Where has Cectic been all my life? These are some funny cartoons, and all are skeptical! It takes on homeopathy, psychics, religion, the Moon Hoax, cranks, and, well, let me just point you to this one:
I know, it’s schadenfreude, but who can resist? Besides, it’s closer to the truth than anything RCH has ever said.
Pirillo, you listening?
There are so many jokes to make here! "Wrong moon!" or "That’s no moon…" or "That’s no face, it’s a butte!" (my standard joke)…
I do take exception to this one though:
Obviously, astronomy and biology are totally different, and no self-respecting astronomer would be caught dead in a cartoon next to a cephalopodufascist or do anything to help them out. Usually. But at least the cartoon put astronomy first.
Tip o’ the tentacle to BABloggee Tim Farley!
October 13th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Great! Something else for me to waste time on via the web-tubes!!
Thanks BA.
PS. Didn’t we all think that about Hoagland before seeing the comic anyway?
October 13th, 2007 at 10:50 am
This one reminded me of the basic stance of more than a few ATM posters on the discussion board over the years:
http://cectic.com/030.html
October 13th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Hahahahaha! That Hoagland one was hilarious!
October 13th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Took me about 2 minutes to understand it. Why the word “Cosmos” and “Life” is used with the pronoun “she”? Just curious.
BTW, in my native language (Russian) the word “Cosmos” is in masculine gender and requires pronoun “he”.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
[…] (thanks to Phil for introducing me to this excellent webcomic) […]
October 13th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Phil, thanks for helping me spend an hour of my saturday morning clicking the ‘next’ button and not marking my stack of evolution tests!
Thants.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Hahahahahahahahaha!I’d like to meet that cartoonist. We seem to have the same sense of humor. For example, I think of your Planet X debunking when I hear this song:
“If someone said three years from now
We’d be long gone
I’d stand up and punch them out
‘Cause they’re all wrong!”
And I think the “she” is to make fun of Cousteau.
October 13th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
The Sylvia Brown cartoon about padding her predictions with apple falling down is good too.
October 13th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Love the comic. Thanks BA.
October 13th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Excellent site, Phil!
If you browse through them, you’ll see one comic pays homage to a scene from the final episode of ST: TNG.
Oh, and on that one comic you show us, astronomy is put before biology, but it isn’t first in the whole comic. Geology is.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
That guy is going on the blog reader next to User Friendly and XKCD!
October 13th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
I see PZs been getting to you again, damn biologists….
October 13th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Cyberax, in English traditionally if one is talking about the forces of nature but not the big o’God, you use she as most nature gods of old were female. But it’s a custom not the rule.
Gravity is a harsh mistress.
October 13th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
[…] to Bad Astronomy for alerting me to the cartoons of Cectic (I still haven’t figured out how to pronounce […]
October 13th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
http://cectic.com/005.html
October 13th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
[…] o’the hat to Phil at Bad Astronomy Blog for this gorgeously sceptical bright cartoon: […]
October 13th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
“But at least the cartoon put astronomy first.”
And saved the best for last, Phil?
October 13th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
So, did any non-Canadians get this one ?
October 13th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
It appears I don’t know how to embed a link but I’ll try again.
http://cectic.com/027.html
October 13th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
[…] Via: Bad Astronomy […]
October 13th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Hey, no dissing our molluscan friends.
October 13th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
While I like the comic, I don’t understand this guy’s problem with Chiropractic… many Chiropractors view their subject much more scientifically than it was viewed in the past, they are like better-trained physical therapists.
I mean, the AMA even says that Chiropractic therapy can be beneficial, and their opinion far outweighs this guy’s.
Seems a bit harsh to lump them in with Homoeopathy, Hogland, etc., when they actually behave in ways appropriate to the medical community.
October 13th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Yes, but first and foremost, there was geology. We win.
October 14th, 2007 at 1:16 am
I found some of the cartoons truly hilarious, but others I found to be really mean-spirited. I consider myself skeptical of pseudo-science and the claims of religious literalists who claim that their spiritual traditions can explain the physical world. At the same time, unfortunately, the ideology that I sense from the “cectic†cartoons is one that alienates me from feeling any commonality with the skeptic movement as it is often presented: a hubris that physical science, especially as it is understood today (or at any given time), contains the totality of all that is true. It also radiated a mocking dismissiveness of anything that doesn’t conform to both its paradigm and its body of knowledge. I cannot hold with the concept that everything in “traditional†(non allopathic) medicine for instance, is nothing more than superstition, and persons who use non-allopathic forms are fools to be mocked. In fact, modern medical treatment has often learned from the practice of traditional cultures, and I am skeptical of a point of view which seems to suggest that the only valid medical treatments issue from the labs of big Pharma. Similarly, I cannot accept the point of view (repeatedly and rather viciously evinced in these cartoons) that anything to do with the spiritual or metaphysical must be definitively untrue. I can accept that metaphysical explanations are not a reasonable recourse to explain physical phenomena, but it does not follow from that that physical science can necessarily be used to explain or “debunk†metaphysical concepts. In my opinion, science cannot prove that a “godhead†doesn’t exist, it can only prove that such a godhead cannot be detected or measured as a physical (natural) phenomena. Generally, I hate to find myself put into the same category as religious true believers or pseudo-science advocates, but I also am repulsed by the concept that skepticism means positive rejection of any concept not currently included in the canon of science as it exists today. Am I credulous or superstitious? I don’t think so. I simply have the philosophy that we do not know all knowledge, that there are things that may yet be learned, and that skepticism (as I think I practice it) is not synonymous with general dismissiveness and a self-conceited superiority. This, I fear, makes me a “bad skeptic†in some of your eyes; so flame away, I guess.
October 14th, 2007 at 1:56 am
> Visitor
Personally, I think part of the reasoning behind the dislike of these groups stems from their insistence that scientists are part of some evil conspiracy.
October 14th, 2007 at 6:25 am
TAMU student,
From what I gathered, it didn’t stab at chiropractors in general, but more at those that use acupuncture or some other non-medical means of “therapy”.
Visitor,
The attacks on the metaphysical, “godheads”, ect, seem mostly to stem because people use such beliefs to reject what science teaches us about the universe.
Also, there are those that use people’s beliefs in such things to make money for themselves or to take advantage of a person’s situation, or to make a name for themselves. Often, it may be one or more of these things.
The point that I get is to not take such concepts seriously. There are plenty of mysteries left in our universe without our own desire to believe in “godheads”, ect, to add to confusion.
October 14th, 2007 at 7:57 am
AND it’s compatible with GOOGLE reader!
October 14th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Here is a link to some cartoon made in Germany about the year 1900. They might be of interest here as they are strangely prescient of the current conflict with creationists. They show Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden having sex with dinosaurs:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Lesbika/LostParadise
Before you look at them at work, again, bear in mind that they show Adam and Eve having sex with dinosaurs.
October 14th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Great, just added to my feeds list.
And I’ve lol’ed: http://cectic.com/019.html
October 14th, 2007 at 10:09 am
In regard to Visitor’s perspective. I feel a bit the same about the cartoon Mallard Fillmore, sometimes the conservative cartoonist of that comic is right on and very funny, sometimes I find myself laughing at him or commonly rolling my eyes. The notion that religious belief should be exempt from normal skeptical analysis is common but I don’t agree. For example the CSICOP organization splits its periodicals into Free Inquiry (the atheist periodical) and Skeptical Inquirer (usually doesn’t touch religion in any way). In my opinion the more sacred cows slaughtered on the altar of reason the better.
October 14th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I guess I am the only person left in the world who doesn’t automatically click on every link I see as soon as I see it, because I looked at the single panel shown of the Hoagland cartoon for some time thinking, “I. Don’t. Get. It.”
October 14th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Evidently the German Eden drawings are based on the idea that before the fall, Adam and Eve could do anything except eat that special fruit. In one or two, I wasn’t quite certain what was going on.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:59 am
Some good points there, although I’m not so sure about chiropractors. Here (New Zealand), chiropractice is thought of by most people as a form of physiotherapy. I assume physiotherapy is considered of some merit in North America?
(I wouldn’t recommend letting anyone twist your spine about unless you are really sure that they are qualified to do so, though!)
October 15th, 2007 at 6:45 am
This one reminded me of the campaign to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide:
http://cectic.com/055.html
Ronn!: If you “don’t get it”, you must not have been reading this site for very long…
October 15th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Great cartoon for “Ghost Hunters”. He nailed that one. But that’s kinda what all “woo” believers do- ascribe what they can’t explain to what they already believe.
October 15th, 2007 at 9:10 am
“Here (New Zealand), chiropractice is thought of by most people as a form of physiotherapy. ”
This is excellent advertising/misdirection on the part of the chiropractic industry. A lot of people tend to think that, because Chiropractors manipulate your spine, they are therefore only concerned with back injuries. This is not, however, what they do: they believe that the manipulation of the back re-aligns “chakras” which promote or block the flow of energy, in much the same way that an acupuncturist believes that needles re-direct the flow of “chi”/”qi” energy.
And, much like acupuncture and homoeopathy, the practitioner believes that a chiropractic can cure an endless list of ailments.
The success of the chiropractic silence on many of these matters has resulted in many people thinking that it is simply a branch of osteopathy.
October 15th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Best so far: http://cectic.com/045.html
October 15th, 2007 at 11:06 am
I won’t presume to speak on all chiropractors - but the few I have had (peripheral) knowledge of. A good friend of mine has a rather rare degenerative bone disease. The doctors when he was growing up missed it completely, ascribing his problems to bad posture.
it’s very painful, and - in the end - terminal if not addressed.
Worse, it’s hereditary - both is father and son have it.
I’m not passing this on to you to play with your emotions… it’s background.
In the case of his father, it presented late in life and the doctors were able to do something about it (sure,it required surgery, and will again, but his quality of life is normal, and he’s expected to not die from it.
In the case of the son, I fear for his life. The boy lives with his mother, who in a marvelous demonstration of turning a blind eye to the facts, insists there’s nothing wrong. And her chiropractors - WHO KNOW THE FAMILY HISTORY - agree. (I say chiropractorS, because she’s gone to 3 or 4 in the past 8 years - changing when her current favorite proves to be ineffectual. What’s that saw about repetition and insanity?)
I can deal with the denial on her part, she’s lay, under educated, and clearly unwilling to face facts. But the Chiropractors I condemn wholeheartedly and moneygrubbing charletans worthy of nothing but scorn. if they were honest in their beliefs and actually thought of themselves as medical people, they’d not hesitate to refer the case to another doctor.
So, based on an admittedly short base line, I extropolate and declare all chiropractors liars, thieves, and charletans. Be damned to them all.
Visitor, Completely ignoring our differing opinions regarding chiropractors, I think pointed attacks on unproven concepts are entirely valid. It may come across as mean-spirited (and may even be meant that way ) but it serves a purpose. If you simply pan the idea, or just offer polite amusement, you aren’t getting the other side *involved*. Ideally, heaping ridicule and scorn on the idea will get *some* of the adherents to actually buckle down and prepare to defend their beliefs. Generally, this means acquiring data and information. Many of these people aren’t stupid - they just haven’t thought their position through. Make them mad, and they just might.
In my usual roundabout way, I’m pointing out that, when it comes down to the final analysis, this is a war, and only a fool fights a war with a single bullet.
October 15th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Re: DennyMo,
I guess I didn’t make my earlier comment clear.
I am very familiar with the claims of Richard C. Hoagland (as well as those of Velikovsky, von Daniken, von Flanderen, the Heaven’s Gate group, etc. — as anyone who teaches general astronomy these days needs to be to answer questions on those topics from students and the general public). In fact (sorry, Phil!) I was very familiar with Hoagland and his claims wrt the “face” on Mars, the pyramids, the billion-year-old “ruins of crystal domes” on the Moon, the position of Orion as seen from the Apollo 11 landing site, the “special” properties of the number 19.5, etc., years before I first heard of the Bad Astronomer. When I got the BA blog e-mail yesterday and read “These are some funny cartoons […] let me just point you to this one,” however, my initial thought was that the >>> single panel shown there >> entire cartoon >> must
October 15th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
(Hmm, that didn’t work. Trying again.)
Re: DennyMo,
I guess I didn’t make my earlier comment clear.
I am very familiar with the claims of Richard C. Hoagland (as well as those of Velikovsky, von Daniken, von Flanderen, the Heaven’s Gate group, etc. — as anyone who teaches general astronomy these days needs to be to answer questions on those topics from students and the general public). In fact (sorry, Phil!) I was very familiar with Hoagland and his claims wrt the “face†on Mars, the pyramids, the billion-year-old “ruins of crystal domes†on the Moon, the position of Orion as seen from the Apollo 11 landing site, the “special†properties of the number 19.5, etc., years before I first heard of the Bad Astronomer. When I got the BA blog e-mail yesterday and read “These are some funny cartoons […] let me just point you to this one,†however, my initial thought was that the *single panel shown there* was the entire cartoon and since it seemed to be a simple statement of face (”Richard Hoagland says Mars has a face.”) I spent awhile examining the panel closely to try to find the punch line hidden somewhere in that panel which I obviously must have been overlooking . . .
October 17th, 2007 at 9:29 am
John W. said:
> This is excellent advertising/misdirection on the part of the chiropractic industry. A lot of people tend to think that, because Chiropractors manipulate your spine, they are therefore only concerned with back injuries. This is not, however, what they do: they believe that the manipulation of the back re-aligns “chakras†which promote or block the flow of energy, in much the same way that an acupuncturist believes that needles re-direct the flow of “chiâ€/â€qi†energy.
This is correct. A lot of people think that as podiatrists are “foot doctors” and cardiologists are “heart doctors”, so chiropractors are “back doctors”. This is false, but something that chiropractic takes advantage of.
Chiropractic is Reflexology for the back instead of the foot.
TAMU Student said:
> … many Chiropractors view their subject much more scientifically than it was viewed in the past, they are like better-trained physical therapists.
While it may be true that some chiropractors view things “more scientifically”, but chiropractic itself is founded on mystical nonsense.
> I mean, the AMA even says that Chiropractic therapy can be beneficial, and their opinion far outweighs this guy’s.
Some scientific study has shown chiropractic to be beneficial in limited use. The limited use? Control of mild lower back pain. The studies showed chiropractic to be about as effective as stretching and exercise or massage. Now let’s examine further. Pain is a subjective experience - there is no independent way to measure it. All pain treatment is measured by “rate your pain experience” - self evaluation. Subjective experience is the type of condition most succeptible to placebo effects. Low back pain is one of those widespread ailments with limited recourse. Note that the two mainstream medical treatments essentially involve stretching and massage. Chiropractic as implemented is essentially stretching and massage. Popping the back consists of applying pressure in the region, and perhaps twisting. It is, therefore, questionable that the underlying methodology and theory of chiropractic is what is responsible for the effectiveness of treatment in these limited cases. It is likely that the benefits are largely coincidental through similarity of results, or else placebo.
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chiro.html
Now consider that many (most?) chiropractors do not limit their practice to merely spinal manipulation. Chiropractors have a tendency to engage in a whole slew of “alternative and complementary” practices of questionable validity. These include homeopathy, applied kinesiology, contact reflex analysis, and herbal supplements. Some chiropractors can be anti-medicine, claiming the spinal alignment is the true means to fight disease and illness. They can also be anti-vaccination.
Quackwatch does include an article from a “rational chiropractor”.
http://www.chirobase.org/07Strategy/goodchiro.html
This article describes a chiropractic practice that eschews the roots of chiropractic (spinal alignment is the cause of disease), cautions against excessive use of spinal adjustments, and limits chiropractic to musculo-skeletal issues. The descriptions sound like they are basically physiotherapy. If this is the “more scientific” form of chiropractic that you mention, then I agree it has more scientific footing. But I wonder what makes it “chiropractic” over physiotherapy and osteopathy.