ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 28th December 2009, 06:50 PM   #1
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,405
The scientific language of uncertainty and anti-vax perception

This morning I was watching a hearing on CSPAN2 led by Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, Funding Autism Research, original hearing was 8-5-09. Harkin is a promoter of antivaxxer woo that vaccines cause autism.

The program is 2 hours 13 minutes long but the pertinent part is 10 minutes long and can be found starting at minute 25 and ends at minute 35. This is the exchange between Harkin and the director of the National Institute of Mental Health, Dr Thomas Insel.

Much of the rest of the hearing was typical anecdotal evidence testimony. [sidetrack]One of the people testifying was a woman who claimed her child had the mitochondrial problem some of you may recall. That was the bogus claim the Mayo Clinic researcher used to get vaccine compensation funding awarded. There was a lot of unethical and scientifically questionable behavior on the part of the researcher using his own data on his own child to make this claim for big bucks compensation.[/sidetrack]

So the director of the NIMH is testifying. He brings up the fact there are less antigens in more vaccines so that despite the fact kids get more vaccines today than in the past, they actually get far fewer antigens (the thing that the immune system attacks).

Harkin just doesn't get what Insel was saying about the number of vaccines not being the issue, the number of antigens is. Insel doesn't appear as familiar with the anti-vaxxer arguments and beliefs and gives up trying to explain the antigen issue and moves on to Harkin's other concern, the claim there are no studies that dis-prove a link between vaccine and autism. Ignoring the issue because Harkin didn't understand was annoying enough.

But then even though Insel goes on to make it clear there was overwhelming evidence that there is no connection between vaccines and autism, Insel is oblivious to Harkin's ignorance and ends up reinforcing the belief either "we don't know" or "the data isn't definitive".

Harkin makes it clear he believes "we don't know" and says so. Listen to the ineffective way Insel presents the data we do have. Insel uses technically appropriate language that randomized controlled prospective clinical trials have not been done. Insel seems to think it was important to discuss why such trials were unethical, I think because he expects the point one cannot withhold vaccines to be obvious.

In presenting this particular issue, the inability to do RCCTs, Insel fails to emphasize the evidence we do have is more than sufficient. He gets the information out there but doesn't counter the fact Harkin is tuning that information out and selecting the uncertainty language of science as reinforcing Harkin's pre-established beliefs.

I think anyone interested in communicating science and countering the woo beliefs of the anti-vaxxer crowd should watch this 10 minute exchange paying particular attention to the way Harkin misses the points being made and how the way Insel presents the data contributes to Harkin's reinforcing his misinformation.



I don't know if medical experts like Insel believe giving credence to the antivaxxer beliefs is somehow going to get the antivaxxer to trust the expert, or if the expert is oblivious to the message they are sending when they use the typical uncertainty language of science.

Before the thread gets sidetracked, I am not advocating anything like overstating the evidence. I'm not advocating we propagandize our positions. I am however, pointing out that every method of presenting evidence accurately is not equal.

In the case of this exchange, Insel did not stop Harkin from ignoring the antigen issue. Clearly we need a simpler means of getting that information across to someone who only understands number of vaccines.

And the issue of no RCCTs did not need to be emphasized. Rather, Insel should have emphasized the validity of epidemiological data. Harkin didn't seem to think we had unvaccinated groups to compare vaccinated kids to or that we could use timing of diagnosis and other indicators to determine if there was any relationship between vaccines and autism. Insel didn't seem to pick up on that and address it.

And if we are going to coddle the woo believers then we need some studies to determine if this is productive or not. I have seen more than one vaccine expert dealing with the anti-vaxxers using this approach. I don't think you have to legitimize their beliefs in order to legitimize their person. I think it only serves to reinforce the woo beliefs. But seeing public health experts use this approach suggests they may know something about dealing with the antivaxxer beliefs that I do not. Or it could just be they are using the typical medical provider approach to a patient and I'm not so sure that is the best technique with the antivaxxer with a cause as opposed to just the average patient with some misconception.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 28th December 2009 at 06:55 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2009, 09:14 PM   #2
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,405
This is a complex subject, but I'm sure there will be an interest if people understand what it is about. So I'm bumping the thread.

Dr Insel failed to address Senator Harkin's anti-vax beliefs. It's so obvious to me.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2009, 10:16 PM   #3
Uncayimmy
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,345
I found your post difficult/unpleasant to follow. I didn't finish it either time. I ran it through this program and learned that it was probably just over my head since it appears to be written at a 12th grade level or higher. There might be something interesting there, but it just didn't seem worth the effort.
Uncayimmy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2009, 01:18 PM   #4
LarianLeQuella
Elf Wino
 
LarianLeQuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,067
I'd like to post this on a site that I have set up to fight the anit-vax pro-disease nutters. May I with attribution and link back here?
LarianLeQuella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2009, 06:05 PM   #5
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,405
Originally Posted by LarianLeQuella View Post
I'd like to post this on a site that I have set up to fight the anit-vax pro-disease nutters. May I with attribution and link back here?
Absolutely. However, I am considering restarting the thread with a new title:

"Communicating science, it is not just about using lay vocabulary"

When I first got interested in this problem I searched under the tag, "communicating science" and all I found were sites addressing how to dumb down the technical language in order to communicate science to lay people. But what I was really looking for was, how are we addressing the barriers to communication, and are science aficionados even aware where their communication is going wrong?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2009, 10:13 PM   #6
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,549
the whole "no connection between autism and vaccines has been found" line can indeed be a problem. As stated, it could be heard as "the connection between autism and vaccines has not been found" with the key concept being "there is a connection between autism and vaccines and autism but we haven't found it."

Now, the original statement is absolutely correct scientifically, but I understand skeptigirl's point about how it could be distorted or misused. It would be more effective to say "there is no found connection between autism and vaccines" or something like that. Saying "no connection has been found" can imply that there is a connection, it is just lost.
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2009, 11:18 PM   #7
TheDaver
hairy farting brute
 
TheDaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 970
The problem isn’t communication, the problem is that – like with many woos – these people are more interested in maintaining their position than they are in any actual truth.

I prefer to come right out and say there is no connection.

It’s not scientifically correct, but it’s what fence-sitters and reasonable people need to hear – because with the current state of knowledge it’s much, much closer to the truth than the anti-vaxers’ position.
__________________
>>>--------------->
TheDaver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2009, 11:54 PM   #8
JWideman
Graduate Poster
 
JWideman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,233
To be fair, it's impossible to reason with stupid. I learned this when trying to reason with a racist who justified his hatred by describing black people as "lazy, drug-using, dirty criminals". Providing examples of people we both knew who were nothing like this was a waste of time - he'd simply insist I didn't know what these individuals were really like.
JWideman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 01:39 AM   #9
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,405
Originally Posted by TheDaver View Post
The problem isnít communication, the problem is that Ė like with many woos Ė these people are more interested in maintaining their position than they are in any actual truth.

I prefer to come right out and say there is no connection.

Itís not scientifically correct, but itís what fence-sitters and reasonable people need to hear Ė because with the current state of knowledge itís much, much closer to the truth than the anti-vaxersí position.
Yes, woos are bent on maintaining their position.

But either you believe there is nothing that can be done about it, in which case why are we here? Or, you problem solve like you do with any other problem in science. You identify the problem, develop hypotheses to address it, test them and repeat if they fail.

My point in this thread is to provide an example to observe. You see a scientist who doesn't appear to recognize that providing the 'facts' he is providing is perhaps not the thing he needs to do to address the knowledge deficit of Senator Harkin.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 01:41 AM   #10
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,405
Originally Posted by JWideman View Post
To be fair, it's impossible to reason with stupid. I learned this when trying to reason with a racist who justified his hatred by describing black people as "lazy, drug-using, dirty criminals". Providing examples of people we both knew who were nothing like this was a waste of time - he'd simply insist I didn't know what these individuals were really like.
So you too suggest there is nothing that we can do better? I don't see it that way.

I see where Dr Insel goes wrong in this exchange.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 11:04 PM   #11
Uncayimmy
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,345
Originally Posted by skeptigirl View Post
So you too suggest there is nothing that we can do better? I don't see it that way.

I see where Dr Insel goes wrong in this exchange.
I didn't watch the video (sorry, but that form if input is too slow for me), and I had trouble following your opening post, so I apologize in advance if my comments are off the mark.

The problem seems to me to be not really knowing your audience. I think one issue is that scientists and skeptics in general (myself included) tend to want to explain things in detail and lay down a solid foundation of evidence when the audience is looking for the CliffsNotes. Another issue is that those of us who participate in forums like this or who regularly deal with scientific types try to acknowledge all the gaps and nuances in advance so that their positions cannot be attacked. Instead of saying that the radiation from smoke detectors is harmless, we want to explain alpha particles, the inverse square law, and how if every home in the world had a smoke detector that there would probably be a few extra cases of cancer but in reality it would be virtually impossible to detect the increase statistically blah blah blah.

I've spent many years developing software. I learned early on that the answers people wanted me to give were not the answers I was giving. What I do now is ask people if they want the TV news answer, magazine article answer or the textbook answer. Most people want the simple answer. It took a number of people over the years saying, "you're gonna make my head explode" before I caught on.

I've also found that metaphors can be very useful. For example, when designing software, I often refer to home construction. I might point out that depending on their needs, I can use nails or bolts. Nails are faster, but if you want to change things later, you have to tear things apart. Bolts take longer, but they allow for much easier changes down the road. Sometimes I refer to refrigerators and point out that while they may not want one with a water and ice maker now, will they want one later? If so, it's better if run a water line before I hang the drywall. Otherwise, it's going to be a lot of work to do it later.

So, without understanding much about software design, they get the basic idea of what I'm driving at. Fortunately, I'm already the expert in their eyes. Unfortunately, scientists sometimes fail to realize that they are the experts and that it's okay to rely on your credentials in situations like that. Obviously, I'd never use the water line metaphor with my fellow software developers, but with them I can use our own language to explain what I mean.

When it comes to popular media, I think scientists and other experts need to concentrate more on presenting solid conclusions that are understood by laypersons rather than trying to present something that is going to stand up to the rigors of peer review, if you catch my drift.
Uncayimmy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2009, 11:48 PM   #12
JWideman
Graduate Poster
 
JWideman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,233
Originally Posted by skeptigirl View Post
So you too suggest there is nothing that we can do better? I don't see it that way.

I see where Dr Insel goes wrong in this exchange.
I'm suggesting that certain people have already made up their minds and can't be reasoned with.
JWideman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2010, 01:39 AM   #13
Uncayimmy
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,345
Originally Posted by JWideman View Post
I'm suggesting that certain people have already made up their minds and can't be reasoned with.
I agree, so don't bother with them. In my opinion the vast majority are in the middle with skeptics/scientists on one side and True Believers on the other fighting for these souls. It's a waste of energy to go after the True Believers, so the idea is to present effective arguments to those in the middle. The worst way to do that is to let the True Believers control the battle.
Uncayimmy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2010, 02:01 AM   #14
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,405
Originally Posted by JWideman View Post
I'm suggesting that certain people have already made up their minds and can't be reasoned with.
And I'm suggesting we haven't tried enough hypotheses out to draw that conclusion. We mostly only try one, that all you need do is provide the knowledge and people will get it.

What we neglect to consider is maybe the problem is not a knowledge deficit, and maybe the way we are presenting the knowledge is the barrier, rather than the problem being at the receiving end.

While it may seem obvious you cannot change people who are convinced of some irrational belief, do we really know that? Have we really tried different approaches before we drew that conclusion or did we draw it after only trying one approach? Have we recorded any exchanges and gone back to evaluate the exchange?

And have we evaluated the effect the exchange has on lurkers? Even if you thought Harkin, in the case of the OP example, was a lost cause, are people who watched that exchange who hadn't made up their minds going to come away recognizing the science message or is the uncertainty going to be reinforced?

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 1st January 2010 at 02:04 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2010, 03:24 AM   #15
RPG Advocate
Critical Thinker
 
RPG Advocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 281
Originally Posted by skeptigirl View Post
And I'm suggesting we haven't tried enough hypotheses out to draw that conclusion. We mostly only try one, that all you need do is provide the knowledge and people will get it.

What we neglect to consider is maybe the problem is not a knowledge deficit, and maybe the way we are presenting the knowledge is the barrier, rather than the problem being at the receiving end.
The problem with this is that by knowingly presenting the information in some "new way" other than on its plain scientific merits, you insiduously distort the information with framing effects. While it's impossible to completely excise framing effects from any information, deliberately using them to impart scientific information is unethical.

Harkin's (willful?) misinterpretation of Dr. Insel's points will probably be more effective in the short term, but at some point in the future, the idea of vaccine/autism "connection" will be pretty much universally laughed at*, because science has the long-term advantage.

* Keep in mind that most people don't even take the anti-vax stuff seriously now. Vaccine uptake rates are still quite high.

Last edited by RPG Advocate; 1st January 2010 at 03:27 AM.
RPG Advocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2010, 03:47 AM   #16
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,405
Originally Posted by RPG Advocate View Post
The problem with this is that by knowingly presenting the information in some "new way" other than on its plain scientific merits, you insiduously distort the information with framing effects. While it's impossible to completely excise framing effects from any information, deliberately using them to impart scientific information is unethical.

Harkin's (willful?) misinterpretation of Dr. Insel's points will probably be more effective in the short term, but at some point in the future, the idea of vaccine/autism "connection" will be pretty much universally laughed at*, because science has the long-term advantage.

* Keep in mind that most people don't even take the anti-vax stuff seriously now. Vaccine uptake rates are still quite high.
You repeat a typical but not valid reaction. Do you think Dr Insel had many choices he could have emphasized in his answer to Harkin, or was Insel obligated for some reason to address the lack of randomized controlled prospective clinical trials?

Why is it that so many skeptics and scientists equate the science of communication with falsified slanting of information? It's like confusing skepticism with cynicism. It isn't true.

Harkin was expressing doubt that we've got enough data now to exclude vaccines as causing autism. But we do have that data and the evidence is sufficiently persuasive. Insel was excited to tell what he knew, randomized vaccine trials in kids were unethical. That is not what Insel needed to share with Harkin.

I would have said why the epidemiological studies were more than sufficient. I would have said there were enough unvaccinated kids in the data pool because we could find kids who had had vaccines delayed. I would have said we are diagnosing autism now well before the vaccines are being given that supposedly triggered the autism. I would have said Andrew Wakefield has been discredited as having faked his data. I would have said the anti-vaxxers keep shifting the goal post every time they've been proved wrong. I would have said the evidence suggests very clearly we are wasting research dollars to continue to coddle the beliefs of people who will not accept the science. We'd be better off trying to educate those people. Their concerns are important even if they are not valid concerns. But uninformed people should not be forcing us to waste scarce research dollars.

There are so many things one could have said besides reinforcing Harkin's misconceptions by discussing randomized clinical trials. Harken didn't even understand the issue of antigens in vaccines. How would he understand the fine points regarding the difference between epidemiological research and RCCTs?

None of those things I would have said would have been false or slanted or unethical to say. Harkin did not bring up the lack of randomized controlled clinical trials. Harken seemed to doubt credible epidemiological research existed. But it does exist. Insel did not 'hear' what Harkin was saying. Insel may have been less familiar with the antivaxxer standard arguments. He was unprepared to address them. Harkin is a known anti-vaxxer proponent. He has an autistic grandchild and children that believe vaccines cause autism.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 1st January 2010 at 04:02 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2010, 08:34 AM   #17
Beth
Philosopher
 
Beth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,596
Originally Posted by RPG Advocate View Post
The problem with this is that by knowingly presenting the information in some "new way" other than on its plain scientific merits, you insiduously distort the information with framing effects. While it's impossible to completely excise framing effects from any information, deliberately using them to impart scientific information is unethical.
Why would that be unethical? I can see that framing in order to deliberately mislead would be unethical, but that isn't what SG is talking about.
__________________
Beth
"You are not the stuff of which you are made."
Richard Dawkins, July 2005, 10:45

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_daw..._universe.html
Beth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2010, 01:21 PM   #18
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
 
Eos of the Eons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,626
Originally Posted by skeptigirl View Post
You repeat a typical but not valid reaction. Do you think Dr Insel had many choices he could have emphasized in his answer to Harkin, or was Insel obligated for some reason to address the lack of randomized controlled prospective clinical trials?

Why is it that so many skeptics and scientists equate the science of communication with falsified slanting of information? It's like confusing skepticism with cynicism. It isn't true.

Harkin was expressing doubt that we've got enough data now to exclude vaccines as causing autism. But we do have that data and the evidence is sufficiently persuasive. Insel was excited to tell what he knew, randomized vaccine trials in kids were unethical. That is not what Insel needed to share with Harkin.

I would have said why the epidemiological studies were more than sufficient. I would have said there were enough unvaccinated kids in the data pool because we could find kids who had had vaccines delayed. I would have said we are diagnosing autism now well before the vaccines are being given that supposedly triggered the autism. I would have said Andrew Wakefield has been discredited as having faked his data. I would have said the anti-vaxxers keep shifting the goal post every time they've been proved wrong. I would have said the evidence suggests very clearly we are wasting research dollars to continue to coddle the beliefs of people who will not accept the science. We'd be better off trying to educate those people. Their concerns are important even if they are not valid concerns. But uninformed people should not be forcing us to waste scarce research dollars.

There are so many things one could have said besides reinforcing Harkin's misconceptions by discussing randomized clinical trials. Harken didn't even understand the issue of antigens in vaccines. How would he understand the fine points regarding the difference between epidemiological research and RCCTs?

None of those things I would have said would have been false or slanted or unethical to say. Harkin did not bring up the lack of randomized controlled clinical trials. Harken seemed to doubt credible epidemiological research existed. But it does exist. Insel did not 'hear' what Harkin was saying. Insel may have been less familiar with the antivaxxer standard arguments. He was unprepared to address them. Harkin is a known anti-vaxxer proponent. He has an autistic grandchild and children that believe vaccines cause autism.
That is the number one frustration when these experts go in to address antivax concerns. They get a blib on the topic, but don't have a clue what antivaxxers are actually going to dump on them when they get there. This same thing happened on "The Doctors". One doctor just looked kind of stunned at the idiocy, but not knowing how deal with it just made him look stupid. Another doctor just thought they needed more non-layperson fact info, but wasn't at all ready for the stupid they threw back at him for that.

It's like having a debate on whether or not the sun goes around the earth. You won't be at all prepared the level of stupid information thrown at you, and countering with reality doesn't address the stupid.

You have to learn and address the stupid, and maybe get a chance for reality if you can shut the stupid up for five seconds. Preparation.

Skeptigirl, put yourself out there, and get yourself on these debates! Please please please please!

Yeah, don't ask me how, it's not like a layperson like me would ever try it
__________________
Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it.
the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey
my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke
The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it!
Eos of the Eons is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2010, 01:22 AM   #19
TheDaver
hairy farting brute
 
TheDaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 970
Originally Posted by skeptigirl View Post
Or, you problem solve like you do with any other problem in science. You identify the problem, develop hypotheses to address it, test them and repeat if they fail.
Woo is like a disease. When it’s incurable, there are still measures you can take to prevent its spread.
__________________
>>>--------------->
TheDaver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.