects the idea that symptoms may be caused by many factors,
not all of which are visible. To adopt a holistic approach, a
medical practitioner is expected to ask relevant questions
related to a range of possible causes. A general practitioner
will ask a variety of questions, perhaps about sleep patterns,
diet, activity level, stress and strain, other medication, drinking
habits, other recent injuries, genetic factors, and lots of others,
but they will focus their questions on those two key factors:
relevant questions, and possible causes.
They will not ask questions which are unrelated to the
illness, and they will focus on possible causes for which there is
clinical evidence. They do this to avoid misleading patients
into thinking there are causes for their illness which have no
clinical evidence. It is an important part of their ethics of
honesty and openness, that medical practitioners do not make
unsubstantiated claims.
It is important to note though that all general practitioners
adopt a holistic approach when they take the case history. It is
an essential and normal part of conventional medicine, not
something alternative.
Strange forces and unseen causes

Here are some samples from recent alternative medicine
websites indicating the kind of forces, energies, and causes that
are claimed to be related to our ailments. We are simply taking

a cross-section here from a huge pool in order to illustrate the
variety of speculative theories which are used to justify
alternative techniques. What follows are their claims.
Reiki:
It is administered by "laying on hands" and is
based on the idea that an unseen "life force energy"
flows through us and is what causes us to be alive. If
one's "life force energy" is low, then we are more
likely to get sick or feel stress, and if it is high, we are
more capable of being happy and healthy.... There is
no need to remove any clothing as Reiki will pass
through anything, even plaster casts.
Crystals:
Each crystal has a unique vibrational resonance
that can be used to restore stability and balance to the
body's energy systems.
Chakra balancing:
Having your chakras balanced is important. Open
and balanced chakras allow your life energy to flow
naturally. An energy medicine practitioner trained in
manipulating the energy flow of energy (sic) can
assist you in getting misaligned chakras back to
functioning properly. It may take one or more
appointments with a practitioner to get your energy
levels up to par.
Ayurvedic medicine:
The five elements - ether, air, fire, water and earth
are the foundations on which the Ayurvedic
interpretation of all matter and life is based, they are
not to be interpreted literally however, each
represents qualities and different types of force and
energy, as well as some form of physical
manifestation. The elements do not act in isolation -

three different combinations of the elements, called
tridosha, are what form the basis for diagnosis,
treatment, cure and health maintenance in Ayurvedic
medicine. Each individual's constitution is determined
by the state of their parents' doshas at the time of
conception, and upon birth a person has the levels of
the three doshas that is right for them. Life and all its
forces can cause the doshas to become unbalanced
which can lead to ill health.
Aromatherapy:
When an essential oil is inhaled, the molecules
enter the nasal cavity and stimulate the limbic system
in the brain. The limbic system is a region that
influences emotions and memories and is directly
linked to the adrenals, pituitary gland, the
hypothalamus, the parts of the body that regulate
heart rate, blood pressure, stress, memory, hormone
balance, and breathing. This makes the effects of
essential oils immediate in bringing about emotional
and physiological balance.
Aromatherapy can be used for a variety of health
conditions, such as allergies, stress, bruises, burns,
diarrhoea, earache, premenstrual syndrome (PMS),
energy, insect bites, relaxation, poor digestion,
headache, menopause, insomnia, nausea, bronchitis,
colds, flu, sinusitis, sprains, wounds, shingles (herpes
zoster), muscle and joint pain, arthritis, nervousness,
restlessness, and scars.
The Elements of Woo

Starting with Reiki, we see one of the most extreme
departures from the real world. Not only do its practitioners
claim there is some special life force which they can tap into,
but they claim that only those who have had the skill passed to
them by another Reiki practitioner-trainer, are able to use it.

The practitioners say they can pass energy into a person with
lower energy thus bringing about an improvement in their
health. This proposed force can apparently pass through
anything.
What would we need to know to assess this claim? At the
very least, we would need a means of detecting the energy that
the practitioner is selling. If we were filling a car with petrol,
we would expect to be able to measure the amount we'd bought.
The volume tells us the amount of energy we've obtained.
There is of course no available means of detecting this Reiki
energy. If the practitioner does nothing, you would be none the
wiser. Without any means of energy detection, the practice
cannot be distinguished from fraud.
Crystals are formed when molecules, atoms or ions are
arranged in a repeating regular structure making a solid. The
crystals are held together by chemical bonds and the process of
crystallisation is well-understood. All objects (not just crystals)
have a fundamental frequency at which they will vibrate. Some
crystals, such as quartz have a special property. When they are
distorted by a magnet and then released, they will emit an
electrical signal at a particular frequency. But when it is
claimed that this electrical signal, which is only released under
very specific circumstances, can restore “stability and balance
to the body's energy systems” we have already jumped from a
shaky understanding of chemistry, to claiming something very
grandiose about the human body.
But because of our accumulated knowledge based on
scientific enquiry, we understand a great deal about how energy
is moved around the body. We know how resources are
digested, how the chemical reactions are regulated, which
factors increase and impede the rates of reactions, and so on.
We can only make claims about these crystals if we are
prepared to throw out what we know of human biology.
Chakra balancing relies on the idea of a “life force”. The
theory claims that such life force consists of an energy which
must be able to flow freely around the body. Having “chakras”
aligned, it is claimed, is important to allow this flow to take

place properly. If the chakras are “misaligned”, we have
problems. The notion of chakra is mystical, and refers to a kind
of energy centre which some claim is located in the spine.
Others claim there are centres distributed throughout the body.
What should we require of the theory before we take it
seriously? As an absolute minimum, we would need to have
some evidence that chakra represented something real,
something which could have an effect on our bodies. Secondly,
if we had such evidence, we would need to know something
about the alignment of these chakras and how it could be
identified. But even supposing we had been able to establish
the phenomena of chakras as real, we would still be left with a
fundamental problem: how is the misalignment supposed to be
related to the physical state of real bodies? By what
mechanism can such effects be brought about? Again, in the
absence of evidence of the existence of chakras, any claim to
have realigned them is indistinguishable from fraud.
Ayurvedic medicine draws on some very ancient traditions
seeking inspiration in the mystical beliefs of the past. To the
original Four Elements, Earth, Air, Fire and Water, thought in
ancient times to be the basis of reality, Aristotle added the
aether in order to represent the non-material world. In Tibetan
philosophy, the fifth element is space. In Chinese philosophy
Fire, Earth and Water are joined by Metal and Wood. In
Taoism, Air is replaced by Qi, a mystical form of energy.
Ayurvedic medicine is immersed in this pre-scientific world
of mystical beliefs and seeks to relate those concepts to the
appearance of illnesses. It postulates something called dosha,
an Ayurvedic body type consisting of various combinations of
elements, which define the appropriate balance.
Since this theory is rooted in pre-scientific beliefs, it
requires a rejection of the totality of modern scientific
knowledge. Fire is not an element but a chemical process, the
rapid oxidation of a combustible material. To form an
acceptable theory, we would need to be able to show the
existence of dosha and to show its inheritance. We would need
a consistent means of tracing it from generation to generation.

We would need also a means of showing that such doshas could
be out of balance. But again, even if we had some evidence for
this, which we don't, we would still need a means of relating it
to the health of the human body. Once again, we are unable to
tell the difference between this and fraud.
Aromatherapy is often looked upon kindly because it is
considered a form of massage with nice smells. But the theory
claims much more than this. It claims that smelling particular
chemicals can affect the body and that as a consequence it is
possible to bring about specific changes. It draws on some
modern medical knowledge to justify its claims, for example,
by linking changes in the limbic system to the state of the rest
of the body. The limbic system is a collection of structures in
the brain. A great deal is known about the limbic system and it
is clearly a very important structure in the maintenance of
hormonal balance, behaviour and memory. Aromatherapy is
thus making a connection to established scientific evidence but
the claims then made are extravagant.
It is clear that relaxing massages do in fact relax the
customer but any additional claims to influence the human
body must be viewed with the same sceptical eye as the other
claims in the Land of Woo. Can aromatherapy really help with
insect bites and scars? How would we tell? We'd question the
theory in the same way as we always do. We look for the
evidence. And once again, we don't find any. Aromatherapists
can certainly claim to provide relaxing massages but any
further claims are dubious.
Pseudoscience, sham theory, and wishful thinking

The small sample above illustrates a common pattern
amongst Woo candidates. Most of them introduce another form
of energy, beyond what is currently known, which can only be
detected by the practitioner. Occasionally, as in the case of
crystal theory or aromatherapy, there is some attempt to relate
Woo to existing scientific theory to provide some vague
plausibility. In the case of crystals, there is a fundamental

frequency for crystal (as for all objects). In the case of
aromatherapy the limbic system is affected by smells. But
thereafter, having made reference to scientific knowledge, they
seek to extend their claims well beyond anything reasonable or
justifiable.
Others take the mystical path, straight into the
unidentifiable, undetectable, energy. Life forces, Qi, chakras,
doshas, channels, meridians, and the like, all lack any evidence
even of their existence. Of course absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence. But nor is it a justification for accepting
the theory. There is no evidence either for the proverbial Flying
Spaghetti Monster, so loved by Pastafarians the world over.
The absence of disproof alone is not sufficient grounds for
believing a theory.
We can reasonably ask, if such theories are so lacking in any
evidence, and are internally inconsistent, and contradict so
much of what we know about the world, why do so many
people seem to accept them as valid? We often hear the
justification “they can't all be wrong, can they?” The short and
unfortunate answer is, yes they can.
Our history is full of wrong theories, mistaken beliefs,
incorrect assumptions, inadequate explanations. The treatment
of patients by bleeding was unquestioned for decades until
someone decided to measure the results and find out the truth
about what was happening. Without that effort to check and
investigate, they could all be wrong, and were. Without
Darwin's detailed researches we would still believe in the
immutability of species.
Marketing is a powerful tool used to change people's
behaviour and although we all like to consider ourselves
immune (we're much too smart to be taken in...), in fact
companies use advertising because it works. If people can be
persuaded that their gut needs additional bacteria, they will run
out and buy “probiotic” yoghurt. If they can be persuaded that
their spine has the undetectable subluxations causing digestive
problems, they will spend money on a chiropractor. Marketing
generates sales by modifying behaviour. If you change

someone's beliefs, you can change their behaviour. And
pushing fatuous theories about how the body works, generates
new markets for these businesses. The spreadsheet overrules
any sense of scientific honesty.
The use of scientific terms is a powerful tool in persuading
people that the information can be trusted. Hair shampoo
advertisements now contains all manner of meaningless
pseudoscientific terms. Anti-wrinkle creams contain amazing
chemicals which are claimed to reverse ageing. We are
bombarded with all kinds of product-related claims. Each time
there is the slightest cautionary report in the medical journals of
a possible link between some food and some medical condition,
the marketers launch products exploiting the fear they create by
misrepresentation. Swamping genuine science is a suffocating
layer of pseudoscience, misinformation, and marketing-created
hype that is designed to subvert the results of careful research
into tools to change behaviour to boost product sales. It is not
at all surprising that people are so vulnerable to claims made
from the Land of Woo.
Pseudoscience is very alluring. For those not too familiar
with scientific methods, rattling off some medical information
about the limbic system gives the impression that the source of
information is reputable, trustworthy, correct. And that
confidence is seamlessly transferred to the more bizarre claims
which follow. It's not surprising that so many people are taken
in. It requires a consistent sceptical approach, the kind you'd
use in buying a car, to see through marketing which uses
pseudoscience.
Sometimes we are given a theory which talks about energy
and forces as if they were already shown to exist. If we don't
already know something about energy and forces, perhaps from
school days or a science course, we may simply assume that
they have now been discovered. After all science is
discovering new things all the time and we are led to accept the
theory uncritically. But these are sham theories, little more
than fanciful ideas joined together. As such they are no more
valuable as descriptions of how the world works than pure

fiction. Although purporting to tell us something reliable about
the world, they have skipped the crucial elements of a theory,
the evidence, the explanatory power, the ability to predict and
test.
Finally we have those who indulge in wishful thinking.
These devotees of Woo don't require a theory. All they need is
customers willing to go along with a mind-set, a collection of
vague ideas that make life seem nicer, a way of looking at the
world that is in tune with their beliefs, often very pleasantly
based on harmony, cooperation, love, peace, and respect for the
environment. Such positive values are important in their own
right but unfortunately are not sufficient to justify claims about
how the world actually works. Those mystics who think they
are tapping into deeper realities may really believe it, or maybe
they just suspend the exacting standards needed for real
knowledge in order to feel better about themselves and the
world. As long as they don't take money off people, they are
doing little harm.
Scientists have proved...

How many times have you heard that phrase? We already
know that scientists don't prove things, they disprove them. But
such is the need of marketers to give credibility to their dubious
claims that they will use not just scientific sounding phrases,
but will also cite scientific references. Sometimes
advertisements will carry the statement that some product is
endorsed by some institute or association apparently with
scientific credentials.
But what happens when the manufacturer owns or sponsors
that institute or association? How much credibility should we
give to scientific papers which prove how effective the product
is when the institute that did the research is owned by the
manufacturer? The answer is very little.
But we already have the tools to evaluate that kind of
research. We should ask if it met the gold standard of clinical

research: controlled, double-blind, randomised trials. Secondly,
we should ask if the journal is genuinely peer reviewed, which
means reviewed by people who are commercially independent,
with an established scientific reputation for impartiality and
openness. It is very easy for a large corporation to sponsor low
quality trials designed to endorse particular products. The
research could well be incomplete, partial, with insufficient
controls. They don't even need to publish the actual data.
We need to ask if the editorial aim of the journal is to
endorse a particular form of therapy or product line, or
genuinely to seek new knowledge based on strict scientific
criteria.
Scientific research is typically published in academic
journals which are run by societies. They have editorial boards
populated by leading practitioners in the field and their
reputation is based on the quality of the material they publish.
But where the society is actually a trade organisation, the
material that is published can fall well below acceptable
scientific standards. Many of the journals of chiropractic
publish papers which do not conform to the high editorial
standards expected of leading scientific journals.
The bottom line is that, if the research cannot be reproduced,
or is not based on standards which insist on objectivity and
freedom from bias, it does not matter who claims the results.
They are still suspect.
Scientists do not make extraordinary claims without offering
extraordinary evidence. Normally they make very cautious
claims, backed up by extensive evidence, and they themselves
identify the weak parts of any theory employed. Scientists are
intensively trained to be highly sensitive to the limitations of
their data and theories.
So when a marketer, magazine or newspaper claims that
scientists have proved something, the most likely explanation is
that they have taken the cautious statement from a scientist, and
turned it into a headline, or an advert.

Hobby Woo and delusional Woo
So what sort of people fall for the Land of Woo? Some
highly intelligent people consult chiropractors for allergy
treatment even though they haven't seen any evidence that it
works. There are people who despite being rational in all other
areas of their lives, will fervently recommend homeopathic
medicine. Apparently rational hard-nosed business people will
swear blind that someone manipulating their neck alleviated
their sore knee. What exactly is going on?
There are those who lack the scientific understanding to
distinguish between real science and pseudoscience, between
real and sham theory. They are subjected to the marketing
pressures which we have already noted. What they believe
depends to a large extent on the strength and content of the
marketing message. Those are people willing to accept what
they are told because they trust the authority of the person
telling them. They trust the marketing message and suspend
their critical judgement. Often we'll hear them say, if it didn't
work there wouldn't be a market for it. But they have made a
mistake. The correct statement is “if people didn't believe it
works, there wouldn't be a market for it.” These are subtly but
crucially different statements. Markets abound in examples of
useless and pointless products nevertheless selling well.
“There's one born every minute,” as the phrase goes.
But there are two other groups of people who are big
consumers of Woo.
One group consists of those who are essentially entertaining
themselves with fanciful ideas, outlandish theories, wacky
cures and therapies, who simply enjoy the experience of
stepping outside of the real world, into the Land of Woo. If
they had appendicitis, they would go to a hospital, not a
homeopath. If they had a broken bone, they'd have it set rather
than rely on a crystal. But if they had a skin rash and the cream
from the doctor didn't seem to be working, they would willingly
swallow some Ayurvedic medicine, or some herbal remedy.
The notion that “it might work” entertains them and the lack of

evidence is not part of the equation. It's fun, harmless enough,
and interesting. The very weirdness of the idea is the appeal.
These followers of hobby Woo provide a huge market for
therapies, books, videos, and all sorts of accessories. They like
fiction. They are entertaining themselves.
For the hobby Wooist, it really doesn't matter too much
which branch they happen to be on at the moment. The tree of
Woo is just an interesting place to be and moving from branch
to branch is what it's all about. Therapeutic touch? I'll have
some of that. Homeopathy, why not? It is completely
irrelevant that the theories of these different forms of Woo
might conflict. “It might work” applies uniformly to all the
untested, unevidenced claims in equal degree. It's simply
amorphous fun. It's rather like sampling different foods, or
buying a funny hat on holiday. It's not serious.
But the other group consists of those who genuinely believe
they are tapping into a deeper reality. They genuinely believe
that there are chakras, meridians, life forces, auras, energy
fields, and previously unknown forms of energy. They believe
they are gifted in some way, able to transmit their powers and
perform works of healing. These people are delusional. But
how did they come to accept those beliefs in the first place?
Some therapists believe they are doing good because of the
anecdotal reports of the people who have paid them for their
sessions. The placebo effect for them isn't a phenomenon that
skews evidence, but a confirmation that they are doing
something useful. They don't understand the difference
between real treatment and apparent treatment. Their
misunderstanding of the value of anecdote as evidence leads
them to convince themselves that they are doing good. They
are the victims of their own placebo effect. There are many
honest, but delusional, therapists in this category. Lacking the
scientific understanding and appreciation of evidence, they
have accepted their own marketing because their customers in
turn convince them.
There are of course those who know full well that what they
do is sham, ineffective, preying on the gullible, but it's a nice

little earner. They console themselves that as long as they do
no (actionable) harm, and the customers are kept happy, it
doesn't matter whether they are doing anything real or not.
They are pyramid-selling delusion. Some schemes, such as
Reiki, insist that the powers can only be passed from one
devotee to the next trainee, thus ensuring that self-teaching isn't
going to work. That's a closed franchising system in which
someone buying in recovers their costs by taking in others,
either as “patients” or “trainees”. It's the small business model
favoured by franchisers who can recover their costs quickly and
pass the risk onto others.
One important point to note here is that if the therapist
studies science and discovers the lack of evidence and the sham
nature of Woo, they could no longer practice without risking a
charge of fraud. Knowingly passing off fake cures as genuine
cures is fraud. If they don't know the science, they can't be
charged with knowingly passing off false cures. That's a
powerful incentive to remain ignorant about real human
biology.
But does any of this do any real harm? Unfortunately, in
some cases it does.
The harm of Woo

In the case of those people who only ever resort to Woo for
trivial ailments, clearly this is of no great significance. If they
want to spend a lot of money buying homeopathic sugar pills,
why shouldn't they? It won't cure them of anything at all, but it
won't harm them either. And if they sleep with a crystal under
the pillow to try to cure an allergy, it won't cure them but it
won't harm them either. So on the face of it, it seems a pretty
benign activity, at worst harming only their wallets.
But there are some important consequences too. What
would you think of a parent who, instead of taking their child to
the doctor to get treatment for pneumonia, gave the child
homeopathic medicines whose supposed active ingredient had
been diluted to the point of absence? And if the child died,

would you say the parents had acted responsibly? What if
homeopaths were promoting a homeopathic cure for AIDS as
they have been doing in Africa? What would you think about
the ethics of such a claim? Do you think they should have to
produce evidence before making such a claim? How about
treating malaria? Should homeopaths be allowed to advertise
that they can offer such a cure?
These are stark examples of how unfounded therapies can
lead, and in some cases have led, to death. If a persuasive
practitioner, building on the hopes of the sufferer, convinces
them to adopt an unproven therapy instead of a conventional
proven treatment, it can cause untold harm. Cancer patients are
particularly vulnerable and apocryphal accounts of tumours
unexpectedly going into remission abound on the internet. If
cancer patients are led to replace known effective treatments
with unproven alternative therapies, they may well be buying a
death sentence. That's not melodramatic, it's fact.
But there is also a more subtle effect. When people are
persuaded to drop their sceptical attitude, they become much
more open to other unfounded claims. If you accept that
homeopathy might work even though there's absolutely no
evidence for it, then you will equally accept another
improbable, implausible alternative that also has no evidence.
Your gullibility is greatly increased. That makes it easier to sell
you something else which also has no evidence. It's a win-win
for the marketers.
By undermining the value of the scientific method, of the
cautious and self-critical progress of science, of the need for
evidence and testing, our hard won knowledge becomes just
another commodity to be adulterated and sold. Knowledge of
human biology is mangled up with notions of chakras and
channels, energy fields and strange forces. We get ridiculous
unscientific claims about detox and free radicals, caffeine, salt,
and nutrients. We are bombarded by strange chemicals with
bizarre names in cosmetics which apparently have magical
properties, and people can no longer tell the difference between
evidence-based claims and marketing hype. That suits the

marketers but it undermines our ability to make reasoned
judgements.
We need to restore our critical abilities to take back control
over those decisions that affect our nutrition and our health.
When our behaviour becomes conditioned by belief in
unfounded theories about how the world works, we lose our
power of rational thinking and we become more likely to follow
the loudest noise.
How to spot Woo

Woo crops up in all sorts of areas but there are some clear
indicators which should arouse our suspicions. Here's a short
checklist:
• An undetectable source of energy or force is the active

ingredient. If this were true, the discoverers would
have already collected a Nobel Prize for medicine.
They probably haven't.
• The technique relies on a theory that is inconsistent
with known human biology or other known science.
Anyone talking about pulsing cerebrospinal fluid in the
ankles, for example, has no idea what they are talking
about.
• They talk of aligning, balancing, readjusting,
compensating, invisible things like energies or forces.
They have no tangible means of measuring or
controlling what they claim to be doing.
• They are unable to explain how whatever they do,
results in a healing effect, without recourse to another
unknown or mystical force. For example, they might
explain that massage relaxes you but fail to explain
how that will improve your immune system.
• They will expect, without any grounds, that you will
need a course of treatment which will require the same
mystical process to be repeated.

• There will be no evidence of clinical trial quality to
substantiate any of their claims. None of their evidence
will be from controlled, double-blind, randomised
trials.
Here is a short checklist of questions you can ask

practitioners of alternative medicine. Ask all of the questions,
record the answers, and then weigh up just how trustworthy
their claims really are. If they refuse to answer, have nothing to
do with them. Don't agree to pay anything until you have
evaluated their answers. You are checking to see if you want
to buy what they are selling.
• Apart from anecdotal evidence, how do you record and

judge the effectiveness of the therapy you offer?
• Apart from what the patient says, how do you tell when
a treatment has not worked?
• How do you know that you are detecting
Qi/chakra/energy fields/meridians/subluxation/doshas...
and how do you measure the change?
• How does what you do, affect what you are measuring?
Is it demonstrable?
• What studies have you undertaken of human biology
and to what level? Can you, for example, tell me
where the pituitary gland is and what it does?
• What is a controlled, double-blind, randomised trial
and why is it essential in collecting evidence of clinical
effectiveness?
• How does your therapy work? Specifically, how does
what you do, bring about the specific changes?
Once you have that information, you can judge whether

their proposed treatment has anything to recommend it. I
repeat, don't agree to pay for anything until they have answered

these questions and you've had a chance to think about their
answers.
Summary
We started this chapter with a look at the difference between
magic and mysticism, and science. We saw that magical
thinking relies on unjustified claims about how the world
works. It provides theories in the form of stories which are
never tested, often because they are themselves untestable.
In contrast, science derives its theories from data. Theories
are not simply stories or descriptions of how the world is
thought to be, but they also provide means of making testable
statements which can be used to find out if they are true. In
medicine that provides a mechanism for correction. If a theory
is wrong, clinical evidence can show it up and the theory can be
corrected. So medicine can get better and better. Diagnostic
techniques can improve, clinical knowledge can grow.
We explored the idea that everything is possible and showed
how in fact it isn't. Although there are many things we do not
yet know, we have accumulated a great deal of knowledge
which allows us to predict and control the external world with a
great deal of success. Physical laws are established by
scientific experiment and these are independent of the ideas,
values, and beliefs of scientists. For this reason, if someone
finds a new form of energy, then the whole of science is
affected. It isn't simply filling a gap in science, but a radical
challenge to our accumulated knowledge.
We looked at a sample of alternative medicine claims and
looked at the magical thinking behind them, and then examined
how sometimes the vocabulary from science is used to provide
credibility. Sham theory does not provide the predictive
element necessary for the design of experiments which can
disprove them by testing them against the real world. They are
therefore simply fictions. We looked at the difference between
reputable peer-reviewed scientific material, and the sort of
material published by trade publications masquerading as
academic journals.

We made a distinction between hobby and delusional Woo
and looked at the motives of those subscribing to magical
theories, and we identified some key characteristics of Woo
practitioners. In particular, we showed how ignorance of how
the world works is an important defence against the charge of
fraud. Not knowing, for the Woo practitioner, is a safer legal
stance than knowing.
We looked at how the placebo effect can also convince the
Woo practitioner themselves providing they rely only on
anecdotal evidence. We then looked at the harm that Woo does,
and provided a way of spotting Woo in its many forms and
offered a short list of pertinent questions to ask anyone trying to
sell you Woo.
We are now well-primed about health Woo, but what about
food?

CHAPTER 4
Food Woo
We all know that what we eat greatly affects our health. We

know from medical studies, for example, that high blood
cholesterol is associated with heart disease. We know that if
we eat too much food, we put on weight and that obesity brings
with it many health problems.
And since we buy the food we consume, our beliefs about
our diet and nutrition directly affect our spending activity. It is
therefore an irresistible target for marketers and advertisers. If
food consumers can be made to believe that their nutrition
requires a particular supplement, or products with particular
characteristics, that makes money for the producers. The more
concern that can be generated about the adequacy of the normal
diet, the more marketing space there is for new products, and
therefore increased profits. Food marketers have a vested
interest in creating doubt, confusion, and uncertainty about
nutrition.
We have seen a massive growth in the number of
nutritionists who claim to have expertise in human nutrition.
One way in which professions promote the skills of their
members is to insist on certain recognised qualifications,
obtained through regulated examination. That is the case with
dieticians in the UK, who have to complete a degree course in a
university, or if they already possess a degree in a relevant
subject, complete postgraduate study. Without this very strict
and exacting training, you cannot practice as a dietician. By
contrast, a nutritionist does not have to have any qualifications
at all. In fact, you or I can put up a plate and start practising as
a nutritionist any time we like, whether or not we know
anything at all about human nutrition.
Sometimes nutritionists claim to have qualifications but
often these are paid for on short courses in institutions that are
similarly taught by self-declared experts. Without the rigorous
Food Woo 48
regulation of exacting scientific standards, nutritionist
qualifications are worthless.
There are many foodies foraging in the land of Woo. They
talk about dietary supplements, detox, an enormous range of
diets, and seem to possess arcane knowledge about the
importance of various elements such as Zinc and Selenium.
They offer scare stories about free radicals and the importance
of antioxidants. If they are nutritionists, it is quite possible that
they have little or no understanding of any of this stuff.
Human nutrition – the basics

Our food contains what we need to survive but not in a form
we can use immediately. It has to be processed first into
simpler chemicals that the body can use. That is what our
alimentary canal is for. It consists of an elaborate pipe that
passes through the body from the mouth to the anus.
As food passes through, it is treated by being mixed with
biological chemicals called enzymes. These chemicals are
actually proteins that chop up the large chemicals in food into
smaller pieces. Our food consists of basically three types of
chemicals: carbohydrates, proteins, and fats. Different parts of
the alimentary canal have different enzymes, some working in
very acid environments (like the stomach) and some in mildly
alkaline (like in the mouth and small intestine). Different
components of the food are digested in different places.
Sugars are broken down in the mouth by an enzyme called
ptyalin (enzymes often have obscure names...) and proteins are
broken down in the stomach and small intestine by enzymes
such as renin, pepsin, and trypsin. Fats are broken down in the
small intestine by enzymes called lipases.
Nutrients are absorbed into the bloodstream from the gut,
along with water. Anything that isn't absorbed that way, is
removed from the body through the anus. Inside the gut, there
are colonies of bacteria. The majority (around 85%) are
beneficial whereas the remainder can in some circumstances be
harmful. The balance is maintained because the harmful
Food Woo 49
bacteria are starved of nutrients preventing their growth beyond
a safe level.
The process of burning up those simpler chemicals to
produce energy, also produces bi-products which need to be
removed from the body. These unwanted chemicals are
produced in the body tissues. The lymph system feeds them
into the bloodstream which carries them to the liver and the
kidneys.
The liver will store unused carbohydrate sources of energy
as a chemical called glycogen where it provides a reserve
energy store for use during starvation. The liver does a number
of jobs. It breaks down old red blood cells, makes protein for
the blood plasma, makes bile to help in fat digestion, and it
even makes some hormones. It also breaks down any
chemicals which are toxic. It is the body's very own detox
mechanism.
The other breakdown products are removed by the kidneys
and will be excreted as urine.
The body takes the simple products of digestion such as
glucose, amino acids and simple fats, and makes the larger
chemicals we need, such as proteins. But there are some
chemicals we need which we cannot synthesise inside our
bodies. For example, every red blood cell contains a protein
called haemoglobin which binds to oxygen so it can be carried
around the body. In the centre of the haemoglobin molecule is
an atom of iron. We need to eat that iron in some food or other.
Fortunately iron is available in very many foods such as meat,
fish, poultry, beans, and lentils. Unless we suffer from an
illness, it is hard to produce iron deficiency (anaemia) in
humans. We also need tiny amounts of other chemicals called
vitamins. But if we eat a balanced diet, we get all the nutrients
we need.
Now let's take a look at some of the claims and see if there's
any basis for them.
Food Woo 50
Oxidation, antioxidants and free radicals
We are often told in advertising and the associated articles
that our health is at risk from oxidation and free radicals and
that therefore we need to increase the amount of antioxidants in
our diet. Certain foods, we are told, are rich in antioxidants and
these will prevent the harm caused by those free radicals.
Unless we understand this vocabulary, we only get the
message that we are at risk and should eat something
recommended to offset the danger. For marketers, a little
ignorance goes a long way. So here's the low-down.
Oxidation and reduction are two sides of the same coin –
you don't get one without the other. Oxidation refers to the loss
of hydrogen or electrons, or the gain of oxygen. So for
example carbon can be oxidised to carbon dioxide (addition of
oxygen). Reduction refers to the gain of hydrogen or electrons,
or the loss of oxygen. So for example, an atom of carbon can
be reduced with four atoms of hydrogen to make methane
(adding hydrogen).
Most biological processes involve oxidation-reduction. Our
bodies oxidise glucose to carbon dioxide and at the same time
reduce oxygen to water. That's an absolutely vital process for
all of us. Without oxidation we wouldn't be able to extract
energy from our food nor breathe out our carbon dioxide and
we'd die. So oxidation itself is not a problem, it's a normal part
of human metabolism. Similarly reduction is not a problem
either.
Free radicals are molecules that have an unpaired or spare
electron, which makes them highly reactive. They are looking
for anything to restore themselves to a more stable state. Not
all free radicals are that reactive. For example two atoms of
oxygen together form a free radical that is perfectly stable.
The reactivity of free radicals is essential for some of our
biochemical reactions including those involved in the
breakdown of harmful bacteria and in nerve transmission. But
they can also be a problem if they are not contained. They have
been associated with ageing, with some cancers, with
Food Woo 51
Parkinson's disease, and many others. Uncontrolled, the free
radicals can cause a great deal of harm. And that's where the
antioxidants come in.
The human body has a number of mechanism to control the
actions of free radicals including the enzymes superoxide
dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, and glutathione reductase as
well as vitamins C and E.
Should we then be worried about getting enough
antioxidants to cancel out the harmful effects of those free
radicals? Fortunately, we can get a plentiful supply of
antioxidants without really trying. They are readily available in
fruit and vegetables.
But does adding additional antioxidants improve our health?
The trials that have been done so far show no benefit in the case
of heart disease and cancer incidence nor with the progression
of existing illness.
But it's worse than that. Trials have shown that people
taking beta-carotene, vitamin A and vitamin E as supplements
actually have worse health. Beta-carotene increased death rates
by 7 per cent, vitamin A by 16 per cent, and vitamin E by 4 per
cent. Check it out for yourself.
Adding extra antioxidants affects the body's own mechanism
for balancing the effects of the free radicals, so it is not even yet
known that it is a safe procedure. Many scientists now believe
the whole hype about extra antioxidants in the diet was
misguided from the beginning and that there is no evidence of
any benefit. But we do know that it's a $20 billion industry in
the USA.
Toxins and detox

When we talk about toxins and detox, we are assuming that
there are chemicals in the body which we need to remove for
our health. We already know about the breakdown products of
digestion which our body naturally removes but we are also
drawn into thinking that there are other harmful chemicals
which get into our bodies. There may be contaminants in our
Food Woo 52
food, perhaps pesticides, antibiotics, poisonous metals, or the
products of harmful bacteria, and it is claimed that these too
need to be removed. The assumption is that the human body's
own way of eliminating these toxins is inadequate.
The range of toxins listed in detox web adverts found in just
two minutes include: ammonia, lead, food additives, cigarette
smoke, carcinogens, arsenic, herbicides, fertilisers, plastic
packaging (seriously), aluminium, mercury, preservatives and
hormones. Suggested mechanisms for detoxing your body
included taking pills, changing your diet, wearing foot pads,
colonic irrigation, and a variety of high speed products
including drinks and chewing gum.
But if we have such toxins within us, they will be within
tissues, possibly bound to other molecules, involved in
chemical reactions, having a metabolic effect. When people are
poisoned by industrial chemicals such as fertilisers and
pesticides, there is always an initial process of identification
because without understanding the nature of the poisoning, we
cannot know how to go about removing the poison. The
complexity of the metabolic reaction makes this investigation
essential. Those who offer generic solutions to the problem of
toxins clearly don't realise this, or else believe one solution fits
all.
Can eating things detox you?

Clearly you can restrict the entry of certain substances into
your body by choosing your diet carefully. You can avoid
alcohol or caffeine if you want to, and you can adjust the
composition of your food, perhaps adopting a deliberately
unbalanced diet to eliminate certain foodstuffs, but it is wise to
consult a qualified dietician before doing anything radical.
Unbalanced diets can lead to dietary deficiency and even
malnutrition. But gently restricting calorie intake will slow
down weight gain or may even reduce weight and that is more
likely to be beneficial than harmful for most of us.
Proactively changing your diet, despite it being
Food Woo 53
recommended by most detox marketers, is not the same as
removing toxins from the body. The detox marketers claim that
they have dietary supplements that can remove toxins from the
body. If they do not identify the toxins, their claims can never
be tested, and therefore never be disproved. They therefore
avoid the charge of fraud.
If a dietary mechanism for the elimination of toxins is to
work, there must be some agent which gets to the tissues
around the body which can bind to the toxin (a process known
as conjugation) or denature it (through oxidation). If it binds,
then the composite molecule has to be eliminated using the
body's own mechanisms.
These specific claims are testable if and when the toxin is
identified. But there is no scientific evidence for the
accumulation of toxins in the body. So eating something to
eliminate them is a nonsense. They are not there in the first
place.
Cholesterol, fats and fatty acids

Cholesterol is one of those chemicals which occur naturally
in the body and without it, we wouldn't be able to synthesise
certain hormones called steroids. Steroids form part of a larger
group of biological chemicals called lipids, which also includes
fats. These steroid hormones are vitally important to us and it
is their fatty characteristic that allows them to pass through cell
membranes easily. If we didn't have any cholesterol, we
couldn't make those hormones inside our bodies. So
cholesterol, far from being really bad, is actually essential. But
like many things in the body, an excess can be harmful.
Fats are chemically different from both carbohydrates and
proteins because they have a different structure. Just like other
foodstuffs, our gut breaks down fats into simpler components
which are then used to build up the chemicals we need. Fats
come in different varieties and they have different properties.
Steroids for example, have a complex ring structure, whereas
fatty acids are much simpler. Within the fatty acids, we have
Food Woo 54
saturated and unsaturated which simply refers to the type of
chemical bonds holding them together. Some fatty acids are
made inside the body, but others we need to get through our
food and we call those essential fatty acids. There are only two
of these: linoleic acid and alpha linoleic acid. All the other
fatty acids we can make ourselves.
The terms LDL and HDL are touted around as well. LDL
refers to low density lipoprotein in contrast to HDL which
refers to high density lipoprotein. All lipoproteins enable fats
and cholesterol to be transported around the water-based blood
system (because they are soluble) but HDL has often been
incorrectly referred to as “good cholesterol” on the grounds that
a high LDL level is often associated with cardiovascular
disease. LDL is sometimes even used as a test for it. The issues
are confused further because it is known that until oxidised,
LDLs are pretty harmless and it's those dreaded free radicals
which can do the oxidation. That led to claims that to counter
the LDLs you needed to eat more antioxidants but the research
is inconclusive. So rather than modifying your diet to increase
antioxidants, by far the most sensible thing to do is to limit the
amount of animal fats and full-fat dairy products you eat.
The term polyunsaturated fatty acid simply refers to the
structure of these essential fatty acids contrasting them with
saturated fatty acids. We also hear the term omega used
frequently, for example omega 6 fatty acid. What this refers to
is the position of an unsaturated chemical bond in position 6 of
the fatty acid chain. There are also omega 3 and omega 9 fatty
acids though we don't need the 9 variety because the body can
make them itself. Omega 3 and 6 are important to us because
they are necessary for the production of biological chemicals
we need.
The language of chemistry is used to describe the structure
of these chemicals but that doesn't stop the advertisers makings
use of them too. Nowadays it is common to see milk enriched
with omega 3, and there are many health products advertising
these supplements. Omega 3 and 6 comes from a variety of
foodstuffs particularly oily fish, but also soya and rapeseed oil,
Food Woo 55
and leafy vegetables.
It is still controversial whether or not dietary supplements of
omega 3 and 6 makes a significant difference to health and
research is ongoing. Nevertheless it is clear that the quantity of
these fatty acids in the diet has declined over the centuries and
some scientists argue that this change in diet may affect the
incidence of inflammatory diseases such as arthritis. Research
is continuing into these hypotheses.
Taking omega 3 supplements is unlikely to lead to excess
since the body simply excretes what it doesn't need.
Although cholesterol is found in foodstuffs, generally we get
our cholesterol by synthesising it in the liver. We make around
75% of the body's cholesterol and get the rest from our diet. It
gets recycled with the liver excreting it into the bile that flows
into the small intestine to help with the digestion of fats, then a
lot of it is reabsorbed later in the gut. All foods containing
animal fats contain some cholesterol and it's the continual high
level of cholesterol which is harmful, leading to congestion of
the arteries. Saturated fats are particularly associated with high
cholesterol levels and that means foods like full-fat dairy
products and animal fats.
There is no doubt that high cholesterol levels are associated
with heart disease and that reducing cholesterol is a
recommended good health strategy. It is therefore important to
realise that if you undertake a low carbohydrate diet, your
relative proportion of fats may increase and you are therefore
likely to increase your intake of cholesterol.
So where does all this leave us? Since we can manufacture
internally almost all the cholesterol we need, then as long as we
have a balanced diet containing the two essential fatty acids, we
can safely avoid full-fat dairy products and animal fats, keeping
our cholesterol down to a safe level. There is some evidence
that the omega 3 and 6 fatty acids are helpful but we can get
those through a balanced diet. If we choose to take extra, it
won't harm us unless we suffer from specific medical
conditions so it's fairly safe. Mention of the chemical jargon is
almost always there to increase sales by providing them with
Food Woo 56
scientific respectability but as with other branches of Woo, the
effect is to confuse and cast doubt in order to encourage sales.
Colonic irrigation
This involves pumping water into the large intestine (colon)
through a pipe inserted into the anus with the intention of
flushing out material from the gut. This process will certainly
remove material from the gut, but the Woo claim goes beyond
this to argue that it also removes dangerous toxins which build
up in the body. But there is no evidence that toxins accumulate
in the gut. This is a remnant of a disproved scientific
hypothesis from the nineteenth century.
The gut, by necessity is largely waterproof. Absorption of
water from the gut takes place through a tightly-controlled
biological mechanism. Nothing pumped into the colon will
cause any chemicals in the bloodstream to be flushed out. If
there are any toxins in the blood, they will still be there after
colonic irrigation has finished.
Chelation therapy
This is a routine clinical medical treatment for poisoning
with heavy metals such as mercury or lead, or metalloids such
as arsenic, and it was initially developed to treat gas attack
victims from World War I. The chemicals in the chelating
agent were injected into the patient and they bound tightly to
the arsenic atoms, forming a water soluble compound. Because
it was water soluble, it could then be eliminated from the body
through the liver and kidneys, the body's own mechanism.
Some detox marketers now offer such chemicals as a
possible treatment for coronary artery disease but there is no
scientific evidence to support it. Although chelation therapy is
a recognised clinical therapy for certain forms of poisoning, its
use has been usurped by the marketers of Woo to treat non-
existent poisoning.
There are safety concerns about the introduction of such
Food Woo 57
powerful chemicals into the body as they have the potential
seriously to disrupt our finely balanced metabolism.
Metals
There are many metals that are essential for the body to
function. These include iron, zinc, magnesium, calcium,
sodium, potassium and copper. Each of these metals is ingested
in chemical combinations in food.
Iron is essential for the formation of haemoglobin in the
blood. It is abundant in meat, fish, poultry, beans, and leafy
vegetables. Its level in the human body is self-regulating and
excessive iron leads to toxicity. Unless a person is suffering
from a medical condition, it is difficult to develop iron
deficiency.
Zinc is enormously important to human biochemistry and is
found throughout the body but especially in the brain, kidney,
liver, bones and muscles. It is involved in the regulation of the
nervous system. It is abundant in all red meats but also beans,
wheat and nuts. It is difficult to be zinc deficient but too much
additional zinc in dietary supplement carries the risk of
toxicity.
Magnesium is essential for the production of nucleic acids,
the building blocks of DNA. Magnesium is at the centre of the
chlorophyll molecule, the pigment in all green vegetables.
Although through poor or deliberately modified diet, it is
possible to experience magnesium deficiency, it is abundant in
tea, coffee, green vegetables, nuts, and even spices. It is almost
impossible to produce an excess of magnesium because, since
almost all magnesium salts are soluble, the kidneys will filter it
out very efficiently. High concentrations of magnesium though
have a laxative effect.
Calcium is essential for bones and teeth and is plentiful in
dairy products, nuts, oranges, and even seaweed. It requires
vitamin D for absorption through the gut. However, adding
extra calcium in the form of dietary supplements can actually
slow down the rate of calcium absorption itself.
Food Woo 58
Sodium is enormously important in human biology helping
to regulate body fluids, blood pressure, and in enabling nerve
transmission and muscle contraction. Because of the common
use of salt as a seasoning most people take in more than ten
times their daily requirement and although salt is excreted
through the skin, excess sodium intake can be harmful to
people with high blood pressure. In hot climates, insufficient
sodium intake can result in cramps.
Potassium is a metal very similar to sodium and it too is
involved in nerve transmission and in fluid balance. It is
extremely difficult to generate a potassium deficiency with a
balanced diet because it is very common in fruit, vegetables and
meats. An unbalanced diet, or one unbalanced by design, can
lead to potassium deficiency. Potassium deficiency is most
commonly seen in patients undergoing treatment for renal
failure in which potassium is lost along with sodium. Healthy
individuals need no additional potassium.
Copper is essential to human metabolism and is found in
muscle, liver and bone and it is used in the metabolism of fats.
Copper is common in the normal diet in green vegetables,
potatoes, beans, nuts and shellfish.
All of these metals are self-regulating in the human body,
are abundant in a balanced diet, and far from being toxins, are
essential to metabolism.
Dietary supplements
It is only necessary to supplement our diets when we have a
known deficiency. The blanket intake of additional vitamins
and minerals will not only be filling any particular deficiency,
but may also lead to toxicity. For example, although the B
vitamins are easily excreted, it is possible to produce toxicity
by excessive intake of niacin, pyridoxine or folic acid.
An interesting exercise is to compare the compositions of
typical dietary supplement pills and say, a potato! A medium
-sized potato already supplies 45% of the daily need for vitamin
C (an orange will make up the rest), and a good chunk of all the
Food Woo 59
other vitamins. You also get thrown in calcium, iron,
magnesium, phosphorus, potassium and sodium. A balanced
diet is by far the best source of nutrients.
The essential elements of Food Woo

The customer has to be convinced that his or her existing
diet is inadequate in some way and that it needs to change in
the direction of a product. The inadequacy takes two forms: a
dietary deficiency, or a failure to remove toxins.
The customer is presented with some well-known dietary
information, perhaps tables of recommended daily intake of
carbohydrates, proteins and fats, or lists of vitamins, or the
composition of various foodstuffs.
The very real health risks of obesity and poor diet are
stressed, but whereas the science points to the need for a
balanced diet and exercise, Woo marketers bring in additional
requirements. As well as eating sensibly and exercising, you
are told you also have a need to remove toxins, and to
supplement your diet with their products.
Having used the real science to set the scene and convince
the customer that they are receiving good advice, they get some
good advice (eat properly, exercise) and some bad advice (that
they need detox and/or supplements). Science is used to put the
customer at ease before they are (sometimes literally) sold a
lemon!
Summary
We need to look at how human nutrition really works and
not trust the self-appointed nutritionists with their fanciful
stories. We now know a bit about the important metals, the
vitamins, the enzymes, how the gut functions, and we know
that claims about toxins are unfounded. We understand about
oxidation and reduction, and what free radicals are, and we
know that the detox brigade are misrepresenting science.
We've looked at some of the science behind the vocabulary
Food Woo 60
of cholesterol and fatty acids and seen that there is some
inconclusive evidence in support of the significance of omega-3
and omega-6 essential fatty acids. But more than anything else,
the clear message is that eating sensibly without recourse to
supplements gives us the best chance of a healthy digestion.
So now we can dispense with the food fads, the nonsense
diets, the supplements, the scares about toxins and free radicals
and trust in a sensible balanced diet.
Goodbye to the land of Food Woo.
Food Woo 61
CHAPTER 5
Religious beliefs and theories about

the world
Religious people tell us that there are one or more invisible

gods who either individually or collectively control our destiny,
our universe, and all that is in it. They draw ethical and moral
support from revered texts. They themselves try to follow
codes of conduct defined in varying degrees by religious
organisations, based on their expectations of an existence after
their earthly death.
Reality for them consists of an earthly, material existence
lasting the normal life-span of human beings, and a post-death
immaterial existence based on the judgement of one or more
deities. This post-death phase varies between religions but all
have an element of judgement in which the fate of the
individual is considered against the backdrop of their earthly
actions.
For many, their religious faith is the basis of their morality
and without it they feel they would not be moral people. It may
be fear of retribution, or the desire for heavenly approval, but
for them, morality and the values they hold are inextricably
bound up with their religious faith. Without religion, no
morality. We'll test that claim a little later.
But religions also have made claims about how the world is.
Religious authorities have offered their opinions on how the
world came to be the way it is, and just as in science, their
theories have been adapted as new information has become
available. Nevertheless, there are certain fundamental
statements about how the world is, which deserve to be taken
seriously from our rational point of view. Religious ideas have
no special status in this regard: if they are making claims about
the real world, we can investigate them rationally.
Religious beliefs and theories about the world 62

Religion and reality
The Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) each
have a version of the creation story in which a god creates the
world from nothing. There are religious explanations for the
arrival of different species, for the distribution of certain tribal
groups, and for the physical characteristics of the land, as well
as accounts of miracles and strange phenomena.
When religions make such statements about how the world
is, these can be formulated as hypotheses which can be
subjected to test. In other words, they can be disproved given
appropriate evidence. Historically, religious authorities have
been vigorously opposed to such enquiry and there is a long
history of persecution of those who, even if they themselves
were religious, sought to explore the truth or falsity of religious
claims about how the world actually is.
In the case of extraordinary events, such as reported
miracles, we can consider not only the poor quality anecdotal
evidence (for that is all we have) but we can also look at the
consistency of these theories with what we already know about
the way the world works. As is always the case with anecdotal
evidence, we cannot establish that the account was accurate and
unbiased. In these cases independent reproducible evidence is
not available.
How then can we investigate these religious theories about
the world, these accounts of extraordinary events? One way is
to look at what would have had to be different from what we
already know is true, in order for these events to have taken
place, and to look at alternative theories that can adequately
explain the reported observations.
Biblical versus geological time

How do we go about establishing the age of the earth?
Given a biblical account which puts it at around 6000 years,
how do we go about questioning this figure? What would
constitute acceptable evidence?

In the nineteenth century, a devoutly Christian English
geologist called Charles Lyell investigated the slow deposition
of sediments which produced fossils and concluded that the age
of the earth must be very great indeed. His observations
required a process on what we now call the geological time
scale. This undermined any notion that the earth was accurately
dated by the Bible. His evidence of fossils, of rock strata, and
his extensive studies around the world, convinced him that
millions of years were required.
Nowadays, we have a very accurate technique called
radiometric dating, which uses the known characteristics of the
decay of radioactive isotopes to work out how long the earth
took to get into its present state. The accepted figure based on
these measurements is 4.64 billion years, and that's to within
1% accuracy.
So it's relatively easy then to disprove the biblical claim of
the age of the earth. Anyone who doubts the refutation can
investigate the theory, the measurements, and check all the
evidence for themselves.
The flood
It is claimed that there was a flood which covered the whole
of the world around 6000 years ago and that all life after the
flood derives from a very small group of survivors. This theory
was believed almost universally in the Christian world until the
seventeenth century when the accumulated evidence started to
cast doubt on it. So can this claim be refuted? Is it an
hypothesis open to disproof?
Clearly if evidence can be found of life on the geological
time scale, then this contradicts the theory that life only began
some 6000 years ago. The evidence is provided by the fossil
record which, using dating techniques, puts the earliest fossils
at around 2.7 million years old. This is clear evidence of
biological activity. Although some religious critics have
argued that the whole of the fossil record was deposited close to
6000 years ago, in perhaps as little as 150 years, the reliability

and accuracy of the dating techniques leaves this objection
incredible.
So the evidence provided from the fossil record together
with the radiometric dating techniques disproves the flood
hypothesis. Further evidence from geography, palaeontology,
archaeology, genetics, and many other disciplines supports the
case against the flood hypothesis. We can therefore be
confident that there was no flood, at least on the scale recorded
in the Bible.
As a result Lyell sought and found an explanation for why
marine fossils are found even in mountains. His theory of how
mountains formed, a precursor to the theory of continental drift,
removed what little remained of his earlier belief in the flood.
Evolution
The doctrine of the Christian church was that all species
were put on the earth by a divine creator, ready-formed and
complete, and that they were immutable. There was a fixed
number of species. This doctrine was taught in all the
universities across England, mainland Europe and America. It
was unquestioned.
It is understandable then that Darwin delayed his publication
of the Origin of Species for more than twenty years because he
feared the reaction from the religiously-committed academic
community. Darwin though had not just incontrovertible
evidence that species did change, but that they were all
changing continuously and that new species arose. This was
dynamite. Not only were species not put on earth by the divine
creator, but as a normal matter of course, new ones arose
naturally. A central doctrine of the church was demonstrably
wrong. But Darwin had gone further and developed a theory
that explained in considerable detail how new adaptations
arose, how survival competition favoured those species best-
adapted.
He lacked the knowledge of genetics that we now have and
yet he had explained in common terms how a simple

mechanism produced the incredible diversity of life, how
complex organs arose by a slow process of evolution, in short
how the richness of living organisms did not require a divine
creator.
We have to be clear here. The hypothesis that fell was the
immutability of species. That hypothesis was wrong – species
are not unchanging, immutable. That was bad enough for the
church of course, but the delivery of a theory that explained
everything that was observed left nothing for the divine creator
to do.
Evolution now has a huge amount of supporting evidence
ranging from the fossil record, geographical distribution,
comparative anatomy, molecular variance, mitochondrial DNA,
studies of speciation, and so on. Despite more than a hundred
and fifty years of continuous study, there has been no evidence
at all to disprove the theory. It remains one of the most
challenged and successful scientific theories of all time.
Religion and the immaterial

Many religious people accept that biblical texts are largely
anecdotal. They were written at a time when modern
technology was the cart so it is unreasonable to expect any kind
of scientific consistency. The Bible, they argue was allegorical,
using stories to illustrate important truths. The Old Testament,
they say, is a collection of handed-down stories and they should
not be taken as literal truth.
For them, the essence of religion is what it says about the
immaterial. We are asked to accept a side of reality which has
no embodiment that we can detect, but which has crucial
importance for the way we live our lives, and what will happen
to us when we leave our bodily form.
Here we see the biggest divide between the two viewpoints,
believing and sceptical. Starting from the believing point of
view, we accept all of this until such times as we get a reason to
disbelieve. Starting from the sceptical point of view, we do not
accept any of it in the absence of evidence. But in the absence

of evidence, both camps are starved of the means of changing
their point of view. Neither can move.
How then can we sensibly discuss these claims? If we
cannot detect the immaterial, how can we establish that it is
there at all? And how can we investigate a claim about what
happens to our immaterial self after our death? Is it even
possible to begin to think seriously about this?
We can approach this by way of an analogy. Suppose I
produce a contrary theory which sounds equally plausible,
potentially one of many such theories. By what means would
we choose which, if either, theory to support? This approach is
a reasonable one since it will identify the reasons we might
have for believing one theory rather than another. If we cannot
reasonably choose between them, then the religious version is
no better than one invented for the purpose of the thought
experiment.
Alternative hypothesis
Let us suggest the following utterly unsubstantiated theory.
There are at least one hundred additional

dimensions of immaterial reality and we all exist
in all of them simultaneously. When we die, we
lose only the material dimension and continue to
live on forever without a corporeal existence at all.
Death is the loss of a single dimension among
many and has no significance for our life.
This hypothesis is not advanced seriously but is presented

just to show how easy it to use immateriality as an idea in
formulating an unreasonable idea. But can we really treat it as
an hypothesis? Can it be disproved? Absolutely not. The very
essence of the immateriality argument is that it is immune from
evidence and disproof.
Neither the Christian immateriality argument nor my own
can be falsified. Neither can say anything as an hypothesis.

• Any argument that relies on undetectable
immateriality is non-falsifiable and therefore cannot
be tested.
• Any conclusion drawn from such a non-testable
hypothesis is itself suspect.
•
But in our case, how do we choose between the two
arguments, the religious one, and my own. Neither can be
rejected because neither theory can be disproved. We cannot
even say that one is more likely than the other to be true or
false. Since we cannot choose between them, we have equally
good reason to reject them both unless or until there is some
evidence to support either of them. If we choose to accept one
of them, we ought similarly to accept the other.
The immateriality argument is very tempting. It removes
criticism in one sweep placing itself outside of the realms of the
rational. How often have you heard the expression “it's a
matter of faith”?
Surely in such an important matter as our very lives and
conduct, we owe it to ourselves to investigate this matter of
faith?
People and souls

An important part of most religions is that there is some part
of us which is separate from our bodily form and which will
somehow live on after our death. Some people call this our
soul or our essence.
When we sit in silent contemplation we think we can hear
our own thoughts. It is the idea that a part of us can hear what
the rest of us is thinking, that gives rise to this idea of the
immaterial part of us living or existing inside our brains. We
are aware of ourselves looking out of our own eyes. This self-
awareness gives us the feeling that there is something more
apart from the brain, something separate, something
immaterial.
Some philosophers have talked about this as mind,

something separate from the brain. Scientists generally have
supported the view that mind is a property of brain, the result of
consciousness. Postulating an immaterial essence, whether we
call it mind or soul, permits the idea that something will live on
after the body has died. This conception of the brain then has
religious connotations and favours the believing viewpoint,
whereas the sceptical viewpoint supports what we perceive as
mind being a property of the brain.
If we ignore the implication that when the brain ceases to
function, this will also stop that self-awareness, we may be able
to remain comfortable with the notion that this essence or soul
will live on without the brain. But if we are sceptical, we will
see brain activity as including consciousness and self-
awareness. When the brain ends, so do they.
So let's look at the evidence. Why do people talk about the
self within, the soul? Is there something there that we all
recognise and respond to? And if so, can we look at any
evidence, put together some hypotheses and actually test any of
it?
We know already that humans are self-conscious individuals,
able to monitor their own thought processes and feelings, aware
of their own brain activity. That experience of monitoring our
own thoughts makes us feel that there is something more than
our bodily existence. But does that really point to an
immaterial part of the self which is independent of bodily form?
Does it really support the idea of souls?
Neuroscience has already established that our brain, that
complex neural network, is self-aware, that it references its
own state, and knows what it is doing. We can consciously
direct its activities, think about specific things on demand,
remember things, imagine things. We also know that artificial
simulations of brains, such as the Blue Brain Project, show
advanced learning behaviours. It is likely that it is only a
matter of time before one such simulation shows signs of
consciousness. This would demonstrate that far from being a
mystical activity, consciousness is a natural property of human
brains and is probably present in varying degrees in all

mammalian brains and possible others.
Such practical evidence would help bring to a conclusion the
arguments about the difference between mind and brain. Mind
would be just a property of brain and not something mystical
and immaterial. Many rational neuroscientists believe that the
idea of a soul is just an expression of our sense of self, our self-
awareness, which is a natural property of our brains.
Meditation
For centuries, people have known about the benefits of
sitting in silent contemplation, relaxing and letting our minds
roam free for a while. Such relaxation techniques are
widespread across many cultures and are often reported to
produce feelings of elation, euphoria, floating, of losing touch
with the body. Such deep relaxation is sometimes described as
getting in touch with that inner essence, but is it really getting
in touch with anything? How do we know?
Deep relaxation causes many metabolic changes in the body
including changes in the levels of the hormone serotonin. A
rise in the serotonin level produces a feeling of light-
headedness. So a simple, reproducible effect (light-
headedness) based on relaxation is explained simply by a
change in hormone levels. But of course that doesn't disprove
the soul hypothesis since relying on the immateriality of the
soul removes it from the scope of any evidence. Nevertheless,
we have a perfectly adequate explanation of the detectable
physical sensation which does not require anything immaterial.
Occam's Razor says not to overcomplicate the theory and in this
case, we can explain the feelings produced in meditation by a
simple reference to the serotonin level. We have no need of
notions of spirituality. There is nothing in the phenomenon of
meditation that leads us to the conclusion that there is some
spiritual essence to be found. Introspection and relaxation,
together with the serotonin effect, is sufficient.

Prayer
In prayer, people believe they are communicating with a
deity and in some cases that the deity is communicating with
them. They feel they are being heard and possibly that they are
hearing the response. The only possible evidence to support
these claims must come from the individual themselves and
there can be little doubt that they believe they are
communicating.
How do we investigate this claim? We cannot ourselves
detect the communication, so we simply have to believe that the
person praying believes they are communicating, whether or
not there is any real communication taking place. But many
people believe many things which are untrue. People in a
delusional state, perhaps schizophrenics or deeply prejudiced
people, will believe totally what they claim. We need to get
beyond a simple statement of belief to look at some testable
consequence.
So what about when people claim that prayer makes a
difference to some illness, or event? Well, that is something
which can be tested. And it has been tested with people
praying for cardiac patients in a controlled, double-blind,
randomised trial.
When tested with a clinical trial, prayer was demonstrated to
have no effect on patients' recovery rates. Whatever reasons
might be advanced to explain this, the evidence shows that the
claim that prayer helps people who are ill has no support.
That's not the same as disproof. Remember, absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence. But it does mean that we
are still waiting for a reason to believe it has any effect at all.
Spirits, Ghosts, Angels, Leprechauns

Since many religious people believe that they both talk to
and receive messages from divine entities, this opens the door
to all sorts of potentially supernatural beings.
Some religions talk about gods, angels and demons, some

have representatives of the gods who have supernatural powers,
some are the incarnations of souls often lost or troubled, and
sometimes there are hybrids which are human-deity crosses.
Whatever your choice of religion, you have opened the door
to the possibility of supernatural beings. Now the problem
becomes choosing amongst them.
If there is one and only one god, that inevitably means
choosing to reject a large number of the alternatives. It is often
said that monotheists such as Christians and Muslims are really
atheists who have just one god left after removing all the others.
But how do we choose which to accept and which to reject?
One interesting way is to pair off the supernatural beings
and choose which one is the more acceptable but this can be
very difficult. For example, we could compare the angels of
Christianity and the leprechauns of Irish mythology. Angels, it
is claimed, serve the Christian God, and leprechauns serve the
Lord of the Fairies. Both can appear to humans, intervene in
their lives, both are messengers, both are mostly invisible.
There are anecdotal accounts of sightings for both and
descriptions of their purported activities handed down orally
through the ages. There is no rational reason to accept one and
rule out the other, just as there is no basis for accepting the
Christian God but ruling out Zeus, Thor, Odin, or Ganesh.
Once we postulate the existence of immaterial beings with
supernatural powers, we are dispensing with any notion of
rationality. We have no basis for judging between angels,
leprechauns, sprites, goblins, unicorns, demons, devils, djinns,
ghosts, spectres, spirits, ghouls, wraiths, zombies, werewolves,
phantoms, souls, or gods. If we have a reason at all for
believing in any one of them, the same argument applies to all
of them. And if we choose to accept the existence of any one of
them, we are hard pressed to rule out the existence of the
others.
There is an inevitable connection between religion and the
Land of Woo – belief in undetectable phenomena for no good
reason.

Religion and morality
Many religious people believe that their morality comes
from their faith and that without it, they would have little to
guide them in questions of right and wrong. Some look to
religious books to guide them about how to live their lives,
what values they should hold, and what should be considered
acceptable and unacceptable conduct.
They fear that an atheistic society would have no basis for
judging between right and wrong. Many religious people
acknowledge that historical religious books such as the Bible,
the Qur'an, and the Talmud, relate to societies which were
primitive compared to our own. They acknowledge that they
will not find examples of discussions of the morality of stem
cell research in books written many centuries ago. But they
claim these religious books still have a relevance.
So there is a clear problem with using religious written
sources to inform us about morality and ethics. There will be
nothing specific to look at and we can only ever try to get
general principles. But this leads to a second problem.
How can we distinguish the general principles derived from
religious books, from the general principles passed to us by our
parents and relatives, peers and colleagues, and society
generally? Surely, we are influenced by all of them. Our
ethical and moral values are derived from a wide range of
sources.
If this is the case, what would be lost if just one of those
sources was missing, for example, religion? We would clearly
not be left with no moral guidance. We would still be able to
make ethical decisions, take into account the interests of others,
weigh up right and wrong, make decisions which we believe to
be fair and just.
So it's clear that the absence of religion would not leave us
without morality. But let's follow this a little further. What
specific values are held by the religious that are different from
those humanist values upheld by most societies? Almost all
societies, for example, condemn murder, assault, theft, lying,

cheating, and other crimes against people and property. There
is no reason to believe that this would be different in the
absence of religion.
What then provides the special motivation for religious
people to behave correctly? Since society already has the
sanctions of law, and public disapproval, together with the
psychological need for people to remain included within a
community and therefore to conform, what additional
motivation does a religious person have?
Clearly it cannot be specifically the need to help others since
there are vast numbers of generous atheists who do the same
without religion. Nor can it be the desire to comply with the
law since this applies to all citizens irrespective of their faith.
Most religious people will explain that they wish to go to
heaven, or paradise, or Nirvana, or some better place after they
die. But they also believe that they will be judged on the basis
of their conduct while they were alive, and for that reason, they
will behave well. They are implying that they personally could
not trust themselves to behave well without the threat of
damnation in the next life. Atheists behave well because they
have ethical and moral values that they feel it is right to
observe, without any threat of punishment, and without
expectation of reward in an afterlife.
Do religious people behave morally?

If religion were a reliable form of ensuring that people
behaved morally, we would have no religious criminals.
Instead we see in the world very large numbers of religiously
motivated violent people, who are willing to injure and kill
their ideological enemies. Far from being a constraint on
immoral behaviour, all of the world's orthodox religions
(including Buddhism) have inspired violent movements which
have led to extensive bloodshed. The empirical evidence
suggests that far from being a source of moral wisdom,
religious ideas are in dire need of being tempered by social
moderation, which comes from society at large.

It is questionable whether any religious books are able to
offer a consistent morality. If we look at the Christian books,
particularly the Bible, we see a God who exacts genocidal
vengeance, smiting, maiming and blinding his opponents. We
also see the same in the Qur'an and the Talmud. Hindu books
such as the Mahabharata glorify the violent behaviour of Prince
Arjuna exacting vengeance. Mixed with these tales of violence,
we have socially acceptable principles such as opposition to
killing, and stealing. But we also have a deafening silence on
matters such as slavery, rape in marriage, sex with children,
and many other socially abhorrent practices.
It takes a determined editorial effort to extract socially
acceptable morals from the material in historical religious
books. Most of the material has to be discarded if we are to find
something morally acceptable to modern society.
Given the evidence that religiously motivated people can
behave in ways quite opposed to acceptable social morality but
remain consistent with their religion, we cannot accept the
claim that religion should be the source of morality.
Where do morals come from?

Morals come from society, not religion. As times change,
religions fall into step with society, not the other way around.
As medicine advances, new moral choices arise and our society
finds ways of addressing the issues that confront us. Is it
acceptable to intervene to keep alive someone in a persistent
vegetative state? Should stem cells be used in transplantation
research? Should we use animals to develop vaccines for
humans? Religion gives us no guidance on these issues despite
the fact that religious authorities constantly claim expertise in
these matters.
What religious authorities do is to attempt to extrapolate the
sort of ethical judgements recorded in religious books and
apply them to the modern context. This is an increasingly
tortuous process leading to many dangerous judgements. One
startling example is the decision of a Pope to condemn the use

of condoms in Africa in the fight against AIDS. His adherence
to the principle that it is unacceptable to use condoms at all, led
him to a judgement that inevitably results in the death of
hundreds of thousands of people. Such a principle exacts a
enormous social price and it is difficult to see how such
morality can be justified by reasonable people.
In reality, we learn our values from our parents, with whom
we contest them, our friends, our colleagues, our relatives, and
all the culture around us. We think about moral and ethical
questions when we listen to songs, watch television
programmes, read books, hear people talking, get involved in
arguments and discussions, see films, or just simply think to
ourselves.
Our morality changes in line with society. In Christ's time,
slavery was considered not just as acceptable, but as an
important part of maintaining the harmony of society. Christ
has no recorded objection to slavery, whereas no Christian
would endorse Christ's silence on the matter. Even into the
fifteenth century, weddings with children as young as nine
years old were considered acceptable, especially amongst the
European royal families and Mohammed was also reported to
have taken a wife aged nine. Nowadays we would denounce
such practise as child abuse. That's what happens when we fail
to recognise that morality is not static, but changes with the
historical development of society.
Some of the values of our society are uncontroversial though
we always make exceptions. We say you shouldn't kill, yet we
send an army into foreign countries to search for and kill
certain people we call terrorists. We say you should not steal,
and yet the major economies were based on stealing land and
resources from foreign countries. We say you should not lie
and deceive but we have international diplomats trained in
precisely those skills. Morality is a social compromise in
which shared values are constantly negotiated.
We don't judge our values against religion, we judge
religion against social values. Even religious people do this all
the time.

Where do souls come from?
There are problems with the theory of souls. At some stage
they must come into being and yet persist beyond the lifetime
of the individual. Numerically, they must be growing
exponentially even faster than the human population since souls
don't disappear. Christianity teaches that there is a rather
unpleasant place, called hell, which is the destination for those
souls that are not accepted into heaven. This terrifying prospect
has the obvious effect of encouraging obedience to the demands
of the religion. Risking eternal, and painful, damnation should
not be done lightly.
The spark of life

But it has always been difficult to identify just when a soul
is expected to appear. At conception? Before conception?
Some time after conception? What about other sentient
animals? What happens in the case of twins, and what about
Siamese twins? Do they have two souls? Or share one? There
is also the phenomenon whereby two fertilised eggs fuse into a
single foetus. What happens to the other soul? Does the baby
have two souls? Is one killed? These are not catch questions or
mere wordplay. Any theory of souls will have to face these
questions head on and provide some explanation.
Biological research is making rapid progress in
understanding the basis of life itself. Already cells can be
reprogrammed to develop into different types. Tissue can be
regenerated. Components of cells from different sources can be
assembled to form functioning tissue. The mechanisms which
control cell division and development are already fairly well
understood. But the so-called bootstrap problem remains to be
solved.
Even though we can take already living tissue and control
how it behaves, we have yet to take synthetic material and have
it show evidence of life. Religious people refer to the spark of
life, that bootstrapping of the biological system so that it starts
to grow. Some religious people believe this is what the soul is

all about, though others deny this - it would require that all life,
including bacteria, would have that spark and therefore possibly
souls too. Few Christians are prepared to pray for bacteria.
Already there are experiments that demonstrate the self
assembly of cell elements, tubules, and membranes, and the
silica-based minerals called zeolites suggest a surface which
could have catalysed the formation of the first organic
molecules. If the properties of those molecules led to the
formation of more complex combinations, we may find that the
spark of life is simply the collection of chemical properties that
these biological molecules have.
Of course, we don't yet know how to bootstrap life. But it is
reasonable to expect the biological sciences to develop
techniques in the future. Life is a phenomenon which gives up
its secrets to science. We do not need to postulate a spark of
life. Let's stick to Occam's Razor.
Evolution gets in the way again

Given our evolutionary lineage, at some stage human beings
must have become differentiated from our ape ancestors. We
know that gorillas and apes split from our evolutionary line
between 8 and 4 million years ago leaving us to develop
towards humans. Since it is widely believed that animals such
as apes do not possess souls, then at some time in the distant
past, presumably at or around the time when speciation
occurred, proto-humans acquired this characteristic of
possessing souls. So between 8 and 4 million years ago, if the
Christian doctrine is to be believed (and we don't ignore our
scientific knowledge), souls made an appearance in the
ancestral root that led to humans, and didn't arise anywhere
else. So either there was some one-off event when souls were
distributed, or else they came about naturally. Since none of
the branches of Christianity seem to claim this momentous
Pliocene event, we will look for an alternative explanation.
If this Pliocene event did not take place, then man wasn't put
on the earth ready-formed with a soul to rule over nature as he

decided, but actually evolved a soul. This seems to be the only
interpretation consistent with the evolutionary path to Homo
sapiens. This is entirely consistent with the idea that the soul is
another word for self-consciousness, a brain activity which is
demonstrable in varying degrees in a number of species. But it
is not consistent with the idea of souls in the Christian doctrine.
In fact, if we follow this line of reasoning, there must have
been a time when proto-humans were mating with partners who
did not possess souls at all. Their offspring may or may not
have possessed souls depending on whether they had the
appropriate inherited genetic mutation. And the expression of
genes is often not a simple presence or absence, but one of
degree. Evolutionary adaptation takes many generations.
If souls are encoded in DNA, we may have a biological
mechanism for their arrival in Homo sapiens but one which
removes the need for any divine intervention. But it also
allows for humans without souls. If we reject the idea that it
was a heritable characteristic, we have simply moved back the
point of soul-injection to some point in the last 400,000 years or
so. Certainly it's earlier than 4000BC but we still have that
problem of where and how it happened.
Our primate ancestry stretches back 65 million years and
during that time there were various branches on the way to our
own line of descent. It is important to ask what might have
happened to those unsuccessful branches of our human
ancestry? After all, we are the only surviving species of the
genus Homo. Homo habilis for example died out around 1.4
million years ago. They used stone tools but did they have
souls? Did the Australopithecines have souls too?
These are not idle questions but an unfortunate consequence
of the belief in immaterial souls. Science didn't cause these
awkward problems; they are caused by the tortuous path taken
by theology in its attempts to defend the dogma contained in
ancient books. Theology is not about establishing the facts of
what is. It is about defending religious dogma.

Theology is not theory
There are many very clever religious people who pit their
wits against sceptics in order to provide explanations for the
extraordinary things claimed of their god. Frequently this
involves very deep and abstract thinking about the religious
texts, finding acceptable explanations which avoid the constant
clashes with the science of the material world.
Occasionally events are described as allegorical, meaning
that the descriptions are used to illustrate something else and
should not be taken literally. In dispensing with the literal
meaning, we are left with interpretation. When the acceptable
interpretation is deemed to require theological expertise, we
have the very essence of the matter removed from public
debate.
Those trained in the textual analysis of religious works
typically form part of the religious establishment, a layer of
experts able and willing to remove controversy into an area of
studious isolation.
But the finding of allegorical meaning is something people
do every time they read a novel. They see plots and sub-plots,
characters, events, conflicts, places, all sorts of details which
they read about and react to, getting meaning from what they
see. We can all produce different interpretations, so why
should we accept the meaning identified by those who are
already religiously committed? If religious books hold the key,
then anyone should be able to analyse them and find the
answers. Why should theological knowledge be restricted to
those possessing faith in what they expect to discover? In
science, we call that bias.
But open investigation of religious texts is a dangerous idea
for many religions. Ayatollahs, imams, archbishops, priests,
and cardinals all have a vested interest in a particular
interpretation of the texts. Open textual analysis would
undermine their role as religious experts. For that reason, the
Christian church opposed for a very long time the spread of
literacy, precisely to prevent alternative interpretations of the

Bible spreading amongst a literate population.
So theological debate is not the same as putting theories to
the test. It is a means of avoiding having religious claims
assessed objectively. It is the exercise of reconciling the
interpretations of religious dogma with the socially acceptable
values of the times. The more influence religious bodies and
authorities have, particularly in the institutions of government
and education, the less compromise they will have to make with
a changing society. That is why religious institutions are often
fundamentally reactionary, trying to resist social change. There
are occasions when the political conflicts of a country radicalise
priests and the lower religious orders, but their theology and the
interests of their religious institutions remain reactionary.
Theology is a form of biased literary criticism, attempting to
breath new life into old dogmas through the creative
interpretation of old books. It attempts to show that religion is
profound, because theologians live in academic institutions, but
also steers the religious institutions away from confrontation
with the real world of science. When there are major ethical
issues, theologians are on very weak ground. Their dogma
gives them little to work with, and there is nothing in theology
that makes people particularly skilled in ethical and moral
thinking. Arguably having to explain and justify ancient
writings, limits the ability to think rationally about ethical and
moral questions. That's certainly one clear explanation of how
the Pope can end up allowing so many people in Africa to die
for dogma.
Summary
We've seen how religions make claims not just about how to
behave, but about how the world is. They make claims about
the origins of the earth and life which can sometimes be tested.
The biblical theory of the age of the earth is easily refuted by
dating techniques and the fossil record dispenses with the
theory of the Flood.
We have seen how Darwin's theory of natural selection not

only refuted the notion of the immutability of species, but
demonstrated that a divine creator was unnecessary.
We saw how by postulating an immaterial side to reality, the
believing viewpoint prevents such theories from being tested.
We are left with a gulf between the believing and sceptical
viewpoints. To get past this difficulty, we used the technique
of postulating equally plausible alternative theories to show that
there is no basis for choosing between them. If all are equally
plausible, why choose a particular one?
We examined the idea of souls and related it to our self-
awareness which is a property of our brains. We questioned
whether there is any reason to believe that souls are anything
more profound than that self-awareness. Meditation produces
its effect by raising serotonin levels. Prayer makes
communication claims that are indistinguishable from the
delusional claims made by schizophrenics. It is shown to have
no effect on patient recovery.
Opening the door to supernatural beings results in the
problem of selection, choosing which beings to accept and
which to reject. We saw that there are no rational reasons for
rejecting any if we accept any one of them. All supernatural
beings are equivalent and therefore equally irrational.
Morality does not come from religion. Rather religions
have to adapt to changing social values, a process facilitated by
theologians. Instead of religion justifying morality, it is the
rationalisation of religious dogma that tries to make it
acceptable to society.
The question of souls is problematic. Trying to decide when
souls arise leads us to adopt the view that, given our
evolutionary past, souls too evolved but they are really nothing
more than our self-consciousness.
If we accept religious ideas, such as spirits and souls, we
automatically become open to the Psychic Woo.

CHAPTER 6
Psychic Woo
Psychic Woo tends to fall into two main camps which

occasionally overlap. In one camp are those who stress the
presence or influence of otherworldly beings such as spirits,
ghosts, poltergeists, beings perceived either directly by our
senses or through the results of their actions. Apparitions, vivid
dreams, objects moving, noises, strange feelings, reawakened
memories, forebodings and anticipations, these are seen to stem
from the activities of immaterial spirits of one kind or another.
In the other camp, are those who claim specific
extraordinary powers for certain human beings such as the
ability to predict the future, see far away events or inside closed
containers, read minds, move objects, or detect hidden
resources such as water. Often such abilities are restricted to a
small group of people who claim to have developed their
abilities or who received special training from equally endowed
individuals.
Some individuals claim to be able to contact the immaterial
spirit world, acting as a conduit for communication, often with
dead relatives. They call themselves mediums and profess to be
able to pass and receive messages for other people present, in
theatrical events known as séances.
How can we check psychic claims?

Before we look in more detail at these extraordinary claims,
we need to think a little about how we will be able to tell
whether or not these events are real. Clearly some claims can
be subjected to controlled, double-blind randomised trials such
as attempts to predict the contents of hidden containers, or
mind-reading. In such cases, it is relatively easy to collect high
quality data providing the subject is willing to cooperate with
the trial. But in other cases where there are only the first-
Psychic Woo 83
person reports to go on, such as reported sightings of ghosts,
this often comes down to distinguishing between honest belief,
whether or not delusional, and dishonesty.
There are of course large numbers of charlatans who use the
techniques of performance magic to persuade their customers
that they are witnessing paranormal activity, and one way to
illustrate their actions is to reproduce them in the light of day.
To demonstrate that a séance is such a show, it is often enough
to reproduce the effects, but this will not convince people that
spirits do not exist. We repeat that absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence.
So here, we have the same dilemma of proof that we faced
when looking at religious superbeings. In this situation, we
adopt Occam's Razor and look for the simplest explanation that
explains the known facts. If we can reproduce the effects of,
for example, a séance using ordinary commonplace techniques,
then we have no need to believe in supernatural beings for an
explanation.
We have then two approaches we can use: the controlled
trial for specific claims of personal abilities; reproduction of the
events with ordinary techniques for those claiming supernatural
causes.
Supernatural apparitions
When we see something indistinct and strange, perhaps a
vague outline of something in the shadows, we try to figure out
what it could be. We compare what we are seeing with things
we are familiar with looking for a match. If we find a match,
we tend to convince ourselves that that is indeed what we are
looking at. We see something small moving in a tree, we think
it is either a squirrel or a bird. If it seems to fly, we opt for a
bird, even if we cannot make it out clearly. We are predisposed
to rationalise what we see into things we recognise.
If we can't find a match, it stimulates our curiosity and we
are open to a wider range of possibilities, which encourages us
to speculate, even to invent possible objects that could fit the
Psychic Woo 84
image. We are looking for an explanation and don't yet have a
match.
If we already have the belief that human beings once dead
persist in the form of some immaterial spirit, we are open to the
belief that they still occupy some space, and perhaps are also
able to contact the world of the living. This belief is a
necessary prerequisite for the belief in ghosts. We would not
entertain the notion of an apparition or ghost unless we also
believed that there were immaterial essences of dead people
that persist beyond death. Belief in ghosts follows on perfectly
naturally from religious belief although many Christian
churches are hostile to the idea and discourage it. Nevertheless
32% of Americans claim to believe in ghosts.
In order for talk of ghosts to coexist with religious beliefs, it
is necessary to locate the place where ghosts are said to exist,
somewhere in the context of heaven and hell. Many
explanations of ghosts rely on some indeterminate place
between earth and heaven, claiming ghosts are souls that are
trapped and unable to go to heaven because of some emotional
pull from the living. This explanation neatly provides an
emotional link between the person and the apparition and
provides a key psychological influence on the subject.
Visual apparitions then give the subject the impression of a
visit from a person already dead. Similarly, if it is perceived
that some objects have moved, they will be willing to consider
the notion that the cause is some immaterial spirit residue of a
dead human being. Sceptical subjects will search far wider for
a rational explanation than will those who believe in such
possibilities.
Explanations for visual apparitions

When we awake from sleep it takes a short time for our
body to respond, to come back to full consciousness after deep
relaxation. Shortly before we wake naturally, we have a period
of rapid eye movement (REM) in which we frequently dream.
REM amounts to about a quarter of our sleep time and involves
Psychic Woo 85
very low muscle tone, essential if we are to avoid thrashing
about during dreaming. We don't want our muscles to carry out
the actions of our dreams. Consequently, when we come out of
REM, sometimes this sleep paralysis persists for a few minutes,
leaving us apparently awake yet still dreaming and barely able
to move. Sometimes we have already partly opened our eyes
and are getting images which are mixed with our dreams. We
may think we are moving when we are not, and we may see
people or faces which are not really there.
This sleep paralysis is well-known and understood as a
natural part of REM, and is also associated with creative
activity in the brain during which we make new associations
between people and events, and refresh our memories. It is
entirely expected that vivid memories should make an
appearance during sleep paralysis.
Sleep paralysis can be increased by breaking the established
sleep cycle - by staying up very late or getting up very early -
and a common recommended treatment is to adopt a sleep
pattern of going to bed at 11pm and getting up at 7am.
Introducing a regular pattern to sleep greatly reduces the
incidence of sleep paralysis.
It is common during times of stress, when sleep patterns are
significantly disrupted, for sleep paralysis to cause patients to
see disturbing visions, or images of lost loved ones. During
grief particularly, sleep paralysis will bring to the surface
many images and memories which are commonly identified as
ghosts of deceased relatives and friends.
Mediums and séances

Mediums claim to be able to get in touch the dead relatives
and friends and communicate in varying degrees. They often
perform a theatrical ritual séance to prepare the customers and
apparently to draw in the spirits. Details of lost relatives are
obtained from the customers which provides sufficient material
for the medium to identify and find a spirit.
Various paranormal explanations are given, such as spirits
Psychic Woo 86
being lost and needing to complete some communication to
become free, spirits being troubled by unfinished business,
unanswered questions, and the intention is to allow them to rest
in peace, a phrase which resonates with religious beliefs.
There are now many books written by mediums who have
come clean about the nature of the deception and the techniques
used. For example, once the audience are complicit in the event,
they are predisposed to identify themselves with any message
apparently coming through. They themselves drive the positive
reinforcement of the experience. All of the experiences of
séances have been reproduced by the Randi Foundation using
standard techniques of performance magic.
Using Occam's Razor, we therefore have rational
explanations for what are perceived to be supernatural events
and we therefore have no reason to believe in the supernatural
nature of séances.
Exorcisms and consecrations

Since both of these require religious beliefs of one kind or
another, we are dealing with the untestable existence of
supernatural beings. Exorcism is believed to be the removal
from a living body of some other undetectable supernatural
being. The notion of possession is a very powerful cultural
belief which provides a primitive explanation for human
actions. When a human behaves in a strange way, one
explanation is that they are made to behave that way by some
malign influence. If that is accepted as an explanation, the cure
is clearly to remove the malign influence. This may involve
magic ceremonies to life a curse, casting of spells to counteract
it, eating various substances to poison the invading spirit, or
performing some ritual to cast it out. Such resonance with the
biblical stories of casting out devils make such rites appealing
to the religious.
The Catholic church itself has an official Rite of Exorcism
which is considered a very serious undertaking and requires the
permission of a bishop. Apparent indicators of possession
Psychic Woo 87
include, curiously, many of the so-called psychic abilities for
which there are no explanations, such as knowledge of hidden
or remote things. The Anglican church has its own Deliverance
Ministry which apparently includes some people trained in
psychiatry, presumably to identify the delusional. Once again,
the bishop has to give approval. In both of these churches,
there is a reluctance to go along the path of exorcism because
they claim the most probable cause of the problem is delusion
and mental illness.
Although this seems innocuous enough, some exorcism
ceremonies, particularly among some African fundamentalists,
can involve subjecting children to extreme treatment. In an
effort to cast out a perceived devil, the child can be subjected to
extremes of punishment which threaten their health and even
their lives.
If the irrational belief in possession by devils is allowed to
persist unchallenged, then individuals can be subjected to
mistreatment in attempts to exorcise them. Even if the exorcism
is not violent, the psychological impact of such rituals is highly
questionable. It is interesting to wonder how religious
authorities can claim to distinguish between the irrationality
and delusion of possession, from the irrationality and delusion
of believing in spirits at all.
Consecration is the religious process of dedicating people
and things to the service of a god. People such as bishops are
consecrated in a ceremony referred to as ordination, but so are
things such as altars, chalices and tablecloths. In the Catholic
church, there is a special consecration, called the Eucharist, in
which during a religious service, it is claimed that bread and
wine are literally turned into the body and blood of Christ.
Most Protestants believe this to be symbolic only.
The literal truth of such a claim is easily formulated as an
hypothesis which can be tested and falsified. Following the
religious service, we can test the composition of the bread and
wine and confirm that it is unchanged. Catholics get around this
clear empirical problem by claiming that what changes is not
the appearance of the bread and wine, but the thing itself, a
Psychic Woo 88
deeper, undetectable reality, an essence which we can't
perceive. Of course, such a claim is a perfect parallel for the
notions of Qi, that undetectable energy so favoured by
alternative therapy Woo.
Theology abounds with arcane disputes about when exactly
the change (which is undetectable) takes place. You would get
similar mystification asking a Reiki practitioner to explain
when the change occurs.
Psychic abilities
When people say they possess special abilities such as mind-
reading or predicting the future, they can often be tested to
validate their claims. If someone claims to be able to anticipate
the next card to be turned over in a pack, it is easy to run a trial
to see how successful they are. Let's think our way through one
such trial.
We clearly want to make it objective so we need to be sure
that the subject has no chance of interfering with the pack of
cards, and cannot read any hidden signs on the pack itself. We
would therefore keep them separate, perhaps even in a different
room or separated by a screen. We would also want to make
sure that the person turning the cards is not in league with the
subject in case they pass covert signals. But we need to know
something else as well, and that is the normal incidence of
someone guessing the cards. Clearly if we guess, sometimes
we will be right and we need to know what level of correct
answers we would get by chance alone. That forms our
control. Having both tester and subject kept ignorant of the
other forms the double blind part of the trial, and we could
randomise as well by pairing off testers and subjects at random.
We could even introduce a higher element of random order
into the cards themselves by using equipment to provide the
randomness. A random counter could choose the suit, and
another random counter, the value of the card. That would
remove any influence of the handling of the cards altogether.
Such trials conform to a high standard of scientific
Psychic Woo 89
investigation. If psychic abilities are present, then detecting
higher success rates than our control group would provide
supporting evidence, but not proof, whereas consistent failure
to produce results beyond chance, would be significant
supporting evidence that the claims were false.
We cannot formulate an hypothesis which can be falsified
because failure to detect psychic powers or to demonstrate
them, does not prove their absence. Instead, the hypothesis is
formulated by a statement such as: In a trial X, under
circumstances Y, subject A is able to demonstrate prediction at
a level above chance to a statistically significant degree. That
is a falsifiable hypothesis and would give us a reasonable basis
to reject someone's claim to possess psychic powers. It
wouldn't show that psychic powers didn't exist at all, but it
would show that in those circumstances, that person couldn't
demonstrate them.
What counts as statistically significant?

If I am guessing cards in a pack, how many would I expect
to get right? It's a mathematical problem which we can solve
fairly easily.
In 52 cards all different, the chance of me guessing the
correct one first time is 1 in 52. When that one is turned over,
I'll know it is no longer in the pack. The chance of getting the
next card right is now 1 in 51. The chance of guessing both
cards right will be 1/52 x 1/51 or 1/2652. Of course, the
chances of getting every single card right is 1 over 52 x 51 x
50... and so on, which is to all intents and purposes, zero.
Actually it's roughly 1 in 81 followed by 66 zeros. If I am
prevented from seeing the card, the odds of getting them all
right are even worse because every chance is 1/52.
In 52 successive guesses replacing the card each time, I
could expect to average 52 x (1/52) successes which is just 1.
So in 52 guesses, it would be reasonable for me to be right just
once. So if someone consistently managed say ten or fifteen
Psychic Woo 90
successes, we'd be on to something. Even if they managed
success 1/6 of the time, we'd be on to something.
But maybe that's a really tall order. How about predicting
the score on a die? It has six sides each with a different
number. By chance we would expect to get it right 1/6 of the
time. So a level that is significant for the cards, wouldn't be
significant for the die. But in this case, if someone consistently
scored say a half correct with the die, we'd be on to something.
We use these calculations to identify what someone could
produce by chance alone so that we can see when there is
evidence to support a claim of some predictive ability. We can
also test our mathematical prediction against a control group to
confirm that we are right in our assessment of the chance level.
We use a measure called the P value to indicate what is the
probability of the subject getting that result by chance alone.
For example, we often report scientific experimental results
with a P value of P<0.05 and this means that it is at most only
5% likely that such results arose by chance, so it is 95% likely
that the cause was the one we are testing. If it was P<0.01, that
is even more extreme, not more than 1% likely to have arisen
by chance alone, and 99% likely that it was the cause under
test.
Predicting cards and other random events

Unsurprisingly laboratory tests of predicting random events
have failed to show anyone with any unusual ability. Trials of
mind-reading, locating objects, and seeing into containers, all
gave results at or below the level expected by chance alone.
Self-proclaimed psychics have always performed just the same
as anyone else when put under laboratory conditions. Between
2000 and 2010, the James Randi Foundation has been offering
$1 million for anyone who can demonstrate psychic powers
under laboratory conditions. It has remained unclaimed
because to date no-one has even got through the preliminary
tests.
But when it comes to predicting future events, the water is
Psychic Woo 91
muddier. This is because there is never a perfect match. We
always have to relate the predicted future to the present real
world since psychics never predict impossible things. They
don't for example predict the freezing of the Atlantic Ocean, or
the disappearance of Australia. They always predict from a
selection of the possible. That means that each of those
predicted events has a probability of occurring anyway. Often
it is very difficult to identify that probability. For example, if
someone predicted that a particular political party was to win an
election, all sorts of polls and pundits would offer evidence one
way or the other. Many would already have calculated
probabilities. Adding another event that a particular person
would get a particular post, is also a matter of probability. It is
therefore relatively easy to create vague scenarios which have
the illusion of prediction but which have a relatively high
probability of some match in the future.
Of course, the ability to predict the future would enable
individuals to make fortunes at gambling and it would also be a
valuable military weapon. This military prospect attracted the
interest of both the Americans and the Russians, who each
spent millions of dollars/roubles testing psychic powers. Both
failed to produce any results.
Psychics and the military

Imagine the military use of being able to psychically tune
into a foreign place and see what is happening. Spies, without
ever leaving home, could find out what is going on in foreign
countries, embassies, battlefields. It would give the military an
amazing advantage and whether that was the reason, or cold
war fear that the other side would harness it first, both the US
and Russia undertook research programmes into remote
viewing.
The US project was modestly called Stargate and ran from
the early 70s to the mid-90s, a total of 24 years of experiments.
During that time they spent millions of dollars and tried
unsuccessfully to use these skills to find Colonel Gaddafi to
Psychic Woo 92
bomb him, and to find a missing aeroplane in Africa. After
thousands of failed experiments, eventually the CIA pulled the
plug, finally admitting that there was no possible use for such a
phenomenon that was so inconsistent and unrepeatable that it
couldn't be relied upon, couldn't be learned, and couldn't be
trained into people. Not to mention the fact that after 24 years,
they had no evidence at all to support even its existence. All
they had to show for the quarter century was a collection of
untrustworthy interpretations of vague drawings collected by
experimenters who were committed to proving their beliefs
rather than objectively assessing evidence obtained under
controlled circumstances.
Remote viewing remains fatally short of any supporting
evidence but it has a wealth of evidence of failure.
Psychics and the police

It is popular to think, because there are police dramas on TV
which have psychic characters involved in investigating crime,
that this happens in real life. However, a survey carried out in
2006 by UK-Skeptics of the police forces of the UK showed
none of them either using psychics in any investigations, or
accepting such offerings as evidence.
Psychic claims are outside the scope of the law and
therefore cannot be used either to provide evidence or to
influence the direction of an investigation. Police officers will
accept any information offered but as was repeatedly made
clear in the survey, such material offered by psychics was
always of no use.
It is simply not true to claim that psychics are used with
police in the UK to assist in crime detection and investigation.
They do however routinely sell stories to tabloid newspapers to
publicise their claims.
Summary
Psychic Woo is widespread and latches onto primitive
Psychic Woo 93
religious beliefs. By opening the door to supernatural beings,
religious belief enables believers to give credibility to the
spirits of dead people, to the possibility of communicating with
ghosts, and the possibility of malign influence from
supernatural influences. It is a more primitive form of religion
than is comfortable for the modern churches but it is a perfectly
logical consequence of their beliefs. That is why it is so
difficult for them to shift such mysticism and occultism.
We know that despite massive prizes on offer, extensive
laboratory investigation, major government programmes, and
every opportunity for providing evidence, claims of psychic
ability always fall flat. We have many public exposures of the
activities of mediums. We also have good rational explanations
of the phenomenon of seeing ghosts. Sleep paralysis can be
invoked on demand under clinical conditions and the
phenomenon of seeing ghosts can be investigated. Clinical
medicine and neuroscience explains the phenomenon without
recourse to supernatural causes. The real explanation is both
simpler and testable.
There are clear psychological reasons why people want to
preserve their contact with dead loved ones, and strong
emotional pressures to produce the imagery and vivid
memories. There are excellent emotional reasons why people
would want to pass messages to their dead relatives and it takes
just a little stretching of common religious belief to make them
accept that it is possible. But we know also of the trickery and
fraud used by mediums to convince their willing customers. It
is a callous exploitation of emotional vulnerability on the
grounds that if the customer can be lied to successfully, they
will feel better at the end of it. They are saying “I will lie to you
and con you out of your money but that's OK because I have
fooled you into feeling better.” It's the placebo effect.
When it comes to people making claims of special psychic
abilities such as predicting the future, dowsing, moving objects
by thought alone, reading minds, and the like, all of these
controlled trials have shown the claims to be false.
By measuring their performance against the control group,
Psychic Woo 94
we can avoid being impressed by the occasional chance
success. By using simple mathematical calculations, we can
identify the expected differences if their claims are correct, then
observe what happens. When we do that, we show that the so-
called psychics are just making empty fanciful claims. We don't
need to fall for it any longer.
Whether it's belief in spirits, or someone's ability to predict
the future with a dream, or reading minds, or finding water with
sticks, these extraordinary claims fall apart as soon as you
begin to investigate them. Psychic Woo is Woo just the same. If
you stopped believing in fairies and unicorns, you should also
have stopped believing in spirits and ghosts. We don't believe
that ESP exists until someone can show evidence of it. After
more than a hundred years of trying to find it, we're still
waiting.
Psychic Woo 95
CHAPTER 7
Rational thinking
If we decide to climb a ladder, we first check that it is

supported properly. If we cross the road, we first check for
oncoming traffic. If we buy a car, we check that it is in good
condition. In hundreds of circumstances every day we use our
rational thinking to look after ourselves.
When we take part in sports, we think rationally too. We
decide on the level of risk and judge whether or not it is
acceptable. We might go for canoeing but not free fall
parachuting, jogging but not caving. Our assessment of the
risks and benefits are part of the calculating we do all the time.
Sometimes we get it a little wrong and have accidents, or
perhaps miss out on something we might have enjoyed.
Sometimes our timidity works against us, and sometimes being
over-brave is dangerous. We learn to make those adjustments,
but by and large, our rational way of thinking works pretty
well.
In making other kinds of decisions, we weigh up the risks
and benefits again. Buy a house or rent? Change the car or go
on holiday? We use what we know of the real world to inform
our decisions and it's crucially important that we use the facts.
We wouldn't agree to buy an imaginary car, or one that runs on
undetectable energy. We wouldn't by a house in another
dimension. Rationality requires that we relate our activity to
the real world.
We have a water leak in our house. We need a plumber who
understands how the water system in the house works and who
can fix it quickly. We don't want someone who is talking about
some undetectable Qi, or energy channels that are somehow
misaligned, when the water is flowing across the floor. An
electrician who has a completely radical theory about electrical
energy won't be trusted to wire a plug and for good reason.
We'd first want them to demonstrate that the new theory still
Rational thinking 96
leaves us with a properly wired plug and a functioning system.
How strange then that in some areas of our lives we are
positively encouraged to suspend our rational thinking. Even
though our social values are derived from our interaction with
people we relate to and trust, we are asked to accept that an
omniscient superbeing is responsible, can read everyone's mind
simultaneously and is able to change the universe and all in it
on a whim. We are expected to change our behaviour because
of some future judgement made by this invisible being.
When we are ill, we are expected to go to someone who
claims extraordinary ability, able to detect undetectable energy
sources, or effect cures with unexplainable techniques based on
theories that they themselves cannot explain.
And many people do just that. It's not that their reasoning
is faulty; it is absent. They are just not applying their rational
thinking to these particular areas.
We have seen in the previous chapters that we can adopt two
different stances: believing and sceptical. We have seen that
knowledge about how the world works is very effectively
obtained by the sceptical viewpoint and that the believing
viewpoint cannot distinguish between fact and fiction.
Consequently, any major decision which affects us should
be taken with the sceptical viewpoint rather than the believing
viewpoint. Even if the ideas about religion and alternative
medicine turn out to have some merit, the sceptical viewpoint is
still the appropriate way to take decisions that affect us.
The advantages of rational thinking

Those who accept the sceptical viewpoint are open-minded
to new theories, new discoveries, new explanations for how
things work. Their critical approach to theories helps them
acknowledge weaknesses in their own arguments, to be more
honest in putting forward their ideas, to be less dogmatic.
Knowing that a theory is only as good as the evidence and its
explanatory power means they they are less likely to persist
with a belief when the evidence stacks up against them. They
are more in tune with the progress of ideas and discoveries.
Those who accept the believing viewpoint are
psychologically disposed to defend their beliefs, often against
any and every opposition. They will feel under threat, perhaps
personally, when their beliefs are questioned. For them, their
beliefs are often not just ideas but are intensely personal, define
their very being, and require defence. When their beliefs are
challenged, they feel it as a personal sleight. This is why so
many religious people demand legal protection for their ideas in
the form of statutes against blasphemy.
The rational person justifies their actions by their own
personal values which come from their involvement in society.
They are accountable to themselves and those around them for
their actions, and are responsible for justifying those values
personally. No-one hands them a ready-made morality, and
they have to be involved themselves in each of their ethical
decisions.
When a rational person is faced with an extraordinary claim,
they look for the evidence, reasons to accept it, they have
doubts, they check the consistency with what else they know.
Very many extraordinary claims are relegated to the back list of
“not enough evidence”. Those that get through the filter are
genuinely worthy of consideration. So that initial rational filter
enables them to focus on the truly useful and interesting new
ideas without wandering around dead ends.
By contrast, the credulous, those adopting the believing
viewpoint, are gullible to almost any well-publicised approach,
however inconsistent, contradictory, or unfounded. They will
spend time reading about crystals, energy flows, chakras,
spirits, and the like, without ever finding a reason for doubt
because there never will be any evidence. They are therefore
perfect consumers of Woo.
Rational thinking is what we use as human beings to
negotiate our world. Our brains developed this potential as a
response to the dangers in the primitive environment, and with
that ability came our growing self-awareness as thinking
individuals, able to direct our own thoughts. Returning to a
believing viewpoint is retrogressive, turning our backs on our
own thinking abilities.
A credulous consumer, willing to accept anything he or she
is told, is an extremely important addition to the marketplace.
Those people who are willing to accept supernatural beings
and mystical forces into their lives will also be willing to let
tangible money flow out of their wallets. By contrast, the
rational sceptical individual will be unwilling to spend money
on untested, unevidenced, mystical notions.
For that reason, rationality gets bad press. Thinking
rationally is depicted as being unimaginative, unemotional, and
cold. We'll take a look now at some of the attitudes to
rationality.
Attitudes to the rational

We have all seen the caricatures of the cold, calculating
scientist, seeing only a world of facts and figures, of
experiments and data, unmoved by music or poetry, unloved
and unloving, interested only in the harsh provable reality of
the inanimate external world.
He is analytic to the point of distrusting his own emotions,
he is unable to appreciate art seeing only the techniques and
materials, his world is cold, devoid of human feeling. The
people around him are remote, kept at bay, prevented from
interrupting the flow of his thoughts. He is the ultimate
rational individual. Only through such divorce from everyday
feelings and experiences can his rational thinking guide him to
his goal.
Although it's entertaining to develop such an extreme
character in fiction, it's a pervasive impression that many
people have of those people who can think rationally. The
assumption is that if you can think rationally, you must also be
deficient in the emotional department. If you are logical, you
therefore can't be creative. If you are analytical, you can't be
spontaneous. Fundamentally, if you think rationally, you are
condemned to being short of those very characteristics that
might make you fun. It's a powerful argument against being
seen to think for yourself, to be seen to be rational.
For teenagers and young adults eager to be accepted by their
peers, the last thing they want to appear is not-fun! Even if
they were fun, getting involved in discussions and arguments
about why homeopathy is a load of nonsense, will not endear
them to their more fun-loving peers. So they don't do it. They
let it go, and the rational case goes unheard.
Amongst people not used to thinking about theories,
evidence, causes, explanations, the appearance of someone
questioning what everyone else seems to support makes them
very uneasy. The atheist in a workplace with religious
colleagues, may have to accept some hostility from those who
feel their personal values are being attacked, even if they are
not.
Let's take a look at some of these prejudices and what we
can do about them.
Rational equals unemotional?

One of the commonest beliefs about rational people is that if
they are logical, they are therefore unemotional and unfeeling.
This stems from the belief that rational people are more in
control of their emotional state. If they are less given to
emotional outbursts, they must be repressing their emotional
side.
For thinking people, this caricature is offensive and
insulting. The facts don't bear out this black and white picture
of how rational thinking takes place. It is known that people
who have brain damage which impairs their emotions, have
difficulty thinking rationally. Brain activity during rational
activities increases in those areas associated with emotions.
When people are emotionally aroused, activity in the brain
areas associated with rational thinking also increases. It is not
possible to be rational without being emotional. Being
emotional is a rational activity.
What is true for rational thinkers though is that they are
often aware of the influence of emotions on their decisions.

They are aware also how emotions can skew decisions both
positively and negatively, and they choose the appropriate
mixture for the type of decision they want to take. A decision
about effective treatment for an otherwise fatal illness needs to
be taken as objectively as possible. The place for emotion is
clearly in dealing with the individual, but when evaluating the
results of tests of effectiveness, emotion can skew the results
making them untrustworthy.
Control of emotions in certain circumstances is not
something negative, something to be disparaged. It is a
positive and mature exercise of self-control. Just because you
think rationally does not imply that you are in any way
emotionally repressed – far from it. It means you have a
healthier understanding of the role of emotions in decision-
making, which will make you a more responsive and caring
individual. By understanding the role of emotion in all
decision-making, you are better able to make good decisions.
Creativity opposed to rational thinking?

We've all heard this one too. Rational people can't be
creative: the drive to think logically pushes out all those
creative urges and leaves the individual dull, unfulfilled, and
boring. That flash of inspiration, it is argued, can only come
about if we suppress the logical side of our brain.
Some people use what we know of the areas of the brain
associated with logical and creative thinking to argue that there
are types of people who are more dominated by one side or the
other. Linear and sequential thinking seems to involve the left
side of the brain more, whereas random jumps and associations
seem to occur more in processing in the right side of the brain.
But all thought involves both sides of the brain in differing
degrees. The left brain seems to be good at processing
abstractions and symbols, whereas the right brain is more
involved in processing concrete, real, physical things. But we
use both all the time.
Now consider some really creative activities like graphic
design, or writing music. The designer has to be able to

manipulate symbols, spatial relationships, real colours and
contrasts, sizes, spaces, at the same time as understanding the
abstract significance of the images produced, the emotions
generated in the viewer, the sensations and perceptions, and so
on. The musician has to be able to relate the abstract shape and
structure of the composition with the emotions generated by the
sounds, with the combination of the real practical requirements
of playing the music on real physical instruments, the technical
constraints of the score and the orchestration, timing and
intonation. There is an absolutely essential involvement of both
sides of the brain in any creative activity.
Any creative person will stress those different aspects of the
creative process at different times. They will analyse,
experiment, speculate, measure, introduce random elements,
repeat previous work, borrow from others, sometimes being
systematic, sometimes following apparently random
associations that come to mind. They will go with the flow but
also impose rigorous control, break all the rules, then follow
them, see what happens, then structure it. They cannot be
creative without also using their sense of rationality.
Just like thinking rationally, thinking creatively is a skill that
can be taught and learned. It can also be self-taught.
Either artistic or logical?

Many schools divide their pupils into categories based on
whether they will study arts subjects or science subjects,
implicitly stamping them as either artistic or logical/analytical.
The education system has encouraged this assumption in its
timetabling, selection criteria for higher education, and
throughout universities.
People come out of school thinking that they fall into one
camp or the other. How often have you heard, “I was always
artistic, I was no good at science.” People are taught at an early
age that they belong to one type or the other. By conforming
to the expectations of educators, they not only restrict
themselves to certain activities but deny themselves other
opportunities to develop the corresponding skills.

Concentrating on artistic and expressive activities often
involves denying time to developing technical and analytical
skills. It's self-fulfilling: people respond to the typing by
themselves reinforcing the typing.
Artistic skills can be taught and so can logical thinking.
There's no contradiction at all. It's just a question of acquiring
skills.
Summary
We've looked at rational thinking and why we use it in all
aspects of our lives. We've seen that when we make important
decisions, we insist on rational explanations. We've contrasted
the consequences of rational thinking and the magical thinking
of those who adopt the believing viewpoint. Although magical
thinking is entertaining and has its place, when we are taking
decisions that matter to us, it is potentially harmful.
We looked at the difference between being a consumer and
being a believer and saw why Woo marketers very much prefer
the latter.
We've examined some popular prejudices about rational
people and seen that rational thinking does not imply lack of
emotion, nor lack of creativity. On the contrary, we've seen
that emotional and rational thinking are intimately connected,
and that creative activities always include exercising rational
skills. We've seen how the labels attached to young people,
dividing them between arts and sciences, encourages these
prejudices.
Now we're ready for a critical look at some representative
Woo offerings.

CHAPTER 8
A short compendium of Woo
This chapter provides a short compendium of the range of

Woo currently available. It cannot be comprehensive since
there's one born every minute. If there is a possibility of a
product and someone willing to buy it, somebody will come
along with the appropriate combination of Eastern mysticism,
pseudoscience, and outlandish claims, with a convincing
collection of anecdotes from satisfied customers. All they need
is someone to come along and swallow it, sometimes literally.
Please take a while to run through the list and consider for
each one, what aspect might make you think twice before you
hand over your hard-earned cash. I am hoping that by now, you
will at least have some serious reservations. Many of these
proposed therapies will seem to you to stretch credibility to the
limit, but if the potential customer knows little about how the
human body works, and is impressed by either Eastern
mysticism or pseudoscientific terms, or both, they may be taken
in.
And if you doubt that these are indeed taken seriously, a
brief scan of the internet will identify businesses run on
precisely these beliefs, taking money regularly off customers
who know no better. I hope this list serves as a reminder that
even if there is one born every minute, it doesn't have to be you.
Acupuncture
Based on the idea of energy lines or meridians. An
undetectable form of energy called Qi is encouraged to flow
along undetectable channels, stimulated by the insertion of
needles, sometimes to a depth of 7cm or more. Although side
effects are rare, vital organs and blood vessels can be
punctured. There is no evidence that acupuncture is effective
against any disease. Any effects of acupuncture are due to the
A short compendium of Woo 104

placebo effect.
Alexander Technique
A technique of studying the movement of the body to detect
stresses and strains, poor posture, and unnecessary physical
effort. Originally intended as a process of self-education rather
than as a therapy. During instruction, students show better
control and less stress but this is not maintained without
practice. As a self-study method of controlling posture and
tension, it has some benefit. If promoted as a therapy, the
claims are suspect.
Apitherapy
The belief that bee products, honey, pollen, venom, etc, are
endowed with healing powers. Claims have been made that it
can even cure autoimmune disease. There is no evidence
whatsoever that this is the case nor that it cures anything at all.
Applied kinesiology
This seemingly scientific-sounding treatment relies on the
idea that muscle strength is indicative of the overall state of the
body. There is no scientific evidence for this being the case nor
any evidence that the technique can diagnose illness or
ailments. Nevertheless some chiropractors will add this to
their list of services and charge for it.
Aromatherapy
The theory that aromas can influence the limbic system of
the body are correct but the claims of aromatherapy go well
beyond what is evidenced. Claims to any form of therapy are
unreasonable. The anecdotal reports of relaxing massage with
pleasant smells seems consistent with claims of stress
reduction. However there is no evidence of any form of
therapy, or cures of illnesses.

Astrology
This is the belief that the relative position of the planets and
stars directly influences events in the world, specifically the
destiny and fate of human beings. Many astrologers base their
predictions on tables of planetary positions in an ephemeris but
unfortunately most such books are based on inaccurate tables
constructed around the time of Kepler in the 17th century.
Despite many attempts to find it, there has been no significant
correlation beyond chance between astrological predictions
and real events.
Ayurvedic medicine
Ayurvedic medicine relies on a medieval classification of
elements, typically Earth, Air, Fire, Water and Space. Abstract
metaphysical concepts are mixed with proposed herbal
remedies. Practitioners of Ayurvedic medicine are mostly
ignorant of both the active ingredients and their
pharmacological effects. Since herbal remedies contain many
identified and unidentified active ingredients, and since there
are no standards for safety and quality in their production, they
constitute a potential health risk. Despite ancient documents
recommending medicines, their age does not ensure accuracy
nor efficacy, merely belief. There is no evidence to support
Ayurvedic medicine.
Bach flower therapy

The idea that extracts of certain plants in a 50:50
water:brandy mixture will alleviate stress is indistinguishable
from the (brandy-assisted) placebo effect. Leaving out the
expensive plant extract has been shown to be at least as good in
bringing about relaxation.
Chiropractic
This is a therapy based on the idea that by manipulating the

musculo-skeletal system the general health of the body is
affected through the nervous system. It is based on the
unscientific belief of the founder, D. D. Palmer, that 95% of
illnesses are caused by subluxations, deformations of the spine.
Although many chiropractors treat back injuries, many also
make claims to be able to treat a wide variety of illnesses
including childhood colic and asthma. Such claims are being
challenged due to the absence of evidence from trials which
meet the required standard of clinical evidence. It is possible
that chiropractic techniques can benefit back pain sufferers but
even here, the evidence is weak. Claims to treat other
conditions are suspect.
The theory behind chiropractic is non-scientific. Particular
techniques, such as cervical manipulation in which the neck is
severely jolted, have been heavily criticised on safety grounds
and there have been cases of ruptured arteries in the neck.
Accepting such a technique on the basis of an unscientific
theory is taking an unnecessary risk.
Chromotherapy
The idea here is that colour can be used to balance some
unidentified and undetectable energy, thus bringing about
improved health. Coloured lights are shone on various points
of the body in the belief that specific frequencies and intensities
provide different healing potentials. This is utterly without any
rational basis and although it is sold as a therapy, one has to
question the honesty of such claims.
Colloidal silver therapy

Some people believe that the metal silver has therapeutic
properties. In fact it's a metal which in high concentrations can
cause a toxic reaction called argyria, which causes permanent
greying of the skin and can inhibit antibiotics and other
medicines. Selling silver as a therapy is banned in the US
because it is unsafe.

Colon hydrotherapy – colonic irrigation
This strange idea assumes that introducing water into the
large intestine via the anus, will remove toxins from the body.
It is utterly without basis and shows considerable confusion
about human biology. At best, the technique will wash out part
of the alimentary canal but it will have no effect on blood
chemistry. Introducing pipes into the anus is itself a risky
procedure which can lead to perforation of the rectum and large
intestine. Only the very foolhardy would undertake this
procedure voluntarily.
Crystal healing
This is based on the belief that crystals have healing
vibrations which are able to affect the body, sometimes through
undetectable chakras, so that the body becomes free to heal
itself. Although there are fundamental frequencies at which all
objects vibrate, this theory is non-scientific and practitioners
are often more concerned with the colour of the crystal rather
than the composition. There is absolutely no evidence to
support the practice of crystal healing.
Cupping
This is the practice of placing containers of hot air on the
skin so that on cooling, the skin is sucked in and raised
increasing blood circulation. Sometimes it is placed over a
supposed acupuncture point, sometimes it is used to draw
blood. Claims that this treats anything are without basis. The
most you will get is a bruise.
Dietary supplements
It is extremely difficult to suffer vitamin deficiency eating
the average western diet. Therefore dietary supplements are
generally pointless unless there is some underlying illness (for
example anaemia) or a grossly distorted diet. Any supplement

needs to be related to the specific biochemically diagnosed
deficit. Excess of vitamin A causes a toxic reaction so taking
too many supplements can be dangerous. Excess of vitamin E
has been associated with increased deaths from heart disease.
The body does not need extra supplies of vitamins, amino
acids, metals, and cofactors. A glance at the contents of some
dietary supplements will show that the overwhelming majority
of them are already contained in the common potato.
Dowsing
This is the belief that a Y- or L-shaped rod held in the hands
can be used to detect subterranean material such as water, oil,
bodies, metallic or other objects. Although it attracts insistent
believers, trials have consistently shown that this is a non-
phenomenon. It doesn't happen.
Ear candling
This is the practice of placing one end of a candle in the ear
and lighting the other end with the belief that this will exert
negative pressure and draw out toxins and wax. It is claimed
that the process can remove impurities and toxins from the
body. It is utterly without basis. Not only are there no toxins to
come out of the ear, but there is also no negative pressure to
draw such toxins and wax out. It cannot work, and does not
work.
Faith healing
This is the religious belief that prayers or rituals can call into
presence a divine entity which will effect a cure. Case studies
of those claiming to have been cured through such an
experience have shown that there were no cures. Prayer has
consistently shown itself to fail. It is also pertinent, although
obvious, to point out that many illnesses are apparently immune
to faith healers such as fractures.

Fasting and detox
Going without food, or radically changing one's diet can
have serious biochemical consequences. The body will use
carbohydrates for energy first, then it uses glycogen from the
liver, then it moves on to fats. After a few days ketone levels
build up in the blood and this can cause major changes in blood
chemistry.
Detox therapies are based on the notion that various toxins
build up the body and need to be removed. The liver does this
very effectively and naturally. Many of the so-called toxins are
not toxins at all. Many of the major metallic elements
(calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, copper, iron, zinc)
are necessarily present in the body and the level is self-
regulating. Interfering with these levels artificially, either by
deliberately restricting intake, or using so called Chelation
Therapy (using chemicals like EDTA normally used to treat
acute lead, arsenic, uranium and mercury poisoning), will alter
the delicate balance and can make people quite unwell.
Detox theory is based on a very poor understanding of
human biology. Classifying something as a toxin first requires
an understanding of its role in human biochemistry. If anyone
is proposing detox as a therapy, they have little or no
understanding of the way the human body functions and should
not be trusted.
Feng shui
This is really a form of interior design in which mystical
claims are made about the importance of orientation in the
positioning of furniture. More sophisticated practitioners will
use a luo pan, a Chinese compass, to identify the auspicious
directions. Since Qi, the energy flows which the practitioner is
trying to align, are undetectable, it is simply a form of
marketing mumbo-jumbo to differentiate interior designers
from their competitors. There is no evidence to support their
mystical claims.

Hatha yoga
This is a form of yoga based on physical exercise, poses,
positions, breathing exercises, and meditation. It comes with
Eastern mystical philosophy based on the ideas that physical
exercises improve certain mental and spiritual aspects. As with
all versions of yoga there are certain physical benefits derived
from the exercise and relaxation. The spiritual claims are
unfounded because they are untestable.
Herbal therapy
This is based on the idea that herbal remedies used in the
past must have worked and that therefore we should continue to
use them. Neither belief is justified. If they worked in the past,
and we have no evidence other than written anecdotal evidence,
we don't know the active ingredient, nor its concentrations. Nor
do we know what else is in the herbal medicine that may
interact with, counteract, amplify or weaken the effects.
Without any control on the contents of the herbal medicine, we
are trusting in the pre-science beliefs of medieval people.
There are clearly some plant extracts which are effective
medicines, quinine for example from the bark of the cinchona
tree. Extracting that, purifying it, and using it in a controlled
manner proved useful in treating malaria. But most herbal
medicines are of questionable quality, of uncertain content, and
have an uncertain effect. With the possible exception of St
John's Wort, no evidence of efficacy has been found. In the
case of St John's Wort, we know it interferes with more than
half of prescription medicines, including oral contraceptives,
because it inhibits an enzyme needed for uptake from the gut.
Holistic medicine
Holistic simply means whole, complete, total. It is used by
alternative medicine practitioners to imply that conventional
science-based medicine does not treat the whole individual. In
fact, when a doctor takes a case history, that is precisely holistic

medicine. Conventional medicine concentrates on relevant
details associated with possible causes, and therefore
concentrates on those aspects most likely to result in treatment
and cure. It is often believed that this focussed questioning by
medical practitioners reflects a lack of understanding of the
holistic nature of medicine. In reality, it is the most effective
mechanism for identifying likely causes and treatments. There
is no reason to believe that wider questioning including a wide
range of possible but very unlikely causes, will result in a more
focussed or quicker diagnosis. Conventional medicine is
holistic medicine.
Homeopathy
Based on the principle of “like cures like”, and “successive
dilution”, this is a non-scientific theory which contradicts the
wealth of known physical, chemical and biological science.
Like does not cure like. A small amount of arsenic does not
cure arsenic poisoning. A small amount of additional sugar
does not cure a hyperglycaemic diabetic coma. Similarly,
dilution does not increase the strength of a medicine. Despite
massive delusional support brought about by enormous
amounts of marketing, is difficult to distinguish this therapy
from fraud.
Iridology
This is based on the belief that the iris in the eye reflects the
general state of health of the patient and that it can be used to
diagnose systemic diseases. The iris though does not undergo
substantial change during the course of a person's lifetime.
Controlled trials have consistently shown that practitioners
cannot diagnose anything from test irises they have seen. If
they can't diagnose, they can't treat.
Macrobiotic lifestyle
The idea here is that health is maintained by eating grains,

vegetables and beans. The sound advice to eat a varied and
balanced diet is often mixed with Eastern mystical ideas,
undetectable energies and grandiose medical claims. Despite a
claim to the contrary, there is no evidence that it is a cure for
cancer.
There is some risk in adopting radical diets. Unless a full
balanced diet is maintained providing the essential
carbohydrates, proteins and fats, vitamins and essential
elements, dietary disorders will result and those following strict
macrobiotic diets are more susceptible to scurvy and
malnutrition.
Magnet therapy
This is based on the belief that magnetic fields have
therapeutic properties. Patients are subjected to magnetic fields
or sold magnetic material to wear. The use of magnetism in
medicine as a controlled diagnostic tool has been growing with
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) but this uses a well-
established physical principle in which, at the atomic level,
protons are aligned temporarily by a very strong radio-
frequency electromagnetic field. This allows differences to be
seen between soft and hard tissue. It requires the use of a
massive electromagnet. It has nothing whatsoever to do with
magnet therapy. Studies of therapy involving magnets have
shown no detectable effect. Magnets sold by the practitioners
are far too weak to influence bodily tissue in any way at all.
The sheer size of magnets required for scanning equipment
illustrates the absurdity of these claims.
Massage therapy
Massage works by relaxing muscles and muscle groups by
physical manipulation. By increasing blood circulation and
reducing muscle tension, the patient is relaxed. Claiming
anything further of massage is mystification. For example
claims involving undetectable energies, balancing, detox,

harmony and the like, are all marketing hype. There are now
hundreds of varieties of massage Woo, often sold by
practitioners who claim some kind of qualification which can
generally be obtained by attending a short course from a Woo
institute at considerable cost, and are often worthless. Those
claiming to provide cures are risking the charge of fraud.
Medical intuition
This is where practitioners claim to use their intuition to
identify the cause of physical or emotional conditions. It is as
close as one can get to the traditional witch doctor looking for
signs of a demon. There is no clinical evidence to support the
use of medical intuition. That is not to say that doctors do not
often have intuitions, simply that when intuitions are trialled,
they fare no better than guesses. Genuine medical practitioners
question their hunches and look for the evidence.
Naturopathic medicine
This is a stress on the body's self-healing rather than the
interventions of modern medicine. Surgery, pharmaceuticals
and radiation are avoided in favour of life-style changes.
Naturopaths may also be opposed to vaccines and antibiotics.
All forms of naturopathy rely on concepts which contradict
known basic science. Since they may offer diagnoses at odds
with clinical science, there is some risk associated with reliance
on naturopathic doctors.
Neuro-linguistic programming
This is based on the idea that we can unlearn learned
behaviours which contribute to symptoms such as depression,
anxiety, and learning disorders. Although it sounds as though it
is related to neuroscience (and therefore pretends to have some
scientific respectability) it is non-scientific and unrelated to any
neurological science. There is no empirical evidence for the
efficacy of NLP.

Orthomolecular medicine
This is the belief that western diets are deficient in essential
components required for health and therefore we need
substantial quantities of supplements. These proposed
supplements include vitamins, proteins, amino acids, anti-
oxidants, fatty acids of one kind or another, and even micro-
nutrients. Despite the apparently scientific name, it is
unscientific. There has been no evidence found to support the
claims that the western diet is deficient in these essentials, nor
that supplements have a beneficial effect on health. Instead,
those who supplement excessively with vitamin E have a higher
death rate. It is dangerous to treat your diet as a hobby.
Osteomyology
These practitioners, who are either chiropractors or
osteopaths, seem to have refused to be regulated by law,
changing their designation to osteomyologist rather than have
to abide by the requirements of their professional chiropractor
and osteopath associations. The UK law required both
chiropractors and osteopaths to be registered and controlled, so
practitioners who designate themselves as osteomyologists can
avoid this limitation. These practitioners have no defining
philosophy except that they wish to practice manipulative
techniques without the restriction of legal control. Anyone can
designate themselves an osteomyologist with no training
whatsoever.
Osteopathy
This was originally based on the idea that the musculo-
skeletal system can interfere with nerve and blood supply
around the body, and that therefore manipulation of the bones
and muscles can remove the obstructions and allow the body to
function. It has moved on from the early days of shaking
children with Scarlet Fever. Now it tends to be concentrated on
manipulating the spine and joints to alleviate pain. Joint

manipulation may alleviate pain providing the practitioner
understands physiotherapy. But osteopathic manipulative
treatment has no known effect on overall body health.
Cranial Therapy used by osteopaths claims to be able to
detect and cure diseases by detecting the movement of cranial
bones. This is quite simply impossible because after early
adolescence, the cranial bones have fused together – they
cannot and do not move. When the diagnostic skills of
osteopaths detecting such cranial movements were tested, they
all found something different – exactly as expected when
detecting a non-existent phenomenon. Don't believe people
who claim to detect this stuff – it doesn't exist.
Polarity therapy
This is a form of therapy based on the belief in a form of
energy called putative energy. It uses Eastern mystical
vocabulary and practitioners claim to be able to balance the
natural flow of energy through the body. In the absence of any
means of identifying, detecting, or measuring the energy, it is
difficult to distinguish this therapy from fraud.
Prayer
This is a religious form of contemplation in which believers
are convinced they are being listened to by a supernatural
being, and in some cases also able to receive a response. Prayer
has been consistently shown to have no effect on the physical
world. In a controlled, double-blind, randomised, trial of
cardiac patients, those who had people praying for them did
marginally worse than those who did not.
Psychic surgery
This is the dramatic removal of tissue, pathological matter,
from a patient with bare hands, without leaving any trace of an
incision. It is broadly accepted as a form of medical fraud but
remains an entertaining television example of irrationalism.

Reflexology
This is the belief that various regions of the foot map to
other areas of the body so that massaging or applying pressure
to specific points can improve health. There is no consensus
amongst practitioners about how this is supposed to work, nor
which regions are related to which other areas of the body.
Some practitioners claim to use some form of Qi, an
undetectable energy, whereas others simply stress the benefits
of relaxation. Reflexologists have consistently failed to
diagnose known medical conditions. There is absolutely no
evidence to support claims of cures using reflexology.
Sclerology
This is the belief that, rather than the iris, the sclera or white
of the eye displays the current medical condition of the patient
and can be used in the diagnosis of illness. This is utterly
without foundation and when tested, practitioners could identify
nothing.
Therapeutic touch, Reiki

This is the idea that some form of energy can be passed
from one person to another via touch or some unidentified
mechanism, in such a way that the healing potential of the
recipient is enhanced. Some claim to exercise this healing
power at a distance, even between countries. A famous
scientific paper written by an 11-year-old girl, Emily Rosa, in
1998, reported how she conducted a controlled, double-blind,
randomised study of her own as a classroom project, and
demonstrated that the practitioners performed worse than could
be expected by chance. It is difficult to distinguish these
therapeutic claims from fraud.
Traditional Chinese medicine

This claims that the mystical concepts of ancient Taoism,

Buddhism and Neo-Confucianism, correctly describe how the
body works. It relies on notions of an undetectable energy
called Qi, channels for such energy called meridians, a strange
concept called jing (which includes kidney essence), and a
variety of other abstract ideas. The complete lack of any
diagnostic techniques means that each TCM practitioner will
produce a different diagnosis and they will then offer
uncontrolled substances of largely uncertain content to treat
unidentified ailments. You wouldn't do that to your dog.
Conclusion
I hope that you now see clearly the irrational elements that
infect the Land of Woo; the mystical energies and forces, the
superbeings, the outlandish claims about the human body, the
exploitation of the lack of scientific understanding, the sheer
lack of evidence to support any of them, the reliance on belief
to sell a product.
This brief compendium could not possibly be
comprehensive. It would itself run to thousands of pages, such
is the extent of this differentiated market. But hopefully it has
served as a good indication of the scope of irrational ideas and
their pervasive influence in the Land of Woo. There will be
countless variations on offer, each with their suspicious,
unfounded claims, each with their marketing differentiators, but
it should now be easy to compare them to their generic
equivalents.
We've had a trip around the Land of Woo and seen what's
there. Now, it's time to leave it – for good!

CHAPTER 9
Leaving the Land of Woo
We've now moved a long way from our starting point of

examining how and why we trust claims about how the world
works. We've seen how the sceptical point of view is the one
we use most in our daily lives to provide the right degree of
open-mindedness and caution, to look after our safety, and to
avoid being taken in by silly, nonsensical ideas.
We've seen how the Land of Woo relies on us adopting a
believing point of view, suspending our natural caution, and
accepting extraordinary claims without good reasons. We've
seen how religion is part of the Land of Woo, insisting on belief
in supernatural beings of various types, existence beyond death,
and spirits and souls, for which there are no good reasons.
We've also looked at how alternative medicine has sprouted an
incredible number of claims about how the human body works,
offering fantastic mechanisms for therapies in the absence of
objective evidence. Again we are asked to accept the claims
with no good reason.
We've seen how Woo depends on both a lack of
understanding of how the world really works, whether it's how
the human body functions, or understanding concepts like force
and energy, and our willingness to accept unjustified theories.
Our ignorance leaves us prey to sham theory which, although it
might use the same words, has nothing to do with a scientific
understanding of the natural world.
We now know that many of the businesses in the Land of
Woo are selling a product based on undetectable forces or
energies, using proposed mechanisms that the practitioners
themselves cannot explain and sometimes cannot even
understand. Such theories are generally in conflict with the
known physical laws of nature and we know now that if the
theories of the Land of Woo are correct, then the physical laws
on which our working technology is based must be incorrect. If
Leaving the Land of Woo 119

the Land of Woo is correct, not just some but all of our science
is wrong. The forces and energy we know about just don't
behave the way the world relies on.
But of course, we know that technology works – that's not in
doubt. Planes do fly, X-rays do detect bones, glasses do help
our eyesight, electric bulbs do produce light. We now know
why we cannot claim such success for the Land of Woo.
Because it doesn't work.
We've had a look at a short compendium of samples of Woo
to see which ideas and beliefs they are based on and identified
those which are unsupported by evidence. We have seen that
the scope is vast and growing, there's one born every minute.
We've looked briefly as well at the kinds of prejudice that
can face those who try to think rationally, those who weigh up
objective evidence when taking decisions, those who take the
claims of Woo seriously and check them out. We've seen some
of society's assumptions about the social characteristics of
people who develop the skill of thinking rationally, and we've
exploded some myths about being imaginative and creative.
We now know you can't be creative without being rational, and
imagination draws on many different forms of thinking.
Now we need to look at the changes which we need to make
to get away from the Land of Woo. Among us are people who
have vaguely entertained the idea that these therapies might
work. They might even have parted with money at some time in
the past, buying homeopathic medicine, trying some kind of
Woo massage, taken Ayurvedic medicine or some Chinese
herbal remedy. We're still here so it clearly didn't do us major
harm, but we now want to adopt a more rational approach to
our decisions about our health and welfare.
Rather like getting away from an addictive drug, we are
breaking away from irrational thinking. And just as in the case
of addiction, we have patterns of behaviour, in this case
irrational thinking, which we have repeated over and over. We
are susceptible to irrational ideas, pay attention to them, take
them seriously even when we suspect there are no good
reasons.

In this chapter, we'll propose a completely new,
unsubstantiated and irrational alternative medical therapy.
We'll invent a completely fictitious theory to support it and
we'll use some real scientific information dishonestly to
encourage people to believe it. In other words, we're going to
design our own scam, our own fraudulent therapy, making
extraordinary claims with no evidence, and propose various
forms of therapeutic activity based on it. If this were a real
scam, we'd be advertising, accepting clients, and charging
money. But we're too honest for that. This is just an example
to illustrate how we can produce a seemingly credible
alternative therapy from almost nothing at all.
Sniff Therapy – an alternative con

The basic idea is that one of our main senses is smell.
Here's our made-up alternative therapy.
Smells can make us react in all sorts of ways. We'll
claim (with no good reason) that our sense of smell is
much more powerful than many people realise and that it
affects the whole of our well-being.
We'll also claim that the sense of smell directly

affects your emotions, your physical state, and your
energy balance. (I made that last bit up!). The olfactory
receptors in your nose are connected to the olfactory bulb
in the brain and from there it also connects to the
amygdala which is associated with emotions, and the
hippocampus which is associated with motivation and
memory. (All true!)
When we take a brief sniff, we are actually restoring

in a small way, the natural balance of the body. (I made
that up!) Repeated light sniffs provides a holistic and
non-invasive way of restoring the balance in our bodies.

It will reduce stress and open our bodies to the
restorative flow. By stimulating and enhancing our
sense of smell, we improve the body's self-healing
potential. (I made all that up too!) Thousands of people
have already experienced the benefits of therapeutic
sniffing. (That's right, I made that up too...)
The therapy consists of controlled sessions with a

trained therapist which last about an hour. Typically the
first twenty minutes is shallow breathing to open the
channels so they are receptive. Then a period of around
twenty to thirty minutes, inhaling a selection of aromatic
materials graded to produce the correct level of
stimulation. The session ends after a warm down period
when the channels are relaxed back to their normal state.
I must stress, this is all made up! If I was exploitative and

interested in taking money off gullible people, I'd invent an
Institute, award myself a Practitioner Certificate, possibly
award myself Trainer Status, print a few more Certificates, and
make up some impressive looking adverts. I might also write
my own recommendations...
That's all good fun, inventing an alternative therapy. I did
run a check on the internet and as far as I know, no-one has yet
tried making a business out of this idea but we'll see. But just
in case, let's now apply our rational thinking and see what we
make of it.
We'll see lots of the elements from the Land of Woo and
we'll see how to get away from them.
Taking apart Sniff Therapy

Let's assume that we don't know much about human
biology. We know that there have been lots of scientific
advances in the last twenty years so let's go with the flow.
“Smells can make us react in all sorts of ways”

That's certainly true. We can all think of smells that make
our mouths water, and also smells that make us run away. That
statement seems to be true.
“Our sense of smell is much more powerful than many

people realise”
We can't tell if this is true or not without knowing how
much other people know. But it sounds plausible. Maybe our
sense of smell is more powerful. But we are being asked to
believe this without good reason.
“It affects the whole of your well-being”

This is quite a strong claim. The whole of my well-being
includes my whole body, my mental health, my heart and lungs
and liver, my skin and blood, my nerves. That's a very strong
claim to make without good reason. So we are being asked to
believe this too. And yet, it sounds plausible because we are
always told similar things. But we haven't been given any
reason.
“The sense of smell directly affects your emotions, your

physical state, and your energy balance”
We all have direct personal evidence of the first two parts.
Smells can affect our emotions and physical state. That's why
perfumes are produced, and why the smell of good food makes
us salivate. But then there's the third part, slipped in almost
unnoticed. We are told about energy balance. We don't know
what is meant by this energy balance, and we are tempted to
think they are referring to the same energy as the physicists and
biologists. We don't know what it is that is supposed to be
balanced. We are expected to believe that the practitioner
understands this even if we don't. But remember, I made it up!
“The olfactory receptors in your nose are connected to the

olfactory bulb in the brain and from there it also connects to
the amygdala which is associated with emotions, and the
hippocampus which is associated with motivation and

memory.”
This is packed with medical-sounding information and it's
factually correct. The nerves do go from your nose to your
brain and do connect to other areas. Those areas in turn are
involved in emotions and memory. But the purpose is not to
explain anything, but to get you to accept the account as
authoritative. Those weasel-words “associated with” give you
the illusion that the theory is justified when in fact it's not.
“Sniffing... restores the natural balance of the body”

Here we are expected to accept two ideas, not one. The first
and most important is that we are asked to believe that our
bodies are out-of-balance. We don't know what that refers to,
but we are asked to believe it anyway. Secondly, we are asked
to believe that sniffing can affect this unidentified imbalance
and restore it. Notice that we have no way of detecting this
imbalance or measuring the effects. If it doesn't exist, we have
no way of telling.
“Holistic,... non-invasive,... reduce stress,... restorative

flow,... channels”
Here we introduce some words that people will have heard
before and perhaps grown to accept as plausible. Holistic is all
about the total person, so that's bound to be good. Non-
invasive, has to be a plus. Reduce stress? Well we all want
that. Restorative flow? No idea what that means but it sounds
like a good thing. The overall impression is that we are being
given an explanation. But it doesn't explain anything at all.
“improve the body's self-healing potential”

This sounds marvellous. We know that when we cut
ourselves, the body heals itself so we already accept this idea.
Improving anything sounds good too, so we get the impression
that this is bound to do us good. But what we are not told is
how! There is no explanation.

The obvious verdict on Sniff Therapy
First let's think about the grain of truth used to appeal to us.
Smell is certainly a human sense that can provoke emotional
and physical reactions. Mentioning that gives the idea some
initial credibility. The additional information about the nerves
and the regions of the brain makes it sound authoritative when
it's not.
We have the appeal to something that might be true, namely
that the sense of smell might be more powerful than most
people realise. We just don't know if this is true or not. Then
we have a number of unfounded claims for which there are no
good reasons.
There is no good reason to believe smell affects all aspects
of our well-being. In fact there are good reasons to think this
isn't true. How, for example, do smells affect the state of my
ankles?
There is no good reason to believe sniffing affects any kind
of energy balance, particularly the type that isn't even
identified.
There is no good reason to believe that sniffing has anything
to do with a natural balance because we don't know what that
natural balance refers to. It sounds good, but it's meaningless.
And there is no good reason to believe that we are in any
way enhancing the body's ability to heal itself. We can accept
that bodies do that because we all recover from cuts, colds, etc.
But we have been given nothing to make us believe we are
doing anything to help the body by sniffing.
The point of all this is not to show how gullible we are. We
already know that because we've all been taken in at some stage
in our lives. The point is to show that we can identify quite
easily and quickly what constitutes a good reason. When we
add up what we've been told, we can see that apart from what
we already knew about our own sense of smell, there's nothing
remotely rational in this therapy. It's clearly a con, a scam, a
fraud.
We have to remember that we are being asked to buy a

product in the same way as we buy a car, a fridge, a television.
It is being marketed to us using terms that make it sound
appealing, scientific, proven, trustworthy. As consumers we
would apply a sceptical viewpoint and check all the claims.
But we are asked not to behave like consumers but like
believers. If we behaved like consumers, we would be much
more critical in assessing the claims. If someone tried to sell
you a television claiming that it could access an unknown
energy source, you would demand evidence. If a dentist
offered to treat tooth decay using therapeutic touch, you would
not trust them to do a good job. Ask yourself why not?
Applying the same reasoning to any of the alternative
therapies will enable us to figure out whether there are any
good reasons for us to believe them. So here's a quick check
list of how to assess claims from the Land of Woo:
• Which of the statements are factual? That means,

which ones can be confirmed? Which ones are known
to be true because they've been checked?
• Which statements are claiming properties of the
body or the world which are doubtful or incorrect?
For example: “blood moves around the body in arteries
and veins” - true; “cerebro-spinal fluid pulses
throughout our entire body” - false.
• Which statements are claiming things about the
body that we are unsure about? For example,
“enzymes are needed for the proper functioning of our
nervous system”. If this looks important in supporting
their claims, we need to look it up in a reputable
source. That means consulting something like a human
biology book, or an online encyclopaedia such as
Wikipedia. The chance of there being a human biology
mistake in Wikipedia is very low compared with the
likelihood that the marketers are making false claims.
• Are there statements about strange forces or
energies? Does it contradict the scientific evidence
we already have? If there are, and physics doesn't

already know about it, we can confidently expect their
theory to be wrong. If it conflicts with what we already
know, the therapist ought to be able to explain which
bits of modern physics are wrong... and show you their
Nobel prize for science.
• Are there significant parts of what we are being told
for which there are no good reasons? If there are, ask
yourself why they don't supply those reasons. If their
theory is well-established, and supported by evidence,
they would be able to provide a substantial amount of
support and explanation.
• What evidence, apart from anecdotal accounts, is
there that the therapy is doing something
beneficial? We know that paying customers generally
claim they have spent their money well. We want to
know what unbiased evidence there really is, of the sort
provided by controlled, double-blind, randomised,
clinical trials. If they don't know what these are, they
are not themselves in a position to assess whether their
therapy works at all.
Finally then, consider all of the claims critically. Look at

what evidence they use, if any, to support their own beliefs, and
see whether that constitutes real unbiased repeatable evidence.
If they say they have academic journal articles, ask them if
those journals are reporting controlled, double-blind,
randomised trials. If they are not, the evidence is poor at best.
More likely it's not evidence at all but anecdotal accounts, the
sort we have already had to discount. Consider whether they
themselves are victims of the placebo effect, convincing
themselves from the anecdotal evidence of already convinced
patients.
This method can be applied to all branches of Woo
including religion. Although breaking with religion is
emotionally much more difficult because it often means
challenging family and community tradition, there is no reason
why the ideas of religion should be immune from critical

questioning. If someone asks you to believe something, you
owe it to yourself to check that there are good reasons for doing
so.
In our completely fictitious case, Sniff Therapy, we
generated an example of Woo and showed how easy it is to put
together a plausible scam. (If anyone feels this was not
plausible, they might investigate sound therapy, which claims
similar properties for chanting.) Had we dressed our scam up a
little more, perhaps including some lying down with relaxing
music, or introducing therapeutic joss sticks, it might even have
started to attract some serious delusional interest.
What have we learned from this?

If we can create a credible alternative therapy with so little
reference to the real world, so can others. And they have! In
many cases, they blended a marketing mix with just the right
quantity of scientific sounding words, Eastern mythology,
vague ideas like holistic and self-healing, and enough
familiarity to draw in customers. They use the allure of the
whole person to capitalise on the pressures on GPs, the long
waiting lists, and the short consultation time available. They
convince themselves as well as their customers using that well-
known placebo effect so that we go away thinking we've had
some treatment when we haven't, and they are confident that
they are providing a valuable service.
It is inevitable that the question arises as to whether these
businesses are fraudulent. Indeed, to accuse anyone of such a
charge is a serious step and requires positive proof of the
intention to deceive, the falsity of the claim made, and a
number of other conditions. Since the presence of undetectable
energy is by definition untestable, it is never possible to prove
the falsity of these claims. Consequently, there is a legal cloak
behind which the Land of Woo can hide from the charge of
fraud. Unless the practitioner, knowing that the claims are
false, exploits the ignorance of the customer and knowingly
misrepresents the facts for their gain, little can be done. This is

the reason why so much consumer protection legislation fails to
prevent the spread of Woo. It also limits the scope of bodies
such as the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK.
The recent case of Dr Simon Singh illustrates the legal
dangers inherent in exposing the irrationality of these therapies.
At the time of writing, he is defending a libel action based on
his criticism of chiropractic claims to treat childhood colic.
Instead of being based on a scientific evaluation of the evidence
for such a claim, the case rests on the interpretation of the word
“bogus” by a controversial judge. In UK libel law, you are
guilty until you can prove you are innocent and so Dr Simon
Singh is assumed to be guilty of libel unless or until he can
prove otherwise which in turn requires him to prove a different
understanding of the word from the judge's own. This is the
legal equivalent of the believing viewpoint – they believe him
to be guilty until he provides evidence to the contrary. If
something might be true, they therefore assume it is until they
are convinced otherwise.
Since the therapists themselves are (or will claim to be) truly
convinced of the power of their therapy, they will escape
charges of fraud. For fraud to occur, they need to claim the
treatment works when they know it doesn't – a powerful
incentive in itself to avoid any scientific understanding of the
body or natural laws. If many of these practitioners were to
undergo scientific training, they would possibly lose their
livelihoods or risk fraud charges! At the very least they would
have to curtail their extraordinary claims and offer more modest
services which respect evidence and the standards of science.
In the case of our totally fabricated “Sniff Therapy”, so long
as we claim to believe it, and convince others, there is no legal
obstacle to setting up a practice. We can avoid the charge of
fraud very easily despite the therapy being based on nothing at
all. Unless we ourselves are shown to be convinced that it
doesn't work, the law won't touch us. We can even set up our
own institutes and associations, run training courses, issue
awards, and ramp up an entire marketing exercise to make
money from the gullible. We might even be able to persuade a

university to let us teach a course, even a degree course.
Consumer legislation won't stop us. The libel law will actually
protect us from critics.
But the lesson should by now be very clear. If we can
fabricate an alternative therapy with so little regard for the way
the world really works, so can others. They don't need to be
deliberately dishonest to do this. They just need to have a
disregard for the facts and an ignorance of basic science and
human biology. A highly developed commercial instinct for
taking money off gullible customers of course helps
enormously.
Summary
In this chapter, we have used a fabricated alternative therapy
to illustrate both how easy it is to create Woo, and also to
evaluate it and dismiss it as nonsense. Our Woo therapy is no
less credible than all the others on offer, drawing on scientific
terminology, building on common beliefs, claiming
unevidenced effects, and drawing the believer into the sale.
The mechanism is transparent because we presented it that way,
but it's the same with all the other forms of Woo.
We ended up with a short list of rational questions we can
ask when someone offers us a Woo product, whether it's a type
of massage or belief in a god, a crystal or a chiropractor, so that
we can distinguish between the reasonable statements and the
unreasonable. These are not new questions. We'd ask the same
of someone selling us a new TV, or a car.
We then looked at the thorny issue of fraud. How can we
tell if the Woo business in front of us is acting fraudulently?
We saw how the fact that Woo claims are untestable gives the
practitioner a legal cloak providing they are not knowingly
misleading. And that in turn gives them an important interest in
remaining ignorant of how the human body and the world
actually works. For practitioners of Woo, it is legally safer for
them to remain ignorant of human biology and physics. And of
course, if they can find customers equally ignorant, they will

generate more sales.
Consumer legislation designed to protect customers against
unfair treatment often cannot control these businesses.
Customers are converted into believers and so their natural
caution when buying products is reduced. In addition, since the
libel laws assume the guilt of those charged rather than their
innocence, the debate centres not on the evidence, but on the
interpretations by libel court judges.

CHAPTER 10
Why this stuff matters
Rational thinking is a useful skill. We can put it to work in

any and all areas of our life, whether we're buying a car or
deciding if we should believe in a god, whether we're planning
a holiday or resolving a problem in a relationship. It doesn't
replace the emotional thinking we all do; it simply
complements it in varying degrees. Some decisions require
more objectivity than others and in those situations, we
concentrate on more analytical and evaluative thinking. Some
decisions have a higher emotional content.
Sometimes we find there is a conflict between what we
know rationally should be the right decision, and the emotions
we feel. We sometimes call it head versus heart. These are
often ethical or personal decisions: putting a child up for
adoption; agreeing to turning off a life-support system; ending
a destructive relationship; having a pet put to sleep; this list is
endless. In most practical decisions, we have to employ many
different types of thinking. Sometimes we have to go with the
emotional decisions regardless of the consequences, and at
other times we need to overrule the emotions and think
dispassionately. The balance is part of our character and it
changes during our lives.
If we cannot employ our rational thinking at times when it is
truly needed, we are at the mercy of the marketers and pedlars
of Woo. If we have an unexplained pain and we go to a
homeopath, they have absolutely no chance of treating the
cause. Either it goes away on its own, or it doesn't, but
whatever happens will have nothing to do with homeopathy.
All we'll do is spend money on nothing at all. We might try
someone claiming to be able to perform healing touch. Again,
the Woo merchants will take money for nothing. No treatment,
no cure. If we are of the believing type, we might be able to
exert some influence on ourselves through the placebo effect.
Why this stuff matters 132

We might persuade ourselves we are doing something useful
and therefore feel a little better. But the Woo is doing nothing.
On the other hand, if we are able to exercise a little rational
thinking, we'll have the pain, figure out roughly where in the
body it is and what might be causing it. We could possibly
identify if it is muscular or associated with some organ. We
can think about recent activity (was it the tennis that strained
my arm?), and we can compare it with known ailments. We
judge its severity, and the likelihood that it will cure itself, and
then decide whether to seek a medical diagnosis. If we want to
know what's wrong, we want to be confident that the diagnostic
technique will be consistent and effective.
When someone suggests going to a Woo merchant, we ask
how the treatment works and find no-one knows, but we hear
lots of positive anecdotal evidence. “I had something like that
and he cricked my back and it's fine now.” We ask what
evidence there is that the treatment was effective and find again
only the anecdotal, so we ask about clinical trials. We get
blank looks. We question the theory and find it's contradictory,
impossible without breaking universal physical laws, and find
that our friends don't know about them. We point out how the
human body works and find our friends didn't know much
about that either. Then we find they paid for sessions
themselves and are convinced it was money well spent. So we
turn down the offer and save our money. Our well-meaning
friends were taken in by Woo, lost their money, but convinced
themselves it was well-spent. We hope they don't do the same
if they have something serious wrong with them.
We ask them why there are no homeopathic Accident and
Emergency departments, or healing touch dentists? And why
can't Ayurvedic medicines cure typhoid or pneumonia? And
why doesn't praying work? And how come faith-healing can't
help broken bones?
As the questions stack up, the absurdity of dismissing the
accumulated wealth of scientific knowledge, becomes
overwhelming. No-one likes to be told that they believe in
magic, make-belief, fairy tales, because everyone assumes they

have grown out of them. But do we really want to be sold these
ideas, to have them influence important areas of our lives?
Being rational is cool because we are reclaiming control of
our lives, removing the fatuous, the nonsensical, the unfounded,
the absurd, theories pushed by the purveyors of Woo. We don't
get hoodwinked by alluring marketing promises of
extraordinary cures, however much we might like them to be
true. We make decisions which are loaded in the right direction
for us.
We treat our health as important, and not just as a hobby.
We stand responsible for our own ethical decisions, willing to
justify them on the basis of our own beliefs and behaviour. We
adopt a sceptical viewpoint with an open mind so that new
ideas are welcomed and considered seriously. We build on our
knowledge and increase the control over our lives without being
side-tracked by wishful-thinking. We keep a distinction
between entertaining ourselves with fiction and fantasy, illusion
and distraction, and the needs of dealing with the real world.
We can tell the difference between them.
We understand the limitations of science, how evidence is
accumulated through hard painstaking work, and how theories
and hypotheses are challenged and disproved through evidence.
Our rational thinking doesn't impede our emotions, our
creativity, our artistic abilities, not does it in any way prevent
us being sociable, gregarious, and fulfilled human beings.
Becoming rational human beings is part of growing up for
us and when we stop believing in sprites and goblins, the tooth-
fairy and other childish fictions, we also gain that ability to
question the existence of gods, angels, demons, leprechauns
and all the other supernatural beings.
Protecting the gullible

If we waste our own money, it's our business, our choice,
our fault. We have only ourselves to blame. If after thinking
about the products on offer, we still decide to buy them, then
where's the harm?

In the case of a rational individual, able to weigh up the
claims made, to look at the evidence and make an informed
decision, there's no problem. But what happens in the case of
someone who doesn't understand how the human body works,
who has a chronic painful condition and is having difficulty
getting treatment? She has heard marvellous things about the
new Woo and is encouraged to give it a try by a friend. If the
Woo does her no harm, and if she is susceptible to the placebo
effect, she may even feel a little better. But she will not have
received any real treatment. She has paid money for a
treatment she has not received. Whatever was causing the
problem will either have gone away of its own accord, or it will
still be there.
In most countries there is legislation to protect consumers,
making sure that what is sold is fit for purpose, that people are
not able to make unjustified claims, and that their advertising
must be fair and honest. In the case of the Woo industry, that
standard does not yet apply. Homeopaths can claim to treat
malaria, even cancer. Chiropractors can claim to treat
childhood illnesses like asthma, aromatherapists can claim to
improve your immune system. How does the consumer
legislation relate to these claims? Essentially, it doesn't! And
simply believing in the therapy is enough to get around any
claim of fraud.
But people are vulnerable. Those in pain, those confused or
ill-informed about how the body works, those who are taken in
by talk of life-forces, Qi, channels, chakra, and the rest, are
vulnerable consumers. But in our modern consumerist age, the
opportunity to take money from customers is considered more
important than protecting their interests.
Governments will not act against a big industry, however
dishonest the principles on which it is built. What chance does
a consumer have against an alternative medicine industry that
grosses billions of dollars annually? TheMedica.com claims
the global aromatherapy market alone grosses more than $400
million. Ayurvedic medicine grosses $60 billion out of a total
herbal medicine market of over $100 billion. Even crystal

therapy is claimed to be worth $50 billion globally. These are
staggering sums which even at a tenth the size would be an
embarrassing indictment of our ability to think reasonably.
Irrationality is very big business. So no government is going to
lead the way against it.
Conclusion
We started the book with a look at how we change our ideas,
how we question something which we previously believed, and
how we reconcile our beliefs with our increasing knowledge of
the world. We discovered both that we are reluctant to give up
our beliefs and that the believing viewpoint can become
impervious to evidence.
Any theory based on invisible, undetectable forces or beings
remains unaffected by evidence – there can be no such
evidence. But at the same time, such theories, be they religious
or medical, can make no rational claim to any kind of effect on
the real world. Having broken off the link to the material
world, with no tangible means of detecting any influence, they
are therefore making extraordinary claims which they want
people simply to believe. In the Land of Woo, credulity is king.
Those who insist on the existence of these immaterial,
undetectable forces, energies, and superbeings, are insisting that
they do not want to know how the world really is.
Religion openly casts itself adrift of the real world and this
is the problem of theology: how to insist on the relevance of
mythical beings when it is patently obvious that moral values
are social in origin, when it is demonstrable that nothing fails
quite like prayer, when religious books are anachronistic and
contradictory? Religions make use of powerful social
institutions to indoctrinate people, especially young children.
Churches have always focussed on educational institutions as a
means of recruiting into their irrational beliefs. And because
they are not directly selling a product, religions can afford to
rely on more ideological influences. The promotion of faith-
based initiatives in the UK is a tangible consequence of the

influence of religious organisations in government. This will
lead to more children indoctrinated into religious ideas, already
primed for the land of Woo, their critical faculties suspended
automatically the moment religion is mentioned.
The Woo merchants of alternative medicine though have a
product which they want to sell. They therefore have to
provide something which will convince a customer to buy. The
cash nexus requires that something is seen to be bought and that
means convincing the customer to come through the door and
buy a consultation. Websites abound in fanciful claims about
cures for everything from childhood colic to scars, to
respiratory problems to immune deficiency. As justification for
their claims they use theories based on undetectable forces and
energies, which therefore provide no justification whatsoever.
The sale of the placebo effect is in full swing with those
affected becoming walking adverts for more of the same. The
less informed practitioners themselves, often very poorly
educated in science, are convinced by the anecdotal evidence of
their deluded customers, and the cycle continues.
The consequences of the growth of Woo are significant.
Not only is there the potential for people to delay seeking
genuine treatment for serious medical conditions while they
experiment with worthless nonsense, but they are being charged
for the privilege. Where governments are duped into going
along with non-evidence-based treatments, they are diverting
funding away from effective treatments. In the UK, it is a
national disgrace that the Health Service maintains a Royal
Homeopathic Hospital when there is no evidence that
homeopathy can treat any condition at all. That funding could
be providing real treatment for patients.
When people do not understand elementary human biology
and are taken in by talk of chakras, channels, meridians, and the
like, their understanding of their own bodies is confused.
Instead of increasing their understanding of how the world
works, such fanciful theories undermines the knowledge people
acquired during their education. Science is reduced from an
effective method for extending real knowledge, into a

marketing slogan. Since science is repeatedly misrepresented
in the press and in advertising, the general understanding of
scientific evidence is undermined and people become less able
to judge when they are being duped.
All this suits the Woo pedlars. A confused customer
provides the opportunity for an authoritative statement from the
marketer, regardless of how absurd the theory. The purpose of
the exercise is not knowledge but a sale.
The Land of Woo is not just a bit of a laugh, a mental theme
park where for a price, you can ride the chakra train, or whizz
around on the big dosha. It has serious consequences too. We
have world leaders who believe they have a hotline to
supernatural omniscient beings. We have people teaching our
children that the world is only 6000 years old. We have people
claiming they can cure illnesses by wiggling someone's toes.
It's time for us to defend the knowledge and understanding
that we have obtained by four hundred years of methodical
scientific work. We keep an open mind, but as Carl Sagan said,
not so much as to let our brains fall out!

APPENDIX 1
In lieu of references and footnotes
This book has avoided the use of references and footnotes

not because the contents are not evidenced, but because this
whole book is about taking no-one's word for it, not even some
academic journal article or learned book.
Instead of littering the text with reference numbers and
footnotes, a practice which is often intimidating and can give a
false sense of authority, I urge the reader to do the following.
If something is said which you either do not agree with, or
doubt its truth, take steps yourself to find out about it. You can
investigate many things online and quickly get a sense of
whether something has been exaggerated or the information is
incomplete. Use your doubt to motivate yourself to check the
details.
There are many books which promote Woo. It is a
lamentable fact that bookshops have shelves and shelves full of
Woo nonsense, far outnumbering books on real science and
medicine. It is easier to find a book which talks about healing
energy than it is to find one that honestly and accurately
discusses human digestion.
I offer here a list of suggested topics which will help the
reader get a good understanding of basic human biology and
physical science. I have been reluctant to recommend specific
books because such a selection necessarily reflects personal
preferences and my intention is instead to encourage the spirit
of enquiry. Find your own preferences and search out material
on the suggested topics. You will quickly build up your
confidence in your own ability to acquire knowledge. That is
far more valuable than buying a specific recommended book.
A word of caution is in order. Writing material on a website
requires no expertise in any particular subject – people can and
do make things up. So consulting a reputable source is
important. A well-designed website or book is no guarantee of
In lieu of references and footnotes 139

the accuracy of the content, so it is important to be just as
sceptical of the source as the content. Having said that, the
basic principles of science are so well-established and known
that there is a wealth of reliable material available both online
and in hard copy form. Having reached this page, you should
be well-equipped to spot the tell-tale signs of Woo in its many
different guises.
Suggested reading topics
Human Biology
In order to avoid being taken in by claims from Food Woo,
we need at least a basic understanding of the main systems of
the human body. That includes the alimentary canal and
digestion, the blood system including bone, the spleen and the
liver, the nervous system including the brain and nerves, the
cardiovascular system including the heart, arteries, veins and
capillaries.
But it also involves knowing a little about the tissues and
organs of the body as well and what they do. The organs of the
human body have specific functions and knowing these helps
you question the bizarre claims of Woo practitioners. When for
example a chiropractor tells you the spine influences all of your
organs, you can ask why a transplanted kidney, which has no
connection to the spine, still functions perfectly?
You also need to know something of the chemistry of the
body. You need to know a little about the main hormones,
what they do, and where they are produced. Then if someone
claims that stroking your feet changes the hormone balance,
you can ask which hormones, and how is the change detected.
You need to know what vitamins are and where we get them,
how enzymes help us digest food and where they come from,
how we fight bacteria and other infections, and how we grow.
These are fascinating subjects and the information is now
available at the touch of a button. Such knowledge stops you

being gullible to misinformation and gives you confidence.
You can find a great deal of information about all of these
topics online and you can do much worse than reading the
explanations in Wikipedia. Just buying and reading a single
book on human biology will dispel many of the myths of Woo.
Basic Science
Many of the pedlars of Woo make incredible claims about
energy and forces and without some understanding of how
these really work, you are at a disadvantage. How can you
understand what is implied by energy channels if you don't
know what is meant by energy? If someone is offering to help
you eliminate free radicals, how can you test their claim
without knowing what they are?
But this doesn't mean that you have to go back to school
again and study physics and chemistry (though you might find
it fun). Instead it's worth looking up a few topics online. You
should find out about the different forms of energy and how
they are converted from one to the other. You should
understand how energy is measured and controlled, know the
difference between electricity and magnetism and understand
the different types of forces. This knowledge alone will help
you judge the claims made by people to channel and align
various forces.
It is interesting to look at some of the history of science to
see how our knowledge came to be known in the first place. By
getting an overview of how much we now know we can judge
the claims of others to know extraordinary new things.
Knowing how difficult it was to detect subatomic particles, we
can wonder about how easy it seems to be to detect Qi (unless
you are a scientist of course).
By understanding the use of the scientific method we can
understand why scientists are always cautious about their own
claims and we can be suspicious when we see tabloid headlines
announcing the latest scare.

Evolution
No other scientific theory has been so attacked for so long
and grown stronger by the continual accumulation of evidence.
It provides us with an understanding of how our species
developed and how our own biology relates to the rest of
nature. At the same time, it is a wonderful demonstration of
how we do not need supernatural theories to explain how the
world is.
Reading something about Darwin's ideas and his fears of the
religious establishment will enrich your understanding of how
science works, and how religious dogma undermines it.
Religion
If you have never done so, try reading some atheist
arguments against religion. By thinking about the morality of
those who profess religious faith, we can more clearly see how
society generates moral codes and how the responsibility for
ethical judgements are ours. Breaking free of the emotional
link with a supernatural god is an important part of thinking
rationally.
It is illuminating to read the major historical religious texts.
Comparing for example the stories of the Talmud, the Bible and
the Qur'an gives you an understanding of how these myths were
passed down from common tribal sources. Seeing the violent
behaviour of a god approved enthusiastically helps you
understand how religion is used to justify aggression. Seeing
the similarities between religions, helps us understand the
social and political aspects of organised faiths. But reading
these texts also shows starkly how selectively the material is
presented. You will see approving references to genocide and
extreme violence along with entreaties to love and honour.
You will come to see these books as sources for anthropology.
History of Science
Did Isaac Newton really run the Royal Mint? Was Darwin
really a country gentleman? Did they really do surgery in

Moorish Spain in the 11th century? When did they discover the
germ theory of disease? When was oxygen discovered? Finding
out these things is fascinating and easy. Just ask yourself a
scientific question and use a search engine. In five minutes,
you'll know. There are many good books around as well but
any knowledge you acquire of scientific discoveries will help
you understand the extraordinary nature of Woo claims. Often
you will know the truth about what they are incorrectly
claiming in the Woo adverts.
The history of science gives you a context in which to
understand the sheer effort involved in scientific work.
Sometimes it takes years and years of painstaking effort to
achieve a scientific advance because they needed to get past the
dead ends and incorrect results, the poor experiments, the
wrong theories, and the wrong questions. Getting a sense of the
achievement helps put the discoveries in context.

APPENDIX 2
Personal Note
During the writing of this book I have attracted some fairly

stern criticism along the lines that if people enjoy their
delusions, who am I to take them away? In particular, if
someone believes in mediums and thinks they are
communicating with a dead relative, isn't it cruel to disabuse
them? If someone believes that homeopathy works, isn't it
unkind or disrespectful to point out that it is nonsense?
The question of respect has also been repeatedly raised.
Shouldn't I show respect to people who have strongly held
beliefs and therefore refrain from questioning them? If they
genuinely believe in God, or Chinese medicine, what right have
I to attack their deeply held belief? Isn't that simply insulting
them? But how can you challenge deeply held beliefs if the
very questioning itself is perceived as insulting and
disrespectful?
I have thought long and hard about these questions, not least
because I care a great deal about the feelings of friends and
family. Very many of my friends subscribe to at least one
branch of Woo, sometimes many and I risk their disaffection in
publishing this book.
It is my own position that ideas themselves do not deserve
any respect at all. They are simply ideas, to be kicked about,
criticised, dissected, analysed and unceremoniously discarded
when better ones are proposed. They have no rights because
they are not people. Ideas do not deserve respect, but people
do. For that reason I consider it completely reasonable to attack
and refute ideas and theories without reserve. Partly that is due
to my scientific upbringing in which theories have to stand up
for themselves independent of anyone who happened to
propose them. If the evidence doesn't fit, then the theory
changes. We don't withhold evidence in case the proposer of a
theory might feel offended. Instead we trust to the maturity of
Personal Note 144

the person involved. We trust them to appreciate that we are
criticising ideas.
Clearly, people who hold religious views identify
themselves very strongly with those beliefs and often portray a
criticism of their faith as a personal body blow. That is
unfortunate and unjustified and it gives rise to unreasonable
actions such as the passing of blasphemy laws, and restrictions
on the rights of journalists, performers and cartoonists,
particularly in connection with comedy and satire but also even
in the reporting of science.
Religion particularly claims a special status, exempt from
criticism. By claiming that faith is a personal matter, the
respect for the person is surreptitiously broadened to include
the ideas themselves. This means simply that if I hold a strong
view, you are not allowed to criticise it without being seen to be
also criticising me personally. Such a position would be
considered outrageously totalitarian in any area except
religion. We all benefit by identifying and exposing
irrationalism and if a few egos are disturbed in the process,
although that's regrettable, it is not sufficient reason for limiting
the growth of knowledge. Those days are long gone.
Withholding criticism of irrational ideas on the basis of the
sentiments of individuals is intellectually dishonest. But it is
worse than that. Withholding criticism in the presence of
irrationalism gives it a continued passive acceptability which
itself sustains the exploitation of the gullible. We can preserve
the sensibilities of the people who don't like their ideas being
criticised only at the expense of allowing such irrationality to
continue unchallenged. To me, that is unacceptable.
It is instructive to compare the situation with the expression
of racist views. If an acquaintance made a racist remark, some
people would look away guiltily and change the subject rather
than confront the racism, without expressing their abhorrence
and without criticising the individual. His/her sensibilities
would be preserved at the expense of failing to oppose an
odious ideology. I find myself unable to do that; it would make
me feel disgusted with myself.
Personal Note 145

A lesser case is where an individual describes their new
business selling so-called therapeutic crystals to gullible people
and again the friend keeps quiet, preserving the idea that there
is nothing wrong with such activity. As a consequence, perhaps
hundreds or thousands of people are relieved of their cash in
exchange for nothing of value. Some see no problem with this,
it's just business ripping people off as usual, but I regard it as
immoral and unethical. I regard it as fraud whatever the strict
legal position.
It is my hope that people will read this book and understand
that Woo is not just a trivial bit of nonsense, but has real
corrosive effects on thinking. It leads people away from
genuine medical treatment, distorts their ability to think
reasonably about their choices, undermines their understanding
of how the world and even their own bodies work, and makes
them much more susceptible to scams and fraud. This is not
neutral entertainment, it's not just fiction. It's a massive
exploitation of the gullible in a multi-billion dollar industry.
When I refuse to sit silently by while people around me talk
about magical cures and mystical entities, I too am expressing
my right to some respect. I too have the same right to voice my
rational thinking, to not be insulted by the expectation that I
will go along with nonsensical ideas. Although we can often
understand the reasons for their irrationality perhaps as well as
they do, in general they do not afford others the same degree of
respect as they demand for themselves.
Religious ideas are deemed to deserve special respect.
Views about health are personal opinions to be respected too.
But when we are expected to passively accept these expressions
of irrationality, we are being complicit in the spread of
delusional ideas. If through social pressure we are deterred
from voicing sceptical opposition to irrationality, we are being
drawn into passive acceptance. It is not acceptable to be treated
in this way.
Of course, it can be difficult sometimes to discuss such
issues without provoking a hostile response. It can sometimes
take only the mildest critical remark about irrationality to
Personal Note 146

bring out a histrionic response. Challenging Qi or homeopathy
can sometimes provoke a similar reaction to insulting Allah in
front of a Muslim. That's not a coincidence. Both are defending
irrationalism in the face of scepticism.
Any of the Woo therapies which rely on the placebo effect
are based on continuously lying to customers – the placebo
effect can only continue as long as the customers are being told
lies and are convinced by them.
Unless and until we stand up to the passive acceptance of
Woo, such irrational ideas will continue to feed the market of
non-existent cures, fake treatments, and fanciful expensive
theories about how the world works. It's a massive, global
business, defended by growing mass delusion involving fake
university degrees, fictitious qualifications, absurd theories,
dishonest marketing and advertising, and the inane repetitions
of anecdotes by those who have little or no understanding of
evidence. Whether it's believing in supernatural beings, Qi,
homeopathy, detox, dietary supplements, or ghosts and
mediums, we are being dragged into delusional thinking in
opposition to the growth of genuine knowledge. I for one can't
sit by and let that happen.
Personal Note 147

Index
academic journal....127, 139 Ayurvedic medicine........28,
Academic Woo..................5 31p., 34, 41, 106, 120, 135
acupuncture......27, 104, 108 Bach flower therapy.......106
Alan Sokal.........................6 bacteria.....10, 29, 36, 49pp.,
Alexander Technique.....105 53, 78, 140
alimentary canal......49, 108, Beagle..............................12
140 belief................................85
alternative .......................15 beliefs. .1, 3, 13pp., 20p., 34,
alternative medicine. 4, 29p., 36pp., 41, 48, 62, 85, 87,
45, 97, 111, 119, 135, 137 93p., 98, 100, 104, 111, 120,
amino acids......50, 109, 115 127, 134, 136, 144p.
anaemia..........................108 believer viewpoint............13
analytical.......99, 102p., 132 believing.......1, 13, 19p., 36,
anecdotal. 15, 21, 41, 45, 63, 66p., 72, 95, 97pp., 119,
66, 72, 105, 111, 127, 133, 132, 134pp., 147
137 Beta-carotene...................52
angels................3, 71p., 134 bias. .12, 15p., 18pp., 39, 63,
antibiotics.........53, 107, 114 80p., 127
antioxidants.............49, 51p. Bible...11, 64pp., 73, 75, 81,
Apitherapy ....................105 142
apparitions...............3, 83pp. biological processes.....3, 51
Applied kinesiology ......105 blasphemy................98, 145
argyria............................107 bleeding.............10, 21p., 36
aromatherapy..32, 35p., 105, bloodstream.............49p., 57
135 bone. 7, 40, 58p., 115p., 120,
arsenic..............53, 110, 112 140
artistic.................102p., 134 brain..........7, 24, 32, 35, 58,
arts.................................102 68pp., 79, 86, 100pp., 140
assumptions...12, 15, 20, 36, Buddhism.......................118
120 calcium.....................58, 110
asthma....................107, 135 cancer...15, 43, 52, 113, 135
Astrology.......................106 candling.............................2
atheist...............73, 100, 142 carbohydrates....49, 60, 110,
autoimmune...................105 113
Ayurvedic...28, 31p., 34, 41, causes. .3, 6, 17, 22p., 26pp.,
106, 120, 133, 135 70, 84, 94, 100, 107, 109,
112 Copper.............................59
cellulite............................10 cosmic force.....................16
cerebro-spinal fluid........126 cramps..............................59
cervical manipulation.....107 cranial bones..................116
chakras....31, 34, 36, 41, 43, Cranial Therapy.............116
98, 108, 137 creative.......... 5, 81, 86, 99,
channels....... 27, 36, 43, 96, 101p., 120
104, 118, 122, 124, 135, creativity................101, 134
137, 141 crystal....31, 36, 40, 42, 108,
Chelation Therapy....57, 110 135
childhood colic.......107, 137 crystal healing................108
Chinese compass............110 crystal therapy................135
Chinese herbal remedy...120 crystals. .31, 33, 36, 98, 108,
chiropractic. .27p., 39, 106p. 146
chiropractor 1p., 37, 40, 105, Cupping.........................108
107, 115, 135, 140 cure....21, 24, 28p., 32, 42p.,
Chiropractors...40, 105, 107, 87, 105, 109, 112p., 116,
115, 135 132p., 138
Chromotherapy..............107 Darwin.......11p., 36, 65, 142
CIA..................................93 deities.........................11, 62
cinchona.........................111 demons..... 14, 16, 24p., 28,
clinical research......19p., 39 45, 65, 69, 71p., 78p., 84,
code of behaviour.............11 90p., 96, 117, 134, 136, 142
cofactors.........................109 detox......43, 49p., 52pp., 57,
Colloidal silver...............107 60p., 110, 147
colonic irrigation...... 53, 57, devils.......................72, 87p.
108 dietary deficiency.......53, 60
conjugation......................54 dietician...........................48
consistency.....16, 63, 66, 98 digestion....32, 50, 52, 139p.
control group.....19, 90p., 94 discourses and narratives. . 5
controlled..... 11, 18, 20, 39, dislodge an idea...............11
45, 52, 57, 71, 83p., 93p., disprove..... 14, 17p., 20, 27,
111pp., 115pp., 122, 127, 38, 54, 57, 63pp., 70, 134
141 divine entity...................109
controlled, double-blind, djinns...............................72
randomised trials...... 18, 39, dosha.....................34p., 138
127 double-blind...18pp., 39, 45,
Conventional medicine.....8, 71, 83, 116p., 127
30, 112 Dowsing...................94, 109
Ear candling...................109 Feng shui..................28, 110
Eastern mythology.........128 folic acid..........................59
EDTA............................110 Food Woo........48, 60p., 140
electricity.................26, 141 forces..... 16, 18, 23pp., 30,
electromagnetic. .16, 25, 113 32, 36p., 41, 43p., 93, 99,
Emily Rosa....................117 118pp., 126, 135pp., 141
emotional....32, 85, 94, 99p., fraud....... 33pp., 42, 54, 94,
114, 125, 132, 142 112, 116, 125, 129, 135, 146
energy.......25, 27, 31pp., 41, free radicals..... 43, 49, 51p.,
43pp., 50p., 96pp., 104, 107, 60, 141
110, 116pp., 123, 125p., fundamental frequencies 108
139, 141 Gaddafi............................92
energy channels........96, 141 geological evidence..........12
energy flows.............98, 110 germ theory....................143
enzymes...... 49, 52, 60, 111, ghosts......4, 71p., 83pp., 94,
126, 140 147
ephemeris.......................106 ghouls..............................72
ESP..................................95 glucose..........................50p.
ethical decisions...... 73, 98, glutathione peroxidase.....52
134 glutathione reductase.......52
evidence.......... 6pp., 11pp., glycogen...................50, 110
19pp., 25, 27, 30, 34pp., goblins.....................72, 134
38pp., 52, 54, 57, 63pp., good bacteria....................10
74p., 77, 84, 90pp., 97pp., graphic design................102
104pp., 111, 113pp., 117pp., gravitational...............16, 25
123, 126p., 129, 133pp., haemoglobin..............50, 58
142, 144, 147 Hatha yoga.....................111
Evidence from measurement healing touch...............132p.
.........................................16 heart.......24, 32, 48, 52, 109,
exorcism........................87p. 123, 132, 140
experiment........6, 12, 14pp., heaven............62, 74, 77, 85
18p., 24p., 67, 78, 91pp., 99, hell.......................59, 77, 85
102, 137, 143 herapy......57, 106, 116, 122,
experimental observation..... 128
12 herbal....2, 41, 106, 111, 135
fairies.........................72, 95 herbal remedies..............106
Faith healing..................109 high blood pressure..........59
Fasting...........................110 holistic..30, 111p., 121, 124,
fats........49p., 59p., 110, 113 128
holistic medicine.........111p. 123, 140
homeopathy. 28, 41, 43, 100, logical...................94, 99pp.
112, 132, 137, 144, 147 luo pan...........................110
hormones............50, 53, 140 Lyell........................11p., 64
hosphorus.........................60 macrobiotic.................112p.
hypothesis.... 17, 57, 64pp., Macrobiotic lifestyle......112
70, 90 magic.....21pp., 26p., 44, 84,
imagination....................120 87, 133, 146
immaterial..... 18, 62, 66pp., magnesium...............58, 110
72, 79, 83, 85, 136 magnet........26, 33, 113, 141
immaterial essences. . .18, 85 malaria.............43, 111, 135
immune deficiency.....2, 137 massage.....35, 44, 105, 113,
immune system........44, 135 120
Iridology........................112 measurement......................2
iris..........................112, 117 medical intuition............114
iron......38, 49p., 58, 98, 110 mediums...83, 86p., 94, 144,
irrationality..........136, 145p. 147
Isaac Newton.................142 mercury....................53, 110
Jean Bricmont....................6 meridians.......27, 36, 41, 45,
Joint manipulation..........115 104, 118, 137
kidney essence...............118 metalloids.........................57
kidneys.......................50, 58 metals............53, 57pp., 109
kidneys, the body's own micro-nutrients...............115
mechanism.......................57 military............................92
knowledge.....5pp., 13p., 19, miracles........................4, 63
22, 24pp., 33pp., 38p., 43, moral values..........73p., 136
49, 73, 80, 97, 133p., morality. .5, 62, 73, 75p., 98,
136pp., 141, 143, 145, 147 142
Land of Woo......1pp., 7, 21, muscle......32, 58p., 86, 105,
27p., 35, 37, 40, 49, 72, 113, 115
118pp., 122, 126, 136, 138 muscle contraction...........59
laws of physics...........16, 28 muscle strength..............105
lead..... 5, 23, 30, 32, 39, 41, musculo-skeletal system
43, 53, 58p., 73, 75, 108, 107, 115
110, 136, 138, 146 music................99, 102, 128
leeches.............................10 mystical......26, 34, 36, 44p.,
leprechauns...................71p. 69p., 99, 110p., 113, 116pp.,
like cures like.................112 146
liver....7, 50, 57pp., 66, 110, mysticism.................94, 104
natural balance....121, 124p. potassium.................59, 110
naturopathy....................114 prayer.......71, 109, 116, 136
needles.....................27, 104 predicting the future...89, 94
Neo-Confucianism.........118 prediction....................90pp.
nerve transmission.....51, 59 probability.....................91p.
nervous system....... 58, 107, Proof and disproof...........14
126, 140 proteins....49p., 60, 113, 115
Neuro-linguistic pseudoscience.....35, 37, 40,
programming..................114 104
neuroscience.......69, 94, 114 Psychic......4, 83, 89pp., 116
niacin...............................59 putative energy...............116
Non-invasive..........121, 124 pyridoxine........................59
nutritionist..................48, 60 Qi.......16, 26, 34, 36, 45, 96,
observational evidence. 15p. 104, 110, 117p., 135, 141,
Occam's Razor. 17p., 20, 70, 147
78, 84, 87 quinine...........................111
occultism..........................94 Qur'an.................73, 75, 142
omniscient. .4, 8, 13, 97, 138 randomised....18, 20, 39, 45,
Orthomolecular medicine..... 71, 83, 116p., 127
115 rational..... 6, 29, 40, 44, 62,
osteomyologist...............115 68, 70, 72, 85, 94, 96pp.,
Osteopathy.....................115 120, 122, 125, 132pp., 146
oxidation........34, 51, 54, 60 reduction............51, 60, 105
oxidation-reduction..........51 ree radicals.......................51
paranormal activities..........4 reflexology.....................117
parents...13p., 32, 43, 73, 76 Reiki........28, 31pp., 42, 117
performance magic.....84, 87 religion. .11, 62p., 66, 72pp.,
pesticides.........................53 81, 94, 97, 119, 127, 136,
phantoms..........................72 142, 145
physical laws....8, 24pp., 28, religious rituals................11
119, 133 Royal Homeopathic
physical manipulation....113 Hospital..........................137
physiotherapy...........29, 116 Royal Society...................12
placebo.......... 19, 41, 105p., Scarlet Fever..............2, 115
127p., 132, 135, 137, 147 sceptical..... 13p., 35, 37, 43,
Polarity therapy..............116 66, 85, 97, 99, 119, 126,
Police...............................93 134, 146
possession.....................87p. science.....8, 12, 17pp., 27p.,
post-modernists..................6 35, 37, 40, 42pp., 60pp., 69,
78pp., 94, 102, 104, 111p., superoxide dismutase.......52
114, 120, 129, 134, 137pp., supplement.......................48
141pp., 145 Talmud...............73, 75, 142
Scientific and medical Taoism.....................34, 117
journals............................19 TCM..............................118
scientific method.....6, 8, 12, technical......................102p.
15, 26, 37, 43, 141 theology..............79pp., 136
Sclerology......................117 theory......6, 8, 12pp., 16pp.,
séance......................84, 86p. 22p., 25p., 33pp., 44, 64pp.,
self-healing....114, 122, 124, 70, 77, 80, 96p., 105, 107p.,
128 110, 112, 119, 121, 127,
silver..............................107 133, 136, 138, 142pp.
Sleep paralysis...........86, 94 therapeutic touch.....41, 117,
Social Text.........................6 126
social values...............76, 97 therapies.....7, 40p., 43, 104,
sodium.....................59, 110 110, 119p., 126, 147
soul..................................79 therapy....4, 27, 29, 32, 35p.,
souls......68p., 72, 77pp., 85, 39, 43, 45, 57, 105pp.,
119 110p., 113, 116, 121p., 125,
sound therapy.................128 127pp., 135p.
spectres............................72 therapy ..................112, 116
spirit. 17, 70pp., 83pp., 94p., toxin...................28, 54, 110
98, 111, 119, 139 toxins.........52pp., 57, 59pp.,
spiritual..........................111 108pp.
spleen.............................140 Traditional Chinese
spoof..................................6 medicine.........................117
sprites.......................72, 134 treatment..10, 15, 18p., 21p.,
St John's Wort................111 27pp., 32, 36, 40p., 43, 45p.,
Stargate............................92 57, 59, 86, 88, 101, 105,
stress.......30pp., 83, 86, 102, 112, 116, 128p., 132p., 135,
105p., 114, 117, 122, 124 137, 146
subluxations.............37, 107 undetectable energy.....96p.,
successive dilution.........112 107, 113, 117p.
superbeings. .8, 84, 118, 136 undetectable essences....17p.
supernatural..... 13, 23, 71p., unemotional..................99p.
84, 87, 94, 99, 116, 119, unicorns.....................72, 95
138, 142, 147 uranium..........................110
supernatural being....87, 116 vaccines....................75, 114
séances.............................87 vitamin A.................52, 109
vitamin C.........................60 60p., 72, 83, 93, 95, 98, 104,
vitamin E..........52, 109, 115 118pp., 122, 126pp., 132pp.,
vitamins..50, 59p., 109, 113, 143p., 146p.
115, 140 wraiths.............................72
vivid dreams....................83 writing music.................102
werewolves......................72 yurvedic medicine..........106
Woo........ 21, 27p., 32, 34p., zinc.....................49, 58, 110
37p., 40pp., 44, 48p., 57, zombies............................72

Leaving The Land of Woo Ebook

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Leaving The Land of Woo Ebook

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Leaving The Land of Woo

Copyright © 2009 Bob Lloyd

All rights reserved

The moral right of the author has been asserted

Cover design by Claire Lloyd

This short book doesn't have lots of footnotes and references

The Land of Woo

The world abounds in interesting, curious, fascinating, and

The Land of Woo 3

But you have to believe in something...

The Land of Woo 4

Academic Woo and anything goes

The Land of Woo 5

The Land of Woo 6

Fiction and reality

The Land of Woo 7

The Land of Woo 8

The Land of Woo 9

Clearing the ground

In the modern world, our mental space is up for grabs.

Clearing the ground 10

How do you dislodge an idea?

Clearing the ground 11

Clearing the ground 12

Clearing the ground 13

Proof and disproof

Clearing the ground 14

Clearing the ground 15

Evidence from measurement

Clearing the ground 16

All swans are white.

This hypothesis cannot be proved true but it can be proved

Clearing the ground 17

Controlled, double-blind, randomised trials

Clearing the ground 18

Clearing the ground 19

Clearing the ground 20

Medicine and mysticism

At various times in our past, illnesses have been attributed to

The difference between magic and science

Medicine and mysticism 21

Medicine and mysticism 22

Medicine and mysticism 23

Medicine and mysticism 24

Physical laws and what they mean

Medicine and mysticism 25

Medicine and mysticism 26

Medicine and mysticism 27

Medicine and mysticism 28

Medicine and mysticism 29

Strange forces and unseen causes

Medicine and mysticism 30

Medicine and mysticism 31

The Elements of Woo

Medicine and mysticism 32

Medicine and mysticism 33

Medicine and mysticism 34

Pseudoscience, sham theory, and wishful thinking

Medicine and mysticism 35

Medicine and mysticism 36

Medicine and mysticism 37

Scientists have proved...

Medicine and mysticism 38