A lot of Bad Science (and the online forums and newspaper column that goes with it - it appears regularly in the Guardian and most of the book is actually reprints from the articles) revolves around analysis and understanding of the placebo effect. It is a real effect that can have a significant effect on physiology. Both the expectations of patients AND researchers/clinicians can influence the results of a trial which is why we do double blinding (where neither the patient/subject nor the researcher/clinician know who has got which drug) in order to eliminate the effect of placebo because EVERYONE in the trial beleives that the pill is going to be effective (and it has been shown that clincians change their whole demeanour when they give out a known placebo which influences the manner of the patient in so many subtle ways). It is interesting to note that a noted homeopathist did state publically that the reason they did not submit their remedies to double blind testing was because these trials did not work... so effectively admitting that they only rely upon the placebo effect.

Bad Science is quite an eye opening book in many ways. It showed me, a hardened scientist who has worked in the field and seen the effects of badly applied experiments first hand, a few scary truths. Homeopathy is only a minor thing in comparison to the horror that was the 'South African potato which cures HIV' scandal.

But this is an aside...

The problem with corporal punishment is that it teaches the wrong lessons and does not build good social reasoning skills. It is better to have a system of carefully worked out consequences for actions and make sure that these are clearly stated and understood. Also, such a system needs to be collaborative rather than authorative - the rules worked out in co-operation with the class rather than in competition with them.