A short update on my Ben Goldacre policy
Just to note - I am still trying to work out precisely what it is about "Bad Science" that I don't like (and am beginning to think that the answer will involve writing an intellectual biography of Richard Dawkins, presumably after I finish the John Birt one I've been promising for five years). But in the meantime, I note that he is apparently on good terms with Rupert Sheldrake, which counts quite heavily in his favour in my estimation.
I actually think that Sheldrake has been led up a massive blind alley by the negative binomial test he uses (and that what his ESP tests on dogs show us is that this test isn't powerful enough to reject the daffiest of nulls), but the way he was treated by science-politicians in the British university system was a bit of a scandal, and the piling on of skeptics who clearly don't understand what they're talking about was no more edifying.
I'd also note that although it is actually highly unlikely that there are any theological revisions that the Catholic Church could carry out which would have an iota of effect on the spread of AIDS in Africa (summary: Africa not very Catholic, Papal influence on Catholic contraception behaviour not very great, condom-promotion programs surprisingly ineffective), the CC is nevertheless wrong and silly about contraception, and what's a couple of genocide analogies between friends.
he is apparently on good terms with Rupert Sheldrake
ReplyDeleteGoldacre, not Dawkins, presumably?
+ got any links re (1) good terms and (2) Shedrake's treatment?
The last time you criticized Ben Goldacre, your main complaint was that he was dishing it out to easy targets like nutritionists and homeopaths rather than tough targets like corporate anti-science. (And yet I hardly think Matthias Rath can be considered an easy target.)
ReplyDeleteIn particular, you complained that he had said "nothing about the Smithkline scandal". This is a pretty feeble piece of whataboutery. Why was Goldacre obliged to cover this story? (Why didn't you cover it? You've got a Guardian column too.)
Anyway, that was on the 16th July. Goldacre covered the rosiglitazone story on the 17th.
I get the impression that you don't like Goldacre because of the arrogance of some other writers in the same area—he's tarred by the brush of Richard Dawkins, Ophelia Benson, etc. "I used to be skeptical about homeopathy, but then Dawkins said something rude about religion."
Gareth, if you look back to either that post or the comments, you'll note that I posted an update, within a couple of hours of BG's column on the subject going live. Also, the words that you've attributed to me in quotation marks didn't actually appear in the post you're talking about; it's in the comments section, where I also noted, more or less immediately upon becoming aware of it, the 17th July column.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree that it's whataboutery to criticise the choice of subjects of a blog called "Bad Science" which is less than half about science, but we had 95 comments on that in the previous post without either of us convincing each other, so I'm not sure why you're so keen on riding round the same track all over again.
Update! Apparently my post was a day late, not "within hours". It was within hours of me reading it in the Guardian though.
ReplyDeleteGoldacre, not Dawkins, presumably?
ReplyDeleteYes, Goldacre is mates with Sheldrake, but it's Dawkins that I think I need to write about, as I'm increasingly believing that it's the publishing phenomenon of "The Selfish Gene" that's at the root of Freakonomics, Bad Science and a couple of other things I am sceptical about.
Link: Last para. of the 21 Aug column
We're going over the same ground because you haven't offered anything new.
ReplyDeleteThere must be something you can add. Perhaps Goldacre is too much of an cheerleader for the evidence-based medicine movement, a bit too careless of the institutional risks (i.e. that the notion of what counts as "evidence" will be co-opted and manipulated).
(Perhaps he's a racist?)
Yes I have; I've added that he's apparently a pal of Sheldrake, which makes me think better of the guy. Not earth-shattering, perhaps, but the title only advertised "A short update".
ReplyDeleteIn at least one country in Central America all condom packages are stamped with a warning that condoms do not help prevent STD's.
ReplyDeleteThe law as a result of a push by the Church.
Local nuns working in clinics ignore the Church's teachings.
enough cheap contrarianism.
Not that this is supposed to be typical, but in Zambia in the early 2000s the local Catholics were actually one of the better distributors of condoms. IIRC this reflected 1. the willingness of the spiritual descendants of Jesuit anti-slavery missionaries* in southern Africa to go with their humanistic consciences and ignore some Polish pillock in Rome and 2. the fact that when you were competing with Frederick Chiluba's government in the provision of social services, you pretty much won just by turning up.
ReplyDelete*One of the better Zambian NGOs rejoices in the splendid name of the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection. Condoms or no, that's a corker of a title.
wow that's interesting, I didn't know that at all. The Zambian catholic church did also cause a stir by objecting to a condom advertising campaign on the grounds that it promoted promiscuity, but I seem to remember rather agreeing with them on the specific campaign in question; one doesn't want to have common ground with the kind of people who use the word "abstinence", but actually there was a clear role for ad campaigns aimed at persuading truck drivers not to have sex with prostitutes.
ReplyDeleteIANATD, but I get the impression it's a job where a man gets lonely, in a very real and relevant sense. I'd have thought an ad campaign telling truck drivers to use condoms would have a better hit rate and hence do more good overall.
ReplyDelete"I seem to remember rather agreeing with them on the specific campaign in question..."
ReplyDeleteI'm always the only one saying this: There's a relation to the increase in popularity of the theoretical study of self-interest and increasing permissiveness regarding simple greed. That's a discussion for CT not to have. "Neoliberal... Moi?"
The proper relation of realism to idealism is one of flexibility and the examining of cases.
---
Not entirely unrelated, DD, regarding Dawkins, Gould, and intellectualized fundamentalism, see R. Lewontin
This is a really quite thoughtful exposition of whether and when it is morally permissible for Catholics to support condom use. From an Irish Jesuit priest based in Zambia - who, btw, has received awards from the Irish government. Certainly better than anything you are going to get out of the Vatican. As a non-believer I obviously don't agree with his premises or the tentative nature of his conclusions, but he does seem like a remarkable man.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jctr.org.zm/downloads/faithaids.doc.pdf
I well remember discussing this with the management of Anglo-American, who at that point were running the Zambian copper mines. One of their local employees, who was a Catholic, had this amusing thing of pretending not to hear when condom use was being talked about, and then participating somewhat willingly in the ensuing condom distribution campaign.
So, do we give the institution some grudging credit for things its agents did on the quiet in violation of official policy, or hate it even more for having policies that make not being a cunt about it an act of extreme rebellion?
ReplyDelete(This also applies to Anglo-American plc and a whole lot of other institutions.)
If by "the institution" you mean the top Vatican leadership, I'd go with the latter. If you mean the Catholic church in Zambia, I'd be inclined to the former.
ReplyDeleteNot sure this applies to Anglo however, at least in Zambia. If the counterfactual to having Anglo running the copper mines (and run about the only effective anti-malarial and HIV testing programme in Zambia) is to have the state run it shambolically, as it did for thirty years, I'd go with Anglo both institutionally and practically.
enough cheap contrarianism.
ReplyDeleteYou realise you're asking him to shut down this blog?
"You realise you're asking him to shut down this blog?"
ReplyDeleteAids and Budweiser aren't quite on the same scale.
Though I get equally agitated by both, so I guess I'm in no position to moralize.