"Debunked Science" admits of openness, progress

Persons who try to discredit science or otherwise are quite skeptical of the scientific enterprise frequently voice the following claim almost immediately betraying a very fundamental misunderstanding:

You can't trust scientific findings! Scientists got it wrong so much in the past and what we think was a fact constantly gets overturned! Everything we know today is going to turn out to be wrong in the future. Look at [example x theory or idea]. People thought that was true, but now we know it is not. You can't trust scientists.

A recent NPR article titled "Debunked Science: Studies Take Heat in 2011" discusses three non-findings/retractions that lead the author to write, "2011 may go down as the year of the retraction in the scientific world." Additionally, the author noted that "non-discoveries" of 2011 (a genetic basis for longevity, a new form of life, an explanation for autism, and a link between a virus and chronic fatigue syndrome) "have something in common: They involved findings that both scientists and the public badly wanted to believe."

I am worried that the above "you can't trust science" sentiment may be reinforced by this article and am quite dismayed that the author did not dedicate some space to detail why people should not be dismayed (especially when the general public, it seems, does not know too much about science as a discipline, but rather looks at science as a technology mill).

Interestingly, some of what the author mentions to provide evidence to support his claim of "2011 may go down as the year of retraction in the scientific world" is not even a study or otherwise was not even accepted by the scientific community.

The caption for the article's picture of Mono Lake in California where some thought a new form of bacterial life was found says, "The report was immediately greeted with skepticism from the scientific community." Later in the article, regarding the possible new form of life, the author notes, "[M]any experts in field were unimpressed by NASA's event [the press conference announcing the finding]."

One of the researchers, Wolfe-Simon, said the following, according to a Wired.com article:

“These data show that we are getting substitution across the board,” Wolfe-Simon says. “This microbe, if we are correct, has solved the challenge of being alive in a different way.”

“It isn’t about arsenic, and it isn’t about Mono Lake,” says Wolfe-Simon. “There’s something fundamental about understanding the flexibility of life. Any life, a microbe, a tree, you grind it up and it’s going to be CHNOPS. But we have a single sample of life. You can’t look for what you don’t know.”

Let's suppose, though, that the scientists did 'jump the gun' and claimed that a new form of life was found and that their statements were later retracted. Would this lead to the conclusion that scientists' findings can't be trusted or that this is somehow a flaw in the scientific process? Peer review is a very important part of the scientific process. Findings of researchers are 'out in the open' so that others can critique the data and possibly lead to either retractions of published findings. This should be considered a great strength of science and should give people good reasons to, in many cases, assent to experts' opinions/findings.

The level of openness in science is much different than, say, what goes on in the minds of young earth creationists (YEC's) or '9/11 truthers' in many cases. In science, when good reasons are presented that should lead one to reject a certain idea, the idea is rejected and scientists are willing to reject the idea. When YEC's are shown that the earth is indeed older than 10,000 years, the YEC's attempt to 'save their theories' by making ad-hoc (unfalsifiable and unjustified) moves such as "Well, the universe was made with the appearance of age" or "God just wants our faith to be tested." Truthers claim that evidence against their ideas are just part of a conspiracy, a distraction from the real conspiracy, or a fabrication of the mass media/government because that is what "they" "want you to believe."

Some theists, additionally, when faced with the problem of natural evil (the argument that belief in an omni-good god is irrational because of the amount of egregious suffering in the universe caused by natural occurrences), seem to employ similar thinking. Instead of giving up belief in an omni-good god when presented with reason, argument, and evidence (vis-a-vis the problem of natural evil), some theists assert "for all we know, there could be a reason that God has, but we just don't know it." What is the reason for this? How can we know that "there could be a reason" and why don't these people apply such skepticism globally? (For all we know, perhaps God requires earthquakes for the salvation of children, so we shouldn't say earthquakes are a bad thing...)

If your belief is immune to being shown false, it seems, that belief ought to be rendered irrational. A wise man, as David Hume once said, proportions his belief to the evidence. When the evidence is greatly weighed against a certain idea, the wise course of action would be to discard the idea instead of making ad-hoc moves to 'save your theory.' Falsifiability, as we see, is a very important characteristic of a good [scientific] explanation while unfalsifiable beliefs, no matter what evidence might come up tomorrow, would not be discarded.

The whole notion of willingness to discard ideas when good reason, argument, and evidence is presented shows a great level of intellectual honesty and should lead people to trust findings generated from such a 'system.' Each retraction in science should lead a person to conclude that, even though they don't have the expertise to thoroughly analyze findings, a great deal of justified trust can be placed in the findings of scientists. After all, other experts are out there who do analyze the findings to 'wipe away' possible biases of the researchers reporting the results or flaws in studies.

Science, contrary to what the NPR article seems to assert, isn't about what scientists want to believe, but rather is concerned with what is true or otherwise can be justifiably asserted given the current evidence. Unfortunately, some reporting by media outlets [and not the scientists themselves] can 'jump the gun' and individual readers will believe a certain proposition when the scientists themselves are not even making a claim.

While it may be the case [or some may even argue is the case] that much of what we believe now about the universe will be either overturned or greatly amended in the future, this should not lead us to despair, but rather should assure us that scientists are honest and willing to amend or overturn findings provided new evidence comes in. This is what we call progress.

Dr. David Kyle Johnson talks about his book "Inception and Philosophy" at Google

Information on the book from the Amazon.com page:

Is the top still spinning? Was it all a dream? In the world of Christopher Nolan's four-time Academy Award-winning movie, people can share one another's dreams and alter their beliefs and thoughts. Inception is a metaphysical heist film that raises more questions than it answers: Can we know what is real? Can you be held morally responsible for what you do in dreams? What is the nature of dreams, and what do they tell us about the boundaries of "self" and "other"? From Plato to Aristotle and from Descartes to Hume, Inception and Philosophy draws from important philosophical minds to shed new light on the movie's captivating themes, including the one that everyone talks about: did the top fall down (and does it even matter)?

• Explores the movie's key questions and themes, including how we can tell if we're dreaming or awake, how to make sense of a paradox, and whether or not inception is possible
• Gives new insights into the nature of free will, time, dreams, and the unconscious mind
• Discusses different interpretations of the film, and whether or not philosophy can help shed light on which is the "right one"
• Deepens your understanding of the movie's multi-layered plot and dream-infiltrating characters, including Dom Cobb, Arthur, Mal, Ariadne, Eames, Saito, and Yusuf

An essential companion for every dedicated Inception fan, this book will enrich your experience of the Inception universe and its complex dreamscape.

Buy his book!

Catholics claim regulations on charities threaten religious freedom

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Catholics claim regulations on charities threaten religious freedom." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates of new content.

Philosopher Dr. William Irwin: "Idea that God intervenes in NFL games is absurd"

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Philosopher Dr. William Irwin: "Idea that God intervenes in NFL games is absurd." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates of new content.

On effective atheist activism and responding to PZ Myers' critique of Massimo Pigliucci

Quite an uproar of sorts has stirred in the previous week or so. Chris Stedman published an article titled "The Problem with Atheist Activism," Greta Christina published a blog post titled "What are the Goals of the Atheist Movement?" and Massimo Pilgiucci, responding to the two mentioned articles/posts, authored a blog post titled "The goals of atheist activism." PZ Myers, writing about all three pieces authored a blog post titled "We're Meddlesome" mainly responding to Pigliucci's blog post.

PZ Myers claims that Pigliucci fails in reading comprehension and makes various assumptions about Pigliucci's blog post that misrepresent what Pigliucci is saying and commits several errors. I'll comment on both PZ Myers' and Pigliucci's posts and end talking about what seems to be the false dichotomy in the minds of the 'in-your-face-no-holds-barred-be-offensive-as-possible-with-no-regard-for-the-individual' style that some atheist activists hold; some of these people seem to believe that if this is not the method, all other methods are failures and people are bending over backwards to accommodate religious persons. It is quite possible to "be respectful and still tell it straight" while being effective, uncompromising, critical of ideas, professional, rational, etc.

In his "The goals of atheist activism" post, Pigliucci notes that Greta Christina says a "good cop/bad cop strategy" works, but Christina provides no evidence for why this is the case. Pigliucci also notes that atheists are doing a disservice to themselves and others when they compare themselves to "blacks or gays, as it is an insult to people who have experienced real discrimination. [...] atheists are not being made to sit at the back of buses, hanged from trees, put in prison, or denied voting rights qua atheist." He also adds that the "bad cops" "rarely went around insulting the other side, they were simply vocal about their rights."

Massimo notes four goals that he believes the atheist movement and community should have and pursue: separation of church and state, acceptance of atheism, combating dogmatism, and elimination (or at least reduction) of irrationalism. Pigliucci notes that "none of the above goals is defined in terms of abolition of religion per se. The real targets are irrationalism and dogmatism, of which various religious beliefs are only examples, and only to a variety of degrees."

PZ writes, in his post, "Everyone loves to sit back and carp about the New Atheists, because they're the most prominent subset of the atheist movement, the ones getting the most press, and the ones getting the most criticism from theists...so of course the armchair philosophers have to take a whack, too. [...] Pigliucci ought to have his philosophy-er, hoity-toity-er, rational-er atheism to peddle." Right from the gate, PZ makes various unwarranted assumptions. He assumes that Pigliucci is 'carping' because New Atheists are in the limelight. What is the reason for this?

PZ writes, "I assume that some people just like to meddle - they just can't bear the thought that someone else's strategy, even if it is working toward a similar goal, is actually working and making progress, so they've got to announce their dissatisfaction and tinker. It's only natural, I suppose, that a growing movement would find itself surrounded by not only opponents, but also obnoxious kibitzers." Pigliucci's tone, style, goals, etc. are, of course, different than others' tone, style, goals, etc. and he's merely noting some disagreements he has with others. So what?

PZ writes, "Pigliucci [...] just assumes that his goals are everyone else's goals, and therefore he's justified in complaining about how we're doing everything wrong." When is one ever unjustified in 'complaining' is one disagrees with the methods of someone else?

PZ then responds to Pigliucci's question as to how Greta Christina knows that the "good cop/bad cop" strategy works and PZ says that we can know this strategy works because atheism is booming. This, though, is a huge non-sequitur. How can one particular strategy account for the boom in atheism? While this strategy has certainly 'drawn some people in,' it does not account for several other factors that account for the rise in atheism such as more internet communities popping up, the rise of the religious right (!), atheists simply making groups because they want a social network and/or want to share their ideas with others, various authors (some of which can be called 'New Atheists') publishing books, etc. In short, there is much going on that accounts for the rise in atheism, but the "good cop/bad cop strategy" isn't the only strategy that works or otherwise has contributed to the rise in atheism [and perhaps is not even a major factor]. It is also important to note that some are 'drawn away' because of a "good cop/bad cop strategy."

PZ believes that Massimo wrote that atheists aren't allowed to model activism after known successful movements, but this simply isn't the case. Massimo wrote that atheists "really ought not compare themselves to blacks or gays." "Really ought not" is much different than saying "you're not allowed." Additionally, PZ writes, "...the tactic of decrying the struggle against smaller offenses because there are greater problems is a standard suppressive effort to maintain the status quo [...] Pigliucci is making a particular contemptible argument: it's the idea that no injustice should be opposed if there is a greater injustice elsewhere." Pigliucci doesn't argue this.

PZ writes, commenting on Massimo's statement of "the "bad cops" of the civil and gay rights movements rarely went around insulting the other side, they were simply vocal about their own rights," noting "Right. So in the last 50 years or so of history, everyone's approach has been to say nothing but kind words... [...] No one objected to the overt racism of the policeman who turned fire hoses on black crowds... [...] An important part of making racism and sexism and homophobia socially unacceptable has always been labeling and mocking and denigrating the perpetrators of such evils. You don't make progress by pretending that Fred Phelps is a nice guy, and not making him pay the price of public stigma..."

PZ seems to miss Massimo's point here (or the point I at least believe he is making). An articulate and effective case for rights can be made without resorting to being in-your-face and hurling insults. It is all too often, it seems, that atheists use some language filled with personal attacks that are mocking and denigrating toward religious persons...and I don't find this constructive in many cases.

Make some arguments and attack ideas, I believe, but attacking persons doesn't seem to be an effective route. Perhaps, though, insults can be had for very public individuals who are exploiting persons, doing a great deal of harm, or involved with politics such as Pat Robertson, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Peter Poppoff, etc., but I don't find this constructive when talking about 'religion in general' or addressing 'lay persons' (i.e. the 'common people in the pews).

I take great care to be as charitable as possible on my blog, on the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast, in my Examiner.com articles, in debates I have, and elsewhere. I want people who disagree with me to read what I have to say and I'm simply not interested in attacking individuals or repulsing people. While it's going to be the case that some people may be repulsed no matter how charitable, kind, and free of insults I can be, this simply doesn't justify going all out, being uncharitable, unreasonable, or insulting every religious person I see.

While my goal is not to deconvert religious people (although, of course, that may happen in the progress), I want to put the arguments out there and be effective. I want to get people to think, empower fellow atheists, engage religious believers, share my ideas, and be professional. Of course, there are certainly times when I will joke around, poke fun, and even mock, but those are paired with some legitimate concern and a visible goal.

Of course not all will 'take my approach' and want to be more in-your-face. Some will also believe that hurling insults at religious people is an effective strategy for whatever goals they may have. I have heard, several times, that "religious people can't be reasoned with and are not logical" (which is ridiculous in many cases and certainly isn't a warrant for 'bad behavior'). [And here's my response to this.] So be it. If someone disagrees with someone else's strategy, goals, or methods, it shouldn't be a problem if those concerns are voiced.

Some atheists also believe that "beliefs should be respected" and it is bad form or somehow rude to even question or challenge, no matter how professionally, persons' beliefs. I don't think these positions are tenable and have commented on them in the past at great length. If these people want to voice why they think this way and have different methods or goals than I do, so be it...but I will voice why I think their assumptions are flawed and why people should speak up and be 'out of the closet.'

Like it or not, if the 'atheist movement' is going to be successful (or continue to be successful), individual atheists ought to realize that they are dealing with people and no matter how silly, outlandish, or fallacious the beliefs of some religious people are, these people cherish these ideas and take them very seriously. This, of course, if you know me, doesn't mean that ideas should not be challenged, but rather means that there is a person 'behind' those ideas. Ideas can be attacked, but persons don't have to be. Additionally, disagreement should not be construed as disrespect and individual atheists would do well in communicating this to people whom they disagree with and/or otherwise object to discussions even taking place.

Might 'my method' or style of presentation be 'the best method?' Probably not...but I don't think there is a 'best method' or 'one method' that works. I mainly tackle arguments, make arguments, and tend to come from a more philosophical perspective. Others do other things. So be it. If some have different methods (and especially if some believe that certain methods are problematic), it is okay to voice the criticism and be receptive of it. After all, aren't we supposed to be a skeptical community?

There are many faces and goals in the atheist movement. Many people are talented in some areas while others are not. Individuals can utilize their abilities and be effective in what they do. It is important, though, to discuss, as a community, what our goals should be and how we can work to achieve them. It's also important to offer criticism of those in the movement whom we happen to disagree with on some issues whether we disagree with their methods, tone, manner of presentation, or something else. Voicing criticism, though, should not be considered "meddlesome," but rather should be viewed as offering some advice whether it is considered or not.

Improved audio-only version of my "Does the Christian god exist?" debate with Rev. Marcelle Dotson

On 12/19/11, I debated Rev. Marcelle Dotson on the topic of "Does the Christian god exist?" in a live, recorded format. The raw video was released immediately following the debate.

An improved audio-only downloadable version of the debate is now available.

Get it here.

This podcast (and other episodes of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast) are also available on iTunes. You can also subscribe to the podcast's RSS feed.

Is the language of being offended helpful for SOCAS advocates?

Form, indeed, is important. Recently, I've noticed that some advocates of separation of church and state have been noting that religious displays are offensive in their arguments for why religious displays are unconstitutional. I don't find this sort of language to be helpful.

When I articulate why a complete separation of church and state (SOCAS) is important, argue for why separation of church and state is not just an 'atheist issue,' talk about the harm and falsehood of the 'Christian nation myth,' and why separation of church and state and secularism [government neutrality toward matters of religion] are not 'anti-religion,' I primarily focus on ideas of equality, freedom of and from religion, and the negative consequences of a governmental entity endorsing religion.

Some persons who seemingly have not really considered the issue of SOCAS or otherwise have read the reasons why people advocate for a total SOCAS tend to cast the issue in terms of offense and atheists 'waging war' with religion on a legal level. When I filed a complaint against a courthouse nativity scene in 2009 and was successful, many of my detractors told me that if I didn't like the nativity scene, I should simply just look away from it and seemingly believed that me being offended by the display was a basis for my complaint.

Here are some of these comments from my detractors:

When responding to these comments, I have argued that me being offended (if this even were the case...and it is not) was not a basis for my complaint or why I advocate for a total SOCAS. If offense were the basis for a complaint, it seems, the complaint would be quite unreasonable and would be unsuccessful. After all, some Muslims were offended (and still are) by Salman Rushdie's book "The Satanic Verses," but this does not constitute a reason for a legal complaint. I don't think that the language of being offended is helpful at all and seems to be quite unsuccessful because it fuels the myth of 'atheists file complaints because they are offended.'

The Freedom From Religion Foundation and American Atheists -- in some cases -- have noted that persons were offended by religious displays in both legal documents and statements to the media. While I am members of both organizations and am generally in favor of most of what they do and how they do it, I am no fan of noting that people are offended by religious displays. Might, though, there be good reasons for this language and might it be required in some cases?

The issue of standing -- the ability to demonstrate that an individual has been harmed in some manner or otherwise has some reason to file suit -- has been a complex one for SOCAS advocates. Those who have attempted to argue that incorporating the pledge of allegiance in public schools with the words "under God," for example, was unconstitutional have been unable, in some cases, to have a trial because plaintiffs were said to have lacked standing. Perhaps the language of offense would have been needed here in order for persons to file suit...or is this a problem with the legal system?

If persons arguing for SOCAS employ the language of being offended when they voice their rationale for filing complaints, defending those who do, or otherwise are simply arguing why SOCAS is important, it seems like the rest of the message is being compromised; arguing that one is offended or even a certain percentage of people are does not make the case for SOCAS being important for all or why the government should remain neutral on matters of religion.

Rather than arguing that a religious display may offend some, it seems more helpful to argue why SOCAS should be desired by all. SOCAS advocates might argue (and perhaps should) that it is selfish for people of a certain religious sect to want government favoring their variety of religion because a very large percentage of people 'lose out' and religious freedom is utterly compromised. Does it not seem to be equally selfish or very selfish for non-religious people to argue that certain religious displays should come down because they find them offensive (or merely just argue that they are)?

People like Dan Barker and David Silverman, of course, don't only use the language of being offended in their arguments for SOCAS; they argue on other fronts that seem to be quite successful and appealing for everyone. Why not keep the arguments at that and leave out the language of being offended in order to appeal to everyone and frame SOCAS as an issue for everyone and not just atheists?

As always, feel free to chime in in comments below.

Confidence in science: Faith, fact, or something else?

A discussion in the New York Times starting with an article published on December 21, 2011 titled "On Flu Strains, Folkies and Faith in Science" prompted readers to ponder whether scientific inquiry and discovery will lead humanity down a smoother road, whether scientific inquiry will produce more good than harm (or vice-versa), whether there should be limits on scientific inquiry, and whether 'faith' in science is the same kind of faith as, say, religious faith.

A follow-up article published on December 23, 2011 titled "Is Confidence in Science as a Source of Progress Based on Faith or Fact?" includes various views on whether, as you might guess, "confidence in science," according to the article, "as a source of human progress is underpinned by fact or faith." The author notes, "Some readers may have missed that the discussion was not about confidence in science as an enterprise, but confidence that benefits would always accrue to society from applications of scientific knowledge."

These topics ought to be interesting to many whether they have a very slim understanding of philosophy, science, and philosophy of science. Unfortunately, though, those with a slim understanding of philosophy, science, and philosophy of science are often confused or missing some major points such as when they think 'faith in science' [this phrase should not even exist, especially amongst those who do have an understanding of science, philosophy, and philosophy of science because the definition of faith, I would wager, is generally 'belief without evidence'] is the same as 'faith in religious ideas.'

Andrew C. Revkin, in the "On Flu Strains, Folkies and Faith in Science" article, seems to put quite a high bar on the word 'prove.' He writes, "I'm a huge fan of science, as is obvious given that I've spent my life studying it and writing about it. I think that more science and science literacy, and fostering a culture of innovation and inquiry, will boost odds of a relatively smooth ride for humanity as our appetite for resources crests. But can I prove that? No." He continues, "...I have confidence that scientific inquiry, as long as it is carried out in a transparent way, will endure as a force for progress - particularly in comparison to the track record for movements in which ideology trumps reason. And, no, I can't prove that."

I'm not sure why the author notes that he "can't prove that" and perhaps am further confused as to why he doesn't continue noting that, from what we have seen so far, scientific inquiry has yielded a tremendous amount of information, discovery, new technology, and so much more that has made human life better. Although, of course, we have also created technology which can kill people at a rate much faster than ever before, it seems evident that the scales are tipped in favor of 'good' and not 'evil' in this case. We're living much longer, we're understanding more about the universe, we're using technology that was once only dreamed of in science fiction, and we have almost eradicated diseases which would regularly kill or make life horrid for many.

While we can't 'prove' what science will yield in the future, we can be very inductively justified in assuming that, on good evidence, that scientific inquiry will make life much better by looking at the current trend...and this isn't faith - or at least the same kind of faith as, say, religious faith like Pete Seeger, in the article, mentions. The author notes, "...Seeger recalled how his father used to prod friends who were scientists in this way: You think that an infinite increase in empirical information is a good thing. Can you prove it? He'd then retort that faith in science is no different than faith in anything else (emphasis mine).

'Faith in science,' if we must use this term, is much different than 'faith in anything else.' As I noted, we are inductively justified in believing that science will continue to be a source of human progress.

When religious claims are concerned, proponents often lack good reason for their claims and can and do often admit that they have no reason to believe, but rather hold faith. Faith, according to some, is a virtue.

"Trust that God has a plan for you," people say.

"My experience thus far has dictated that there is more than meets the eye even though I can't show you this," people say.

That boy over there who recovered from a bacterial infection... just believe that a Mohawk Indian who lived 350 years ago named Kateri Tekakwitha intervened and the doctors, simple regression of the disease, or other naturalistic explanations had nothing to do with it and instead of simply saying "I don't know," jump to the conclusion that there was supernatural intervention.

Additionally, as you might expect, the arguments/reasons for belief in the Christian god are often very problematic and do not 'hold up' to inquiry. "Have faith" is the 'last card' that is often played, even if some incontrovertible evidence came about that showed the belief were false a la Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig [videos in links] who believe that the Holy Spirit has given them reasons to believe via an immediate experience and nothing can serve as a defeater to Christian belief [thus, it seems, making Christian belief unfalsifiable and irrational].

Scientists do not, by any means, operate on "faith" like those of religious sects often do. Consider methodological naturalism -- the assumption scientists make that the natural world is all that exists -- when doing research. Some religious persons might say that this is a faith-based claim. Scientists operate under methodological naturalism because they want to explain the natural world and look for naturalistic explanations [and supernatural explanations do not have good explanatory power, generally are not testable, and are not conservative or fruitful].

We see that 'faith in science,' if we must call it that, is much different than 'faith in religion.'

When I consider belief and what I believe, I think that knowledge is provisional - it is best on the best interpretation of what we know now and could be, of course, wrong in the future or undermined by various skeptical hypotheses. For all I know, I could have been created five minutes ago with pre-programmed memories and holes in my socks or I could be a brain in a vat. I don't believe these things because I have no good reasons to do so. I can't be "100% certain" or 'prove that I am not a brain in a vat,' but belief in the external world, for example, as opposed to the world being an illusion, is justified - and very much so. The word 'prove,' it seems is quite useless in contexts such as these.

Philosopher Jonathan Kvanvig writes, "There is no reason whatsoever to think that believing the truth is always impossible; the best that could be claimed is that there is no guarantee in any given case that we have achieved the state of believing the truth. Perhaps it follows that we should not hope for the chimera of infallibility."

Returning to the article, and moving away from whether 'faith in science' is the same as religious faith, Brad Allenby writes:

There has to be a big dollop of faith: no single person can possibly begin to understand the world we live in from first principles. It is, of course, a rationalistic faith, in that I am fairly confirmed in my belief that, say, 747’s will fly because in fact the vast majority of them do, and frequently. More fundamentally, my faith that 747’s will fly is of a different kind than the traditional religious kind, in that the latter cannot be supported by direct experience, but only by interpretations of direct experience which pull on the faith narrative.

Allenby is indeed "fairly confirmed" in his belief that "747s will fly because in fact the vast majority of them do, and frequently," but I don't see the value of calling this belief faith. This belief can simply be called a justified belief and direct experience is not needed for this sort of belief to be justified. We can assent to the experts, appeal to others' past experiences, and so much more in order to be justified in believing that future 747s will fly.

Steve Fuller writes:

The prospect that scientists have created a lethal strain of avian flu and are on the verge of publishing their technique in the world’s leading scientific journal has reopened the debate over science’s aspiration to ‘universal knowledge’ in two distinct senses: Should science investigate everything, and should its findings be made available to everyone? Doubts on both fronts pertain to the potential evil that might be unleashed, either by will or by accident. That the doubts should center so clearly on evil consequences betrays the theological origins of the concern. From the serpent in the Garden of Eden to the Cartesian demon of modern skepticism, evil is always portrayed as something that simulates good in nearly all respects. Yet knee-jerk moves to censor and otherwise restrict scientific inquiry threaten to compound rather than the remove the evil in question.

The common lingering concern of "Well, what if advances in technology lead to ruin, horror, and misuse" has probably permeated almost every new technological advance that can be used for harm. Despite this, we're quite happy to continue progressing and rightfully so. We're happy to enjoy our smartphones, laptop, new vaccines, and lives generally free of tuberculosis and polio. While technology might be used for 'evil' (and can often be), it is 'up to us' to police.

We often balance the benefits and costs of our actions and can do so regarding technology. For example, I'm quite aware that my privacy has diminished because of my internet use, owning a smartphones, and much more. To completely refrain from taking advantage of modern technology because of concerns of privacy, it seems, is quite silly. If, though, the trade-off were much more in-line with the negative, I might refrain, but I enjoy my technology and don't want to give it up because of what seem to be very minute concerns.

While some 'evil' may and almost certainly will come about because of progress, it seems to be the case that the benefits far outweigh the costs and deciding to stop progress in fear of some negative consequences is more harmful than progressing to begin with.

To be fair, there are, of course, some moral concerns that may come about when considering progress that we should be mindful of. Perhaps it may be for the best, for example, to not produce a technology which can be embedded in someone's skin at birth that would be unremovable and would constantly transmit a GPS signal to a government. Civil liberties concerns, we can see, crop up. We can, though, stop some progress/technology and not all. We can 'sit down' and consider certain issues without abandoning the entire enterprise of progress.

A refreshing comment from Angela Dellaporta on the difference between 'faith in science' and religious faith reads:

Science is intrinsically humble. Any scientific hypothesis must be tested repeatedly, by many different people, before it is believed. If the hypothesis does not meet the standards, then it is not considered to be scientific truth. These high standards make it easy to have faith in scientifically proven facts — though the best scientists will admit that there is always a margin for error, however small. Faith in religion is a very different thing. It is faith in the unprovable, faith in the mystery, faith in the unknown and unknowable. Because of this, humility, rather than stridence, is usually expected in those who have a deep religious faith, too.

While I enjoy this comment, I still find the phrase 'faith in scientifically proven facts' to be useless because it is not faith, but rather warranted belief. Hope not for the chimera of infallibility, for "100% certainty" is a distraction.

Confidence in science is not faith, but it is rather inductively justified. Reject the phrase 'faith in science' and do not allow belief about scientific principles or advancement to be relegated to the same status as religious faith. It is all too often that religious persons try to claim that their 'faith in science' -- which is justified if we must use the term -- is the same as religious faith, but this is simply not the case. Additionally, people argue that a naturalistic world view is simply inadequate and that religious faith is needed. We can be justified in looking to science for progress and answers to questions. Fear not, though, those of you who may be having visions of scientism floating in your heads...science is not the only way to arrive at conclusions, for other disciplines such as philosophy are needed.

For more on the topic of faith, please listen to the second episode of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast in which I talk about some ideas I presented here and much more.

As always, feel free to add comments and questions below...and don't assume that I'm talking about all religious people or all definitions of faith.

Secular Coalition for America ranks presidential candidates in 2012 scorecard

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "Secular Coalition for America ranks presidential candidates in 2012 scorecard." View this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

Recorded Video - Debate: Does the Christian god exist? Rev. Marcelle Dotson vs. Justin Vacula

I debated Rev. Marcelle Dotson of Field of Grace United Methodist Church in Wilkes-Barre on the topic of "Does the Christian god exist?" on December 19, 2011.

The debate was recorded live from "Jason International Studios" in Mountain Top, PA.

The debate is now available as a recorded version for your viewing pleasure. A audio-only podcast will also be available in the near future.



Feel free to comment below, send me e-mail, etc. I'd love to hear from you.

Rev. Dotson's e-mail is mdotson@susumc.org


----

Justin Vacula -- co-organizer, spokesperson, and board member of the NEPA Freethought Society -- graduated from King's College with degrees in Philosophy and Psychology, a distinguished award in Philosophy, and a minor in Professional Writing. He regularly publishes articles for Examiner.com as the 'Scranton Atheism Examiner,' writes for American Atheists' "No God Blog," and publishes posts about “atheism, theism, philosophy, and much more” on his blog at www.justinvacula.com. The NEPA Freethought Society's website can be found at www.nepafreethought.org.

Rev. Marcelle Dotson, pastor of Field of Grace Community of Faith United Methodist Church holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology from Smith College, a Master's of Divinity degree in Theology from Drew University, and a Master of Business Administration from Simmons School of Management. She served as an associate pastor in Manchester and had served the United Methodist Church in Maine. She came to Wilkes-Barre in 2009 to start Field of Grace. United Methodist Church. The website for her church can be found at www.fieldofgraceumc.org.

NEPA Freethought Society Podcast: Episode 4 [Video]

The video for the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast's fourth episode -- Curious Bible Verses -- is now available on our livestream page.

Upcoming, this Monday is our special episode - I debate Rev. Marcelle Dotson on the topic of "Does the Christian god exist?" at 11AM EST. The event will be streamed live.

LifeWay Christian Bookstores reneges on pledge to Susan G. Komen Foundation

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "LifeWay Christian Bookstores reneges on pledge to Susan G. Komen Foundation." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant notifications of new articles.

Christopher Hitchens, no stranger to Scranton, dies at age 62

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "Christopher Hitchens, no stranger to Scranton, dies at age 62." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates of new content.

Skeptic blogger responds to chiropractor's threats to sue (podcast)

I was recently interviewed by Kenny Luck from The Luck Report to discuss the recent controversy surrounding the legal threats I received from a chiropractor's finacee' because of my blogging.

Listen here.

From Kenny Luck's podcast description:

First it’s slander, but really, if it’s written, it’s libel. But when there is nothing libelous about a post, then it's harassment. This is the string of legal reasoning chiropractor Dr. Dan Golaszewski’s fiancée, who for some reason is acting as his PR representative, exhibited toward a blogger who criticized chiropractic.

Afterthoughts on the "Dr. Dan debacle"

Welome Message From DrDan from Dr. Dan Golaszewski on Vimeo.

Chiropractor Dan Golaszwski's welcome message in which he claims that he has information which can "gain victory over any health condition" including "cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, carpal tunnel syndrome, headaches, back pain, sciatica, fibromyaligia, and even weight loss"

My readers, persons on r/skeptic, and readers of Pharyngula have learned that sending legal threats to bloggers does not quell criticism or intimidate bloggers, but rather serves to create more criticism of the person who was initially criticized, illuminates a problem, and makes persons who send baseless legal threats instead of responding to criticism look really, really, really bad.

For those of you who were not paying attention yesterday, I received two baseless legal threats from a finacee' of a chiropractor saying that if I continued authoring criticism of the chiropractor, they would pursue legal action for slander. After this, I received another e-mail claiming I was harassing the chiropractor.

Months ago, I authored an extensive blog post in which I discussed many of the claims this chiropractor was making in his office literature, on his website, and on his radio show (he's quite the public figure who is 'fair game' for fair criticism).

This chiropractor, Dan Golaszewski, claims that his “ONLY PRACTICE OBJECTIVE is to eliminate a major interference to the expression of the body's God-given, innate wisdom […] the specific adjustment of vertebral subluxation.”

Dan, in his video embedded above, says that his “mission is to set you free from whatever health struggle you may be dealing with.” He claims that information on his website can help you “gain victory over any health condition you may be suffering from including cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, carpal tunnel syndrome, headaches, back pain, sciatica, fibromyalgia, and even weight loss.”

Additionally, on his radio show -- at least in his April 30 episode -- Dan Golaszewski warns people about 'toxic medications' because they can make the body a “toxic reservoir” and also says that vaccines, flu shots, and fluoride contain toxins that should be avoided. A disclaimer, though... Dan says he is not telling anyone to stop taking their medications. Mixed messages are the order of the day, it seems.

… and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

In the age of the internet, it's quite difficult to 'lie low' and avoid criticism – especially when persons make extraordinary claims, do not provide extraordinary evidence, and the science simply doesn't 'agree' with Dan.

Sending legal threats to people who criticize claims is not an intellectually honest way to deal with criticism – especially when the legal threats are baseless...and the story kept changing. First, the contention was that I was slandering Dan (when it could, if anything, be libel) and then the charge was that I was harassing [and the fiancee' said she had no problem with me expressing my ideas].

Those who have websites and radio shows should expect to receive criticism and should not complain when criticism arrives. Ignore it or respond to it, I suppose, but don't send legal threats. Oddly enough, Dan is quite happy to attack 'mainstream medicine,' but, apparently, people who criticize his own positions are out of order.

If there were merit to Dan's claims about health, he should not fear criticism, I would think, but rather be open to conversation and respond to claims. He made no effort to my knowledge to respond to the content of my criticism and neither did his fiancee'. All that was mustered were baseless legal threats which seemingly served the purpose of intimidating.

Dan's fiancee' said that he wasn't interested in debate...which is quite awkward because he welcomes anyone to call in his radio show and also welcomes e-mail. Perhaps, though, he only wants people to call in who agree with him or are not critical of his ideas? Perhaps criticism from skeptics is too much? Not all people, of course, want to debate or are good at debating, but refusal to even comment and/or respond to criticism seems quite odd coming from a radio show host who makes a living, to my knowledge, mainly on his claims relating to health. It is also quite strange that she says she wasn't interested in conversation but responded to my e-mail that responded to her e-mail.

---

Update:

Local author and blogger Kenny Luck has commented on this issue. If you happen to take Luck's 'challenge' and call Dan's radio show, please 'attack his ideas' and be respectful.

Don't make yourself look bad by being discourteous. Have an honest and productive discussion.

Pardon me, but when you are a public figure—with a weekly radio program and a public practice that provides services to the community—it’s not out-of-line to engage in open discourse. But “Dr. Dan” wants it both ways: he insists on the right to publicly recommend dubious medical treatments (he is against the vaccination of children, infuses religion into his practice, etc.) but threatens legal action against those who question him.

I encourage the public to become more informed about chiropractic, and call into Golaszewski’s radio show. Ask him—as a public figure and medical practitioner—why he refuses to talk to skeptics. After all, no one here is making personal attacks or libelous claims. Contrary to what the future Mrs. Golaszewski’s skewed understanding is of what constitutes “libel” or “slander.”

Call Dr. Dan Golaszewski on his radio show this Saturday and ask him to defend his religiously-infused medical claims. His show, "Maximize Your Health," airs on WILK-FM every Saturday from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. Call the show toll-free at 1.800.437.0098.

Additional note: For those not in Pennsylvania, 570-883-0098 is the number to call. You can also send a question to Dr. Dan here.

The radio show streams live online at www.wilknewsradio.com

PZ Myers weighs in on Dr. Dan debacle

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/14/dr-dan-golaszewski-is-a-quack/

--

December 14, 2011 at 2:27 pm PZ Myers

Once again, it’s time to call out a chiropractor. Not only is Dr Dan practicing a phony pretense of medicine, chiropractic, but he’s full of woo in other ways, too: his business is “Aligning spines and lifestyles with God’s ultimate intentions”, and he happily muddles together chiropractic mythology with his religious baloney — he believes that vertebral subluxion “results in a lessening of the body’s God-given, innate-ability to express its maximum health potential.” Chiropractors are awful enough, but chiropractors who actually babble about “subluxions”…run away. Run away very fast.

But here’s what prompts me to single this goon out today: in response to criticisms, he is threatening lawsuits. What is it with these woomeisters? Christopher Maloney, Burzynski, it’s a sure sign that you’re dealing with a delusional dingleberry when their reflex response to any criticism is to go running to the lawyers or start harrassing people’s employers to silence those who dare to question their methods (I’ve been hearing similar things about Chris Stedman’s lackeys lately, which doesn’t surprise me). I guess it comes with the territory: if you’re a purveyor of quackery or woo, you’re also likely to be chickenshit.

Chiropractor's fiancee' threatens me with legal action - Another e-mail

People who claim I am harassing them when I am not harassing them make me a very sad panda.

After my previous post -- Chiropractor's fiancee' threatens me with legal action -- was released, I sent the post to the person threatening legal action. If you didn't read it, please read it before continuing because this post won't make sense.

*
*
*

Here is the newest e-mail:

My issue is not about your freedom of speech. You can write whatever you wish to write about; that of course is your right as an American. The issue I have is you throwing it in our face and repeatedly attempting to make contact. Write whatever you wish. Posting a link directly onto his Facebook, e-mailing him,friend requesting him, calling into his radio show after you've been repeatedly ignored is harassment. We wish to have nothing to do with you. Write whatever you'd like to write, but please do not attempt to make contact . We ignored you initially hoping you would get the hint. There will be no debate. Your free to write whatever it is you would like to express; but please do not attempt to make contact. He nor I wish to engage in further conversation with you.

The claim of "throwing it in our face and repeatedly making contact" is baseless. She claims that "Posting a link directly onto his Facebook, e-mailing him, friend requesting him, calling into his radio show after you've been repeatedly ignored is harassment."

Here are the facts: Dr. Dan has a weekly radio show and asks people to send him e-mails and call in with any questions. I called the show one time and sent him an e-mail with my blog post critiquing him (at the time, there was only one).

I never posted a link directly on his Facebook - and I could not because the friend request never went through due to Dr. Dan blocking me. The friend request on Facebook was days ago and months after I was on the radio show one time and sent an e-mail one time. One can hardly claim harassment for a friend request, calling in a public radio show one time, and sending one e-mail.

Her timeline is way off; she claims that I called the radio show after being ignored and this is simply not true. Regardless, Dr. Dan has a radio show that invites callers on the air. I could understand if she claimed harassment after I called his office multiple times, contacted him on the internet, found his cell and/or phone number and kept calling, but this is simply not the case.

Even if I did repeatedly call in the radio show and send many e-mails, how does this constitute harassment when Dr. Dan is inviting people to call in his radio show and send e-mails. Dr. Dan never responded to my initial blog post with a "I don't want to talk to you message" and I was never asked to stop contacting him [although I only ever called his radio show once].

Further, how does ignoring someone somehow levy the message of "I don't want to be contacted and if you continue to contact, it is harassment?" I receive all sorts of e-mail and comments from people I might not want to talk to or respond to. They are free to continue sending e-mail and making comments and this is not harassment nor does my failure to respond constitute a message of "leave me alone and stop harassing me."

It is also quite strange that the threat went from potentially pursuing a charge of slander to harassment when the first e-mail never said anything about harassment. It's also interesting that she would respond to the e-mail I sent her with the blog post and continue to have a conversation with me if she didn't want to be contacted. I could understand, perhaps, if the first e-mail said something like, "I don't want you to contact me or Dr. Dan anymore" and that was it, but this simply is not the case.

Dr. Dan's fiancee' has no grounds whatsoever for charging me with harassment, slander, or libel...and since she's now apparently fine with me writing what I wish, I'm going to continue doing so. I would have liked for Dr. Dan (or his fiancee') to respond to the content my posts and show me why I am mistaken, but that has not happened. I even welcomed Dr. Dan to respond to the content of my posts.

Chiropractor's fiancee' threatens me with legal action

e

For those of you who do not know me, I am a skeptical blogger who has been writing since September of 2009. I mainly focus on topics, as my blog header indicates, dealing with atheism, theism, and philosophy.

This year, I've started writing about the claims a local chiropractor named Dr. Dan Golaszewski makes because I follow many science blogs and noted that Dr. Dan is injecting theological claims into his practice. My first post on Dr. Dan was on June 16 followed by an Examiner.com article on December 10 [with comments from Dr. Steve Novella] and most recently on December 13.

As is typically the case on my blog, my intention was to examine his claims and see if they had any merit (as I did). I did not, in any way, misrepresent his position or pull claims out of the sky, but rather took information from his radio show, his website, and from literature in his office. Despite this, the chiropracter's fiancee' sent me an e-mail last night at 8:08 PM:

... The reason I am e-mailing you is to request that you leave Dan and his practice alone. He will not be engaging in any debate or discussion with you, Kenny Luck, or affiliates. Your requests for answers aren't stemming from a genuine interest in Chiropractic, wellness, or healthcare; But rather a place of wanting to disprove. You seem like a very intelligent man and I respect you and your views. Please respect his. Dan is not forcing care or his beliefs on anyone. If a patient or potential patient does not agree with chiropractic; they leave, it's very simple. If the slanderous posts do not stop; He will be taking legal action. Many thanks for your understanding.

I was quite alarmed to read this because my treatment of Dr. Dan's claims has been more than charitable, I e-mailed him the initial blog post welcoming comments, and made sure that I took claims directly from him instead of simply pulling ideas out of the sky.

As a blogger and a writer, I have the freedom to write about what I want and who I want as long as I am not making false claims that may damage persons' reputations. I have, of course, freedom of speech as a United States citizen. I've responded to the claims of many people including Dr. Oz, William Lane Craig, John Haught, Bill Donohue, Rick Perry, Michael Voris, and many more. I have never received any threats of legal action from them and did not expect to.

The internet is an open forum in which people can share their ideas and, when doing so in a fair manner, should not fear legal action or otherwise a 'chilling effect' which should stop or threaten to stop persons from expressing their opinions and responding to others' opinions.

Dr. Dan has a radio show and a website in which he is more than happy to express his opinions and I, likewise, have a blog, an Examiner.com page, and a podcast in which I am happy to express my opinions. If we happen to disagree, we should be able to talk about our disagreement without threat of legal action. Dr. Dan, if he would like, is more than welcome to respond to any of my blog posts or spoken words, but he has not done so to my knowledge.

Returning to the e-mail...

Dr. Dan's fiancee' asks me to leave Dan and his practice alone. She can request this all she wants, but I'm not going to stop writing about what I want to write about. I want to respond to Dr. Dan's claims and express what I think about them. I have every right to do so.

She claims that I am genuinely not interested in chiropractic, wellness, or healthcare and notes that I am only interested in disproving. This claim has no merit and even if it were true, it would not matter. I started to write about Dr. Dan, anyway, precisely because I was interested in the claims he was making and decided to take some time to investigate his claims. After some research, I found many of the claims he made were dubious and had little to no merit, so I authored my findings in order to share with my readers.

She wants me to "respect" Dr. Dan's views and notes that he is not "forcing beliefs" on anyone. I don't see why I should be morally compelled or otherwise to "respect views." Views have no cognition and can not be offended. Further, disagreement is not disrespect. In the 'wide world of the internet,' claims are made and claims are responded to. If one wants 'beliefs respected,' one should probably not share his/her beliefs with the general public. In posts on Dr. Dan, I have identified claims that Dr. Dan has made and have responded to them. How is this 'disrespect?'

I'm not quite sure what 'forcing beliefs' means and how this is applicable. Regardless of whether Dr. Dan is forcing beliefs or not, I can and should respond to the claims he is making if I desire to do so. I write about many, many, many topics on this blog and am, in no way, 'singling out' Dr. Dan as a big target of this blog, but rather have authored two blog posts and an Examiner.com article dealing with Dr. Dan. If Dr. Dan wants to put his ideas in the public sphere, he should expect for his ideas to be critiqued; it should be no surprise when persons are responding to his claims. He is, after all, a public figure.

Additionally, I am not, in any way, forcing people to stop going to Dr. Dan's office, reading what he has to say, listening to his radio show, etc. I am merely responding to his claims and offering my take.

She notes that if people do not "agree with chiropractic" they leave [the office]. So be it. I, in fact, visited Dr. Dan's office during a free trial period, "did not agree," stayed for the spinal examination, and left. I went to find more information and further investigate the claims that were made. Indeed, no one is forced to stay in his office or assent to the claims Dr. Dan is presenting...and no one is forced to read my writing or assent to the claims I am making. Like Dr. Dan, I am presenting information for listeners/readers and the 'decision' is 'on them.' Persons have the ability to 'make up their own minds.' Welcome, Dr. Dan, to the internet.

The biggest claim, as you might image, is that I am slandering Dr. Dan in my posts. In a written format, there is no such thing as slander, but rather there may or may not be libel. In my posts, though, there is no libel. I take claims from Dr. Dan's radio show, website, and office literature and respond to them. I am not, in any way, slandering Dr. Dan nor am I libeling Dr. Dan.

In my original post, I wrote:

All of the statements I made about him and his works are not intended to defame him or cast him as a 'bad guy,' but rather are to critique his beliefs, his work, and his methods. Posting like this is protected free speech. I gave my readers examples and direct quotes from Dr. Dan's website, podcast, and from my visit to his office. I welcome feedback from Dr. Dan.

My criticisms and comments are not even unfounded. In a recent interview I had with Dr. Steve Novella of Yale University, Novella responded to Dr. Dan's claims. I, of course, am not a medical doctor, but Dr. Novella is. Here is some text from my Examiner.com article with comments from Dr. Novella:

Dr. Steve Novella -- clinical neurologist, Director of General Neurology at Yale University School of Medicine and host of The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast -- commenting specifically for this article, says that Golaszewski is “blurring the lines between medicine and faith healing” and explains that the sublaxation theory Golaszewski endorses "is pseudoscience, has not been demonstrated to exist, has no validity and is part of a pre-scientific superstitious belief system that has long ago been eclipsed by understanding of anatomy and physiology.”

Golaszewski, in the April 30, 2011 episode of his radio show, says that people should ask what they can do naturally to get off their "toxic medications" and notes that vaccines, flu shots and fluoride contain toxins that should be avoided. Golaszewski also says that “medications will not create a healthier body, but rather will create a sicker body” while also saying that people should continue taking medications and listen to their doctors. Dr. Novella notes that Golaszewski “wants to have it both ways and be protected from consequences.”

Dr. Novella says that “everything is a toxin at some dose, but the substances in vaccines are in small doses, safe, do not cause health problems and are studied extensively. There's no health risk at all. [Golaszewski] is scaring people without scientific backing.” Fluoride,” Dr. Novella notes, “ has been studied, makes people healthier, reduces cavities and poses no health risk at the level given.”

Golaszewski claims that “we were created for at least 80 years of incredible health and happiness” and also claims that “[o]ur bodies were created in perfect harmony and to sustain a state of balance, function, and healing” Dr. Novella says that this is “not based on anything” and says, “Prior to science-based medicine, we lived into our 40s and lived physically miserable lives. We now live to 80 because of science-based medicine.”

Dr. Novella explains, “Practitioners of 'alternative medicine' think they have the secrets, but they've made up superstitious nonsense. There is no secret information. If [Golaszewski] had actual knowledge of or demonstrated sublaxations, everyone would be doing it, but they are not because the evidence is against it.”

Dr. Dan and his fiancee' have no basis whatsoever to sue me for slander. As I blogger and an American citizen, if have the right to write about whatever I want and express my opinion. If persons happen to disagree with me or I happen to disagree with them, we can write about our disagreement.

As always, I encourage readers to share my content and am happy when they do.
I encourage my readers to share this post, my previous posts about Dr. Dan, and author their own criticisms of Dr. Dan's claims. Let Dr. Dan know that it is inappropriate to threaten legal action when people are sharing their opinions on the internet. If Dr. Dan can make claims, so can we.

My original blog post on Dr. Dan:
http://www.justinvacula.com/2011/06/my-skeptical-adventure-with.html

My Examiner.com article on Dr. Dan with comments from Dr. Steve Novella:
http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-scranton/dr-steve-novella-chiropractor-dan-golaszewski-practices-pseudoscience

Additionally, Kenny Luck was mentioned in the e-mail. Here is his post on Dr. Dan:
http://www.theluckreport.com/2011/12/chiropractic-quackery-dr-dan.html

Thanks.

Update:

I received another e-mail from Dr. Dan's fiancee', this time alleging that I am harassing Dr. Dan:
http://www.justinvacula.com/2011/12/chiropractors-fiance-threatens-me-with_14.html