One main reason that people are attracted to herbal medicines is that they are “natural therefore safe”. This, of course, is a dangerous assumption and is completely wrong. There are two main reasons why ‘natural’ does not necessarily mean safe:

1. Naturally occurring drugs.
   
   If a herbal remedy does work (and almost all of them don’t) then it will be because the herb contains naturally occurring drugs. It doesn’t actually matter whether a drug is manufactured in a test tube or inside a plant, if it has a physiological effect on the body then it may well work; however, this also means it may also have unintended effects – dangerous side effects.
   
   
2. Medical drugs added during manufacture (adulteration).
   
   As most herbal remedies do not work, unscrupulous manufacturers will sometimes add medicinal drugs to their products so that they do get results. The danger here being that the person taking such ‘herbal’ remedies will not be aware of what’s in them and will be prone to possibly dangerous side effects without realising it.

A Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) herbal remedy for erectile dysfunction, ‘Jia Yi Jian’ (herbal viagra), manufactured by Hunan Aimin Pharmaceuticals Ltd in China and sold as an unlicensed product in the UK in TCM stores, has been tested by the MHRA and found to contain dangerous levels of prescription-only drugs.

This product, Jia Yi Jian – sold as containing ‘only herbal ingredients’, was found to contain the prescription drugs Sibutramine (normally used to treat obesity) and Tadalafil (used to treat erectile dysfunction).

Tadalafil was found to be present at more than double the normal prescribed dose and Sibutramine was found to be present at four times the normal prescribed dose. Both of these drugs, even at normally prescribed doses, can have serious side effects including heart and blood pressure problems, persistent and painful erections, and Sibutramine can cause mental health issues. Both drugs can also interfere with other prescribed medications.

A warning

For some reason, this information has been issued as ‘a warning’. Presumably this means that these dangerous products are still on sale. Why the MHRA, or another government agency, doesn’t or cannot act and remove these from sale is not clear, but despite the clear danger from these products consumers are left in a ‘buyer beware’ situation.

What to do

If you or someone you know is taking these ‘herbal viagra’ pills the advice is to stop using them immediately and see your GP. Erectile dysfunction can be a sign of other problems, such as heart problems, and a GP will be able to test for such causes. These dangerous pills contain drugs that can affect the heart so taking them when your underlying problem is a heart problem could be lethal!

The MHRA press release

http://www.mhra.gov.uk/NewsCentre/Pressreleases/CON043905

John Jackson © UK-Skeptics

Here we’re counting the number of people who used hypnotherapy and gave up smoking but also the number who used hypnotherapy and failed to give up smoking. Then we compare that result to a group of people who did not use hypnotherapy.

Even when faced with data in this form, people who are asked, “does hypnotherapy help people to give up smoking?” will look at the A1 Square and conclude that it does. This happens even with hypotheses we have no interest in because we have a natural tendency to look for confirmatory evidence. Seeking out and being influenced by confirmatory evidence is a human predisposition.

When comparing different sample sizes, we can find the percentage of success to failure in both instances and then compare the results. This can be done in the following way:

As can be seen from the figures, 30% of people who go to a hypnotherapist manage to give up smoking; however, when we give that figure context by comparing it to those who did not go to a hypnotherapist, we find that they too were successful 30% of the time. There is no difference between the two groups; the net benefit from using hypnotherapy is zero.

This example is hypothetical but the model is what is important. Whether looking at psychic “hits”, alternative remedies, whether couples are more likely to get pregnant once they give up on the idea, or that bad things happen in threes, looking only at confirmatory evidence will lead to false conclusions. It’s not unless disconfirming evidence is considered and the hypothesis under consideration is compared to something else can we state whether it is true or not.

Conclusion.

Seeking out and being influenced by confirmatory evidence is something we do naturally. This leads to what I call the “A1 effect”: where people can be influenced, often quite strongly, by information that they already believe is true or would like to be true (information that sits in square A1 in the table).

This is one reason why anecdotal evidence can be so influential. A person who is considering using hypnotherapy to give up smoking, for example, may find a lot of evidence against the method, but if even one single person says, “I tried it and it worked for me” then that can be evidence enough: the A1 effect.

We’re all prone to confirmation bias. Understanding the fact however, can help us reach conclusions that are true by analysing issues properly and not simply seeing what we want to see.

John Jackson © UK-Skeptics

“I’m entitled to my opinion”, “you’re entitled to your opinion”. Both of these expressions come up frequently in debates but what do people mean by them and are they of any relevance in a debate?

I’m entitled to my opinion

Anyone who is not impressed by Tom’s argument has a good right not to be; it is entirely vacuous. Nevertheless, this argument is put forward frequently in debates as if it has some merit.

Entitlement.

What do people mean when they claim to have an entitlement to an opinion? Well, the term ‘entitled’ is equivocal so we need to look at what is meant by the different meanings.

1. Legal.
   
   In the UK we have a right to free speech and free thought. This means that we can hold any opinion that we choose; however, this legal entitlement does not distinguish between valid opinion and invalid opinion. It simply means that we are entitled to an opinion no matter how right or wrong it may be.
   
   
2. Epistemic - (Of, relating to, or involving knowledge).
   
   In an epistemic sense, entitlement is an earned right. It’s where a person has a right to an opinion because it is based on evidence or knowledge for example. In other words, there are good reasons for holding such an opinion. Opinions need to be justified and this distinguishes between valid and invalid opinion.

As can be seen, the two meanings of ‘entitled’ are quite different to each other. In fact, they are the opposite of each other. (1) states that we have the right to believe anything, with no regard as to whether it’s true; (2) states that we are only entitled to opinions that we can justify, which means having good reasons for holding them.

Its use as an argumentative tactic.

If we look at Tom’s argument, he’s using it in sense (1) – he does have a right to an opinion in this sense; however, he’s implying that his right to an opinion somehow justifies his claim – as in sense (2).

Claiming a right to an opinion in sense (1) adds absolutely nothing to the argument. It is a complete irrelevance that does nothing to resolve the disagreement. Tom may as well have pointed out that he disagrees with Jerry because Ostriches can’t fly! Changing the subject of the argument to whether one is entitled to an opinion merely introduces an irrelevance: the ‘red herring’ fallacy.

If Tom was claiming that he’s entitled to an opinion because he has good reasons for holding it, as in sense (2), then his claim carries more weight. Of course Jerry may also feel justified in claiming an entitlement to his opinion too. If their views differ, then one (possibly both) of them is wrong. If two people claim to be entitled to their opinion (2), how can the argument be resolved? By examining both of their arguments and finding out which has the best reasons to support their conclusion. In other words, by resolving the original argument!

You’re entitled to your opinion

Again, Tom is using the fact that a person is entitled to an opinion as an argumentative tactic but this time in completely the opposite manner. This usage is a rather condescending way of someone telling another person that they don’t agree with them as it includes the assumption that the person saying it is right (perhaps without having even stated their side of the argument) and they know the other person is wrong.

It is nothing more than a statement of presumption and is the Bare Faced Assertion fallacy (I’m right, you’re wrong – because I say so) therefore it is also a complete irrelevance in a debate.

Conclusion.

“Entitled to an opinion” is often used in debates as a defence of a belief or stance on a subject. Whether it’s used to end a debate (1), to add weight to a person’s position (2) or to reject an opponent’s argument, it is equally useless as a debating tactic.

Debates can only be resolved by presenting sound arguments with supporting evidence. Stating one’s rights and entitlements adds nothing to the debating process. Having a right to an opinion does not make that opinion right – or wrong.

• Three cups of brewed coffee a day ‘triples risk of hallucinations’;
• ‘Visions link’ to coffee intake; and the alarmist
• Danger from just 7 cups of coffee a day.

all had the same theme: that drinking coffee can lead to an increased risk of hallucination and therefore seeing ghosts or sensing dead people around you.

As is usually the case with the reporting of scientific publications, the story reported is often not actually what the research indicates and the headline writers usually extrapolate things so that they become sensationalist! That is certainly the case with this study.

What was the study about?

In what are called “Diathesis-stress models of psychosis”, it is proposed that stress plays a role in the development of hallucinatory or schizophrenia-like experiences, which are enhanced by the stress hormone cortisol.

Caffeine has been found to increase the amount of cortisol released in response to stress and so it was proposed that ingestion of caffeine (not necessarily from coffee) would be associated with an increased proneness to psychotic-type experiences.

Previous studies in this area have used participants who have psychoses; however, there is a problem that any medication that they were on could interfere with caffeine. So in this study, the researchers used a ‘normal’ population of participants as it’s known that schizophrenia-like (or schizotypal) experiences occur in non-psychotic people too (the most common occurrence familiar to most people probably being hearing a voice in your ear).

What the researchers were looking for was to see whether:

1. Caffeine intake was associated with stress levels;
2. Caffeine intake was associated with hallucinatory experiences and/or persecutory ideation.

Results

The results showed that caffeine consumption was not associated with persecutory ideation, but it was associated with stress and it was associated with hallucinatory experiences. The effect, the size of the association, was found to be small however.

Associations or correlations do not prove causation, and it may be that caffeine causes hallucinatory experiences in people but it may just be that people who have hallucinatory experiences consume more caffeine. Or, it could be something else altogether that causes people to have hallucinatory experiences and to consume more caffeine.

What can we conclude?

From a skeptics’ point of view, we may be faced with people claiming that ghosts can be seen as the result of drinking coffee and such like; but this was really a huge extrapolation of the study’s findings by the media headline writers and not a conclusion of the study – which, incidentally, had nothing to do with ghosts or the paranormal.

What we can say is that the study’s findings support the hypothesis that caffeine consumption may have a small effect on psychosis-like hallucinatory experiences in people who are prone to stress and such experiences in the first place. The effect of caffeine on these experiences, if true, is so small that it probably has little or no meaning outside of a clinical setting.

This was a small, preliminary piece of research that was relevant to its own field, but it’s not an answer to seeing ghosts, hearing voices and other, what we might come across as paranormal, experiences.

The problem here is not the actual research or the researchers, but the media’s interpretation of it.

A new petition has been started to petition the Prime Minister to introduce Critical Thinking as part of the core curriculum in primary and secondary schools.

From the petition’s creator:

If there is one major skill that is lacking in the general population, it is Critical Thinking. It is relatively simple to learn the basics and it would benefit people greatly to have these skills but it is only available as an option in education at ‘A’ level. It is not taught at all throughout our general education system.

Now, it could be argued that these petitions don’t really work in influencing the government to do anything, but one thing is certain: doing nothing surely won’t influence the government to act!

So if you agree with the aims of this petition, please simply sign it by adding your name here: Critical Thinking petition.

vbloke © 2006

This scheme ignored the actual stars themselves, but uniformity was more important than fussing about star positions.

Since then, precession has caused the celestial equator to wobble so as to cause the intersection point between it and the ecliptic to move westward along the ecliptic by 36° or a tenth of the way around.

Your birth sign ignores the effect of precession. What a horoscope calls “Aries” is the 30° segment along the ecliptic that is east of the current location of the vernal equinox – but today, most of it is in Pisces. The next 30° segment (called Taurus in the horoscope) is mostly in Aries. The astrological signs are directions in space that no longer correspond to the constellations that bear their names.

Precession causes the position of the sun on the vernal equinox to move as the earth wobbles on its axis – then again, the position of the sun varies on every date (analemma). This means that it is not only the names of the zodiac signs that are now wrong, the names of the tropics are also inaccurate!

This all dates to when the sun is within the constellation of your birth sign. According to astrology (corrected for precession – although these dates will vary slightly from year to year), you may find that you’re actually a different birth sign.

If you were born between November 30th and December 17th, you’re actually an Ophiuchus.

What happens in astrology is that the sun travels through the traditional 12 signs of the zodiac over the course of the year. Whatever sign the sun is in when you’re born is the sign you “are”. However, over the past 2,600 years (since the charts were drawn up), the precession of the earth has shifted the ecliptic westwards and now the sun visits the constellation of Ophiuchus during November/December. I very much doubt you’ll find a horoscope that takes this into account.

Capricorn: January 20th to February 16th
Aquarius: February 17th to March 11th
Pisces: March 12th to April 18th
Aries: April 19th to May 13th
Taurus: May 14th to June 21st
Gemini: June 22nd to July 20th
Cancer: July 21st to August 10th
Leo: August 11th to September 16th
Virgo: September 17th to October 30th
Libra: October 31st to November 23rd
Scorpio: November 24th to November 29th
Ophiuchus: November 30th to December 17th
Sagittarius: December 18th to January 19th

Since I’m no longer Cancer and am now Gemini “all of a sudden”, does this mean I’ll have to change my character and I can sue astrologers for giving me wrong information?

Why is this? What is so special about the double-blind, placebo-controlled test? To find the answer, we need to look at the different ways that treatments can be tested and what the pitfalls are.

Open testing.

In historical terms this was the earliest method used. The idea is to simply test a remedy on patients and see if they get better. A good example is that of using vitamin C (in the form of oranges and lemons) to treat scurvy. Many treatments had been tried, but they all failed until fresh fruit was used (see: James Lind’s treatise of the scurvy). However, this is a case of what is called a high effect size treatment, which means that the effect is so large that it is outside the range of normal variation and simple observation confirms the treatment’s effectiveness.

Unfortunately this is not the case for most treatments. Many treatments have a small effect and the subjective views of the researcher can overlap with the subjective views of the patient. This can lead to error.

Confounding factors.

Confounding factors are variables which can lead to false conclusions in studies by showing associations where there are none and vice versa. Confounding factors include:

• Placebo effects.
  
  This is where a perceived improvement is felt by the patient due to expectations and beliefs. (see: placebo effect). The patient cannot tell the difference between the placebo effect and improvement due to treatment: the improvement feels the same.
  
  
• Reinterpretation.
  
  Having been given a treatment, a patient will often report a reduction in symptoms or an improvement in their condition. Someone given a treatment to reduce itching, for example, may report that their itching has indeed reduced; yet if they are monitored, it can be shown that they are scratching just as frequently as before. Reinterpretation is a form of placebo effect.
  
  
• Observer bias.
  
  This is similar to reinterpretation except it is the doctor/researcher who commits the fallacy. If the researcher believes the treatment to be beneficial, they may well interpret results to match their expectations. Although a researcher should be impartial, this does indeed happen.
  
  
• Self-limiting illness.
  
  Many illnesses are fought off naturally by the body. A useless treatment given during the course of an illness could mistakenly be attributed as curing a disease that would have healed naturally.
  
  
• The regressive fallacy.
  
  This is similar to self-limiting illnesses, only it applies to chronic conditions. A treatment given whilst a condition is at its worst, a flare up, will see an improvement whether the treatment works or not as the condition, being at its worst, can only get better. (see: The Regressive Fallacy).
  
  
• The Hawthorne effect.
  
  This effect was first noticed in the workplace (see: The Hawthorne Effect). It is where staff will perform better if some attention is paid to them. Just taking an interest can improve their productivity for example.This effect shows up in medical trials too. A patient who has been chosen to take part in a trial and is monitored will behave better than they would normally. e.g. a diabetic who is given a new pill to try may eat better and take more exercise simply because they are on the trial; any improvement shown could be due to the altered behaviour rather than the treatment.

Confounding factors were not all discovered at the same time, but as they were realised, they had to be eliminated.

The open trial.

In these trials both the researcher and the patient know the details of the test. These trials are open to all of the biases and are not shielded from placebo effects. Open trials are still used today; however, they are restricted to procedures where there is no alternative, such as surgery.

The placebo comparison.

As placebo effects can make treatments appear successful, it was realised that the treatment under investigation would have to be compared to something known not to work: the placebo control. A treatment cannot be considered effective unless it is compared to a placebo (or at least something else that has previously been tested against placebo or is a proven high-effect sized treatment).

A placebo control, however, is of little value if the patient knows that they are taking a placebo.

The single-blind trial.

Researchers adopted the method of blinding their subjects as to whether they were receiving the treatment under review or the placebo control. The idea was to remove any bias the patient may have regarding their treatment. If the treatment was effective, the benefit should show up clearly in the treated group compared to the control group.

It was also realised that not only could patients have a bias; so could the researchers. Observer bias could lead researchers to the results that they were expecting to find.

There was also the problem that the researchers, through their unintentional bias, could influence patients by unconscious signalling, the Clever Hans effect, or by simply treating those they knew had received the treatment in a different manner to those who had not.

The double-blind trial.

In the double-blind trial neither the patient nor the researchers administering the treatment know who is being treated and who is in the placebo control group. Patients are randomly assigned to one of the groups independently of the researchers, and the actual treatment they receive is coded so that no one knows whether it is real or placebo. This ensures that all possible biases that could be introduced to the trial by the researchers or the patients are eliminated.

Only after the trial, and once all data has been gathered are the results decoded and analysed. If the treated group shows significantly better results than the placebo control group, then the treatment has passed the trial.

This is not the end, however. One trial is not enough as it could be an anomaly, or a poorly designed or controlled trial, so the test needs to be repeated again independently. If the results are repeated in subsequent high-quality trials, the treatment is deemed to be effective.

Conclusion.

As with all tests, it is important to ensure that the results can only be produced by that which is under consideration: all potential biases and complications need to be eliminated or reduced to a minimum.

The randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial is the way in which this is achieved in modern, evidence-based medicine.

An examination of the question: can skeptics be skeptical of skepticism?

John Jackson © 2008

• Skeptical
  
  Skeptical means doubtful. The Cambridge online dictionary defines skeptical as “doubting that something is true or useful”. For example: “The minister claimed that raising fuel tax would help combat global warming; but the audience were skeptical”.
  
  
• Skepticism
  
  The common usage of skepticism also means to be doubtful. For example: “The government’s claim to have reduced poverty was met with skepticism”.
  
  However, scientific skepticism, as used by skeptics, does not simply mean to be doubtful. In fact, skepticism is actually a methodology, not a single concept. It is an approach to claims and knowledge that includes many components (see: What is Skepticism?).

Whenever a word has more than one meaning, there’s always the possibility of making a fallacy of equivocation and that is what is happening with the question “are you skeptical of skepticism?” When people use this question they intend it to mean “are you doubtful of your system of doubt?” but when it’s applied to scientific skepticism, what they’re actually asking is “are you doubtful of your methodology?” – in other words, do you or can you question your methods of inquiry?

The intended use of the question is meant to create the paradoxical situation described above but the actual question (as it pertains to scientific skepticism that skeptics advocate) creates no such problem.

The methods of inquiry that constitute skepticism should be subject to doubt and inquiry in the same way that other things are investigated in this manner and the fact that methodologies are open to scrutiny in this way just adds to the strength of skepticism as a tool for acquiring knowledge. Indeed, this is why skepticism has changed from early skepticism where knowledge was thought to be impossible (which is self-refuting!) to modern scientific skepticism that is used as a tool to acquire knowledge. If skepticism wasn’t open to doubt or scrutiny, it would never change.

Conclusion

The question “are you skeptical of skepticism?” is meant to show that skepticism leads to skeptics holding a paradoxical position; however, as has been explained, this seeming paradox is only created by making a fallacy of equivocation by those who don’t know what modern, scientific skepticism actually is.

Skepticism is not the same as merely being skeptical; and not only can skeptics be skeptical of skepticism – they should be.

vbloke © 2006

Gravity obeys what is called the “inverse square law” – that is, it drops off rapidly the further you get, imagine standing next to a hot radiator – the heat is intense, but you feel it less the further you move away from it. True, the gravity of the planets reaches out for millions of miles, but in the case of Earth, the Sun and Moon overpower the combined gravity of every other planet in the solar system. Even the building you are standing in overpowers the gravity of Jupiter.

The electromagnetic force relies on the planets having an electric charge. Whilst the larger planets (Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune) do, they are too far away for their relatively weak electric fields to affect us. The Sun’s electric charge dwarfs the entire electric output of all the planets. It’s like comparing a 1.5 volt battery to a power station.

So, this force must be something else. Something that does not diminish by distance and that helps tiny Pluto have the same effect as giant Jupiter.

Astrologers have sometimes said that there is a “quantum force” at work, neatly using Quantum Physics, something that is, let’s face it, very complicated and not easily understood unless you have a lot of PhD’s.

Here’s a quick note though. You might want to note this down for future reference. If something has “quantum” effects, it operates at the sub-atomic scale. Like the strong and weak nuclear force, quantum effects don’t work if you’re bigger than an atom. A lot of people claim “quantum effects” for all sorts of alternative therapies and products. Quantum effects operate on things so small, even the most powerful electron microscopes in the world cannot see them. Once you get to the size of a thousand thousandth of a millimetre, quantum effects no longer work. Write that down.

So, a “quantum force” would only work if Jupiter was an atomic nucleus and you were an electron.

When the zodiac was originally drawn up in around 600BC, astrologers knew about 6 planets – Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter. These were given arbitrary names and characters, as mankind likes to anthropomorphise things. Each planet was known to move around in the sky (the word “planet” actually means “wanderer” in ancient Greek) and appeared to follow the same line across the sky as the Sun and Moon – a line we call the Ecliptic. It is the constellations that lie on this line that we call the zodiac. Every planet passes through the constellations on their journey around the Sun.

So, so far we have six planets, the Moon and Sun and an unknown force. These were considered to affect your personality at the time of your birth.

Hang on, aren’t there nine planets?

All the planets past Jupiter are too far away to be seen properly without telescopes, so the ancients couldn’t have known about them. The telescope was invented around 1608 (not by Galileo, as often claimed, but by a Dutch spectacle maker that we don’t know the name of), this means that, whilst these planets obviously must be having an effect on your horoscope, they weren’t known about, so they couldn’t include them in their calculations.

For a start, this raises an interesting question – these planets had an effect, but couldn’t be included in horoscope calculations – why didn’t ancient astrologers notice this “extra” influence coming from somewhere? If, as they claim, astrology is a science, this effect should be measurable and quantifiable and the positions and sizes of these planets should be calculable by extrapolating from this extra influence. This never happened.

Uranus was discovered in 1781 by Sir William Herschel. Astrologers never saw it coming. Instead, Uranus was quietly included in their calculations. Suddenly, your horoscope changed to include this massive new planet that had always existed. Does the force that controls astrology only work when it’s seen? If we don’t know about something, does it have no effect? If so, you could cross a motorway safely, just by closing your eyes and wearing earplugs.

Neptune was discovered in 1846 by collaboration between Urbain Le Verrier, John Couch Adams and Johann Gottfried Galle. See above.

Pluto was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh. Pluto is a bit of an anomaly though, it’s tiny. Also, it’s orbit is what astronomers call “eccentric”; it orbits at an angle to the sun – the other eight planets all lie roughly within the same plane, but Pluto sits at an angle of 17°. It’s also the only planet whose orbit takes it inside the orbit of another planet – for a part of it’s year, Pluto is closer to the Sun than Neptune, the rest of the time, it’s further away. Why does Pluto have the same effect as it’s giant neighbour? To put it another way, Neptune is nearly 58 times the volume of Earth, whereas Pluto is smaller than Earth’s Moon.

What about Sedna? 2002UB313, the recently discovered planet candidate? The asteroid belt? The Kuiper Belt? Comets? Do these have an effect? Some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter are larger than Mercury and Pluto! Do they have an effect? Why not? Things are looking a bit dodgy for astrology.

So, that’s it for planets – isn’t it?

No.

You see, every dot of light in the sky (apart from the planets) is a star. Our sun is a star as well, it just so happens that we’re very close to it. Do other stars have planets?

Yes.

Since 1989, planets have been found around other stars. In total so far, astronomers have discovered 188 “extrasolar” planets. 188! That’s a lot of planets.

Most of these are huge. In our solar system, Jupiter is the king of planets. It is huge – 1321 times the volume of Earth! Most of these extrasolar planets are what are called “Hot Jupiter’s” – planets that make Jupiter seem small. Some of them are truly gigantic – measured at up to 11 times the mass of Jupiter. 11 times! That’s one big planet.

Astronomers recently discovered a “cold Earth” – a rocky planet around 5 times the mass of Earth orbiting a distant star in our own galaxy. Surely this should affect your horoscope?

If, as astrologers would have us believe, their force does not diminish by distance, then these planets should have a measurable effect on your horoscope. We can’t see them directly, so why should they have an effect? Well, we can’t see Pluto, Sedna or 2002UB313 without very powerful telescopes, but these have been included in horoscopes as having effects, so why not these massive extrasolar planets? You see, these planets haven’t been given “traditional” names like our solar system planets, they’re called things like 16 Cyg B b, HD 216435 b and 55 Cnc d. What does that tell you about their characteristics?

Astronomers have theorised that most of the stars we can see might have planets. We can only detect them by inferring them from how they effect their parent star, so the process is slow and laborious. There are definitely more than 188 out there.

One day, your horoscope will have to include all these planets, but where will the line be drawn? Theoretically, there could be billions of planets in the observable universe. Your horoscope will be very cluttered and probably the size of the Encyclopaedia Britannica every day to include the effects of all these other planets. Phew.

Is that it?

No.

What happens when a star “dies”? Well, some stars explode violently in a supernova, some expand into red giants and then shrink, slowly cooling over billions of years. What could happen is, if one of these stars had a planetary system, some of these planets could be thrown out of their orbits and sent flying through the universe. A planet without a star. These would be almost impossible to see, but it is almost certain that there are some out there. Would these “wanderers” have an effect as well?

Astrologers want to claim their profession is a science. If so, then they have to play by the rules of science. Their force should have a measurable and predictable effect. We should be able to infer and predict things based on this force. No astrologer ever predicted Uranus, Neptune or Pluto based on their calculations, even though they must have been having an effect by their force acting on us. No astrologer predicted extra solar planets or recently discovered comets based on their calculations of the zodiac. No astrologer will tell you that the planets were named arbitrarily by the ancients, these names are used by astrologers to personify them and give them characteristics. Mars was the god of war – hence it controls aggression. This is because it has a reddish colour in the sky and red is the colour of aggression. What would your horoscope be like if it had been called Diana, the Roman goddess of hunting, or Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of Love?

Uranus, Neptune and Pluto’s names were decided by a vote. There was no consideration of their “characters” when they were named. What does this say about their effect on your horoscope?

Open Mind: A mind open to new ideas, lacking in prejudice, not dogmatic.

John Jackson © 2004.

What is an open-minded person?

An open-minded person is someone who is willing to consider ideas, opinions and arguments purely on their merit. If an idea can be shown to be correct then an open-minded person will alter, or add to, their world-view with this new-found knowledge. If the new idea does not stand up to scrutiny however, it will be rejected.

Having an open-mind does not mean embracing all kinds of weird ideas and uncritically accepting them no matter how bizarre or unsupported by evidence they are. The actual word used to describe a person who will believe in absolutely anything is: credulous.

Why do skeptics often get accused of not having open-minds?

1. The accusers don’t understand what open-mindedness is.
   
   They confuse open-mindedness with being credulous. They simply don’t understand the difference between the two. If others do not ‘open-mindedly’ share their beliefs or accept their argument as valid, they accuse them of being ‘closed-minded’. This is simply a fallacious Ad Hominem argument.
   
   
2. Those accusers don’t realise what skepticism is.
   
   Skeptics have to be open-minded. They test and examine claims in a scientific, objective way. To do this they have to be open-minded; this is the reason that skeptics are prepared to consider claims that may seem completely ridiculous to most people. Skepticism is not about rejecting ideas: it’s about testing them for validity.
   
   
3. Those accusers don’t realise that open-minded people can reject claims.
   
   Being open-minded about something is a willingness to consider that it may be true: it also means considering the possibility that it may be false. A truly open-minded person’s mind is open to both possibilities. Disagreeing with a person’s position or argument after considering it does not make one closed-minded.

Misuse of the term “open-minded”.

It is the misuse of the term open-minded that the credulous hide behind. They use it as a shield against the use of critical thinking and logical analysis of their ideas, claims, and often bizarre beliefs.

The “I’m open-minded” claim is used to counter the lack of evidence, or the quality of evidence supporting a claim.

The appeal to open-mindedness is really an appeal to relinquish one’s rational integrity. It does not matter how or why something may appear to be true, that there is no credible evidence to support it, or even that it is demonstrably false; it should simply be accepted with an ‘open-mind’. In other words, with non-thinking credulity.

Conclusion.

Open-mindedness is considered a virtue, and true open-mindedness is.

The claim to be open-minded is frequently used by people who wish to sound virtuous, and simultaneously make their opponent sound intolerant, while defending or promoting their ideas and beliefs.

This appeal to be ‘open-minded’ when considering claims that are unsupported by evidence or which are completely bizarre is a fallacious one. Its message is simply: be credulous.