I am slightly reassured that I am not the only person to think the postings made by supposed teachers on Ben Goldacre’s article were worrying. This blog entry sums it up nicely.
In addition, there is a thread titled “Brain Gym exercises do pupils no favours” which seems to be developing a good line of comments.
If I find any more I will post them here.
Following on from yesterdays diatribe about the insanely poor level of science knowledge amongst teachers (apparently) I revisited the site today to see what new comments had arrived. Fortunately most were sensible then I stumbled upon this one: (as always, emphasis mine)
I enjoy reading your column and I agree with this one when you criticise the puesdoscience.
Is it just me, or do start phrases like this ring alarm bells for everyone… you just know there is a “but…” coming.
But Brain Gym is a ‘technology’ not a science: it does not ‘prove’ it ‘enables’.
Wow. First off, the criticisms were never leveled at the process of “brain gym” but entirely at the science supporting it. Sadly this fact appears to have escaped this commenter.
What on Earth, in this context, does enables mean? Why is it used? Has double-speak become so embedded in our society?
Of course you are right to be sceptical about the simplistic explanations and the single source endorsement … but you have a fully formed frontal lobe and are expert in making complex decisions, concentration etc. When you have lost these things through an accident or they have not fully formed because of age, then these sorts of exercises are useful…. and I know you are not against the exercises …
But since your radar is focussed on Brain Gym permit me a few words in it’s defence outside of ’school’:
No, Ben Goldacre’s radar was fixed on the bad science behind Brain Gym. The commenter even acknowledges that in the previous sentence.
I had a major Road Traffic Accident caused by a drunk driver and I had suffered with brain injury problems for 12 years before Brain Gym helped me eradicate some really ingrained inconvenient behaviours. I had been an in-patient on a Pain Management course for 4 weeks at St Thomas’s Hospital London which included a cognitive component which helped with the effects of trauma but Brain Gym has helped ( and helps) in every day living.
Anecdotal evidence is not data to support a scientific theory. Without appearing unduly harsh over this persons suffering, there is nothing to support the fact Brain Gym helped them get better. More importantly, there is even LESS to support the fact that the science behind Brain Gym helped.
Suggesting people do exercises and drink more water is fine. Saying it should be done because of pseudo-science presented by highly paid charlatans is not. Nothing can justify that. The money spent getting the con-men into to give the Brain Gym lessons to the hospital therapists would be better spent actually getting drugs and treatments that work.
If you need the fake science to bother with the advice from health care professionals that is a bad day for all.
Every year approximately two-hundred thousand people sustain a brain injury of some sort in the UK alone. The effects of the injuries are usually for life, therefore the number of people living with brain injury will rise year on year.
This is sad, but none will be cured by Brain Gym.
Headway – the UK’s leading brain injury charity – provides support, services and information to brain injury survivors, their families and carers as well as professionals (health, legal etc).
Good for them. Spend the money actually helping not waving snake oil in their faces.
The problem is that Brain Gym has not been fully researched and is not on the syllabus for Physiotherapists so these 200,000 brain injured people get no ‘day to day’ benefit from these simple exercise!!
It is not fully researched because it is as scientific as flying spaghetti monsters creating the universe. The claims it makes have been researched independently of “Brain Gym” ideas and do not add up to the brain gym. You can not massage your carotic artery through your rib cage. No matter how much people try to research it…
At last Digg.com has found our site 🙂 This was submitted yesterday after the (ahem) discussion about the bad science that is brain gym.
A review of a badscience peice on Brain Gym crap. Interesting deconstruction of the comments people have made and how this is just increasing the badscience content.
Thanks to anyone who visits from Digg.com.
There is a bird-flu style epidemic of bad science. The clearly ludicrous bad science examples in the Guardian columns may be just pale moons of the dark star of bad hard science.
For example, a South Korean scientist, Hwang Woo-suk, has just been sacked from Seoul National University and 6 of his colleagues have been suspended or fined(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4824486.stm). They were found to have faked stem cell research from cloned embryos.
A scientist who claims to have created bubble fusion in the lab is also facing an investigation this week by an American university, which is looking at his colleagues’ claims that he won’t let them look at his data or challenge his claims.Â
In many of the currently fashionable research fields (stem cell research, cloning, nanotechnology) there are examples of exaggerated claims or results that can’t be replicated. These are all the big money topics and must be very tempting to the greedy and those who want to make a global reputation quickly. Should we care if duff scientists want to rip off the big corporations who fund this stuff? It suggests the old saying that you can never con an honest person. Classic cons play on the victim’s greed. Clearly, the funding for most of these fakeries comes from organisations that expect to get even richer than they are already.
However, quite apart from the arguments that government and big business only get their resources from the rest of us and only have finite amounts to invest so aren’t putting money into other projects and so on, most of these phoney projects play on sick people’s desperation, just like predatory mediums and faith healers.
They make huge promises for what their research will achieve – cures for cancer, heart disease, arthritis, Alzheimers or an end to dependence on fossil fuels and global warming.
A shady alternative mystical crystal aromatherapy hoeopathic flower remedy diet guru can usually only raise false hopes in a limited number of not very bright people. Most of us have enough basic sense of cause and effect to suspect the logic behind their claims. What does this say about the people who commission research?  More charitably, very few people have the knowledge to challenge claims for genetic and nano-technologies. (That’s supposed to be the point of peer evaluation.)
MY particular rant here is that we do have ethical standards. We are so used to assuming we can’t understand what scientists are doing that we also assume that they are just pursuing knowledge for its own sake. Research scientists are somehow nobler than everybody else and wouldn’t do experiments that might be socially disastrous or unspeakably cruel or even just pointless. We tend to assume the ethical goodness of pure research despite knowing intellectually that much research is funded by people we would saw off our left foot rather than buy a used car from and scientists are as greedy, manipulative and dishonest as non-scientists.
So this rant is basically saying that formal highbrow opera science can be as spurious as the soap opera science that Bad Science identifies.
How do we counteract this sort of thing? Not accepting a claim on the basis of the authority of the person who’s making it. Questioning and testing every “fact” that we are told. Questioning our own assumptions. Abandoning ideas when they prove to be mistaken. Accepting that no one learns except by making mistakes.
Science teaching is in a particular bind here. The nature of science is supposed to be experimentation but science education necessarily mainly consists of learning lots of “facts” and memorising them.  Even arts and social science courses currently reward students most for citing endless authorities like so many medieval monks.
On that wonderful resource which is www.badscience.net there most recent article is about “brain gym” – a method for stimulating children in schools. Now without stealing the article’s thunder, in short this methodology suggests teachers in primary schools should get the kids to exercise more and drink more water.
This is a “good thing” about which there is little or no doubt.
However, as always, the people introducing this idea have felt the need to surround it in all manner of mystical hype and then try to pass it off as a “scientific explaination.” Utter crackpottery desquised as science being tought to children – who will for example, grow up thinking you can massage the carotid artery through the rib cage. I am sure most, non-science types, will not really mind about this but imagine if they were teaching the Holocaust never happened, or Rome invaded America etc. Teaching things which are known to be wrong is wrong.
Any way, Ben Goldacre has done a much better deconstruction of the science involved so I will ignore that for now. The best bit (IMHO) are some of the comments made in the defence of the stupid idea.
Take this one for example (post 9 in the list)
Interesting comments made, but as a teacher I have to say that in practise using Brain Gym exercises / activities in class makes a difference to the children’s concentration and performance. It’s a fun, social break from work and it helps them to focus on what’s coming next. I agree that some of the ‘activities’ are a little silly in name and idea but they are well received by the children. I’ve created a Brain Break menu which is available on my website if you want to see some of the Brain Gym that I do with my children.
(Emphasis mine, not the original poster)
The bits i have highlighted identify the crux of my complaints with this post. No one is doubting the idea is fun and sound. Ben certainly doesnt. However, the science is wrong and shouldnt be taught. Is there any response to that? No. Nothing but “handwaving” (my USENET term of the week 🙂 ) about how much the kids like it. Well great. When I was in primary school (more than twenty years ago now) we got lots of water and milk and had lots of activity breaks. No one tried to teach us bunk science.
If the children prefered to be taught that England was in China would he teach that?
Next on the hit list is post 15 from the site: (Another teacher defending the activity) – (again, emphasis mine) – (I will comment after each block because this is long)
I commision brain gym type exercises for inner city kids in year 9 on visits to their local university. The kids absolutlely love it – we consistently get superb feedback from them.
So what? Does that make it valid science? The kids love lots of things which teachers wont teach. Why does this get through the selection process. Why does it have to have pseudoscience to back it up?
As with many things Californian, there will always be some jerk trying to make money out of giving some very basic advice. Avoiding deyhdration while studying isnt a bad message to give kids who will naturally chose to drink fizzy drinks, and the same with telling them that movement can aid learning. This is the sum of what brain gym teaches, and with nowt but an O level in biology, I’m perfectly happy to defend those two propositions.
Three points here which (IMHO) speak volumes.
1 – the teacher is making an assumption. Research shows that moving during study of movement based tasks, enhances learning. If you want to teach mathematics then having the kids run around while you teach is not going to work. (I am aware this is not really the point he wants to make but if this is how he is teaching it, this is what will be learned)
2 – It is not the sum of what brain gym teaches. The complete hash of science is the sum of what it teaches.
3 – Translation – I have no idea about this but I believe it so will defend it. Scary world. Someone who admits to knowing no real science is happy to defend something’s scientific basis. I hope this isnt a real teacher.
But the point is that it’s great fun. Have you visited schools recently? How often do you think that kids actually get to enjoy themselves in the New Labour target driven punishment camps that pass for schools these days? Party pooper.
No the point is teaching the children the wrong thing is wrong. If you want them to have fun, then let them have fun. You dont need to wrap it up in false science.
Anyway, I promote it because the guy who takes the sessions is brilliant at connecting with the kids, he’s local, black and working class like them. It fuses an association of ‘university’ with a positive experience and is a rather sneakily clever way (in my humble opinion) to break down the beliefs that exist in the kids’ minds around whether setting foot in a university is OK for people like them.
I will address each in order
1 – So what? If the guy wanted to teach the children that women were second class citizens, that the holocaust never happened, or that Charles Dickens was born in 1953 would that be OK? The guy may well connect with the children but surely teaching the proper things is the goal. If he cant do that he isnt actually helping.
2 – What a patronising ******** this person is. Reading this made me suspect he was white, middle classed and teaching in an inner city school where he feels a bit of “class guilt” so has gone to all manner of lengths to get “ethnic” crackpots in because it eases his concience about some misdemeanor his ancestors committed many generations ago.
3 – Its a rather sneakily clever way of getting people to learn bad science. It is going to break down their belief in the education system when they get older and people try to teach them the correct things – or worse still they will never study science and grow up thinking the carotid artery can be massaged via the rib cage.
It might be bad science in your opinion, but psychology is a science too and on that score it counts very highly.
It is bad science. It is bad science in ANY one who knows even the basics of science’s opinion. Even in psychology it is bad science. It is lying to the children. It is bad teaching. It is shocking.
Anyway, this rant has gone on long enough. There are more comments on the thread at BadScience feel free to read them and let me know what you think.
Well, I have never claimed to be a genius (actually I claim it all the time) but today I must admit to having been given a lesson about something I should now very well. 🙁 Trackbacks!
As someone who spends a fair amount of time desiging web pages, creating web applications etc, you would think I had remained at least passably up to speed with the assorted technologies.
Obviously not.
Not only do I humiliate myself on the AJAX front (when I have to finally admit to being in the dark about what it can be used for other than maps), I realised today that the “trackback” bit of a blog meant nothing to me. I have seen it millions of times yet had no idea how to utilise it. The shame will haunt me forever.
Anyway, I was fortunate enough to find a useful website with advice on what I was missing. Sadly I am still not sure of the best way to trackback to them, so they know they are being talked about but I suspect one of these links will do the trick: http://www.walsallschools.org/2006/02/10#a366 or http://www.walsallschools.org/newsItems/trackback/ping$366 or http://www.walsallschools.org/2006/02/10/HowTo-Trackback
If anyone knows the answer – please tell me….
Sorry but you really NEED to visit that thread on hpathy.com. It is truly priceless.
Basically a few sane people were throwing the cat amongst the pidgeons with the homeopaths and a “Dr” from Pakistan who seems very revered on the site comes up with a response. (His was the first to the original scenario where the patient with a life threatening illness was told to come of the contraceptive pill). His response reads:
OK Rolfe,
Now its was text-book case… Would you please mention what “PILL” was she on ? and from how long ? Have you really listed down the side affects of that PILL. Have you considered that drugging may produce symptoms lik Addisons Disease. WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE GIVEN HER FOR IT BASED ON THE TEXT YOU WROTE ? CLINICALLY SPEAKING PLEASE… The craving for salt is predominently a Tubercular diathesis. The change in Color of Skin strenthen it too. Yes the patient would NOT have died…unless treated by your medicines.
You say we can’t cure Addison’s Disease .. leave aside our answer to it… because its not an evidence that “Others” are equally flabberghasted by it.
How easy was it for you to word Hydrocortisones…. We make sure our patents doesn’t get one .. and they heal either way and better and faster.
You want somehing that works.. your way only… Next time you meet a patient of SARS… give him Senega-30 3 hourly for 2 days. The difference between Steriods and Homeopathywould dawn on you soon.
Now, I understand that it loses a little being moved out of context but am I alone in thinking this is pure madness?
After spending a morning reading through www.badscience.net and dutifully following the links there, I came across this total gem on the web. (If you are curious it lives at http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=1716&PN=3&TPN=2)
Did someone say that people would die if all they got was shaken water? Why would we give empty water to people that were dying? Why would we be devoting our lives to studying water? Don’t you think that after the 10th or 20th time we gave Arnica to injured people and nothing happened that we’d tire of the embarrassment? How many people in ill health are going to favor us with the placebo response? Your premise that we give water to sick people and they get well just please us despite being perfect strangers who couldn’t care less who we are is ridiculous.
(The emphasis is mine not the the original poster’s)
Now obviously the answer is “no” they dont tire of the embarrassment. 🙂
For reference the thread on that page is about a question someone asked to see if the homeopaths could identifiy a life threatening condition and give adequate treatment. The upshot of it was they couldnt (as if there was any surprise with that result) and the ensuing flame war became amusing.
Sadly, this thread was from 2004 and some of the better posts seem to have been deleted.
As a bit of a summary though, if anyone does think that homeopathic treatments work, please let me know as I have a bridge over the River Thames I am trying to sell and you may be the ideal buyer.
Well, to correct a mistake in my last entry – you can buy Pragmatic AJAX – I was speaking from very dated experience.
So far I have found this book useful – if you want to check it out, Amazon sell copies of Pragmatic AJAX for £16.99. Money well spent.
Shock – Horror! I think I have found a solution to my AJAX problems. (Previously discussed but in a nutshell, I have been casting about for a combination of tutorial and inspiration).
After much (well, OK, maybe two days) research online I decided that the Pragmatic Programmers books may hold the potential. As if by magic, a quick trip to the website hit gold. They have a “beta book” called Pragmatic Ajax. What more could I ask for?
Now, this is a beta book so it isn’t available to buy yet but for US$37.45 you can get a PDF version and they will ship you the paper book when it is finished.
I have only skimmed over this so far, but from first impressions it looks very good.
Over the next few weeks I will post updates as to how it goes.
Well, it continues. Everywhere you look it seems like Ubuntu (and it’s mutant offspring Kubuntu and Edubuntu) are cropping up. I know we have been ranting on about PC magazines lately but today I had the pleasure of getting my (last) subscription copy of Personal Computer World magazine.
Now PCW used to be a great magazine, full of useful tutorials and advice along with a great cover disk with useful software on. We have ranted enough about the cover disks so I dont feel that needs anything at this stage.
The current “complaint” is (as the title alludes) based on Linux. In the UK you have three choices for getting news / advice / tips on the daddy of all OS:
The first option is a no-go as you cant sit on the toilet reading articles. The second option is OK, and I do (sometimes) get magazines like LXF but generally find they are MUCH too geeky for normal use. If I was setting up an enterprise level beowulf cluster or the like then they would be my first port of call – but as it is, the network I manage only has a few PCs and doesnt really need the ins and outs of some arcane program to serve my needs.
Obviously, common sense screams out the third option is the best. Get a generalist magazine so you can read about multiple topics (have to keep up with windows etc) and still get some good quality advice on the old *nix platforms.
This was my thinking and until recently (four or five months ago) it was sound.
However, along came the borg I mean Ubuntu and ever since the Unix column has talked about nothing else!
It really does annoy me that pages (OK, only 2) which could be used to discuss general unix/linux issues and advice is set aside for what is basically an idiots guide for Ubuntu! Madness. Almost a third of the first page is spent explaining Ubuntu’s mad implementation of root (i.e. there isn’t one – you just sudo everything). I wouldn’t mind as much but this is repeated EACH time they do an article on the crazy OS.
The strength and fun part of linux is the different flavours it comes in. I dont have a problem with that, I even run multiple versions on the network here and am often trying to convince people to install cut down distros. However, this means that if you want to write tutorials about it then you cant assume a common platform (unlike Windows / Mac columns for example). Spending effectively 1/3rd of the year talking about things unique to a SINGLE distro is (IMHO of course) sheer madness.
(side note: even the two Linux questions in the Q&A were for Ubuntu and had answers of NO use to users of any other distro……)
I honestly hope that Ubuntu is paying hand over fist for the advertising they get every month.
All I can say to this is BAH.
Well, I thought it would be worthwhile keeping people updated on my progress with AJAX………
Sadly, so far, my progress has been non-existant.
Hopefully more insight and inspiration will follow. It may just be time to branch into new areas….
Got it to work with KNode (took around 60 seconds to be honest). Now I have a nice X-Face on usenet which looks a bit like 
.
Now I am all happy.
Very quick one. I love linux and think the “power” it gives an ordinary user on the desktop is great. Most, if not all the applications available are brilliant and actually easy to use.
So why, oh why is getting Knode to show an X-Face so bl**dy hard!!!!!
I knew it wouldn’t last long before the first rant hit home 🙂
There is a worthwhile starter tutorial available – number 1 on the Google list – called Rasmus’ 30 Second AJAX tutorial. It is good. It is straight forward and easy to grasp.
However – 30 seconds…. Never.
And, critically for my point of view, it has given me NO inspiration as to coming up with a worthwhile web project which can be enhanced by AJAX.
(side notes – that site looks awful in FF on a linuxbox….)