The bullshit detective.

[Admin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/programmes/detective/

This programme may well be worth a watch. O0

Here's the broadcast times (I think a new programme is on every Thursday - the rest are repeats):

Thu 12 Apr, 21:00 - 22:00 BBC Three

Alasdair Jeffrey exposes hype, confronts those responsible and mocks them for what they really are. He's on the trail of bottled water, and casts an eye over crystal healing.


Fri 13 Apr, 00:30 - 01:30 BBC Three

Alasdair Jeffrey exposes hype, confronts those responsible and mocks them for what they really are. He's on the trail of bottled water, and casts a critical eye over crystal healing.


Tue 17 Apr, 20:00 - 21:00 BBC Three

Alasdair Jeffrey exposes hype, confronts those responsible and mocks them for what they really are. He goes on the trail of bottled water and casts an eye over crystal healing.


Thu 19 Apr, 21:00 - 22:00 BBC Three

2/4. Alasdair Jeffrey exposes modern-day hype, confronts those responsible and shows them up for what they really are. A look at the price of cinema food and drink.


Fri 20 Apr, 01:00 - 01:55 BBC Three

Alasdair Jeffrey exposes modern-day hype, confronts those responsible and shows them up for what they really are. He casts a critical eye at the price of cinema food and drink.

[vbloke]

I'll be recording those for future use.

Looks interesting - I wonder what the conclusions will be?

[Jocky]

Watching it right now - and it's an amusing (if unsurprising) experience. The targets are well-chosen, the points well made, and it's refreshing to see dodgy advertising (bogus £99 holidays avertised as stings to get you into the travel agent) given the same treatment as is meted out to traditional targets like crystal healing and bottled water. On the whole, I'd recommend it - kinda like Penn & Teller with an English accent and a bit less showbiz.

However, it does make one common mistake which makes the hardened skeptic flinch a bit. The show has a tendancy to produce anecdotes and information collected using flawed techniques as 'evidence' to 'prove' that woo is not science.

Now, I can understand the need to simplify science in the name of education and clarity. However, I'm talking about issues which, with just a little good advice, could have considerably improved the programme without any loss in its coherence.

Example: take three crystal healers, and get them to identify crystals hidden in a bag by sensing their cosmic vibrations (or energies, or something - sorry, I have a bad memory for woo). Obviously this is impossible, so they inevitably get humiliated. A good stunt making a valid point in a clear way, you might think.

But here's the rub: we are told that one of the healers got one right, another two, and a third one zero. But how much harder would it have been to tell us how many guesses that score was out of? Would it really have been so difficult to give the healers a list of possible answers to choose from, so the results could meaningfully be compared to chance? Was it really so difficult to blind the test by ensuring that the presenter had no more idea than the healer if which crystal was in which bag? Did the programme makers actually stop to apply these simple and easy controls to their test at all?

Why does TV never seem to apply the simple principles of the scientific method in these situations, when they could easily do so without spending money or in any way compromising the clarity of the programme? It makes me skeptical of the true motivations of the programme makers; and it also confirms my opinion that lack of even a rudimentary appreciation of the scientific method is one of the reasons why so much woo is widely accepted as truth by the general public.

This seems to me to be an opportunity missed, which could have made a good programme better. Or maybe I should just get out more ... ??? [/rant]

[Admin]

I thought it had the right idea and overall it got the point over but I too have reservations about how far it was 'dumbed down'.

I thought the idea of having a fat man being chased by a police dog to test the energy patches was really naff, but on the other hand, when they used Werthers' original sweets in place of crystals in the crystal healing section and people still believed they were feeling the 'energy' it was really good - it demonstrated that it's all suggestion and compliance rather than anything real.

Overall a thumbs up - but I do wish they wouldn't dumb down so much.


One thing I liked is that it addresses areas that skeptics don't really tackle. Namely things like bait & switch scams, sales techniques, advertising, supermarket practises, etc.

Is there any point in paying a lot extra for bottled water, organic food etc., or is it all just an image-led deception?

[Grobbendonk]

But here's the rub: we are told that one of the healers got one right, another two, and a third one zero. But how much harder would it have been to tell us how many guesses that score was out of?

I've just watched the recording, and thought he said that he'd gven them five goes (so a score between 0 and 2 matches well with random chance).

But I still got a strong sense that the tests weren't double-blind, and as Jocky says, I'd have preferred the frauds to have at least been offered a list of possible answers.

And I did like the piece on bottled water. Especially when he was telling people that they were drinking his "processed" urine. If I'd been the victim, I'd have asked "does processed mean distilled" and been happy if the answer was yes. But I was impressed that they showed the chap who said "yeah, I'd drink that again" because he genuinely preferred the distilled water. (As a Londoner, I'm with him, I know that just about all my drinking water had been through 6 people since it fell as rain, and that's fine with me. Seems a lot more "natural" than bottled water)

[Jocky]

Hi Grobbendonk, and a warm welcome to UKS.


I've just watched the recording, and thought he said that he'd gven them five goes (so a score between 0 and 2 matches well with random chance).

I'll take your word for it, I must have missed that - so they got 3 right out of 15 between them. Rather poor ::)

Of course, we can't compare it to chance properly unless we know how many choices they had, and it seemed like they were just plucking rock names out of the air.


I still got a strong sense that the tests weren't double-blind

IIRC, the presenter was telling them whether they got it right or wrong immediately after each guess, and was saying things like "are you sure?" when they made their guesses. Poor controls, to say the least of it.

[vbloke]

Penn & Teller, in an episode of Bullshit! did a very good (although not strictly scientific) debunking of bottled water.

They created a "water waiter" in a restaurant and offered different labels of water during the meal, all bottles filled from the same hose at the back of the restaurant.

The comments made by the diners showed that they were fooled by the label and description in the menu of what the water should "taste" like.

[Jocky]

Yes, I've seen that Bullshit! episode. Hysterical to watch people agreeing that "Alpine" water tasted different from "Glacial" water, or whatever.

In fact I was watching Bullshit! season 3 just last night. The Circumcision episode was painful to watch
:chainsaw:
:scared:

[Araneus]

Marketers have know for years that people's tastes are affected by appearances -- they will pay more for ice cream that comes in a round, cardboard tub than a square plastic one, and they will prefer brandy that comes in a squat, ornate bottle to a standard wine bottle.

This isn't really "bullshit" so much as normal human behaviour. This is why taste tests are always blinded, under artificial light so that the colour of the food cannot affect the judgements.

[Jocky]

True - but the bullshit begins the moment manufacturers make claims for the product which are not factual, and very often such claims are made implicitly on the packaging.

There is nothing illegal about labelling spring water as 'pure' - it probably is. The bullshit is the implicit claim that it's purer than what comes out the tap, which (in this country at least) it almost certainly isn't.

[mlpoulter]

Programme Synopsis: "The Bulls**t Detective", Episode 1

Presenters: Alasdair Jeffrey, Danny Robins, Dr Basil Singer

This is one of a set of consumer protection programmes (along with "Conning the Conmen" and "The Real Hustle") shown on Thursday nights on BBC Three.

First shown: BBC Three (Digital), 12 April 2007 9pm

Bargain Holidays
================

Hidden-camera investigators go into "more than a dozen" high street travel agents and also some internet bargain travel sites, all of which advertise holidays or flights "from" a particular price. It was not possible to buy a holiday at the "from" price at any of these outlets. It's not that the holidays at the advertised price had strings attached or were holidays that no one would want: it just wasn't possible to buy a holiday at that price. Thomson travel agents have already been in trouble with Trading Standards over this, but this exercise demonstrates that the practice hasn't stopped.

LifeWave Energy Patches
=======================

These look like nicotine patches. The manufacturers Claim that they work with the "Human magnetic field" to improve the body's energy efficiency. Two patches applied to the chest (with the right polarity of course!) are claimed to bring about 20% improvement in energy (on first use), better sleep and slower aging. "Nothing enters your body. 100% safe! The patches transmit the message 'Burn Fat, Make Energy' [to your body]" says the packaging. It's desribed in the programme as a "miracle product that promises quick and easy solutions to complex problems".

Basil Singer (who is a scientist, but it doesn't say in what field) says that there is no scientific basis for the mechanism claimed for the product, and also that he didn't think there was such a thing as the "Human magnetic field".

The test of the product is to have two runners (a 23 stone man and the fit and healthy Basil Singer) running 100m without the patches, having time to rest, then running with the patches. A police attack dog is released after them to "motivate" them (and, they admit, to make thi9ngs more exciting for the viewer).

[Clearly not a scientific test (and the programme states this outright), since there isn't a proper control and there could be differences between the times for all sorts of reasons. Then again, the claim for the product is for a 20% increase in performance, and if there is such an effect of such magnitude, it will be difficult for it not to show up in a carefully timed run.]

As it turns out, both runners take as long or slightly longer to do the run when wearing the patches.

Crystal Healing
===============

Danny Robins tests three professional "crystal therapists" out of the thousands who work in the UK.
Their names: Gina Hardy, Carol Wazz, Anne Nash.

First he interviews them: Nash claims to be able to cure any disease with crystals, including cancer. She says it's "science and magic: a bit of both". He asks how crystal healing works, and gets a standard new age patter about vibrations and imbalance of energies. Robins is told he can confirm this for himself by touching the crystals or putting his hand near them. He doesn't feel any vibrations.

Diagnosis and treatment. All three healers give readings of Robins' chakras using their crystals. They each identify a different chakra as "imbalanced". At one point Robins' stomach gurgles, and the healer points that out as a sign of the energies moving in his body. Robins replies that on the other hand, it is lunchtime.

Test: each healer is given five different crystals in a bag and has to identify them by feeling the vibration. They score 1, 0 and 2 respectively [from how many possibilities?]. I.e. twelve failures.

Robins poses as a crystal healer himself and goes through the procedures he has witnessed with two people who have minor medical complaints. They claim to experience the feelings he suggests to them when holding the crystals in their hands. When they lie down, close their eyes, breathe slowly and have a "crystal" rested on their stomach. They report feeling a "tingle" or "glow" and an easing of their pain. Robins then reveals that the "crystal" was a Worther's Original toffee and that he is not really a crystal healer. He concludes that the perceived success of the therapy is down to having a confident patter and getting clients to relax.

Bottled Water
=============

Bottled water is a huge industry: water is available in many varieties including "detox".

A professor of environmental science is consulted. She confirms that bottled water is no more safe than tap water: the goverment regulations on purity of tap water are stronger than those applying to bottled water.

The programme makes the point at length that water distilled from urine is pure and therefore chemically identical to what is in the bottles. Jeffrey distils his own urine and drinks the water to make the point.

In informal taste tests on the street, people are offered expensive bottled water ("A") and distilled water ("B"). Some prefer A, some prefer B and some can't tell the difference. They don't use distilled urine for B but they make the point that they could have.

Jeffrey puts London tap water in specially designed bottles suggesting "detox", "extreme", "extra hydrating" and "low fat". He asks members of the public to try it and asks if they feel fitter, clearer-headed and so on. Some report the suggested feelings.

[Allo Allo]

Programme Synopsis: "The Bulls**t Detective",


Dear Mlpoulter,

Thank you so much for this synopsis – very helpful to those of us who pay a full TV licence but receive much less than other people. I would love the power to sue the BBC for the money we have paid for the miserable “half a service” we get here!

M
PS John - I managed to log on as you can see - thanks!

[Nucular]

I was similarly disappointed by the 'dumbing down' of the 'testing' of things - seems a sizeable missed opportunity to communicate decent testing protocols to the public, to help them be more discerning without having a TV show to do it for them.

That said, that criticism doesn't apply to all their features, and some of their targets are unusual and certainly meritable.

The trailer for next week's ep includes psychics - difficult to tell from the 3 second excerpt, but it looked to me as though one of their things is to call in mediums to a house and feed them false information, hear their reading, and then break it to them that they've been channelling fictional people. Could be very good, if done well.

[Amelie]

I was similarly disappointed by the 'dumbing down' of the 'testing' of things - seems a sizeable missed opportunity to communicate decent testing protocols to the public, to help them be more discerning without having a TV show to do it for them.

You'd be surprised by the attitude of stations that think that the viewing public 'won't get' such things. I would point to the rather basic protocols on those rubbishy 'Psychic Detective' or challenge programs, where they throw together something and make a big slow-enunciated fuss, because Joe Public might not understand or worse, not be entertained by a test proceedure.

Since seeing this: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/tm_method=full%26objectid=18965569%26siteid=66633-name_page.html

I would suggest contacting the station and the paper, saying that getting such methods out would only improve the viewing.

[Gaspode]

This week we have Ciaran O'Keefe. Isn't he the parapsychologist who embarrassed Derek Acorah?

We also have Feng Shui experts advising us to paint your stairs yellow and hide your sofa in your chakras and place your pictures facing north and stuff your cat with positive energy - I wasn't really listening.

I think this series is getting better. More woo and less dumbing down.

[Admin]

I think that it was better than the first one (I missed the second one) but I still think it's aimed at a teenage audience. It should really be on at tea-time just after Blue Peter.

They did the setting up of the 'psychics' who all made complete fools of themselves but why the gimmick with the pantomime horses?

Then again, (I presume) they know their audience demographic and the programme's made to suit them.

I can't see why it couldn't be done with a little more sophistication though.

[Cuddles]

I still think it's aimed at a teenage audience. It should really be on at tea-time just after Blue Peter.

Considering the standard of most TV, everything should be on at tea-time just after Blue Peter.

[Amelie]

So how has the show been recieved? People been watching it throughout? I haven't seen any news of new series.