Real experiments

January 19, 2008

Part of why I like Alton Brown is he uses science in the kitchen. More than once I’ve seen him tackle a culinary tradition — brushing mushrooms instead of washing them, for example — with an actual experiment to discover whether or not that tradition has merit. (In the case of mushrooms, the advantage of brushing them over a brief wash is apparently negligible, so it makes more sense to wash.)

Buried deep within this excellent article on skepticism and pseudo-skepticism is a diatribe from pseudoskeptic James Randi on “PentaWater:”

But notice: the Penta people, on their web page, beneath a family picture of the founders, clearly assert that: At first, [the Penta engineers] tested Penta on plants. They discovered that test seeds would germinate in half the time as the control seeds. Bingo! Hallelujah! We have the means for a test! A simple, inexpensive, clearly demonstrative, test! Such a demonstration would clearly establish the claim these folks are making. Ah, but will PentaTM apply for the million-dollar prize? Dear reader, with your experience of Tice, DKL, Quadro, Josephson, Edward, and all the parade of others who have declined to be tested, I think that you expect, as I do, that PentaTM will apply as promptly as Sylvia Browne did. [ James Randi, quoted in "Some Notes on Skepticism ]

Without making any judgement on the value of PentaWater, I would like to point out here that Randi doesn’t have to wait for the PentaWater people to apply for a prize. All he has to do is replicate their experiment under conditions of his choosing and document the results. It’s an elementary-school level experiment, so it ought to be within his capabilities. In fact, it’s the kind of thing a favorite childhood show of mine ( Fight Back! with David Horowitz) used to do every week. But does James Randi do so? No. Instead, he raves about the pseudo-science in PentaWater’s marketing copy, in the process demonstrating his own ignorance of water research, then suggests that the original researchers ought to come over to his place and repeat an experiment he could repeat much more easily (and with much less bureaucracy) on his own.

James Randi and associated pseudoskeptics like him may not be doing science, or even claim to be scientific. But they do claim to represent the findings of science and the forces of rational inquiry. What they really do is confuse people about science and rational thinking. They’re not part of the solution to scientific illiteracy. They’re part of the problem.

Posted in Science