APPENDIX
DCMS consultation: “A new strategy for sport”:
Response from the English Chess Federation
...
Improved individual health
...
b) Although further studies are required for definitive proof, many scientists believe that mind sports activity, such as chess, may delay the onset of Alzheimers (sic)
ECF Annual General Meeting 17 October 2015
And we’re back. Last night - less than 12 hours or so after DG XXX: The Ugly Truth was published - I was sent an email which contained a link to Mike Gunn’s "Report from Sport and Recreation Alliance Representative". A report for the forthcoming ECF AGM, that is.
When I queried the English Chess Federation’s first claim about chess and dementia - see DG XXVII: The ECF vs Mrs Sally Williams; DG XXVIII: The ECF vs The Daily Express - the response was that statements made were just the author's - i.e. John Foley's - "own view". Further,
No current ECF Council or Board policy statement asserts any benefit of chess whatsoever
I have to say, I never found that position convincing, but anyhoo, Mike Gunn’s report obviously changes everything. The appendix is dated 2nd October 2015 and is attributed to Phil Ehr and Mike Gunn, "On behalf of the English Chess Federation".
So, I ask Phil, Mike and the English Chess Federation as a whole,
What evidence do you have to support the claim that, "... many scientists believe that mind sports activity, such as chess, may delay the onset of Alzheimers (sic)"?
Specifically,
Who are these "many scientists"?
How do you know that they believe what you say they believe?
You say that "... further studies are required for definitive proof ...." which implies that studies already exist which support your claim. Can you supply specific references to these studies?
Sense About Science
Ask for Evidence
Chess and Dementia Index
14 comments:
There's another inconsistent claim in the document. The second part quite rightly points out that chess is fully accessible to those with disabilities, but in the first part makes the claim that physical fitness is needed to take part in a three hour evening league game.
At two pages, it's a short document by comparison to the CEOs.
RdC
Here is my reply to Jonathan (he sent me an email along the same lines).
Jonathan,
My main sources are:
www.streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.co.uk
www.alzheimers.org.uk
www.alzheimersresearchuk.org
New Scientist
In fact nearly everything I know about this area is based on reading your articles. Thus I phrased the bit about Alzheimer's in such a way to try and indicate to the layperson that it is all conjecture and to make a statement that you would hopefully approve of. (Obviously, I failed.) I did read about at least one current study into this area on the Alzheimer's sites (I thought at Southampton University but needless to say I can't find it now). I did find the following, however:
"Mental activity and wellbeing
Several studies have suggested a link between mentally-stimulating leisure activities and a lower risk of dementia. Other studies have linked spending more time in education with a lower risk and research is ongoing in these areas. It’s not clear which types of activity may be most beneficial but it’s a good idea to do things you enjoy.
Keeping mentally active by learning new skills or joining clubs can also be a good way to connect with other people and improve mental wellbeing, helping you to feel happier and more positive in life."
on www.alzheimersresearchuk.org.
They don't list their sources, either.
Mike.
It is a bit odd, Mike, to make a statement like
many scientists believe x
if you're not able to quote a single named scientist saying that they believe x.
It's also a bit odd to get your information from this series, now running to more than thirty individual pieces, and yet appear not to have grasped this point of evidence. Isn't it?
How do you feel about the following statements:
1. Many scientists believe that gravity bends light rays
2. Many scientists believe that human use of fossil fuels causes global warming
3. Many scientists believe that smoking causes lung cancer
4. Many scientist believe in God?
I am guessing Mike that in each instance we could attach many names to those statements.
If I had more time this would be a blog post. But I don’t so it’s going to be a series of comments.
Firstly, it is very much to Mike Gunn’s credit that he has responded to the challenge made in this post. To make a claim and then remain silent when 'asked for evidence' strikes me as extremely cowardly. Perhaps more importantly, it demonstrates a marked absence of scientific rigour.
Secondly, I’ve known Mike (albeit not particularly closely) for many years. He’s clearly a fundamentally decent man. It is also clear that he cares enough about the subject of chess and dementia that he’s made efforts to 'get it right'. Neither of these things are true about many of the people who have been named checked in the Doctor Garry series in the past.
More later.
OK, part II:
I’m always genuinely surprised that anybody reads anything that I write. I’m particularly touched that somebody would read this particular series - of which I’m rather fond.
So, thanks Mike for referencing my articles above.
However, I have to say that nothing in these 31 (at current count) posts justifies a statement like
Although further studies are required for definitive proof, many scientists believe that mind sports activity, such as chess, may delay the onset of Alzheimers (sic)
and there’s quite a lot in my posts that would argue against such a phrase.
Actually, I rather resent my work being misused in this way. To be clear, I'm absolutely sure there was no malicious intent from Mike in anyway, Nevertheless, I would expect the ECF not to misrepresent my work again in future.
Part III:
References.
www.alzheimers.org.uk
www.alzheimersresearchuk.org
New Scientist
There are not references. They are sources. References (see DG X) are precise road maps on how *exactly* to find the material that is being quoted (or talked about).
A precise reference for the passage that Mike quotes at the end of his first comment, for example, is not "www.alzheimersresearchuk.org"
but
/www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/about-dementia/helpful-information/reducing-the-risk/
i.e something that will take you exactly where you need to go.
Fully referencing your statements is just basic scientific process? Why?
See DG XIX
Science isn’t about assertions on what is right, handed down from authority figures. It’s about clear descriptions of studies, and the results that came from them, followed by an explanation of why they support or refute a given idea.
You provide evidence so people can check what you say. It’s basic accountability and scrutiny (DG XXX)
It’s important to check becomes sometimes - not necessarily deliberately with evil intent, but perhaps simply by mistake or misunderstanding - what people say a piece of research says is not what it actually says.
E.g. when Mig cited a study if you actually checked it you could see that he’d described it inaccurately and misrepresent its conclusions (see DG XXI and DG XXII
So let’s get on to the article from Alzheimer's Research UK that Mike cites in his first comment.
(reminder: it’s here > http://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/about-dementia/helpful-information/reducing-the-risk/).
Mike correctly writes that the website says, "Several studies have suggested a link between mentally-stimulating leisure activities and a lower risk of dementia"
HOWEVER,
Alzheimer's Research UK are talking about a "lower risk" of dementia. The English Chess Federation claim is "delay the onset" of Alzheimer’s. That is simply a different thing.
Secondly, Alzheimer's Research UK are talking about a "link" between two factors. There’s nothing there at all about a causal relationship- which is what the English Chess Federation are trying to claim. (back to DG XXII for more on the distinction between the two).
Finally, Mike says,
They don't list their sources either.
"They" being Alzheimer’s Research UK.
This is simply untrue. At the end of the article they write,
"Please contact us if you would like a version with references."
They will supply references if you ask.
So what are we left with. A claim about chess and dementia that rests on a single study that Mike read about - i.e not even read, it seems - but cannot provide us with the details now.
Needless to say, this is entirely insufficient to support a claim about chess and dementia.
I call on the ECF
(a) to withdraw their claim about chess and dementia
(b) to commit to refraining from making any further statements about chess and dementia that are unsupported by scientific evidence.
"Nevertheless, I would expect the ECF to misrepresent my work again in future."
--Fixed that for you.
Thanks OCP.
Here’s a non-satrical fix to my fourth comment>>>
It’s important to check becomes sometimes - not necessarily deliberately with evil intent, but perhaps simply by mistake or misunderstanding - what people say a piece of research says is not what it actually says.
... because sometimes
and
E.g. when Mig cited a study if you actually checked it you could see that he’d described it inaccurately and misrepresent its conclusions (see DG XXI and DG XXII
.... he’d described it inaccurately and misrepresented its conclusions ....
Post a Comment