Challenging your assumptions

As people know, I am a skeptic, and I try to consider the sources when I read some science-related news. I also try to get to the primary sources, if at all possible.

Unfortunately, this is learned behavior, and while I have always tried to read primary sources, I wasn't always as good at considering the source, which means that I've picked up some wrong information along the way, without realizing it.

Last Friday I was at a Christmas party at my work, and during that party I had a conversation with another guest, in which I mentioned the "fact" that aspartame had been shown to affect the metabolism of people, if consumed in large quantities.

This is a fact I had picked up some years ago, reading a paper on it.

As luck had it, I was talking with a scientist, who actually knew something about the subject, and she challenged this fact, asking me where I got that from. I, truthfully, replied that I had read it in a paper, so I was fairly confident about this.

Well, she asked me to find that paper for her, and sendt it to her, as she found this fact rather interesting, and contrary to what she knew about the subject.

So, having spent the last couple of hours, trying to find the paper I had read, I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't exist, and that my conversation partner had been quite right in being skeptic.

Oh, I found plenty of articles about the negative effects of aspartame, and even some which looked like scientific papers, but when you looked at them, it turned out that they were anti-aspartame propaganda dressed up to look like science.

All in all, this was probably a valuable experience for me. I will certainly be more careful about stating scientific "facts" that I have picked up along the way, if I am unable to recall exactly where I have read about it. There is so much pseudo-science, and outright anti-science out there, dressing up as science, that it is easy to get fooled, even if you are a skeptic.

As an aside: There certainly is a lot of anti-aspartame propaganda out there. Anyone knows what feeds into that? I seem to recall hearing about the sugar manufacturing companies trying to affect the sales of artificial sweeteners, but given my recent lesson, I know better than relying on my memory when it comes to these things.

M.Creo?

I see that Texas is seriously considering approving a master's degree program for science education offered by the Institute for Creation Research, which is basically a master's degree in Creationism.

If I had a degree from any Texan institute of learning, I would certainly oppose this, as it totally negates the quality of all other educations approved by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. How can one trust any education approved by them, when they obviously don't have any understanding of what sound education consists of.

Another reason to oppose the education, is that it does the students a disservice. They can only use the education in a very narrow field (creationist institute), and won't be able to use it in society in general. If they change perspective at a later stage (e.g. become theistic evolutionists), they would end up with having no job prospects.

Anti-science should never be approved as an education.

A few short notes

Few of my readers are probably unaware of this, but PZ Myers has been sued over some unfavorable book reviews of Stuart Pivar's LifeCode: The Theory of Biological Self Organization. Blake Stacey has more, with plenty of links. The Panda's Thumb also has a good post on it. PZ is keeping quiet about the case for now.

My take on this is that Pivar has absolutely no case, since he cant demonstrate neither financial loss, nor even that it's libel. As people probably know, truth is the best defense against libel lawsuits. One of Pivar's points is related to a prominent scientist (Neil deGrasse Tyson) withdrawing his endorsement of the book, but it's clear from the scientist's own statements that he has never endorsed the book, even though Pivar claims this.
For other good arguments against the lawsuit, see the comments at The Panda's Thumb

---

Tara Smith, of Aetiology has written an article about HIV Denial in the Internet Era together with Steven Novella. It has been published by PLoS Medicine.

I some times participate in the HIV-AIDS debates over at Aetiology, but I have burned out on hearing the same denialist arguments again and again, so it's very little I venture into those threads these days.

---

Last of all, an article that some might find interesting - I know that some will agree with it's basic message.

Science and mysticism: a tainted embrace

Scientists who indulge mystical and religious fantasies in the interest of popularisation are betraying their professional calling, says Yves Gingras