Comments on: How Aric Sigman distorts the scientific evidence to mislead you. http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/ Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column from the Guardian and more... Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:24:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: kimaldis http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-37557 kimaldis Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:48:07 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-37557 "“Rewiring the brain”? Doesn’t any experience “rewire the brain”? Isn’t that how brains work?" As far as I know, the brain isn't made of wires. ““Rewiring the brain”? Doesn’t any experience “rewire the brain”? Isn’t that how brains work?”

As far as I know, the brain isn’t made of wires.

]]> By: kimaldis http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-37556 kimaldis Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:31:09 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-37556 "A contact on the screen isn't a friend unless you've actually met them" I've met every single one of the people I'm friended with on Facebook. Many of them are very old friends who I wouldn't otherwise be in contact with. My experience is that that's the norm. This man hasn't done his research, he has no idea what social interaction is on a social networking site. “A contact on the screen isn’t a friend unless you’ve actually met them”

I’ve met every single one of the people I’m friended with on Facebook. Many of them are very old friends who I wouldn’t otherwise be in contact with. My experience is that that’s the norm. This man hasn’t done his research, he has no idea what social interaction is on a social networking site.

]]> By: sssaam http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-35434 sssaam Fri, 26 Nov 2010 13:36:53 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-35434 Body language is a childish method my friend. Body language is a childish method my friend.

]]> By: jalulaboo http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-35054 jalulaboo Sun, 31 Oct 2010 18:58:52 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-35054 I have only recently discovered this site, and I have to say I love you Ben Goldacre, I really do. Added to the obviously superior scientific basis of your argument, your non-verbal communication in this interview was sublime in contrast to the ants-in-pants fidgeting of Aric Sigman. Body language is beautiful to watch and doesn't give us cancer. I have only recently discovered this site, and I have to say I love you Ben Goldacre, I really do.
Added to the obviously superior scientific basis of your argument, your non-verbal communication in this interview was sublime in contrast to the ants-in-pants fidgeting of Aric Sigman.
Body language is beautiful to watch and doesn’t give us cancer.

]]> By: UXKatie http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-30747 UXKatie Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:46:04 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-30747 If I require the research essay, I will ask <a href="//www.essayscentre.com" rel="nofollow">writing service</a> to support me. But you could write the perfect release just about this topic by you own efforts. You have got master’ writing technique, I can tell you, I tell you. If I require the research essay, I will ask writing service to support me. But you could write the perfect release just about this topic by you own efforts. You have got master’ writing technique, I can tell you, I tell you.

]]> By: wayscj http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-28984 wayscj Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:15:27 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-28984 ed hardy <a title="ed hardy" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy</strong></a> ed hardy clothing <a title="ed hardy clothing" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy clothing</strong></a> ed hardy shop <a title="ed hardy shop" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy shop</strong></a> christian audigier <a title="christian audigier" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>christian audigier</strong></a> ed hardy cheap <a title="ed hardy cheap" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy cheap</strong></a> ed hardy outlet <a title="ed hardy outlet" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy outlet</strong></a> ed hardy sale <a title="ed hardy clothes" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy sale</strong></a> ed hardy store <a title="ed hardy store" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy store</strong></a> ed hardy mens <a title="ed hardy mens" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk/mens.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy mens</strong></a> ed hardy womens <a title="ed hardy womens" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk/womens.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy womens</strong></a> ed hardy kids <a title="ed hardy kids" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk/kids.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy kids</strong></a> ed hardy kids ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
ed hardy shop ed hardy shop
christian audigier christian audigier
ed hardy cheap ed hardy cheap
ed hardy outlet ed hardy outlet
ed hardy sale ed hardy sale
ed hardy store ed hardy store
ed hardy mens ed hardy mens
ed hardy womens ed hardy womens
ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids

]]> By: brandobean http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-26252 brandobean Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:22:19 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-26252 (sorry for the typos in there... you can't edit after you post, whoops.) (sorry for the typos in there… you can’t edit after you post, whoops.)

]]> By: brandobean http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-26251 brandobean Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:21:32 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-26251 I think your points are completely valid. Summed up quickly as (1) Scientists shouldn't back up unscientific policy statements by arguing from authority as a scientist. (2) You can't cherry pick evidence to support something that to YOU seems like common sense. OK, so all that said, I don't think Ben did himself too many favors by: (1) Rolling his eyes every time the guy spoke. It's condescending and it doesn't help the case and (2) Refusing to let go of the cheery-pick evidence issue when Sigel had moved on. I realize that technically there is no reason to be nice to accommodating to win an argument. But on a TV show, I do want to like the presenter of the ideas, and feel he's taking the other person to task on an idea level, not a personal one. Sigel backed down, saying "look, it just seems like staying in front of a screen all day should make people isolated maybe and in some cases it does." But backing down and saying "I was just trying to start a dialog, it tantamount to saying "I'm probably full of sh*t" One topic I can relate to was the valid and interesting theories around "friends" online vs. "friends" in the real world. As a designer for a social networking site, we pay attention to this stuff. It's a tough debate. Friends used to mean people you hung out with and did things together with. Now they can mean that, or people you share ideas with, chat with, have online s*x with, or just share a common love for Radiohead. Perhaps, the term "friend" and it's associated levels of trust are changing. No idea if it's positive of negative (as that could mean almost anything) I think your points are completely valid. Summed up quickly as (1) Scientists shouldn’t back up unscientific policy statements by arguing from authority as a scientist. (2) You can’t cherry pick evidence to support something that to YOU seems like common sense. OK, so all that said, I don’t think Ben did himself too many favors by: (1) Rolling his eyes every time the guy spoke. It’s condescending and it doesn’t help the case and (2) Refusing to let go of the cheery-pick evidence issue when Sigel had moved on.

I realize that technically there is no reason to be nice to accommodating to win an argument. But on a TV show, I do want to like the presenter of the ideas, and feel he’s taking the other person to task on an idea level, not a personal one.

Sigel backed down, saying “look, it just seems like staying in front of a screen all day should make people isolated maybe and in some cases it does.” But backing down and saying “I was just trying to start a dialog, it tantamount to saying “I’m probably full of sh*t”

One topic I can relate to was the valid and interesting theories around “friends” online vs. “friends” in the real world. As a designer for a social networking site, we pay attention to this stuff. It’s a tough debate. Friends used to mean people you hung out with and did things together with. Now they can mean that, or people you share ideas with, chat with, have online s*x with, or just share a common love for Radiohead. Perhaps, the term “friend” and it’s associated levels of trust are changing. No idea if it’s positive of negative (as that could mean almost anything)

]]> By: palashdave http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-26159 palashdave Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:22:46 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-26159 She's just done it again: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1172690/How-Facebook-addiction-damaging-childs-brain-A-leading-neuroscientists-chilling-warning.html She’s just done it again: www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1172690/How-Facebook-addiction-damaging-childs-brain-A-leading-neuroscientists-chilling-warning.html

]]> By: anonymouse http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-25916 anonymouse Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:46:35 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-25916 Maybe before Baroness Greenfield starts sounding off about social networking causing autism, she might want to have a look at the diagnostic criteria: the essential features have to be present by the age of three. I don't know any two-year-olds who are able to read and write well enough to set up a Facebook page, do you? BTW, social networking has actually opened up the world of real-life friendships for my autistic son. For people who have difficulty communicating, asynchronous conversations are much easier to manage. Over time, you build skills, become more able to communicate in "real time", and if all goes well you will meet people who share your interests in person if they live close enough. That's how it's worked for him. Maybe before Baroness Greenfield starts sounding off about social networking causing autism, she might want to have a look at the diagnostic criteria: the essential features have to be present by the age of three.
I don’t know any two-year-olds who are able to read and write well enough to set up a Facebook page, do you?

BTW, social networking has actually opened up the world of real-life friendships for my autistic son. For people who have difficulty communicating, asynchronous conversations are much easier to manage. Over time, you build skills, become more able to communicate in “real time”, and if all goes well you will meet people who share your interests in person if they live close enough. That’s how it’s worked for him.

]]> By: Wardy the Magnificent http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-25893 Wardy the Magnificent Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:26:08 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-25893 Aric Sigman seems to bang on repeatedly about extreme uses of social networking rather than the message that his one sided arguments project to the aspiring, concerned parent - i.e., social networking causes cancer. Any activity done in excess (eg 6 hours a night on the internet, 6 hours a night reading books) by young and impressionable minds is not encouraged. But Sigmund repeatedly talks about these extremes of social network use. How is spending 30 minutes per day on social networking more damaging than spending 30 minutes per day in isolation, deep into a novel in some fantasy world with fictional characters? Aric Sigman seems to bang on repeatedly about extreme uses of social networking rather than the message that his one sided arguments project to the aspiring, concerned parent – i.e., social networking causes cancer. Any activity done in excess (eg 6 hours a night on the internet, 6 hours a night reading books) by young and impressionable minds is not encouraged. But Sigmund repeatedly talks about these extremes of social network use. How is spending 30 minutes per day on social networking more damaging than spending 30 minutes per day in isolation, deep into a novel in some fantasy world with fictional characters?

]]> By: Frederic http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-25567 Frederic Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:53:07 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-25567 As apgaylard said, one can quote lines from Aric Sigman's paper that show he was dishonest. Ben could be more prepared in te future and plan for this sort of defence, which I have seen before. The guy just does not try to justify what he wrote, he just says he did not write it! Very gross, therefore very powerful. That's why he's a psychologist. He knows how to delude people. I know exactly how Ben felt, it is totally disarming, and almost impossible to counter without being prepared. It is very courageous from Ben to confront these guys on tele. As apgaylard said, one can quote lines from Aric Sigman’s paper that show he was dishonest. Ben could be more prepared in te future and plan for this sort of defence, which I have seen before. The guy just does not try to justify what he wrote, he just says he did not write it! Very gross, therefore very powerful. That’s why he’s a psychologist. He knows how to delude people. I know exactly how Ben felt, it is totally disarming, and almost impossible to counter without being prepared. It is very courageous from Ben to confront these guys on tele.

]]> By: Dr Aust http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-25527 Dr Aust Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:11:03 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-25527 If anyone's still reading, Kev at the excellent Left Brain / Right Brain autism blog has a wry take on all this under the title <a href="http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1966" rel="nofollow">"Facebook is the new vaccines"</a>. There is an amusing comment from the Holfordwatch crew that will lead you to <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/andrew-keen-the-peer-whos-opened-the-debate-on-the-internet-and-the-mind-1639975.html" rel="nofollow">this interesting little morsel</a>. If anyone’s still reading, Kev at the excellent Left Brain / Right Brain autism blog has a wry take on all this under the title “Facebook is the new vaccines”. There is an amusing comment from the Holfordwatch crew that will lead you to this interesting little morsel.

]]> By: biggerpills http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-25484 biggerpills Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:00:02 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-25484 Next scare: Play Games And Die!!! http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/blog/article/1970/ Next scare: Play Games And Die!!!
uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/blog/article/1970/

]]> By: artberry http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-25445 artberry Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:55:42 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-25445 I actually I think one could argue the smoking ban has had a more detrimental effect on social interaction. Social Networking sites are just something people use as an alternative since they made it illegal for smokers to socialize in public places. I guess in the future there will be Social Networking related illnesses LOL I actually I think one could argue the smoking ban has had a more detrimental effect on social interaction. Social Networking sites are just something people use as an alternative since they made it illegal for smokers to socialize in public places. I guess in the future there will be Social Networking related illnesses LOL

]]> By: NelC http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-25435 NelC Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:57:46 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-25435 "Rewiring the brain"? Doesn't <i>any</i> experience "rewire the brain"? Isn't that how brains <i>work?</i> “Rewiring the brain”? Doesn’t any experience “rewire the brain”? Isn’t that how brains work?

]]> By: biggerpills http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-25432 biggerpills Thu, 05 Mar 2009 12:41:58 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-25432 @mikewhit- come to think of it two people in my family have had cancer and both were Daily Mail readers. Looks like there are a few case studies here, could we gather enough for a bullshit study? Using the Wakefield method we'd only need twelve. @mikewhit- come to think of it two people in my family have had cancer and both were Daily Mail readers. Looks like there are a few case studies here, could we gather enough for a bullshit study? Using the Wakefield method we’d only need twelve.

]]> By: mikewhit http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-25428 mikewhit Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:02:06 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-25428 Surely we need a study linking stress caused by reading cancer-scare stories in the Daily Mail etc., to cancer ? Surely we need a study linking stress caused by reading cancer-scare stories in the Daily Mail etc., to cancer ?

]]> By: biggerpills http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-25422 biggerpills Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:57:18 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-25422 Just came across the official word from the NHS Knowledge Service: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/02February/Pages/Facebookhealthstudy.aspx I feel sorry for the people writing these articles, those working on the "Cancer" section have got their work cut out. Just came across the official word from the NHS Knowledge Service:

www.nhs.uk/news/2009/02February/Pages/Facebookhealthstudy.aspx

I feel sorry for the people writing these articles, those working on the “Cancer” section have got their work cut out.

]]> By: mikewhit http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/comment-page-3/#comment-25414 mikewhit Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:55:27 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001#comment-25414 My attempt: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_SearchBar.Term=loneliness%5Bti%5Dinternet My attempt:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_SearchBar.Term=loneliness%5Bti%5Dinternet

]]>