1
A skeptic's take on the wireless debate
21 November 2010
I missed this post about the wireless debate when it was first written. Although a savvy reader brought it to my attention a couple of weeks ago, his email got lost in the cascade of email I get - 100 or more a day. When I was cleaning out my cache this morning I found it, and after reading it, thought I should share it because it relates to local issue.
It's from Skeptic North, a blog site about critical thinking, authored by a number of Canadians whose collective goal seem to be to wake reader up to some of the silliness that gets passed off as news, truth and fact. Some of the issues they have raised as dear to my own heart.
One post has this comment, "We use our brains to try to understand the world; logic is a fundamental part of understanding the world. But logic is not intrinsically part of our brains. We must learn to think logically. Thus, a logical deduction will not satisfy most believers. In that sense, being right is not enough."
Ah, refreshing and clear. I think I'll be a regular on this site from now on.
Anyway, read the piece linked above. I won't comment on it, but rather quote from one of the author's earlier posts on the wifi debate: "At the root of this is the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy: Symptoms appeared after the WiFi was activated, therefore the WiFi is to blame. No. First you have to actually identify that there even is an effect. Then you have to isolate all variables that you’re able to. If there are some you cannot control, then you cannot make a definitive claim of cause and effect... I’d like you to rethink this one: The kids exhibit symptoms during the week when they’re going to school, but they’re not exhibiting them during the weekend. Sometimes you don’t need to cite statistics and studies to figure some things out: you just need to remember how hard it was to be a kid in a world where adults tell you what to do, what to think, and in this case, what you’re feeling."
It's from Skeptic North, a blog site about critical thinking, authored by a number of Canadians whose collective goal seem to be to wake reader up to some of the silliness that gets passed off as news, truth and fact. Some of the issues they have raised as dear to my own heart.
One post has this comment, "We use our brains to try to understand the world; logic is a fundamental part of understanding the world. But logic is not intrinsically part of our brains. We must learn to think logically. Thus, a logical deduction will not satisfy most believers. In that sense, being right is not enough."
Ah, refreshing and clear. I think I'll be a regular on this site from now on.
Anyway, read the piece linked above. I won't comment on it, but rather quote from one of the author's earlier posts on the wifi debate: "At the root of this is the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy: Symptoms appeared after the WiFi was activated, therefore the WiFi is to blame. No. First you have to actually identify that there even is an effect. Then you have to isolate all variables that you’re able to. If there are some you cannot control, then you cannot make a definitive claim of cause and effect... I’d like you to rethink this one: The kids exhibit symptoms during the week when they’re going to school, but they’re not exhibiting them during the weekend. Sometimes you don’t need to cite statistics and studies to figure some things out: you just need to remember how hard it was to be a kid in a world where adults tell you what to do, what to think, and in this case, what you’re feeling."
There's an interesting followup on the WiFi phobia on the Skeptic North blog for 26 August 2010. Its titled "Further down the WiFi rabbit hole I go!"