A little knowledge….
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but for a homeopath no knowledge at all will apparently do just as well.
No satire is necessary (or indeed possible) for the following clip, although you could try making a list of the basic conceptual errors until you feel obliged to switch off your computer in order to stop yourself from throwing it out of the window, and even if that only takes a few seconds you’ll still need a lot of paper…
In the Dark 
March 2, 2011 at 5:10 am
That makes my head hurt!
March 2, 2011 at 8:42 am
If you multiply a small thing (which you “crossed out”) by a big thing you get a small thing, so your eyes aren’t important “Dr” Charlene. I may have been taught theoretical physics by Walt Disney but I’m pretty sure I’m right.
March 2, 2011 at 8:54 am
OMFG! I lasted about 3 minutes before my head exploded.
The comments on this on YouTube are interesting.
March 2, 2011 at 8:58 am
I thought they would be! Must visit there…
March 2, 2011 at 8:57 am
This is not random bullshit but representative of the New Age point of view, characterised by abuse of the words ‘energy’, ‘light’ and the throwing in of the names of a few real scientists. Any scientist who has been involved with the Skeptics movement will recognise the style. Challenge people like this and you will be accused of being closed-minded, not being prepared to work outside the box, and lagging behind the cutting edge. That happened to me in the 1980s when Australia’s best known racing driver went off the rails and started marketing an under-the-bonnet magnetic device that he claimed would improve car performance radically. His mistress slandered me on TV. Our interviews were intercut so I could not change rhetorical tactics, which is the correct way to deal with things lke this. Say it doesn’t work according to the best experimental tests, point out that people who use this will not seek the medicines that do work and consequently suffer needlessly, ask why they continue to promote something that doesn’t work and point out that it is expensive, use a little satire (“Nothing acts faster than Anadin…)”
March 2, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Hi Anton,
Growing up I was a huge Peter Brock fan – I’d watch the Bathurst race all day in the hope his Commodore would cross the line before the evil Fords. But I also remember the magnetic performance-enhancing device, and that it ended up being debated on various current affairs programs. However I had no idea you were linked to this in any way, and I’d love to hear the full story (either as a comment here or in an e-mail if there are aspects which can’t be discussed in a public forum).
Most importantly, who was his mistress?
Daniel
March 2, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Daniel,
In the early 1980s I founded the Cambridge University Skeptics, on the back of which I got onto the NSW Committee of Australian Skeptics when I started my postdoc at Sydney Uni in 1985. Shortly after that the NSW Committee became the National Committee because leadership of Aus Skeptics was transferred from Melbourne when its leading light there, Mark Plummer, wished to ease out.
In the mid-1980s Australia’s leading racing driver Peter Brock moved to a New Agey lifestyle and unfortunately this spilled over into his professional life with the absurd Energy Polariser consisting of magnets and crystals mounted under the bonnet of cars he was doing up (his regular business was top-end car customising). As Australian Skeptics’ physicist I was interviewed on a Mike Willesee TV programme that was pretty skeptical about it; the programme featured an informal but very telling test of a polariser-fitted car (no different) and it intercut my interview with a grilling of Bev Brock (who lived with Brock and took his name but never went through a marriage ceremony with him); she called me “closed-minded” and said that there were “other physicist[s] who say… Yes, there are energies out there we’re just starting to find out about – there’s a whole brand of metaphysics out there that they’re just starting to understand and give credibility to” (ie, nonsense like Charlene Werner’s words).
I don’t know when Brock started to have doubts about the polariser, but he was soon doing his best to shift the ground and portray the whole thing as a business stitch-up of his customising business. However the definitive book about the incident, motoring journalist Bill Tuckey’s “Rise and Fall of Peter Brock” (1987), based on information provided by Brock’s former friend, co-driver and business partner John Harvey, who fell out with Brock over it, states firmly that “the polariser was the heart and soul of the disaster”. Holden simply did not wish to become involved with it in any way.
I have the book, the TV programme transferred to DVD and the relevant articles from The [Australian] Skeptic. How much detail do you want?
In 1987 I went to Bathurst and greatly enjoyed the day – another Peter Brock victory, although nobody knew it at the time because the Sierras that finished 1-2 ahead of him were disqualified for illegal bodywork many days afterwards. About a year ago I looked up Brock on Wikipedia and was shocked to find that he had been killed in a crash in 2006.
Anton
March 3, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Hi Anton,
Thanks for the fascinating story. (And I even remember that race where the Sierra Cosworths got disqualified, but so long after the event that the moment had well and truly gone.) I’d love to see you on Willesee’s program, so maybe if you come to Cambridge/Remnants over the summer there’d be a chance to watch the footage (as I almost always have my laptop with me).
Daniel
Daniel
March 3, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Daniel,
I can easily run off and post a DVD of that, althogh you would have to bear the sight of me with a moustache. If you want to borrow the book then let’s meet in Cambridge (I’m there more often than you might think) as I don’t post things not easily replaceable.
Anton
March 2, 2011 at 10:18 am
I looked up Charlene Werner. She is “Faculty” at The Texas Institute for Homeopathy… sigh. I am a bit depressed now.