From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
\nDate: 23 Jul 93 12:26:24 GMT
\nNewsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.answers,news.answers
\nSubject: sci.skeptic FAQ: The Frequently Questioned Answers<\/p>\n
Archive-name: skeptic-faq
\nLast-modified: 93\/07\/23
\nVersion: @(#)skeptic-faq.text\t1.11<\/p>\n
\t\t The Frequently Questioned Answers
\n\t\t =================================<\/p>\n
Introduction
\n============<\/p>\n
This is the sci.skeptic FAQ. It is intended to provide a factual base
\nfor most of the commonly discussed topics on sci.skeptic.
\nUnfortunately I don’t have much time to do this in, and anyway a FAQ
\nshould be the Distilled Wisdom of the Net rather than just My Arrogant
\nOpinion, so I invite submissions and let all the net experts out there
\nfill in the details. Submissions from any point of view and on any
\nsci.skeptic topic are welcomed, but please keep them short and to the
\npoint. The ideal submission is a short summary with one or two
\nreferences to other literature. I have added comments in square
\nbrackets where I think more information is particularly needed, but
\ndon’t let that stop you sending something else.<\/p>\n
Many FAQs, including this one, are available on the archive site
\nrtfm.mit.edu in the directory pub\/usenet\/news.answers. The name under
\nwhich a FAQ is archived appears in the Archive-name line at the top of
\nthe article. This FAQ is archived as skeptic-faq.<\/p>\n
In general it is not very useful to criticise areas of the FAQ as “not
\nexplaining it properly”. If you want to see something changed then
\nplease write a submission which explains it better. Grammar and
\nspelling corrections are always welcome though.<\/p>\n
If you are reading this with a newsreader and want to follow up on
\nsomething, please copy the question to the subject line. This is more
\ninformative than a reference to the entire FAQ.<\/p>\n
Please mail submissions and comments to . If that
\nbounces, try , which explicitly routes
\nyour email via the UK backbone.<\/p>\n
This is in no way an “official” FAQ. I am a computer scientist by
\nprofession and deeply skeptical of paranormal claims (although I may
\ninclude some pro-paranormal arguments here). If anyone else with a
\nless skeptical point of view wants to start a FAQ list, please feel
\nfree. I certainly can’t stop you.<\/p>\n
Disclaimer: The opinions in this article are not necessarily those of
\n\t GEC.<\/p>\n
Other Topics
\n============<\/p>\n
Please send in contact addresses for local skeptics organisations not
\nlisted in section 0.11.<\/p>\n
Credits
\n=======<\/p>\n
Thanks to all the people who have sent me submissions and comments.
\nThere isn’t enough room to thank everyone individually, but some of
\nthe more major contributors are listed here:<\/p>\n
York H. Dobyns provided carbon 14
\ndating information, notes about current psi researchers and other
\nuseful comments.<\/p>\n
Dendrochronology information came from .<\/p>\n
The questions “What are UFOs?” and “Are crop circles made by flying
\nsaucers?” were answered by Chris Rutkowski <\/p>\n
Ken Shirriff provided information on
\nperpetual motion machines, Leidenfrost reference and the AIDS section.<\/p>\n
Robert Sheaffer sent information about Philip
\nKlass and UFO abductions.<\/p>\n
The Ezekiel information comes from a posting by John Baskette
\n.<\/p>\n
John Boyd provided skeptical references on acupuncture.<\/p>\n
Eric Raymond contributed an explanation of the
\n“paranormalist” point of view for item 0.7, along with information on
\nacupuncture, the origin of life, and the CIA AIDS theory.<\/p>\n
Kirlian photography information was paraphrased from an article by
\nDave Palmer .<\/p>\n
Cold reading information came from an article by Pope Charles
\n.<\/p>\n
Todd Stark sent information on acupuncture
\nanalgesia.<\/p>\n
Geoff Lane provided
\nthe article and references on Tunguska.<\/p>\n
Contents
\n========<\/p>\n
A `*’ indicates a new or rewritten entry. A `+’ indicates an altered
\nentry.<\/p>\n
Background
\n———-
\n0.1: What is sci.skeptic for?
\n0.2: What is sci.skeptic not for?
\n0.3: What is CSICOP? Whats their address?
\n0.4: What is “Prometheus”?
\n0.5: Who are some prominent skeptics? +
\n0.6: Aren’t all skeptics just closed-minded bigots?
\n0.6.1: Why are skeptics so keen to rubbish fringe ideas? *
\n0.6.2: How do we know Randi is honest? *
\n0.7: Aren’t all paranormalists just woolly-minded fools?
\n0.7.1: Why don’t skeptics challenge religions? *
\n0.8: What is a “conspiracy theory”?
\n0.9: What is “cold reading?”
\n0.10: Is there a list of logical fallacies?
\n0.11: What local skeptics organisations are there? *<\/p>\n
The Scientific Method
\n———————<\/p>\n
1.1: What is the scientific method?
\n1.2: What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis? +
\n1.3: Can science ever really prove anything?
\n1.4: If scientific theories keep changing, where is the Truth?
\n1.5: What evidence is needed for an extraordinary claim?
\n1.6: What is Occam’s Razor?
\n1.7: Galileo was persecuted, just like researchers into today.
\n1.8: What is the “Experimenter effect”.
\n1.9: How much fraud is there in science?
\n1.9.1: Did Mendel fudge his results?<\/p>\n
Psychic Powers
\n————–<\/p>\n
2.1: Is Uri Geller for real?
\n2.2: I have had a psychic experience.
\n2.3: What is “sensory leakage”?
\n2.4: Who are the main psi researchers?
\n2.5: Does dowsing work?
\n2.6: Could psi be inhibited by the presence of skeptics?
\n2.7: Why don’t the skeptics test the *real* psychics?<\/p>\n
UFOs\/Flying Saucers
\n——————-
\n3.1 What are UFOs?
\n3.1.1: Are UFOs alien spacecraft?
\n3.1.2: Are UFOs natural phenomena?
\n3.1.3: But isn’t it possible that aliens are visiting Earth?
\n3.2: Is it true that the US government has a crashed flying saucer?
\n (MJ-12)?
\n3.3: What is “channeling”?
\n3.4: How can we test a channeller?
\n3.5: I am in telepathic contact with the aliens.
\n3.6: Some bozo has just posted a load of “teachings” from a UFO. What
\n should I do?
\n3.7: Are crop circles made by flying saucers?
\n3.7.1: Are crop circles made by “vortices”?
\n3.7.2: Are crop circles made by hoaxers?
\n3.7.3: Are crop circles radioactive?
\n3.7.4: What about cellular changes in plants within crop circles?
\n3.8: Have people been abducted by UFOs?
\n3.9: What is causing the strange cattle deaths?
\n3.10: What is the face on Mars?
\n3.11: Did Ezekiel See a Flying Saucer?
\n3.12: What happened at Tunguska?<\/p>\n
Faith Healing and Alternative Therapies
\n—————————————<\/p>\n
4.1: Isn’t western medicine reductionistic and alternatives holistic?
\n4.2: What is a double-blind trial? What is a placebo?
\n4.3: Why should scientific criteria apply to alternative therapies?
\n4.4: What is homeopathy?
\n4.5: What is aromatherapy?
\n4.6: What is reflexology?
\n4.7: Does acupuncture work?
\n4.8: What about psychic surgery?
\n4.9: What is Crystal Healing?
\n4.10: Does religious healing work?
\n4.11: What harm does it do anyway?<\/p>\n
Creation versus Evolution
\n————————-<\/p>\n
5.1: Is the Bible evidence of anything?
\n5.2: Could the Universe have been created old?
\n5.3: What about Carbon-14 dating?
\n5.4: What is “dendrochronology”?
\n5.5: What is evolution? Where do I find out more?
\n5.6: “The second law of thermodynamics says….”
\n5.7: How could living organisms arise “by chance”?
\n5.8: But doesn’t the human body seem to be well designed?
\n5.9: What about the thousands of scientists who have become Creationists?
\n5.10: Is the speed of light decreasing?
\n5.11: What about Velikovsky?<\/p>\n
Fire-walking
\n———–<\/p>\n
6.1: Is fire-walking possible?
\n6.2: Can science explain fire-walking?<\/p>\n
New Age
\n——-<\/p>\n
7.1: What do New Agers believe?
\n7.2: What is the Gaia hypothesis?
\n7.3: Was Nostradamus a prophet? +
\n7.4: Does astrology work?
\n7.4.1: Could astrology work by gravity?
\n7.4.2: What is the `Mars Effect’?
\n7.5: What is Kirlian photography?<\/p>\n
Strange Machines: Free Energy and Anti-Gravity
\n———————————————-<\/p>\n
8.1: Why don’t electrical perpetul motion machines work?
\n8.2: Why don’t magnetic perpetual motion machines work?
\n8.3: Why don’t mechanical perpetual motion machines work?
\n8.4: Magnets can levitate. Where is the energy from?
\n8.5: But its been patented!
\n8.6: The oil companies are conspiring to suppress my invention!
\n8.7: My machine gets its free energy from
\n8.8: Can gyroscopes neutralise gravity?
\n8.9: My prototype gets lighter when I turn it on<\/p>\n
AIDS
\n—-<\/p>\n
9.1: What about these theories on AIDS?
\n9.1.1: The Mainstream Theory
\n9.1.2: Strecker’s CIA Theory
\n9.1.3: Duesberg’s Risk-Group Theory<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-<\/p>\n
Background
\n==========<\/p>\n
0.1: What is sci.skeptic for?
\n—————————–<\/p>\n
[Did anyone save the Charter? PAJ]<\/p>\n
Sci.skeptic is for those who are skeptical about claims of the
\nparanormal to meet with those who believe in the paranormal. In this
\nway the paranormalists can expose their ideas to scientific scrutiny,
\nand if there is anything in these ideas then the skeptics might learn
\nsomething.<\/p>\n
However this is a very wide area, and some of the topics covered might
\nbe better kept in their own newsgroups. In particular the evolution
\nvs. creation debate is best kept in talk.origins. General New Age
\ndiscussions belong in talk.religion.newage. Strange “Heard it on the
\ngrapevine” stories belong on alt.folklore.urban, which discusses such
\nthings as vanishing hitchhikers and the Everlasting Lightbulb
\nconspiracy. Serious conspiracy theories should be kept on
\nalt.conspiracy, and theories about the assassination of President
\nKennedy should be kept on alt.conspiracy.jfk. CROSS-POSTING from
\nthese groups is NOT APPRECIATED by the majority of sci.skeptic
\nreaders.<\/p>\n
The discussion of a topic in this FAQ is not an attempt to have the
\nfinal word on the subject. It is simply intended to answer a few
\ncommon questions and provide a basis for discussion of common topics.<\/p>\n
0.2: What is sci.skeptic not for?
\n———————————<\/p>\n
The scope of sci.skeptic extends into any area where hard evidence can
\nbe obtained, but does not extend into speculation. So religious
\narguments about the existence of God are out of place here (take them
\nto alt.atheism or talk.religion.*). On the other hand discussion
\nabout miracles is to be welcomed, since this is an issue where
\nevidence can be obtained.<\/p>\n
Topics that have their own groups should be taken to the appropriate
\ngroup. See the previous answer for a partial list.<\/p>\n
Also out of place are channelled messages from aliens. If your
\nchannelled message contains testable facts then post those. Otherwise
\nwe are simply not interested. Take it to alt.alien.visitors.<\/p>\n
The posting of large articles (>200 lines) is not a way to persuade
\npeople. See the section on “closed minded skeptics” below for some
\nreasons for this. I suggest you summarise the article and offer to
\nmail copies to anyone who is interested.<\/p>\n
Sci.skeptic is not an abuse group. There is a regrettable tendency
\nfor polite discussion here to degenerate into ad-hominem flames about
\nwho said what to whom and what they meant. PLEASE DO NOT FLAME. You
\nwon’t convince anyone. Rather the opposite.<\/p>\n
0.3: What is CSICOP? What is its address?
\n——————————————<\/p>\n
CSICOP stands for the “Committee for the Scientific Investigation of
\nClaims Of the Paranormal”. They publish a quarterly magazine called
\n“The Skeptical Inquirer”. Their address is:<\/p>\n
\tSkeptical Inquirer,
\n\tBox 703,
\n\tBuffalo, NY 14226-9973.<\/p>\n
Tel. 716-636-1425 voice, 716-636-1733 fax.<\/p>\n
Note that this is a new address.<\/p>\n
0.4: What is “Prometheus”?
\n————————–<\/p>\n
Prometheus Books is a publisher specialising in skeptical books.
\nTheir address is:<\/p>\n
\tPrometheus Books
\n\t700 Amherst Street
\n\tBuffalo, NY 14215-9918<\/p>\n
0.5: Who are some prominent skeptics?
\n————————————-<\/p>\n
James “The Amazing” Randi is a professional stage magician who spends
\nmuch time and money debunking paranormal claims. He used to offer a
\nreward of $100,000 to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal powers
\nunder controlled conditions, but has had to exhaust that fund to pay
\nlegal expenses in the series of lawsuits that have been brought
\nagainst him since 1988. Currently, he can offer only a $10,000
\npromissory note. Anyone who wants to contribute to his defense can do
\nso via:<\/p>\n
The James Randi Fund
\n c\/o Robert Steiner, CPA
\n P.O. Box 659
\n El Cerrito, CA 94530<\/p>\n
The lawsuit by Geller against Randi is still going on. There is a
\nmailing list for updates on the situation, which originates from the
\naccount . [To subscribe, you should probably
\nsend mail to .]<\/p>\n
Martin Gardner is an author, mathematician and amateur stage magician
\nwho has written several books dealing with paranormal phenomena,
\nincluding “Science: Good, Bad and Bogus” and “Fads and Fallacies in
\nthe Name of Science”.<\/p>\n
Philip J. Klass retired after thirty-five years as a Senior Editor of
\n“Aviation Week and Space Technology” magazine, specializing in
\navionics. He is a founding fellow of CSICOP, and was named a Fellow of
\nthe Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). He has
\nwon numerous awards for his technical journalism. His principal books
\nare:<\/p>\n
UFO Abductions, A Dangerous Game (Prometheus, 1988)<\/p>\n
UFOs, The Public Deceived (Prometheus, 1983)<\/p>\n
UFOs Explained (Random House, 1974)<\/p>\n
Susan Blackmore holds a Ph.D in parapsychology, but in the course of her
\nPh.D research she became increasingly disillusioned and is now highly
\nskeptical of paranormal claims.<\/p>\n
Ray Hyman is a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon.
\nHe is one of the major external, skeptical critics of parapsychology.
\nIn 1986, he and parapsychologist Charles Honorton engaged in a
\ndetailed exchange about Honorton’s ganzfeld experiments and
\nstatistical analysis of his results which was published in the Journal
\nof Parapsychology. A collection of Hyman’s work may be found in his
\nbook The Elusive Quarry: A Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research,
\n1989, Prometheus. This includes “Proper Criticism”, an influential
\npiece on how skeptics should engage in criticism, and “‘Cold Reading’:
\nHow to Convince Strangers that You Know All About Them.”<\/p>\n
James Alcock is a professor of psychology at York University in
\nToronto. He is the author of the books Parapsychology: Science
\nor Magic?, 1981, Pergamon, and Science and Supernature: A Critical
\nAppraisal of Parapsychology, 1990, Prometheus.<\/p>\n
Joe Nickell is a former private investigator, a magician, and
\nan English instructor at the University of Kentucky. He is the
\nauthor of numerous books on paranormal subjects, including Inquest
\non the Shroud of Turin, 1982, Prometheus. He specializes in
\ninvestigating individual cases in great detail, but has recently
\ndone some more general work, critiquing crop circles, spontaneous
\nhuman combustion, and psychic detectives.<\/p>\n
Isaac Asimov wrote a great deal on skeptical issues. He had a regular
\ncolumn in _Fantasy and Science Fiction_, and collections of essays
\nfrom it have been published. Some of these essays are on assorted
\ncrackpottery, like UFO’s, Velikovsky, creationism, and so forth. They
\nhave titles like “Worlds in Confusion” (Velikovsky), “Look Long upon a
\nMonkey” (creationism), “Armies of the Night” (crackpottery in
\ngeneral), “The Rocketing Dutchmen” (UFO’s), and so forth.; these are
\nusually on a rather general sort of level.<\/p>\n
Marcello Truzzi was one of the founders of CSICOP, but broke away from
\nthe organisation when it became to “dry” for him (see section 0.6.1 on
\nwet vs. dry skeptics). He now publishes the “Zetetic Inquirer” on an
\noccasional basis. He can be contacted at the Dept. of Sociology,
\nEastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197, or at P.O. Box 1052,
\nAnn Arbor, MI 48106. [Does anyone know if this address is still good?
\nPAJ]<\/p>\n
[Can someone supply me with potted biographies and publication lists
\nof these and other people? PAJ]<\/p>\n
0.6: Aren’t all skeptics just closed-minded bigots?
\n—————————————————<\/p>\n
People who have failed to convince skeptics often say “Well all
\nskeptics are just closed-minded bigots who won’t listen to me!”. This
\nis not true. Skeptics pay close attention to the evidence. If you
\nhave no evidence then you will get nowhere.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately life is short. Most of us have better things to do than
\ninvestigate yet another bogus claim. Some paranormal topics,
\nespecially psi research and UFOlogy, produce vast quantities of low
\ngrade evidence. In the past people have investigated such evidence
\ncarefully, but it always seems to evaporate when anyone looks at it
\nclosely. Hence skeptics should be forgiven for not bothering to
\ninvestigate yet another piece of low grade evidence before rejecting
\nit.<\/p>\n
Issac Asimov has suggested a triage process which divides scientific
\nclaims into three groups: mundane, unusual and bullshit [my terms].
\nAs an example, a claim that “I have 10kg of salt in my lab” is pretty
\nmundane. No-one would disbelieve me, but they wouldn’t be very
\ninterested. A claim that “I have 10kg of gold in my lab” would
\nprobably result in mild disbelief and requests to have a look.
\nFinally a claim that “I have 10kg of Einsteinium in my lab” would be
\ngreeted with cries of “Bullshit!”.<\/p>\n
Of course there are some who substitute flaming and rhetoric for
\nlogical argument. We all lose our temper sometimes.<\/p>\n
0.6.1: Why are skeptics so keen to rubbish fringe ideas?
\n——————————————————–<\/p>\n
Skeptics vary on the attitude they take towards a new fringe idea,
\nvarying from the “wet” to the “dry”. The question of which attitude
\nis better is very much a live issue in the skeptical community. Here
\nis a brief summary of the two extremes:<\/p>\n
DRY: There is no reason to treat these people seriously. Anyone with
\n half an ounce of sense can see that their ideas are completely
\n bogus. Time spent trying to “understand their ideas” and
\n “examine their evidence” beyond that necessary for debunking is
\n wasted time, and life is short. Furthermore, such behaviour
\n lends them respectibility. If we take them seriously, so will
\n other people. We must ridicule their ideas so that others will
\n see how silly they are. “One belly laugh is worth a thousand
\n syllogisms” (Martin Gardner).<\/p>\n
WET: If we lay into these people without giving them a fair hearing
\n then we run two risks:
\n 1: We might miss someone who is actually right. History contains
\n many examples.
\n 2: We give them a weapon against us. Ad-hominem attacks and
\n sloppy logic bring us down to their level. If we are truly
\n the rational, scientific people we claim to be then we should
\n ask for their evidence, and then pronounce our considered
\n opinion of it.<\/p>\n
The two extremes are perhaps personified by Martin Gardner (dry) and
\nMarcello Truzzi (wet). Note that no particular judgement is attached
\nto these terms. They are just handy labels.<\/p>\n
People who read articles by dry skeptics often get the impression that
\nskeptics are as pig-headed as any fundamentalist or stage psychic. I
\nthink that this is a valid criticism of some skeptics on the dry end.
\nHowever, an article which ridicules fringe beliefs may also contain
\nsound logic based on careful investigation. As always, you have to
\nread carefully, distinguish logic from rhetoric, and then make a
\njudgement.<\/p>\n
0.6.2: How do we know Randi is honest?
\n————————————–<\/p>\n
Randi has offered a large prize to anyone who can demonstrate
\nparanormal powers under controlled conditions. He also has a lot of
\nprofessional prestige tied up in his self-appointed role of psychic
\ndebunker. This leads to allegations that if he ever did find a
\ngenuine psychic then he would lie rather than lose so much money and
\nprestige.<\/p>\n
When Randi tests psychic claims, he is always very careful to agree
\nwith the claimant before the test exactly what the conditions will be.
\nThe test will proceed only if both he and the claimant agree that this
\nwill be a fair test of the claim. The conditions usually involve
\nvideo tapes and independant witnesses specifically to rule out
\ncheating by either side.<\/p>\n
On one occasion Randi did agree that the claimant had passed the test.
\nArthur G. Lintgen claimed an ability to identify LP records without
\nlabels. Randi tested him, and found that he could in fact do this by
\nreading the patterns of loud and quiet in the groove. Lintgen did not
\nget Randi’s reward because he had not demonstrated (or claimed) any
\nparanormal ability.<\/p>\n
0.7: Aren’t all paranormalists just woolly-minded fools?
\n——————————————————–<\/p>\n
[The following was contributed by Eric Raymond ]<\/p>\n
Some `paranormalists’ are people who fully agree with the scientific
\nmethod and scientific cosmology, but who are also trying to deal with
\npersonal experiences or abilities that do not presently seem to fit
\naccepted scientific theory. The honest skeptic should recognize that
\nnot all paranormalists are supernaturalists.<\/p>\n
The honest skeptic should also recognize that some phenomena formerly
\nthought of as `paranormal’ are now within the purview of science. The
\nclassic example is meteorites; more recent ones include the remarkable
\nsomatic-control abilities of advanced yogis, the physiological
\nmechanisms behind acupuncture and acupressure, and healing by laying
\non of hands (now widely taught in mainstream nursing schools as
\n`therapeutic touch’).<\/p>\n
To assume uncritically that all paranormalists are simply flakes risks
\nforeclosing future advances of the same kind. And there may be some
\ndoozies waiting in the wings. Recent experiments in computer analysis
\nof EEG\/EMG patterns, for example, strongly suggest that mental
\ntelepathy is at least *possible in principle* between speakers of the
\nsame language (though it has not been demonstrated to occur).<\/p>\n
Thus, the honest skeptic owes it to him\/herself to remember that the
\nflakiness and credulity of *some* paranormalists does not imply the
\ninsanity of *all*.<\/p>\n
0.7.1: Why don’t skeptics debunk religions?
\n——————————————-<\/p>\n
Skeptics aim to debunk false claims and silly theories by using the
\n*evidence*. The question of whether God exists is not one for which
\nevidence is available, and so skeptics tend to treat it as a private
\nmatter. When someone claims to have evidence (such as a miraculous
\nhealing) then skeptics are as ready to test this claim as they are any
\nother.<\/p>\n
Most skeptics agree that it is perfectly possible to be a skeptic
\nabout paranormal claims but still honestly believe in God. Martin
\nGardner is a “dry” skeptic and one of the founders of CSICOP. He also
\nbelieves in a personal god and describes himself as a “philosophical
\ntheist”.<\/p>\n
Most skeptics tend to take an “agnostic-atheist” attitude, assuming
\nthat God does not exist until evidence to the contrary turns up.<\/p>\n
If you are interested in organisations that oppose religion in general
\nthen see the alt.atheism FAQ “Atheist Resources” for a list of atheist
\nand humanist organisations.<\/p>\n
0.8: What is a Conspiracy Theory?
\n———————————<\/p>\n
There are two general categories of conspiracy theory: Grand and
\nPetty.<\/p>\n
A Grand conspiracy theory is a belief that there is a large-scale
\nconspiracy by those in power to mislead and\/or control the rest of the
\nworld. Consider the following example:<\/p>\n
\tThere is a conspiracy amongst the computer programmers to
\n\tcontrol the world. They are only allowing the public to have
\n\tsimple machines, while they control the really powerful ones.
\n\tThere is a computer in they call “The Beast”. It has
\n\trecords about everyone. They use this information to
\n\tmanipulate the politicians and businessmen who ostensibly rule
\n\tthe world into doing their will. The Beast was prophesied in
\n\tthe Book of Revelation.<\/p>\n
Grand conspiracy theories divide the world into three groups. The
\nConspirators, the Investigators, and the Dupes. Conspirators have a
\nvast secret. The Investigators have revealed parts of the conspiracy,
\nbut much is still secret. Investigators are always in great danger of
\nbeing silenced by Conspirators. Dupes are just the rest of us. Often
\nthe Conspirators show a mixture of incredible subtlety and stunning
\nstupidity.<\/p>\n
Evidence produced by the Investigators is always either circumstantial
\nor evaporates when looked at carefully. The theories can never be
\ndisproved, since any evidence to the contrary can be dismissed as
\nhaving been planted by the Conspirators. If you spend any time or
\neffort digging into the evidence produced by Investigators then you
\nwill be labelled a Conspirator yourself. Of course, nothing a
\nConspirator says can be believed.<\/p>\n
Petty conspiracy theories are smaller than the Grand variety, and
\nsometimes turn out to be true. Watergate and “Arms for Hostages”
\nepisodes both started life as Petty conspiracy theories. Just because
\na theory involves a conspiracy does not make that theory false. The
\nmain difference between Grand and Petty Conspiracy Theories is the
\nnumber of alleged conspirators. Grand Conspiracy Theories require
\nthousands or even millions.<\/p>\n
[Since this FAQ was first posted I have heard that the Beast computer
\nis in Holland and that you can be saved by converting to a particular
\ncult. In addition the cult claims that every product bar code
\nincludes three 6 digits as frame markers, hence 666, the number of the
\nbeast. In fact this is not true, and even if it were it would not
\nfulfill the prophecy in Revelation. Meanwhile the cult members were
\n*meant* to rise up to heaven on 29\/10\/92 but very embarrassingly
\ndidn’t. The Korean founder was also discovered to have bought millions
\nof $ worth of stocks and bonds which didn’t mature until 1995, and was
\nconvicted of fraud.]<\/p>\n
0.9: What is “cold reading”?
\n—————————-<\/p>\n
[From a posting by Pope Charles ]<\/p>\n
Cold reading is the technique of saying little general things and
\nwatching a persons reactions. As one goes from very general to more
\nspecific things, one notes the reaction and uses it as a giude ti find
\nout what to say. Also there are stock phrases that sound like
\nstatements but are really questions. If these subtle questions evoke
\nanswers, these answers are used as a basis for the next round of
\nstatements.<\/p>\n
Many people get involved in various things like this because of their
\ninterest in the usual things, health, love, sex, ect. One can
\ndevelope a set of stock questions and statements that will elicit
\npositive responses fom 90% of your ‘clients’.<\/p>\n
In the hands of an expert, these simple techniques can be frightening
\nalmost. But they are simple things. Of course a paintbrush and a
\ncanvass are simple things too. It all depends on skill and talent for
\nthese things.<\/p>\n
One can learn these things coldbloodedly knowing them as the tricks
\nthey are, or as probably most use them, learned at the feet of other
\npractitioners as it were by rote, and developed by practice and
\nadapted to the tastes of the reader and his or her sitters. As
\nskeptics have pointed out, it is the best cold readers that make the
\nbest Tarot Readers, Astrologers, Palm Readers, or what have you.<\/p>\n
If your library is lucky enough to have it, Check The Zetetic, (later
\nrenamed Skeptical Inquirer), Vol. 1, #2 Summer 1977 “Cold Reading: How
\nto convince strangers you know all about them” by Ray Hyman.<\/p>\n
These techniques are not confined to the occult world by any means.
\nReligous workers, salesmen and the like use the principles to build
\nrapport with people.<\/p>\n
0.10: Is there a list of logical fallacies?
\n——————————————-<\/p>\n
A complete list of formal and informal logical fallacies is posted by
\nMathew as part of his excellent alt.atheism FAQ
\nfile series. This should be read carefully by anyone wishing to
\nconstruct a logical argument to support their position on any group.<\/p>\n
For those who want more information, “The Book of the Fallacy” by
\nMadsen Pirie covers the same ground in more detail.<\/p>\n
Formal and informal statistical fallacies are dealt with in the book
\n“How To Lie With Statistics” by Darrell Huff. I strongly recommend
\nthis one.<\/p>\n
0.11: What local skeptics organisations are there?
\n————————————————–<\/p>\n
[Contact addresses please]<\/p>\n
Australian Skeptics “The Skeptic”, P.O. Box 475,
\nPO Box E324 Manchester,
\nSt. James M60 2TH,
\nSydney U.K.
\nNSW 2000<\/p>\n
The Scientific Method
\n=====================<\/p>\n
1.1: What is the “scientific method”?
\n————————————-<\/p>\n
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing
\nthe truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something
\nlike this:<\/p>\n
\t1: Observe some aspect of the universe.
\n\t2: Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have
\n\t observed.
\n\t3: Use the theory to make predictions.
\n\t4: Test those predictions by experiments or further
\n\t observations.
\n\t5: Modify the theory in the light of your results.
\n\t6: Go to step 3.<\/p>\n
This leaves out the co-operation between scientists in building
\ntheories, and the fact that it is impossible for every scientist to
\nindependently do every experiment to confirm every theory. Because
\nlife is short, scientists have to trust other scientists. So a
\nscientist who claims to have done an experiment and obtained certain
\nresults will usually be believed, and most people will not bother to
\nrepeat the experiment.<\/p>\n
Experiments do get repeated as part of other experiments. Most
\nscientific papers contain suggestions for other scientists to follow
\nup. Usually the first step in doing this is to repeat the earlier
\nwork. So if a theory is the starting point for a significant amount
\nof work then the initial experiments will get replicated a number of
\ntimes.<\/p>\n
Some people talk about “Kuhnian paradigm shifts”. This refers to the
\nobserved pattern of the slow extension of scientific knowledge with
\noccasional sudden revolutions. This does happen, but it still follows
\nthe steps above.<\/p>\n
Many philosophers of science would argue that there is no such thing
\nas *the* scientific method.<\/p>\n
1.2: What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis?
\n———————————————————————-<\/p>\n
In popular usage, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy sort of fact.
\nBut to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that *explains*
\nexisting facts and predicts new ones. For instance, today I saw the
\nSun rise. This is a fact. This fact is explained by the theory that
\nthe Earth is round and spins on its axis while orbiting the sun. This
\ntheory also explains other facts, such as the seasons and the phases
\nof the moon, and allows me to make predictions about what will happen
\ntomorrow.<\/p>\n
This means that in some ways the words “fact” and “theory” are
\ninterchangeable. The organisation of the solar system, which I used as
\na simple example of a theory, is normally considered to be a fact that
\nis explained by Newton’s theory of gravity. And so on.<\/p>\n
A hypothesis is a tentative theory that has not yet been tested.
\nTypically, a scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it “holds
\nwater” by testing it against available data. If the hypothesis does
\nhold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory.<\/p>\n
1.3: Can science ever really prove anything?
\n——————————————–<\/p>\n
Yes and no. It depends on what you mean by “prove”.<\/p>\n
For instance, there is little doubt that an object thrown into the air
\nwill come back down (ignoring spacecraft for the moment). One could
\nmake a scientific observation that “Things fall down”. I am about to
\nthrow a stone into the air. I use my observation of past events to
\npredict that the stone will come back down. Wow – it did!<\/p>\n
But next time I throw a stone, it might not come down. It might
\nhover, or go shooting off upwards. So not even this simple fact has
\nbeen really proved. But you would have to be very perverse to claim
\nthat the next thrown stone will not come back down. So for ordinary
\neveryday use, we can say that the theory is true.<\/p>\n
You can think of facts and theories (not just scientific ones, but
\nordinary everyday ones) as being on a scale of certainty. Up at the
\ntop end we have facts like “things fall down”. Down at the bottom we
\nhave “the Earth is flat”. In the middle we have “I will die of heart
\ndisease”. Some scientific theories are nearer the top than others,
\nbut none of them ever actually reach it. Skepticism is usually
\ndirected at claims that contradict facts and theories that are very
\nnear the top of the scale. If you want to discuss ideas nearer the
\nmiddle of the scale (that is, things about which there is real debate
\nin the scientific community) then you would be better off asking on
\nthe appropriate specialist group.<\/p>\n
1.4: If scientific theories keep changing, where is the Truth?
\n————————————————————–<\/p>\n
In 1666 Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravitation. This was one
\nof the greatest intellectual feats of all time. The theory explained
\nall the observed facts, and made predictions that were later tested
\nand found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being
\nused. As far as anyone could see, Newton’s theory was the Truth.<\/p>\n
During the nineteenth century, more accurate instruments were used to
\ntest Newton’s theory, and found some slight discrepancies (for
\ninstance, the orbit of Mercury wasn’t quite right). Albert Einstein
\nproposed his theories of Relativity, which explained the newly
\nobserved facts and made more predictions. Those predictions have now
\nbeen tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the
\ninstruments being used. As far as anyone can see, Einstein’s theory
\nis the Truth.<\/p>\n
So how can the Truth change? Well the answer is that it hasn’t. The
\nUniverse is still the same as it ever was, and Newton’s theory is as
\ntrue as it ever was. If you take a course in physics today, you will
\nbe taught Newton’s Laws. They can be used to make predictions, and
\nthose predictions are still correct. Only if you are dealing with
\nthings that move close to the speed of light do you need to use
\nEinstein’s theories. If you are working at ordinary speeds outside of
\nvery strong gravitational fields and use Einstein, you will get
\n(almost) exactly the same answer as you would with Newton. It just
\ntakes longer because using Einstein involves rather more maths.<\/p>\n
One other note about truth: science does not make moral judgements.
\nAnyone who tries to draw moral lessons from the laws of nature is on
\nvery dangerous ground. Evolution in particular seems to suffer from
\nthis. At one time or another it seems to have been used to justify
\nNazism, Communism, and every other -ism in between. These
\njustifications are all completely bogus. Similarly, anyone who says
\n“evolution theory is evil because it is used to support Communism” (or
\nany other -ism) has also strayed from the path of Logic.<\/p>\n
1.5: What evidence is needed for an extraordinary claim?
\n——————————————————–<\/p>\n
Extraordinary evidence.<\/p>\n
An extraordinary claim is one that contradicts a fact that is close
\nto the top of the certainty scale discussed above. So if you are
\ntrying to contradict such a fact, you had better have facts available
\nthat are even higher up the certainty scale.<\/p>\n
1.6: What is Occam’s Razor?
\n—————————<\/p>\n
Ockham’s Razor (“Occam” is a Latinised variant) is the principle
\nproposed by William of Ockham in the fifteenth century that
\n“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate”, which translates as
\n“entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily”. Various other
\nrephrasings have been incorrectly attributed to him. In more modern
\nterms, if you have two theories which both explain the observed facts
\nthen you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along. See
\nW.M. Thorburn, “The Myth of Occam’s Razor,” _Mind_ 27:345-353 (1918)
\nfor a detailed study of what Ockham actually wrote and what others
\nwrote after him.<\/p>\n
The reason behind the razor is that for any given set of facts there
\nare an infinite number of theories that could explain them. For
\ninstance, if you have a graph with four points in a line then the
\nsimplest theory that explains them is a linear relationship, but you
\ncan draw an infinite number of different curves that all pass through
\nthe four points. There is no evidence that the straight line is the
\nright one, but it is the simplest possible solution. So you might as
\nwell use it until someone comes along with a point off the straight
\nline.<\/p>\n
Also, if you have a few thousand points on the line and someone
\nsuggests that there is a point that is off the line, it’s a pretty
\nfair bet that they are wrong.<\/p>\n
A related rule, which can be used to slice open conspiracy theories, is
\nHanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which can be
\nadequately explained by stupidity”. See the Jargon File (edited by
\nEric Raymond) for more details.<\/p>\n
1.7: Galileo was persecuted, just like researchers into today.
\n——————————————————————<\/p>\n
People putting forward extraordinary claims often refer to Galileo as
\nan example of a great genius being persecuted by the establishment for
\nheretical theories. They claim that the scientific establishment is
\nafraid of being proved wrong, and hence is trying to suppress the
\ntruth.<\/p>\n
This is a classic conspiracy theory. The Conspirators are all those
\nscientists who have bothered to point out flaws in the claims put
\nforward by the researchers.<\/p>\n
The usual rejoinder to someone who says “They laughed at Columbus,
\nthey laughed at Galileo” is to say “And they also laughed at Bozo the
\nClown”. (From Carl Sagan, “Broca’s Brain”, Coronet 1980, p79).<\/p>\n
Incidentally, stories about the persecution of Galileo Galilei and the
\nridicule Christopher Columbus had to endure should be taken with a
\ngrain of salt.<\/p>\n
During the early days of Galileo’s theory church officials were
\ninterested and sometimes supportive, even though they had yet to find
\na way to incorporate it into theology. His main adversaries were
\nestablished scientists – since he was unable to provide HARD proofs
\nthey didn’t accept his model. Galileo became more agitated, declared
\nthem ignorant fools and publicy stated that his model was the correct
\none, thus coming in conflict with the church.<\/p>\n
When Columbus proposed to take the “Western Route” the spherical
\nnature of the Earth was common knowledge, even though the diameter was
\nstill debatable. Columbus simply believed that the Earth was a lot
\nsmaller, while his adversaries claimed that the Western Route would be
\ntoo long. If America hadn’t been in his way, he most likely would have
\nfailed. The myth that “he was laughed at for believing that the Earth
\nwas a globe” steems from an American author who intentionally
\nadulterated history.<\/p>\n
1.8: What is the “Experimenter effect”?
\n—————————————<\/p>\n
It is unconscious bias introduced into an experiment by the
\nexperimenter. It can occur in one of two ways:<\/p>\n
o Scientists doing experiments often have to look for small effects
\n or differences between the things being experimented on.<\/p>\n
o Experiments require many samples to be treated in exactly the same
\n way in order to get consistent results.<\/p>\n
Note that neither of these sources of bias require deliberate fraud.<\/p>\n
A classic example of the first kind of bias was the “N-ray”,
\ndiscovered early this century. Detecting them required the
\ninvestigator to look for very faint flashes of light on a
\nscintillator. Many scientists reported detecting these rays. They
\nwere fooling themselves.<\/p>\n
A classic example of the second kind of bias were the detailed
\ninvestigations into the relationship between race and brain capacity
\nin the last century. Skull capacity was measured by filling the empty
\nskull with beans and then measuring the volume of beans. A
\nsignificant difference in the results could be obtained by ensuring
\nthat the beans in some skulls were better settled than others. For
\nmore details on this story, read Stephen Jay Gould’s “The Mismeasure
\nof Man”.<\/p>\n
For more detail see:<\/p>\n
T.X. Barber, “Pitfalls of Human Research”, 1976.
\nRobert Rosenthal, “Pygmalion in the Classroom”.<\/p>\n
[These were recommended by a correspondant. Sorry I have no more
\ninformation.]<\/p>\n
1.9: How much fraud is there in science?
\n—————————————-<\/p>\n
In its simplest form this question is unanswerable, since undetected
\nfraud is by definition unmeasurable. Of course there are many known
\ncases of fraud in science. Some use this to argue that all scientific
\nfindings (especially those they dislike) are worthless.<\/p>\n
This ignores the replication of results which is routinely undertaken
\nby scientists. Any important result will be replicated many times by
\nmany different people. So an assertion that (for instance) scientists
\nare lying about carbon-14 dating requires that a great many scientists
\nare engaging in a conspiracy. See the previous question.<\/p>\n
In fact the existence of known and documented fraud is a good
\nillustration of the self-correcting nature of science. It does not
\nmatter if a proportion of scientists are fraudsters because any
\nimportant work they do will not be taken seriously without independant
\nverification. Hence they must confine themselves to pedestrian work
\nwhich no-one is much interested in, and obtain only the expected
\nresults. For anyone with the talent and ambition necessary to get a
\nPh.D this is not going to be an enjoyable career.<\/p>\n
Also, most scientists are idealists. They perceive beauty in
\nscientific truth and see its discovery as their vocation. Without
\nthis most would have gone into something more lucrative.<\/p>\n
These arguments suggest that undetected fraud in science is both rare
\nand unimportant.<\/p>\n
For more detail on more scientific frauds than you ever knew existed,
\nsee “False Prophets” by Alexander Koln.<\/p>\n
1.9.1: Did Mendel fudge his results?
\n————————————<\/p>\n
Gregor Mendel was a 19th Century monk who discovered the laws of
\ninheritance (dominant and recessive genes etc.). More recent analysis
\nof his results suggest that they are “too good to be true”. Mendelian
\ninheritance involves the random selection of possible traits from
\nparents, with particular probabilities of particular traits. It seems
\nfrom Mendel’s raw data that chance played a smaller part in his
\nexperiments than it should. This does not imply fraud on the part of
\nMendel.<\/p>\n
First, the experiments were not “blind” (see the questions about
\ndouble blind experiments and the experimenter effect). Deciding
\nwhether a particular pea is wrinkled or not needs judgement, and this
\ncould bias Mendel’s results towards the expected. This is an example
\nof the “experimenter effect”.<\/p>\n
Second, Mendel’s Laws are only approximations. In fact it does turn
\nout that in some cases inheritance is less random than his Laws state.<\/p>\n
Third, Mendel might have neglected to publish the results of `failed’
\nexperiments. It is interesting to note that all of his published work
\nis concerned with characteristics which are controlled by single
\ngenes. He did not report any experiments with more complicated
\ncharacteristics.<\/p>\n
Psychic Powers
\n==============<\/p>\n
2.1: Is Uri Geller for real?
\n—————————-<\/p>\n
James “The Amazing” Randi has, through various demonstrations, cast
\ndoubt on Geller’s claims of psychic powers. Geller has sued Randi.
\nSkeptics are advised to exercise extreme caution in addressing this
\ntopic, given the pending litigation. Bay Area Skeptics, Tampa Bay
\nSkeptics, and the Skeptics Society of Los Angeles have all been
\nthreatened with litigation over this matter, which could be expected
\nto be extremely expensive and time-consuming whatever the eventual
\noutcome.<\/p>\n
2.2: I have had a psychic experience.
\n————————————-<\/p>\n
That is pretty remarkable. But before you post to the Net, consider:-<\/p>\n
* Could it just be coincidence? The human mind is good at
\n remembering odd things but tends to forget ordinary things, such as
\n premonitions that didn’t happen. If psychic experiences happen to
\n you on a regular basis then try writing down the premonitions when
\n you have them and then comparing your record to later events.<\/p>\n
* If you think you have a mental link with someone you know, try a
\n few tests with playing cards [Has anyone got a good protocol for
\n this kind of thing? PAJ].<\/p>\n
* If you are receiving messages from elsewhere (e.g. UFOs), ask for
\n specific information that you can then check. The complete prime
\n factorisation of 2^1024+1 would be a good start: we don’t know it,
\n but any proposed answer is easy to check.<\/p>\n
If you want to make a formal registration of your predictions, send
\nmail to .<\/p>\n
2.3: What is “Sensory Leakage”?
\n——————————-<\/p>\n
Sensory leakage is something that designers of tests for psi must be
\ncareful to guard against. Tests for psi use powerful statistical
\ntests to search for faint traces of communication. Unfortunately the
\nfact that communication has taken place does not prove that it was
\ndone by telepathy. It could have been through some more mundane form
\nof signal.<\/p>\n
For instance one experiment involved a “sender” in one room with a
\nstack of numbered cards (1-10) and a “receiver” in another room trying
\nto guess what the next card was. The sender looked at a card and
\npressed a button to signal to the receiver. The receiver then tried
\nto guess the number on the card. There was a definite correlation
\nbetween the card numbers and the guesses. However the sender could
\nsignal the receiver by varying the delays between buzzes. When this
\nchannel of communication was removed, the effect disappeared.<\/p>\n
2.4: Who are the main psi researchers?
\n————————————–<\/p>\n
Targ and Puthoff spring to mind, but actually, Puthoff is no longer
\ndoing psi research (I don’t have any idea what Targ is up to these
\ndays.) Granted, their SRI work is quite famous, but if we want to
\nreview the historical (rather than currently active) figures, you
\nprobably want to go back at least as far as the Rhines.<\/p>\n
Helmut Schmidt, a physicist who has been looking at PK, is still
\nactive at the Mind Science Foundation in Texas. (Sorry, I don’t know a
\nmore specific address than that.)<\/p>\n
The Foundation for Research into the Nature of Man (FRNM), which is
\nwhat Rhine’s work at Duke eventually developed into, is still active
\nnear Duke. It is currently headed by K. Ramakrishna Rao.<\/p>\n
The Koestler Chair of Parapsychology at the University of Edinburgh
\nis, as far as I know, still active. The current incumbent is, I think,
\nnamed Robert Morris; his main assistant is Deborah Delanoy.<\/p>\n
Roger Nelson is active in the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
\ncenter (PEAR) and occasionally posts to the net.<\/p>\n
Active workers in the field that I can think of currently include Dean
\nRadin, who also posts to sci.skeptic as ,
\nJessica Utts, and Ed May. The Parapsychological Association has a much
\nlarger roster than that, of course, but I’m not a member myself and
\ndon’t have access to their membership roll.<\/p>\n
2.5: Does dowsing work?
\n———————–<\/p>\n
Dowsing is the art of finding underground water by extra-sensory
\nperception. Sometimes tools are used. The traditional one is a
\nforked hazel stick. When held in the correct way this will twitch in
\nresponse to small muscle movements in the back and shoulders. Another
\ntool that has become popular in recent years is a pair of rods mounted
\nin tubes that are held in each hand just in front of the user.<\/p>\n
Rod bent into tube.
\n |
\n V
\n \tr——————————-
\n || ^
\n || |
\n || <- Tube Rod
\n ||
\n ||
\n ||<\/p>\n
When water (or something else) is dowsed, the rods turn towards each
\nother. Like the forked hazel stick it amplifies small movements of
\nthe arm and shoulder muscles.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately careful tests of dowsers have revealed absolutely no
\nability to find water or anything else by extra-sensory perception.
\nDowsing success stories can be explained by noting that wherever you
\ndig you will find water. You just have to dig deep enough. It has
\nalso been suggested that dowsers may unconsciously use clues in the
\nenvironment.<\/p>\n
James Randi has tested more than 100 dowsers (I don't know the actual
\ncount). He tells that only 2 tried to cheat. This suggests that
\ndowsers are basically honest people.<\/p>\n
The Skeptical Inquirer has published a number of articles on dowsing.
\nJames Randi's "A Controlled Test of Dowsing" was in vol. 4, no. 1, pp.
\n16-20. Michael Martin's "A New Controlled Dowsing Experiment" was in
\nvol. 8, pp. 138-140. Dick Smith's "Two Tests of Divining in
\nAustralia" was in vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 34-37. Randi's book Flim-Flam!
\nhas a section on dowsing. The main skeptical book about dowsing is
\nVogt, E.Z. and Hyman R. (1959, 2nd edition 1979) "Water witching USA".
\nThe University of Chicago Press. 260 pages. Available as a paperback.<\/p>\n
2.6: Could psi be inhibited by the presence of skeptics?
\n——————————————————–<\/p>\n
Psychic researchers have noted something they call the "shyness
\neffect" (or more grandly "psi-mediated experimenter effects"). This
\nis invoked to explain the way in which many subjects' psychic powers
\nseem to fade when exposed to careful scrutiny and proper controls.
\nOften it is alleged that having a skeptic in the audience can prevent
\nthe delicate operation of psi.<\/p>\n
In its most extreme form this hypothesis becomes a "catch-22" that
\nmakes any results consistent with a psi hypothesis. This renders the
\nhypothesis unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. Less extreme
\nforms might be testable.<\/p>\n
2.7: Why don't the skeptics test the *real* psychics?
\n—————————————————–<\/p>\n
A claim is sometimes made that the Skeptics movement only tests those
\npsychics which it knows to be frauds. The real psychics are supposedly
\nbeing ignored by skeptics who are afraid to be proved wrong.<\/p>\n
There are three problems with this claim.<\/p>\n
Firstly, it assumes that all the skeptics are engaged in a conspiracy
\nto persuade the world that psychic powers do not exist. This is only
\na Petty Conspiracy theory (see section 0), since it only requires the
\ninvolvment of a few dozen of the most prominent skeptics, but it is
\nstill difficult to see any motive for such a deception. "Fear of
\nbeing proved wrong" implies that they already know they are wrong,
\nwhich makes their continued activity rather puzzling.<\/p>\n
Secondly, most skeptics are always ready to take part in any
\nreasonable test. The "real" psychics are perfectly at liberty to
\nchallange the skeptics.<\/p>\n
Thirdly, there are always more alleged psychics. Hence this
\nargument presents the skeptics with an ever-receeding target. The
\ndialogue goes something like this:<\/p>\n
Paranormalist: Yes, I conceed that Mr. Adams is a fake, but what about
\n\t Mr. Brown. The things that he does could never be
\n\t faked.<\/p>\n
[Some months later]<\/p>\n
Skeptic: Here is how Brown did it….<\/p>\n
P: OK, I conceed that Adams and Brown are fakes, but Mrs Carver is the
\n surely the real thing.<\/p>\n
[Some months later]<\/p>\n
S: Here is how Carver did it…<\/p>\n
P: OK, maybe Adams, Brown and Carver were fakes, but what about Digby
\n and Ender?<\/p>\n
S: I give up. There's no convincing some people.<\/p>\n
P: [shouting] Digby and Ender are real psychics: the skeptics are
\n afraid to test them. They only test the fakes!<\/p>\n
UFOs and Flying Saucers
\n=======================<\/p>\n
3.1 What are UFOs?
\n——————-<\/p>\n
UFOs are, simply, Unidentified Flying Objects, no more, no less. This
\nmeans that if you are out one night and see a light moving in the sky
\nand cannot immediately identify it as a certain star, planet or other
\nobject, then it is by definition a UFO. THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE
\nSEEN AN ALIEN SPACESHIP.<\/p>\n
A better question would be:<\/p>\n
3.1.1 Are UFOs alien spacecraft?
\n———————————<\/p>\n
Probably not. The vast majority of UFO reports, when investigated by
\ncompetent researchers (and that is a problem all by itself), can be
\neasily explained as natural or manmade objects misidentified for one
\nreason or another. The actual percentage is around 95%. A very few
\nreports are provable hoaxes. The remaining few percent (some skeptics
\nargue that there are no remaining reports) are not explained at this
\ntime. Again, this does not mean that they are observations of alien
\nspaceships. All we can say is that, given the information presently
\navailable, some cases don't appear to be stars, balloons, airplanes,
\naurorae. etc. Given a great deal more time and effort, many more
\ncould likely be identified. It's possible that the witness(es) were
\nin error, or are very good liars. And the remaining few cases? Well,
\nthe best we can say, as true skeptics, is that we don't know what they
\nwere, but there is NO proof that they were alien spacecraft.<\/p>\n
3.1.2 Are UFOs natural phenomena?
\n———————————-<\/p>\n
Possibly. A number of theories have been proposed, suggesting that
\nsome UFOs are "plasmas" or variations of ball lightning or earthquake
\nlights. Unfortunately, the theories seem to change to fit observed
\ndata, rather than predict the observations. Also, studies designed to
\nsupport the theories have used newspaper articles and raw, unsifted UFO
\ncase lists for data, and therefore the studies do not appear to be
\ncompletely unbiased. Perhaps time will tell. Until then it is safe to
\nsay that SOME UFOs are probably ball lightning or other rare natural
\nphenomena.<\/p>\n
3.1.3 But isn't it possible that aliens are visiting Earth?
\n————————————————————<\/p>\n
Yes. But it is also possible that there is an invisible snorg reading
\nthis over your shoulder right now.<\/p>\n
Basically, some astronomers (e.g. Carl Sagan) are convinced that there
\nare other habitable planets in our galaxy, and that there may be some
\nform of life on them. Assuming that parallel evolution occurred on
\nthese other planets, there MIGHT be intelligent life forms there. It
\nis possible that some of these life forms could have an advanced
\ncivilization, and perhaps have achieved space travel. BUT – there is
\nno proof that this is so. SETI programs such as the High Resolution
\nMicrowave Search now being conducted by NASA under the direction of
\nJill Tartar are "listening" to other stars in the hope of detecting
\nradio signals that might indicate intelligent life – kind of
\nlistening for the equivalent of "Watson, come here, I need you!", or
\n"I love Lucy" in the infancy of our early communications. Such
\nsearches have been fruitless, so far.<\/p>\n
If there are aliens on distant planets, then it is possible that they
\nmight have found a way to travel between stars in their lifetimes.
\nAccording to our present understanding of physics, this is not likely,
\ngiven the vast distances between stars. Even travelling at the speed
\nof light (which cannot be done), a round trip to the nearest star would
\ntake about ten years. This does not rule out interstellar ships, but
\nit does make it seem unlikely that we are being visited.<\/p>\n
If *even one* civilization has found a way to travel between stars in
\nthe entire history of the Milky Way Galaxy (about ten billion years),
\nit ought to fill the entire Galaxy in only a hundred million years or
\nso. The question, then, is why don't we observe evidence of alien
\ncivilization everywhere? This question is known as the Fermi Paradox,
\nand there is no really satisfactory answer. If, however, we postulate
\nalien visits to Earth, we must also accept a Galaxy-wide civilization
\nand ask why we see no evidence of it.<\/p>\n
3.2: Is it true that the US government has a crashed flying saucer (MJ-12)?
\n—————————————————————————<\/p>\n
The MJ-12 documents purportedly established that the U.S. government
\nhad established a secret organization of 12 people called MJ-12 or
\nMajestic-12 to deal with UFOs. These 12 people were all conveniently
\ndead at the time the documents were discovered. Klass proved that the
\ndocuments are fakes.<\/p>\n
The Roswell Incident refers to an alleged UFO crash in Roswell, NM.
\nThis is also known as the "Roswell Incident". Philip Klass has also
\ninvestigated this one and shown the reports to be bogus. One of the
\nmore notable items of "evidence" was a document "signed by the
\npresident". Klass showed that this signature was a photocopy of an
\nexisting presidential signature. See SI 14:2 (Winter 1990) pp
\n135-140.<\/p>\n
All such allegations involve a conspiracy theory. Sometimes these
\nconspiracy theories get very big indeed. One common one involves a
\ntreaty between the government and the saucer people whereby the
\ngovernment stays in power and the saucer people get to abduct humans
\nfor various gruesome purposes.<\/p>\n
3.3: What is "channeling"?
\n————————–<\/p>\n
"Channeling" is remarkably similar to Spiritualism. The main
\ndifference is that the relatives "on the other side" are replaced by a
\nwide variety of other beings. This means that the channeler does not
\nhave to worry about providing accurate information about people in the
\naudience. The beings that channelers claim to speak for range from
\nenlightened aliens to humans who lived thousands of years ago to
\ndiscarnate intelligences who have never had bodies.<\/p>\n
3.4: How can we test a channeler?
\n———————————<\/p>\n
Some channelled entities are alleged to come from the distant past.
\nThey can be asked about events, climate and language in ways that can
\nbe checked.<\/p>\n
If the entity is from a technically advanced race, try asking for the
\ncomplete factorisation of 2^1024+1.<\/p>\n
3.5: I am in telepathic contact with the aliens.
\n————————————————<\/p>\n
See the earlier section on psychic experiences and then try testing
\nyour aliens to see if you get a specific answer. If you can come up
\nwith new facts that can be tested by scientists then you will be
\nlistened to. Otherwise you would do better on alt.alien.visitors.<\/p>\n
3.6: Some bozo has just posted a load of "teachings" from a UFO. What
\n———————————————————————-
\n should I do?
\n ————<\/p>\n
You have several choices:<\/p>\n
* Ignore it.<\/p>\n
* Ask for evidence (see question 3.4 above).<\/p>\n
* Insult or flame the poster. This is a bad idea.<\/p>\n
3.7: Are crop circles made by flying saucers?
\n———————————————<\/p>\n
There is no convincing evidence that crop circles or any other kind of
\nUGM (Unusual Ground Markings) were made by aliens. There are some
\nreports of lights being seen in and around crop circle sites, and a few
\nvideos showing objects flitting over fields. The lights are hardly
\nproof, and the objects in the videos seem to be pieces of foil or paper
\nbeing tossed about by the wind.<\/p>\n
In a deliberate attempt to test crop circle "experts", a crop circle
\nwas faked under the watchful eyes of the media. When cerealogists were
\ncalled in, they proclaimed it genuine.<\/p>\n
3.7.1: Are crop circles made by "vortices"?
\n———————————————<\/p>\n
Probably not. There are a number of meteorologists who believe that
\ncrop circle formations are created by rare natural forces such as
\n"ionised plasma vortices". Basically, winds blowing across rolling
\nhills sometimes form eddies, which in some circumstances (that have
\nnever been quantified) become strong, downward spiralling drafts that
\nlay down the crop. Cerealogists claim to have over two dozen witnesses
\nto such events. Unfortunately, many more have said they have seen
\nflying saucers do the same thing.<\/p>\n
Scientific articles arguing for the reality of these vortices have
\nappeared regularly in the Journal of Meteorology. But its editor is
\nthe leading proponent of the theory, Dr. Terence Meaden.<\/p>\n
Winds can lay down crop in patches known as lodging. But geometric
\npatterns in fields can hardly be attributable to natural phenomena.
\nMeaden has changed his theory to first accommodate complex circles,
\novals and even triangles (!), but now admits that most circles are
\nhoaxes and the theory can only explain simpler patterns.<\/p>\n
3.7.2: Are crop circles made by hoaxers?
\n—————————————–<\/p>\n
Of course. Although most people have heard only of two, Doug Bower and
\nDave Chorley of England, many others have been caught, not only in
\nBritain but in other countries such as Canada. Their methods range
\nfrom inscribed circles with a pole and a length of rope to more complex
\nsystems involving chains, rollers, planks and measuring devices.<\/p>\n
And as a further note: just because you can't prove a crop circle was
\nmade by a hoaxer, you should not assume aliens were involved. Remember
\nOccam's Razor (Section 1.6).<\/p>\n
3.7.3: Are crop circles radioactive?
\n————————————–<\/p>\n
This is a claim that has received wide circulation in UFO\/cerealogy
\ncircles (pardon the pun). It is also untrue. Examination of the data
\nfrom spectral analyses of soil taken from crop circles has shown that
\nthere were no readings above the normal background levels. The
\nproponents of this claim are debating this, however.<\/p>\n
3.7.4: What about cellular changes in plants within crop circles?
\n——————————————————————-<\/p>\n
Yes, what about the changes? Although this is another claim that is
\nwidely circulated among ufologists and cerealogists, the evidence is
\nsimply not very good. A few photographs of alleged changes in the
\n"crystalline structure" of wheat stems were published in some
\nmagazines and UFO publications. The method used was spagyrical
\nanalysis. This is a technique involving crystallization of the
\nresidue of organic material after harsh processing, invented three
\ncenturies ago and popularized by Sir Kenelm Digby. Digby is known for
\nother wonderful inventions like condensation of sunlight and the
\ndevelopment of sword salve (which you had to put on the weapon rather
\nthan on the wound, in order to cure the wound). The fact that this
\ntechnique was tried at all casts serious doubts on the "researchers"
\ninvolved.<\/p>\n
3.8: Have people been abducted by UFOs?
\n—————————————<\/p>\n
While the number of people who believe themselves to have been
\nabducted by flying saucer aliens must number at least many thousands,
\nnot one of them has produced any physical evidence to establish the
\nreality of their claim. On the contrary, a number of factors clearly
\npoint to a subjective basis for the "UFO abduction" phenomenon.
\nProbably the strongest factor is that of the cultural dependence of
\nsuch claims. Such claims were virtually unknown until the famous
\nabduction story of Betty and Barney Hill received widespread publicity
\nin the late 1960s. Also, the appearance and behavior of supposed UFO
\noccupants varies greatly with location and year. UFO abduction claims
\nare made much less frequently outside North America, especially in
\nnon-English-speaking countries, although foreign reports have started
\nto catch up since the publication of Whitley Strieber's "Communion".
\nFurthermore, the descriptions of supposed UFO aliens contain clear
\ncultural dependencies; in North America large-headed grey aliens
\npredominate, while in Britain abducting aliens are mostly tall, blond,
\nand Nordic. Aliens that are claimed to steal sperm, eggs, and fetuses,
\nor make scars or body implants on those supposedly abducted, were
\npractically unknown before the publication of Budd Hopkins's books.
\nThis particularly alarming type of abduction seems to be quite rare
\noutside North America.<\/p>\n
Clear "borrowings" from popular science fiction stories can be traced
\nin certain major "UFO abductions." Barney Hill's description of his
\nsupposed abductors' "wraparound eyes" (an extreme rarity in science
\nfiction films), first described and drawn during a hypnosis session on
\nFeb. 22, 1964, comes just twelve days after the first broadcast of an
\nepisode of "The Outer Limits" featuring an alien of this quite unique
\ndescription. Many other elements of the Hill story can be traced to
\nthe 1953 film "Invaders from Mars," including aliens having "Jimmy
\nDurante" noses, an alien medical examination, something done to her
\neyes to relax her, being probed with a needle, a star map hanging on a
\nwall, a notebook offered as a remembrance, even the imagery of a
\nneedle in the navel. Other "abductees" borrowed other ideas from
\n"Invaders From Mars," including brain implants, aliens drilling into a
\nhuman skull, and aliens seeking to revitalize a dying world.<\/p>\n
Originally, stories of UFO abductions were obtainable solely by
\nhypnotic regression of the claimant, although in recent years the
\nsubject of "UFO abductions" has become so generally known that some
\nsubjects claim to remember their "abduction" without hypnosis.
\nHypnosis is a NOT a reliable method for extracting so- called "hidden
\nmemories", and its use in this manner is likely to lead to fabrication
\nand error. Moreover, if it is suggested to a hypnotized person that
\nfictitious events have occurred, the subject himself may come to
\nbelieve this (See the article "Hypnosis" in the 1974 "Encyclopaedia
\nBrittanica" by Martin Orne).<\/p>\n
3.9: What is causing the strange cattle deaths?
\n———————————————–<\/p>\n
The only information I have on these is a long file that came to me
\nvia Len Bucuvalas from ParaNet. The
\ngist is that cattle and other animals have been found dead with
\nstrange mutilations. Organs, especially genitals, have been removed
\nbut no blood appears to have been lost. These events are also
\nsometimes associated with reports of alien encounters and UFOs.<\/p>\n
The best source of information on cattle mutilations is the
\nbook Mute Evidence by Ian Summers and Daniel Kagan, a couple
\nof investigative journalists who started out believing that
\nsomething mysterious was happening, but ended up skeptics.
\nSI has published James Stewart’s “Cattle Mutilations: An Episode
\nof Collective Delusion” (way back in vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 55-66).
\nStewart is a sociologist who examined the pattern of reports and
\nfound that new reports were inspired by previous media coverage.
\nIt came in “waves” or “flaps”.<\/p>\n
3.10: What is the face on Mars?
\n——————————-<\/p>\n
One of the Mars orbiters took a photograph of a part of Mars (Cydonia)
\nwhen the sun was very low on the horizon. The picture shows a “face”
\nand some nearby pyramids. Both these structures are seen more by
\ntheir shadows than their actual shape. The pyramid shadows appear
\nregular because their size is close to the limit of resolution of the
\ncamera, and the “face” is just a chance arrangement of shadow over a
\ncouple of hills. The human brain is very good at picking out familiar
\npatterns in random noise, so it is not surprising that a couple of
\nMartian surface features (out of thousands photographed) vaguely
\nresemble a face when seen in the right light.<\/p>\n
Richard Hoagland has championed the idea that the Face is artificial,
\nintended to resemble a human, and erected by an extraterrestrial
\ncivilization. Most other analysts concede that the resemblance is most
\nlikely accidental. Other Viking images show a smiley-faced crater and
\na lava flow resembling Kermit the Frog elsewhere on Mars. There exists
\na Mars Anomalies Research Society (sorry, don’t know the address) to
\nstudy the Face and related features.<\/p>\n
The Mars Observer spacecraft, scheduled for launch September 25, has a
\ncamera that can give 1.5m per pixel resolution. More details of the
\nCydonia formations should become available when it arrives.<\/p>\n
Anyone who wants to learn some more about this should look up “Image
\nProcessing”, volume 4 issue 3, which includes enhanced images of the
\n“face”. Hoagland has written “The Monuments of Mars: A City on the
\nEdge of Forever”, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California, USA,
\n1987.<\/p>\n
[Some of this is from the sci.space FAQs]<\/p>\n
3.11: Did Ezekiel See a Flying Saucer?
\n————————————–<\/p>\n
The chapter in question is Ezekiel 1:4-28. This vision is an example
\nof apocalyptic writing common in the centuries before and after
\nChrist. (Good examples are chapters 2 and 7-12 of Daniel and the book
\nof Revelation.) Apocalyptic literature is difficult to interpret
\nbecause the language is symbolic and figurative. In some cases the
\nwriter will reveal what is meant by the symbols. Verse 28 identifies
\nEzekiel’s wheels within wheels vision as, “the appearance of the
\nlikeness of the glory of the LORD.” This “glory” is the “Khabod”, a
\nmanifestation of brilliant light thought to be present in the temple.
\nThe wheels are described as appearing in a *vision* which is more like
\nan hallucination than a physical event. The wheels are seen again in
\nEzekiel chap 10 leaving the temple in Jerusalem, but Ezekiel sees this
\nwhile sitting inside his house which is in Babylon (see Eze. 1:1-2 and
\nEze. 8:1). In other words this was a message from God (or a
\nhallucination) rather than a physical event.<\/p>\n
3.12: What happened at Tunguska?
\n——————————–<\/p>\n
At 7:17 in the morning of June 30th 1908, close to the Stony Tunguska
\nRiver, on the Central Siberian Plateau, a huge air explosion occurred.
\nThe explosion was powerful enough to be heard hundreds of miles away.
\nThe area around the Stony Tunguska River is inaccessible and consists
\nmostly of bogs and pine forests. The seismic shocks from the
\nexplosion were detected around the Earth. The London Times of July
\n4th, 1908 reported “The remarkable ruddy glows which have been seen on
\nmany nights lately…seen…as far as Berlin.”<\/p>\n
When an expedition eventually reached the epicentre of the explosion
\nthey found that the pine trees had been pushed over, pointing away
\nfrom the centre. The trees directly under the explosion remained
\nstanding. Some small craters *were* observed at the time but have
\ndisappeared over the years due to the boggy land. The pattern is now
\nrecognised as being similar to that produced by an air-burst nuclear
\nbomb.<\/p>\n
Currently the event is usually explained as a small, unnoticed, comet
\nhitting the upper atmosphere somewhere over China and finally
\nexploding a few seconds latter above Tunguska. A number of other
\nexplainations have been offered…<\/p>\n
* an atomic explosion. Some reports collected some time after the
\n event describe a typical mushroom cloud. The problem here is
\n that such clouds are typical of large explosions due to any cause
\n – they are not peculiar to atomic explosions. There is also the
\n difficulty in explaining how the Russians first developed and
\n then forgot the technology when it would have been very useful in
\n two major wars!<\/p>\n
* a small black hole weighing a few million tons passed through the
\n Earth. The other entry\/exit point was unnoticed as it was in the
\n ocean. Steven Hawking has now shown that black holes of such a
\n size have very short lives in cosmic terms due to an
\n `evaporation’ effect.<\/p>\n
* a small anti-matter meteor. This now seems very unlikely with
\n the recent discovery of large amounts of inter-stellar matter in
\n which, although still close to a vacuum, is quite sufficient to
\n erode any small amount of anti-matter quite rapidly. In addition,
\n the very existance of anti-matter in any sizable amounts in our
\n universe is now thought to be very unlikely.<\/p>\n
* an alien spaceship, damaged and out of control, exploded during
\n an emergency landing. There is no supporting evidence for this
\n apart from eye witness reports of the vapour trail caused during
\n the objects passage through the atmosphere showing a distinct
\n `bend’, which is supposed to be due to a course change. Such
\n bends can also be found in the vapour trails of aircraft which
\n can be seen to be flying straight and are caused by winds in the
\n upper atmosphere.<\/p>\n
The event is not such a mystery as some suppose. In 1969 a Soviet
\nperiodical published a bibliography of more than 1000 entries. Though
\nthese are mostly in Russian it is not difficult to find references in
\nwestern scientific publications. `Nature’ has published a number of
\npapers covering most of the above explanations.<\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
John Baxter and Thomas Atkins, “The Fire Came By”, Futura
\nPublications Ltd, 1977, ISBN 0 86000 7540 0<\/p>\n
Oliver, Charles P. “The Great Siberian Meteorite,” Scientific
\nAmerican, Vol. 139, No. 1(1928), 42-44<\/p>\n
Growther, J.G. “More About the Great Siberian Meteorite,”
\nScientific American, Vol. 144, No. 5 (1931), 314-317<\/p>\n
Zigel, Felix. “Nuclear Explosion over the Taiga: Study of the
\nTunguska Meteorite,” Znaniye-Sila, No. 12 (1961), 24-27 [English
\ntranslation available from Joint Publications Research Service,
\nWashington, DC., JPRS-13480 (April 1962)<\/p>\n
Parry, Albert. “Russia’s Rockets and Missiles” Macmillan 1962,
\npp 248-267<\/p>\n
Cowan,C.,C.R. Atluri and W.F. Libby. “Possible Anti-Matter
\nContent of the Tunguska Meteor of 1908,” Nature, Vol. 206, No.
\n4987 (1965), 861-865<\/p>\n
Jackson, A.A., and M.P. Ryan, “Was the Tungus Event Due to a
\nBlack Hole?”, Nature, Vol. 245, No. 5420 (1973), 88-89<\/p>\n
Faith Healing and Alternative Therapies
\n=======================================<\/p>\n
Disclaimer: I am not medically qualified. If you have a medical
\n\t problem then I strongly recommend that you go to a
\n\t qualified medical practitioner. Asking the Net for
\n\t specific medical advice is always a bad idea.<\/p>\n
4.1: Isn’t western medicine reductionistic and alternatives holistic?
\n———————————————————————<\/p>\n
Practitioners of alternative therapies often put forward the idea that
\nmodern scientific medicine is reductionistic: it concentrates on those
\nparts of the body that are not working properly, and in so doing it
\nreduces the patient to a collection of organs. Alternative therapies
\ntry to consider the patient as a whole (a holistic approach).<\/p>\n
This is a fine piece of rhetoric, but it’s wrong. It is true that
\nmodern medicine looks at the details of diseases, trying to find out
\nexactly what is going wrong and what is causing it. But it also looks
\nat the life of the patient, and tries to understand how the patient
\ninteracts with his\/her environment and how this interaction can be
\nimproved. For instance, smoking is known to cause a wide variety of
\nmedical problems. Hence doctors advise patients to give up smoking as
\nwell as treating the individual illnesses that it causes. When a
\npatient presents with an illness then the doctor will not only treat
\nthe illness but also try to understand how this illness was caused in
\norder to avoid a recurrence.<\/p>\n
4.2: What is a double-blind trial? What is a placebo?
\n——————————————————<\/p>\n
A double-blind trial is the standard method for deciding whether or
\nnot a treatment has any “real” effect.<\/p>\n
A placebo is a “treatment” that has no effect except through the mind
\nof the patient. The usual form is a pill containing a little lactose
\n(milk-sugar), although a bitter-tasting liquid or injections of 1cc
\nsaline can be used instead.<\/p>\n
The “placebo effect” is the observed tendency for patients to display
\nthe symptoms they are told to expect.<\/p>\n
The problem is that the state of mind of a patient is often a
\nsignificant factor in the effect of a course of treatment. All
\ndoctors know this; it is why “bedside manner” is considered so
\nimportant. In statistical tests of new treatments it is even more
\nimportant, since even a small effect from the state of mind of a small
\nfraction of the patients in the trial can have a significant effect
\non the results. Hence new medicines are tested against a placebo.
\nThe patients in the trial are randomly divided into two groups. One
\nof these groups is given the real medicine, the other is given the
\nplacebo. Neither group knows which they have been given. Hence the
\nstate of mind for both groups will be similar, and any difference
\nbetween the two groups must be due to the drug. This is a blind trial.<\/p>\n
It has been found that patients can be unconsciously affected by the
\nattitude and expectations of the doctor supplying the drug, even if
\nthe doctor does not explicitly tell them what to expect. Hence it is
\nusual for the doctor to be equally unaware which group is which. This
\nis a “double blind” trial. The job of remembering which group is
\nwhich is given to some administrative person who does not normally
\ncome into contact with patients.<\/p>\n
This causes problems for many alternative therapies because they do
\nsomething to the patient which is difficult to do in a placebo-like
\nmanner. For instance, a treatment involving the laying-on of hands
\ncannot be done in such a way that both patient and practitioner are
\nunaware as to whether a “real” laying on of hands has taken place.
\nThere are partial solutions to this. For instance one study employed
\na three-way test of drug placebo, counseling and alternative therapy.<\/p>\n
4.3: Why should scientific criteria apply to alternative therapies?
\n——————————————————————-<\/p>\n
So that we can tell if they work or not. If you take an patient
\nand give them treatment then one of three things will happen: the
\npatient will get better, will get worse, or will not change. And this
\nis true whether the treatment is a course of drugs chosen by a doctor,
\nan alternative therapy, or just counting to ten.<\/p>\n
Many alternative therapies depend on “anecdotal evidence” where
\nparticular cases got better after the therapy was applied. Almost any
\ntherapy will have some such cases, even if it actually harms the
\npatients. And so anecdotal evidence of Mrs. X who was cured of cancer
\nby this wonderful new treatment is not useful in deciding whether the
\ntreatment is any good.<\/p>\n
The only way to tell for sure whether or not an alternative treatment
\nworks is to use a double-blind trial, or as near to it as you can get.
\nSee the previous question.<\/p>\n
4.4: What is homeopathy?
\n————————<\/p>\n
Homeopathy is sometimes confused with herbalism. A herbalist
\nprescribes herbs with known medicinal effects. Two well known
\nexamples are foxglove flowers (which contain digitalin) and willow
\nbark (which contains aspirin). Folk remedies are now being studied
\nextensively in order to winnow the wheat from the chaff.<\/p>\n
Homeopathists believe that if a drug produces symptoms similar to
\ncertain disease then a highly diluted form of the same drug will cure
\nthe disease. The greater the dilution, the stronger this curative
\neffect will be (this is known as the law of Arndt-Schulz). Great
\nimportance is also attatched to the way in which the diluted solution
\nis shaken during the dilution.<\/p>\n
People are skeptical about homeopathy because:<\/p>\n
1: There is no known mechanism by which it can work. Many homeopathic
\n treatments are so diluted that not one molecule of the original
\n substance is contained in the final dose.<\/p>\n
2: The indicator symptoms are highly subjective. Some substances have
\n hundreds of trivial indicators.<\/p>\n
3: Almost no clinical tests have been done.<\/p>\n
4: It is not clear why trace impurities in the dilutants are not also
\n fortified by the dilution mechanism.<\/p>\n
Reports of one scientific trial that seemed to provide evidence for
\nhomeopathy until a double-blind trial was set up can be found in
\nNature vol 333, p.816 and further, and the few issues of Nature
\nfollowing that, about until November of that year (1988).<\/p>\n
SI ran a good article on the origins and claims of homeopathy:
\nStephen Barrett, M.D., “Homeopathy: Is It Medicine?”, SI,
\nvol. 12, no. 1, Fall 1987, pp. 56-62.<\/p>\n
4.5: What is aromatherapy?
\n————————–<\/p>\n
A belief that the essential oils of various flowers have therapeutic
\neffects. These effects are psychological rather than physical, and so
\nits a bit difficult to define what we mean by a statement that “it
\nworks”. After all, if people do it and feel better then that is a
\nreal effect, whether it occured because of suggestion or because the
\nflowers contain a powerful psychoactive drug.<\/p>\n
4.6: What is reflexology? What is iridology?
\n———————————————<\/p>\n
Reflexology is an alternative therapy based on massage of the feet.
\nThe idea is that parts of the body can be mapped onto areas of the
\nfeet. There is no known mechanism by which massaging the feet can
\naffect other parts of the body (other than the simple soothing and
\nrelaxing effect that any massage gives) and no evidence that it
\nactually works.<\/p>\n
Iridology is a remarkably similar notion. Diseases are detected and
\ndiagnosed by examining the iris of the eye. A good critique of
\niridology: Russell S. Worrall, “Iridology: Diagnosis or Delusion?”,
\nSI, vol. 7 no. 3, pp. 23-35.<\/p>\n
4.7: Does acupuncture work?
\n—————————-<\/p>\n
There is evidence that acupuncture treatment has an analgesic (“pain
\nkilling”) effect. The mechanism seems to involve the endogenous
\nopiate system (at least in part), but the exact mechanism by which
\nendogenous opiates are released by acupuncture skin stimulation is not
\nyet known. It does not appear that the effect can be explained simply
\nby pain caused by the needles.<\/p>\n
There have been reports of measurable physiological effects,
\napparently via local changes in the activity of the sympathetic and
\nparasympathetic nervous systems. While much more detail remains to be
\nelucidated, this is at least a testable hypothesis which brings
\nacupuncture within the realm of science.<\/p>\n
This suggests that acupuncture can be a useful tool in pain
\nmanagement, but that it is unlikely to be of value in curing the
\nunderlying cause of the pain.<\/p>\n
The traditional theory of acupuncture involves balancing the yin and
\nyang (male and female principles) which flow in pathways through the
\nbody. Nothing bearing any resemblance to this has been found by
\nmedical researchers.<\/p>\n
~References:<\/p>\n
Skrabanek, Paul: Acupuncture: Past, Present and Future. In: Examining
\nHolistic Medicine by Stalker D & Glymour G (eds), Prometheus Books, NY<\/p>\n
Skrabanek, Paul: Acupuncture and Endorphins. Lancet 1984;i:220<\/p>\n
Skrabanek, Paul: Acupuncture and the Age of Unreason. Lancet
\n1984;i:1169-1171<\/p>\n
Skrabanek, Paul: Acupuncture-Needless Needles. Irish Medical
\nJournal1986;79:334-335<\/p>\n
A 1977 study, Stern, Brown, Ulett, and Sletten, ‘A comparison of
\nhypnosis, acupuncture, morphine, Valium, aspirin, and placebo in the
\nmanagement of experimentally induced pain,’ Annals_of_the_New_York_
\nAcademy_of_Sciences, 296, 175-193, found that acupuncture,
\nmorphine, and hypnostic analgesia all produced significantly reduced
\npain ratings for cold pressor and ischemic pain.<\/p>\n
Mayer,Price, Raffi, 1977,
\n“Antagonism of acupuncture analgesia in man by the narcotic
\nantagonist naloxone,” _Brain_Research_, 121, 368-372.<\/p>\n
Sjolund, Terenius, Erikson, 1977,
\n“Increased cerebrospinal fluid levels of endorphins after electroacupuncture,”
\nActa_Physiologica_Scandinavica, 100, 382-384.<\/p>\n
“Practical application of acupuncture analgesia” and it’s by Cheng,
\nSB (1973 Apr 27), _Nature 242(5400)_: 559-60. <\/p>\n
“Electrophysiological measures during acupuncture-induced surgical
\nanalgesia” by Starr A (1989 Sep) _Arch Neurol 46(9)_: 1010-12. <\/p>\n
4.8: What about psychic surgery?
\n——————————–<\/p>\n
Psychic surgeons have claimed to be able to make magical incisions,
\nremove cancers and perform other miracles. To date, no investigation
\nof a psychic surgeon has ever found real paranormal ability. Instead
\nthey have found one of two things:<\/p>\n
1: Simple conjuring tricks. The “surgeons” in these cases are
\n confidence tricksters who prey on the desperate and the foolish.<\/p>\n
2: Delusions of grandeur. These people are even more dangerous than
\n the first category, as their treatments may actually cause harm in
\n addition to whatever was wrong with the patient in the first
\n place.<\/p>\n
4.9: What is Crystal Healing?
\n—————————–<\/p>\n
The belief that carrying a small quartz crystal will make you a
\nhealthier person. People selling these crystals use phrases like “the
\nbody’s natural energy fields” and “tuning into the right vibrational
\nfrequencies”. All this sounds vaguely scientific but means absolutely
\nnothing. Crystal Healing is mostly a New Age idea. See the section
\non the New Age below for more information.<\/p>\n
4.10: Does religious healing work?
\n———————————-<\/p>\n
Miraculous healing is often put forward as a proof of the existence
\nand approval of God. The Catholic and Christian Scientist churches in
\nparticular often claim that believers have been healed, but none of
\nthese healings have stood up to careful scrutiny. However it should
\nbe noted that the Catholic church does investigate alleged miracles.<\/p>\n
One famous “healing” which has been carefully investigated is the case
\nof Mrs. Jean Neil. Many people have seen the video of her getting out
\nof a wheel-chair and running around the stadium at meeting led by the
\nGerman evangeist Reinhard Bonnke. This was investigated by Dr. Peter
\nMay, a GP and member of the General Synod of the Church of England.
\nHis findings were reported in the Skeptic (organ of the UK Skeptics).
\nHere is a summary of the report. [Any errors are mine. PAJ].<\/p>\n
May found that Mrs. Neil was helpful and enthusiastic when he
\ncontacted her, and there is little doubt that her quality of life has
\nimproved greatly since the “healing”. However May was unable to find
\nany physical changes. His report lists each of the illnesses claimed
\nby Mrs. Neil, and he found that they were either not recorded by
\ndoctors previous to the healing or that no physical change had taken
\nplace. It seems that the only change in Mrs. Neil was in her mental
\nstate. Before the healing she was depressed and introverted.
\nAfterwards she became happy and outgoing.<\/p>\n
A more sinister aspect of the story is the presentation of the Neil
\ncase in a video promoted by CfaN Productions. This represented Mrs.
\nNeil before the healing as a “hopeless case”, implied that she had a
\nsingle serious illness rather than a series of less major ones, and
\nincluded the false statement that she had been confined to a
\nwheelchair for 25 years (in fact Mrs. Neil had used a wheelchair for
\nabout 15 months and could still walk, although with great difficulty).
\nA report on her spine was carefully edited to include statements about
\nher new pain-free movement but to exclude the statement that there was
\nno evidence of physical changes.<\/p>\n
For the full report, see “The Skeptic” p9, vol. 5, no. 5, Sept. 91. Back
\nissues are available from “The Skeptic (Dept. B), P.O. Box 475,
\nManchester, M60 2TH, U.K. Price UKL 2.10 for UK, UKL 2.70 elsewhere.<\/p>\n
The video is entitled “Something to Shout About — The Documentation
\nof a Miracle”. May does not say where this can be obtained. [Does
\nanyone know?]<\/p>\n
Of course, this does not disprove the existence of miraculous healing.
\nEven Mrs. Neil’s improvement could have been due to divine
\nintervention rather than a sub-conscious decision to get better (as
\nmost skeptics would conclude, although the May report carefully
\nrefrains from doing so). I include this summary here because the Neil
\ncase is often cited by evangelical Christians as an undeniable
\nmiracle. In fact the case demonstrates that even such dramatic events
\nas a cripple getting up and running may not be so very inexplicable.<\/p>\n
For more general coverage of this topic, see James Randi’s book “The
\nFaith Healers”. Free Inquiry magazine has also run exposes on
\nfraudulent faith healers like Peter Popoff and W.V. Grant.<\/p>\n
4.11: What harm does it do anyway?
\n———————————-<\/p>\n
People have died when alternative practitioners told them to stop
\ntaking conventional treatment. Children have died when their parents
\nrefused to give them conventional treatment. These issues matter.<\/p>\n
Most alternative treatments are harmless, so the “complementary
\nmedicine” approach where conventional and alternative therapies
\nproceed in parallel will not hurt anyone physically (although it is a
\nwaste of time and money).<\/p>\n
Creation versus Evolution
\n=========================<\/p>\n
5.1: Is the Bible evidence of anything?
\n—————————————<\/p>\n
Apart from the beliefs of those who wrote it, no. It is true that
\nmost Christians take the truth of at least some parts of the bible as
\nan article of faith, but non-Christians are not so constrained.
\nQuoting the bible to such a person as “evidence” will simply cause
\nthem to question the accuracy of the bible. See the alt.atheism FAQ
\nlists for more details.<\/p>\n
Some things in the bible are demonstrably true, but this does not make
\nthe bible evidence, since there are also things in the bible that are
\ndemonstrably false.<\/p>\n
5.2: Could the Universe have been created old?
\n———————————————-<\/p>\n
An argument is sometimes put forwards along the following lines:<\/p>\n
\tWe know from biblical evidence (see above) that the Universe
\n\tis about 6,000 years old. Therefore God created it 6,000
\n\tyears ago with fossils in the ground and light on its way from
\n\tdistant stars, so that there is no way of telling the real age
\n\tof the Universe simply by looking at it.<\/p>\n
This hypothesis is unfalsifiable, and therefore not a scientific one
\n(see the section on the scientific method). It could also be made for
\nany date in the past (like last Tuesday). Finally it requires that
\nGod, who is alleged to speak to us through His Works, should be lying
\nto us by setting up a misleading Creation. This seems to be rather
\ninconsistent with Biblical claims of God being the source of all
\ntruth.<\/p>\n
Note that this argument is not put forward by creation scientists.
\nThey hold that modern science has misinterpreted the evidence about
\nthe age of the universe.<\/p>\n
5.3: What about Carbon-14 dating?
\n———————————<\/p>\n
Isotope dating takes advantage of the fact that radioactive materials
\nbreak down at a rate independent of their environment. Any solid
\nobject that formed containing radioactive materials therefore steadily
\nloses them to decay. If it is possible to compare the amount of
\nradioactive material currently present with the amount originally
\npresent, one can deduce how long ago the object was formed. The amount
\noriginally present cannot, of course, be observed directly, but can be
\ndetermined by indirect means, such as identifying the decay products.<\/p>\n
C-14 dating uses an unstable isotope of carbon that is constantly
\nbeing produced in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. This process is
\nassumed to be in equilibrium with the decay of C-14 throughout the
\nbiosphere, so the proportion of carbon that is C-14 as opposed to the
\nstable C-12 and C-13 isotopes is essentially constant in any living
\norganism. When an organism dies, it stops taking up new carbon from
\nits environment, but the C-14 in its body continues to decay. By
\nmeasuring the amount of C-14 left in organic remains, one can
\nestablish how long ago the organism they came from died. Because C-14
\nhas a half-life of only a few thousand years, C-14 dating can only be
\nused for remains less than a few tens of thousands of years old–
\nafter that, the C-14 is entirely gone, to all practical purposes.
\nOther isotopic dating techniques, such as potassium-argon dating, use
\nmuch longer-lived radionuclides and can reliably measure dates
\nbillions of years in the past.<\/p>\n
Actually the production rate isn’t all that constant, so the amount of
\nC-14 in the biosphere varies somewhat with time. You also need to be
\nsure that the only source of carbon for the organism was atmospheric
\ncarbon (via plants). The nominal date from a C-14 reading, based on
\nthe present concentration, therefore has to be corrected to get the
\nreal date — but once the correction has been calculated using an
\nindependent dating tool like dendrochronology (see below), it can be
\napplied to almost any sample.<\/p>\n
There are some known anomolies in C14 dating, such as molluscs that
\nget their carbon from water. Creationists seem to make a habit of
\ntaking samples that are known to be useless for C14 dating, presenting
\nthem to scientists for examination, representing them as other than
\nthey are, and then claiming the anomalous dates they get for them as
\nevidence that C14 dating is all a sham.<\/p>\n
While it is true that there *may* be unknown errors in some dating
\nmethods (see the note in section 0 about science “proving” things)
\nthis assertion cannot be used to write off isotope dating as evidence
\nof an ancient Earth. This is because:<\/p>\n
o There are several independent ways of dating objects, including
\n radio-isotopes, dendrochronology, position in rock strata etc.
\n These all give a consistent picture.<\/p>\n
o Dating methods all point to an *old* Earth, about *half a million*
\n times older than the Creationists claim. This requires dating
\n methods which are accurate up to 6,000 years ago and then suddenly
\n start to give completely wrong (but still consistent) answers. Even
\n if our dating methods are out by a factor of 10 or 100, the earth is
\n still thousands of times older than Creationists claim.<\/p>\n
5.4: What is dendrochronology?
\n——————————<\/p>\n
The science of dating wood by a study of annual rings.<\/p>\n
[These figures and references come from a longer summary e-mailed to me
\nby . Any mistakes are mine. PAJ]<\/p>\n
Everyone knows that when you cut down a tree the cut surface shows a
\nseries of concentric rings, and that one of these rings is added each
\nyear as the tree grows. The lighter part of the ring is the summer
\ngrowth and the darker part is the winter growth. Hence you can date a
\ntree by counting the rings.<\/p>\n
But the rings are not evenly spaced. Some rings are wider than
\nothers. These correspond to good and poor growing seasons. So if you
\nhave a piece of wood cut down a few thousand years ago, you can date
\nit by comparing the pattern of rings in your sample to known patterns
\nin recently cut trees (Bristlecone pines exist which are over 4600
\nyears old, and core samples allow ring counting without killing the
\ntree).<\/p>\n
Now for the clever bit. The tree from which your sample came may have
\nbeen old before any trees now alive were even saplings. So you can
\nextend the known pattern of rings back even further, and hence date
\nsamples of wood which are even older. By lining up samples of wood in
\nthis way, dendrochronologists have been able to produce a continuous
\npattern of rings going back around 9,900 years. This easily refutes
\nthe chronology of Bishop Usher, who calculated from dates and ages
\ngiven in the Bible that the Earth was created in 4004 BC.<\/p>\n
Dendrochronology is also valuable in providing calibration data for
\nC14 and other isotope dating methods. See the previous question for
\nmore details.<\/p>\n
~References:<\/p>\n
\t“Dendrochronology of the Bristlecone Pine…..”
\n\tby C. W. Ferguson, 1970. Published in a book called
\n\t“Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology”<\/p>\n
This takes the record back 7484 years. I am told that more recent
\nwork published in Nature in 1991 [exact reference anyone?] has pushed
\nthis back to the 9,900 years I mentioned above.<\/p>\n
5.5: What is evolution? Where can I find out more?
\n—————————————————<\/p>\n
Many creationist “refutations” of evolution are based on a straw-man
\nargument. The technique is to misrepresent the theory of evolution,
\nputting forward an absurd theory as “what scientists claim”. The
\nabsurdity of this pseudo-evolution theory is then ridiculed.<\/p>\n
Debunking all these refutations would take a lot of space. Instead I
\nsuggest that anyone interested should go and read the FAQ lists over
\non talk.origins. These contain good explanations of what evolution is
\n(and isn’t). Books and essays on the subject by Stephen Jay Gould are
\ngood, and “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins is the sort of
\nbook that makes you want to find a creationist to argue with.<\/p>\n
5.6: “The second law of thermodynamics says….
\n———————————————–<\/p>\n
…that entropy is always increasing. Entropy is a measure of the
\nrandomness in a system. So the universe is getting more and more
\ndisordered. But if this is so, how can life happen, since
\nevolutionists claim essentially that life is a system that becomes
\nmore ordered with time?”<\/p>\n
In fact this is a misstatement of the law. Here is one generally
\naccepted statement of the Second Law:<\/p>\n
No process is possible whose *sole* result is a heat flow out of
\n a system and at a given temperature and the performance of work
\n with that energy.<\/p>\n
In other words, you can’t get work except by exploiting a temperature
\ngradient (at least, not thermodynamically – forms of potential energy
\nother than heat may be used – but they can also be used to make a
\nheat gradient).<\/p>\n
Notice that this statement of the second law doesn’t mention the word
\n“disorder”. In fact, the principle of entropy increase also does not,
\nsince entropy is a thermodynamic state variable whose definition is
\nindependent of such ill-defined terms as “disorder”.<\/p>\n
So, where does this idea that entropy is a measure of “disorder” come
\nfrom – and what does it mean anyway? Well, the idea comes from a
\nmisstatement of the theory of statistical mechanics. And the meaning
\nis nil – since the term “disorder” has no precise scientific meaning
\nanyway.<\/p>\n
In statistical mechanics, “entropy” is defined in terms of the number
\nof distinct energy “microstates” that are possible within the system.
\nThis diversity of states was (and sometimes still is) informally
\ncalled “disorder” by some statistical mechanics experts when trying to
\nconvey a feel for the subject to lay audiences. It was never a
\ntechnical term – and never had any specific meaning in the theory.
\nThe term “disorder” applied in this way is misleading (or, at best,
\nmeaningless). A room which is messy would be informally called
\n“disordered” by most people – even if they’re ignorant (as most are)
\nof the entropy of the room. The room might actually have a *higher*
\nentropy after it has been cleaned.<\/p>\n
In addition the laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems
\n(which the Earth is not). Small parts of such a closed system can
\nshow a decrease in entropy, but only if some other part has a higher
\nentropy. Entropy in the system as a whole will always increase.<\/p>\n
For instance, when you freeze water the molecules of H2O line up in
\nbeautifully organised crystals. This organisation does not violate
\nthe second law of thermodynamics because the work done by the freezer
\nin extracting the heat from the water has caused the total entropy of
\nthe *universe* to rise, even though the entropy of the *water* has
\ndecreased.<\/p>\n
Similarly the existence of life on earth has not decreased the entropy
\nof the universe, so the second law has not been violated.<\/p>\n
5.7: How could living organisms arise “by chance”?
\n————————————————–<\/p>\n
This is actually a less sophisticated version of the question above.
\nConsider the freezing water in the example. The wonderful arrangement
\nin crystals arises from the random movement of water molecules. But
\nice crystals do not require divine intervention as an explanation, and
\nneither does the evolution of life.<\/p>\n
Also, consider a casino. An honest casino makes a profit from
\nroulette wheels. The result of a spin of a particular wheel is purely
\nrandom, but casinos make very predictable profits. So in evolutionary
\ntheory, even though the occurence of a particular mutation is random,
\nthe overall effect of improved adaptation to the environment over time
\nis not.<\/p>\n
The actual origin of life is more problematical. If you stick some
\nammonia, methane and a few other simple chemicals into a jar and
\nsubject them to ultraviolet light then after a week or two you get a
\nmixture of organic molecules, including amino acids (the building
\nblocks of protein). So current theories propose a “primordial soup”
\nof dilute organic chemicals. Somewhere a molecule happened to form
\nwhich could make copies of itself out of other molecules floating
\naround in the soup, and the rest is history.<\/p>\n
Ilya Prigogine’s work in non-equilibrium thermodynamics (for which he
\nreceived a Nobel prize) shows that thermodynamic systems far out of
\nequilibrium tend to produce spontaneous order through what he calls
\n“dissipative structures”. Dissipative structures trade a *local*
\nincrease in orderliness for faster overall increase in entropy. Life
\ncan be viewed as a dissipative structure in exactly this sense — not
\na wildly improbable freak of combinations but as a natural, indeed
\ninevitable result of the laws of thermodynamics.<\/p>\n
5.8: But doesn’t the human body seem to be well designed?
\n———————————————————<\/p>\n
Not to me. Consider a few pieces of the human body for a moment. The
\nback for instance. The reason we poor humans suffer so much from back
\nproblems is that the back is actually not well designed. And what
\nabout human reproduction. Can you imagine any engineer being proud of
\nhaving designed *that*?<\/p>\n
5.9: What about the thousands of scientists who have become Creationists?
\n————————————————————————-<\/p>\n
This outrageous claim is frequently made by creationists, but somehow
\nthese mystery scientists are never identified. It is claimed that
\nthese conversions have been caused by “the evidence”, but this
\nevidence never seems to be forthcoming either.<\/p>\n
To test this claim, try looking up “creation” and “bible” in any
\nbiology or paleontology journal index.<\/p>\n
Even if this claim were true, it would not be a reason to become a
\ncreationist. The only reason for adopting creationism as a scientific
\ntheory would be the production of convincing evidence.<\/p>\n
5.10: Is the Speed of Light Decreasing?
\n—————————————<\/p>\n
The origin of this claim is a paper by Norman & Setterfield which
\nplots various historical measurements of the speed of light and claims
\nto show a steady decrease. Extrapolating backwards, they conclude
\nthat the Universe is only about 6,000 years old.<\/p>\n
The first point about their paper is that it was originally
\ndistributed in Stanford Research Institute covers, and is sometimes
\ndescribed as an SRI report. However SRI did not have anything to do
\nwith the report and are tired of answering queries about it.<\/p>\n
Norman & Setterfield appear to have selected their data in order to
\nsupport their hypothesis: graphs include only those points which are
\nclose to the “theoretical” curve while ommitting points which are not
\nclose to the curve. This curve gives an inverse cosecant relationship
\nbetween time and the speed of light. There is no justification for
\nsuch a curve: the usual curve for a decaying value is exponential and
\nthis would have fitted the plotted data just as well as the inverse
\ncosecant chosen by Norman and Setterfield.<\/p>\n
5.11: What about Velikovsky?
\n—————————-<\/p>\n
In the 1950s a Russian psychologist named Immanuel Velikovsky wrote
\n“Worlds in Collision”. This book and its successors are remarkable
\nfor the density of scientific, archeological and mythological howlers.
\nThere are far to many to list here, but most are sufficient to cast
\nserious doubt on his knowledge of any of these fields, and many are so
\nlarge that even one is enough to refute the entire theory.<\/p>\n
Much of Velilovsky’s proof lies in statements of the form “The reason
\nfor is not known. My theory explains it as follows:”. Many of
\nthese reasons were in fact known when Velikovsky wrote, and many
\nothers have been discovered since. None of these reasons bear any
\nrelationship to Velikovksy’s theory. The predictive value of the
\ntheory appears to be nil.<\/p>\n
The books lack any mathematical analysis at all, which is strange
\nconsidering that mathematics is the language of science, especially
\nphysics and astronomy.<\/p>\n
Some of the more noticable howlers are:<\/p>\n
1: Strange orbits which cannot be explained in terms of Newtonian
\n mechanics (or indeed anything less than an angel sitting on a
\n planet and steering it like a starship!).<\/p>\n
2: The Earth’s spin being altered suddenly by a close encounter with
\n Venus, and then restored. Where to begin? Planets just don’t do
\n that.<\/p>\n
3: A confusion between hydrocarbons (e.g petrol, mineral oil, tar) and
\n carbohydrates (e.g sugar, starch, glucose).<\/p>\n
4: World-shaking events (literally) which were accurately recorded by
\n the Isralites but not even noticed anywhere else, even quite close
\n by.<\/p>\n
5: Ancient records (e.g Mayan, Sumerian and Chinese astronomical
\n observations) which contradict Velikovsky’s theory.<\/p>\n
Velikovsy’s supporters often cite a conspiracy theory to explain why
\nthe world of science refuses to take these ideas seriously. See
\nsection 0 of this FAQ.<\/p>\n
For more information, see:<\/p>\n
Worlds in Collision
\n Immanuel Velikovsky<\/p>\n
Earth in Upheaval
\n Immanuel Velikovsky<\/p>\n
Velikovsky Reconsidered
\n The Editors of Pensee
\n (has a lot of his papers in it, along with other papers pro-V.)<\/p>\n
Scientists Confront Velikovsky
\n Donald Goldsmith<\/p>\n
Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy
\n Henry H. Bauer<\/p>\n
Broca’s Brain
\n\tCarl Sagan<\/p>\n
Jim Meritt has posted a long article on
\ntalk.origins which systematically demolishes Velikovsky’s ideas. I
\ndon’t know if it is archived anywhere. This section attempts to
\nsummarise it. Most discussion of Velikovsky occurs on talk.origins.<\/p>\n
Fire-walking
\n============<\/p>\n
WARNING: Whatever the truth about firewalking may be, it is a
\n\t potentially dangerous activity. Do not attempt it without
\n\t expert guidance.<\/p>\n
[Please could one of the firewalkers on the net contribute a paragraph
\nor two for this section. PAJ]<\/p>\n
6.1: Is fire-walking possible?
\n——————————<\/p>\n
Yes. It is possible to walk on a bed of burning wood without being
\nhurt.<\/p>\n
6.2: Can science explain fire-walking?
\n————————————–<\/p>\n
There are a number of theories which have been put forward to explain
\nfirewalking. Any or all may be the explanation for a particular
\nevent.<\/p>\n
o The dry wood coals used by firewalkers conduct heat very poorly.
\n The coal itself may be very hot but it will not transfer that heat
\n to something touching it.<\/p>\n
o The coals are a very uneven surface, and the actual surface area of
\n foot touching the coals is very small. Hence the conduction of heat
\n is even slower.<\/p>\n
o Wood coals have a very low heat capacity, so although they are very
\n hot there is actually not much heat energy to be transferred to the
\n foot.<\/p>\n
o Firewalkers do not spend very much time on the coals, and they keep
\n moving. Jan Willem Nienhuys adds that about 1
\n second total contact time per foot seems on the safe side.<\/p>\n
o Blood is a good conductor of heat. What heat does get through is
\n quickly conducted away from the soles of the feet.<\/p>\n
o The “Leidenfrost” effect may play a part. This occurs when a cold,
\n wet object (like a foot) touches a hot, dry object (like a burning
\n coal). The water vaporises, creating a barrier of steam between the
\n hot and cold objects. Hence the two objects do not actually touch
\n and evaporation from the cold object is much slower than might
\n otherwise be expected. Since steam is a relatively poor conductor
\n of heat the foot does not get burned. Jearl Walker, of Scientific
\n American’s “The Amateur Scientist” column, explains the Leidenfrost
\n effect in the August 1977 issue; he walked across coals unharmed and
\n attributes this to the Leidenfrost effect. Other scientists believe
\n that the Leidenfrost effect is unimportant in firewalking.<\/p>\n
Some firewalkers put forward mystical explanations of why firewalking
\nis possible. A few skeptics have challenged these firewalkers to
\nstand on hot metal plates instead of coals. Others have pointed out
\nthat making such a challenge in the belief that the firewalker would
\nbe seriously hurt is of dubious morality.<\/p>\n
New Age
\n=======<\/p>\n
7.1: What do New Agers believe?
\n——————————-<\/p>\n
An awful lot, it would seem. New Age seems to be a sort of
\n“roll-your-own” religion. Some of the more common threads include:<\/p>\n
o Divination, especially Tarot, I-Ching, and Western and Chinese
\n Astrology.<\/p>\n
o Green politics, especially the more extreme “deep green” movements.<\/p>\n
o Flying saucers.<\/p>\n
o “Alternative” health (see above).<\/p>\n
o Vegetarianism.<\/p>\n
o Pacifism.<\/p>\n
o Conspiracy theories to explain why the rest of the world does not
\n follow the same beliefs.<\/p>\n
o Rejection of science and logic as tools for understanding the
\n universe. A reliance on feelings and intuition as guides to action.<\/p>\n
o Pseudo-scientific jargon. New Agers talk about “rebalancing energy
\n fields” and “vibrational frequencies”. These sound vaguely
\n scientific but in fact have no meaning at all.<\/p>\n
o Eastern religions, especially “cult” religions. Mainstream eastern
\n religions such as Hinduism and Sihkism don’t seem to attract New Age
\n believers. Most New Agers are actively against organised
\n Christianity, but some favour heretical variants such as Gnosticism.<\/p>\n
Not all of these are bad just because New Age people follow them, but
\nthe rejection of logical argument as a basis for belief and action
\noften leads to bizarre beliefs and futile actions. A recent example
\nwas the vandalism of a GPS satellite while it was waiting to be
\nlaunched. The vandals claimed that GPS was part of a nuclear
\nfirst-strike system. In fact ICBMs use inertial guidance instead of
\nGPS, and have done for decades.<\/p>\n
[Would any New Agers out there like to try summarising their beliefs
\nin a few paragraphs for this section? PAJ]<\/p>\n
7.2: What is the Gaia hypothesis?
\n———————————<\/p>\n
There are several versions:<\/p>\n
Religious: The planet (or the ecosphere) is aware, or at least alive,
\n\t and tries to preserve itself.<\/p>\n
Strong: The planet\/ecosphere reacts to preserve a homeostasis; if, for
\n\texample, global warming raises the temperature then various
\n\tchanges in the planet’s biota will occur, which will (in some
\n\tperiod of time) lower the temperature.<\/p>\n
Weak: Life affects the conditions of life.<\/p>\n
No scientist would disagree with the weak version given here; at the
\nother extreme, the “religious” version is not science (unless we can
\nfind signs of that awareness).<\/p>\n
Not only can we look at the ozone hole, global warming, or human
\npollution, but the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere is also due to
\nthe presence of life.<\/p>\n
The strong hypothesis is very much a matter of debate. Most
\nscientists don’t believe it, some don’t think it’s science, but others
\nfeel they have good evidence. Some point to Le Chatelier’s principle
\n(a system in equilibrium, when disturbed, reacts to as to tend to
\nrestore the original equilibrium). However the ice ages suggest that
\nthe Earth is not in long-term equilibrium.<\/p>\n
For a range of interesting perspectives on the Gaia hypothesis, see
\nthe SF novel “Earth” by David Brin.<\/p>\n
Was Nostradamus a prophet?
\n————————–<\/p>\n
No. His supporters are very good at predicting events after the fact,
\noften relying on doubtful translations of the original French to
\nbolster their case. But they have had absolutely no success at
\npredicting the future. Up until a few years ago most Nostradamus
\nbooks were predicting a nuclear war in the next few years.<\/p>\n
The prophecies are very general, with lots of symbolism. It is very
\neasy to find connections between these symbols and almost anything
\nelse, particularly if you allow multi-lingual puns and rhymes.<\/p>\n
A good general reference on Nostradamus is:<\/p>\n
The Mask of Nostradamus
\n James Randi
\n Charles Scribner’s Sons
\n ISBN 0-684-19056-7
\n BF1815.N8R35 1990<\/p>\n
7.4: Does astrology work?
\n————————-<\/p>\n
No. A number of studies have been done which have failed to find any
\npredictive power in astrology. Psychologists have also done studies
\nshowing that people will agree with almost any statement made about
\nthem provided that it is a mild compliment.<\/p>\n
A good report about research into astrology is:
\n Carlson, Shawn. (1985) “A double-blind test of astrology”,
\n Nature, 318 (Dec. 5), 419-425.<\/p>\n
7.4.1: Could astrology work by gravity?
\n—————————————<\/p>\n
Some people argue that we are affected by the gravity of the planets
\n(just as tides are caused by the gravity of the Moon and Sun), and
\nthat this is the connection between the motion of the planets and
\nmundane events on Earth.<\/p>\n
Leaving aside the fact that astrology doesn’t work (see above),
\ngravity is simply too weak to do this. Gravitational force on a mass
\n(such as a human being) decreases with the square of the distance to
\nthe other mass. But the Earth is affected just as strongly by the
\nother mass, and accelerates slightly towards it. So the net effect on
\nus is nil. What is important is the difference in gravity between the
\ntwo sides of the mass. This decreases with the *third* power of the
\ndistance (i.e. very fast) but increases with the distance between the
\nnear and far sides. Hence the Moon and Sun cause tides because the
\nEarth is very large. But the difference in gravity between one end of
\na human and the other is absolutely miniscule.<\/p>\n
Also, if this were the mechanism behind astrology then the most
\nsignificant thing in astrology would be the position of the Moon, with
\nthe time of day coming second (as it is for tides). The position of
\nthe planets would be completely irrelevant because they are so much
\nfurther away than the Moon and so much smaller than the Sun.<\/p>\n
7.4.2: What is the `Mars Effect’?
\n———————————<\/p>\n
French scientist Michael Gauquelin has discovered an apparent
\ncorrelation between the position of some planets at the time of birth
\nand the career followed as an adult. The strongest correlation is
\nbetween the time when Mars rises on the day of birth and athletic
\nprowess. However:<\/p>\n
o The Effect seems to come and go depending on exactly what the sample
\n population is. Most of the controversy seems to revolve around who
\n did what to which sample populations.<\/p>\n
o `Mundane’ mechanisms for the Mars Effect correlations have been
\n proposed which invoke the age grouping of school athletic
\n activities.<\/p>\n
o Nothing found by Gaugelin bears any resemblance to classical
\n astrology, so claims that Gaugelin has somehow “validated” astrology
\n are bogus.<\/p>\n
7.5: What is Kirlian Photography?
\n———————————<\/p>\n
[Information from a posting by Dave Palmer ]<\/p>\n
The technique involves applying a high-frequency, high-voltage
\nelectrical source (such as from a Tesla coil) to a subject. The source
\nis also very low-current, so the subject does not get electrocuted
\n(it’s the current in electricity that does the harm, not the voltage).
\nWhen this is done, an “aura” of lightning-like electrical discharges
\nforms around the subject. This field is visible to the naked eye (in
\na dark room, anyway), and may be photographed. Adherents of Kirlian
\nphotography claim that this field is some sort of “life energy” which
\nmay indicate things about the subject, such as health, psychic
\nability, and so forth. They claim that Kirlian photography sometimes
\nshows the “phantom effect.” That is, if a limb is amputated from the
\nsubject (or, less gruesomely, if a piece is torn off a leaf), that the
\nfield will still show the missing piece for a time, because its “life
\nenergy” is still there.<\/p>\n
There is no truth to the claims that it shows any sort of “aura” or
\n“life energy.” It is merely a coronal discharge, complete with ozone
\nproduction. The most damaging argument against the “life energy” claim
\nis that Kirlian photography works on ANY subject that conducts
\nelectricity, even completely lifeless metal, or synthetic sponges
\nsoaked in salt water.<\/p>\n
The field produced jumps around quite a bit. Because the shape of the
\nfield changes, it can occasionally appear to outline non-existent
\nareas of the subject, hence the phantom effect. Dave Palmer reports
\nproducing the phantom effect with tin foil about as often with leaves.
\nFar more often, he got false phantom effects, that is, pictures of
\npieces of the subject that had never existed.<\/p>\n
Strange Machines: Free Energy and Anti-Gravity
\n==============================================<\/p>\n
8.1: Why don’t electrical perpetual motion machines work?
\n———————————————————<\/p>\n
Electrical perpetual motion machinists usually present a machine that
\ncauses a small battery to generate a huge amount of power. The most
\ncommon problem here is that the “huge amount of power” was incorrectly
\nmeasured. AC power measurements are tricky; you can’t just multiply
\nthe voltage and current, because they may be out of phase. Thus,
\nmeasuring 10 Volts and 10 Amps could indicate anything from 0 to 100
\nWatts, depending on the power factor. In addition, most AC meters
\nexpect a sinusoidal wave; if they are given some other wave they may
\nbe totally wrong. A simple argument against these machines is; “If
\nthey can provide so much energy, why do they need the battery to keep
\ngoing?”<\/p>\n
8.2: Why don’t mechanical perpetual motion machines work?
\n———————————————————<\/p>\n
Mechanical perpetual motion machines depend on rising and descending
\nweights. The problem is that the amount of energy that you get out of
\na descending weight is exactly the same amount that it took to raise
\nthe weight in the first place: gravity is said to be a “conservative”
\nforce. So no matter what the weights do, you can’t get energy out.<\/p>\n
8.3: Why don’t magnetic perpetual motion machines work?
\n——————————————————-<\/p>\n
Magnetic motors have a clever arrangement of magnets which keeps the
\nmotor rotating forever. Not surprisingly, whenever someone tries to
\nbuild one, the motor rotates for a while and then stops — this is
\nusually attributed to the magnets “wearing out”. These motors usually
\nrely on using magnets as low-friction bearings, meaning the “motor”
\ncan coast for a long time, but it doesn’t supply any power. Magnetism
\nis like gravity; you can store potential energy and get it back, but
\nyou can’t get more energy no matter what you try.<\/p>\n
8.4: Magnets can levitate. Where is the energy from?
\n—————————————————–<\/p>\n
Levitating magnets do not require energy, any more than something
\nresting on a table requires energy. Energy is the capacity for doing
\nwork. Work can be measured by force times distance. Although the
\nmagnets are exerting a force the levitated object is stationary, so
\nthe magnets aren’t supplying any energy.<\/p>\n
8.5: But its been patented!
\n—————————<\/p>\n
So what? Patent offices will not grant a patent on a “perpetual
\nmotion machine” (some just require a working model) but if you call it
\na “vacuum energy device” and claim that it gets its energy from some
\npreviously unknown source then you can probably get a patent. Patent
\noffices are there to judge whether something has been invented before,
\nnot whether it will work. The ban on devices labelled “perpetual
\nmotion” is a special case because the patent officers dislike being
\ncited as some sort of approval by con-men.<\/p>\n
8.6: The oil companies are conspiring to suppress my invention
\n————————————————————–<\/p>\n
This is a conspiracy theory. See the entry on these in section 0.<\/p>\n
In most of the US the utility companies are *required by law* to buy
\nyour excess electricity if you produce your own. If you’ve got an
\nenergy machine, build it in your basement, phase match it to the line,
\nand enjoy.<\/p>\n
8.7: My machine gets its free energy from
\n———————————————<\/p>\n
A number of machines have been proposed which are not “perpetual
\nmotion” machines in the sense of violating the law of conservation of
\nenergy. Mostly these are based on bogus science. One inventor claims
\nthat atoms of copper wire are being converted to energy in accordance
\nwith Einstein’s “e=mc^2”. However he fails to explain what causes
\nthis transformation and how this energy is converted into electrical
\nenergy rather than gamma rays or heat.<\/p>\n
Occasionally one sees a machine which could work in theory but would
\nproduce very tiny amounts of energy. For instance, one can set up a
\ngyroscope which always points in one direction (this is how the
\ngyrocompass in an aircraft works). The earth will rotate underneath
\nthis once every day (to an observer standing on the Earth it looks
\nlike the gyro is rotating). So you could attach gears and a generator
\nto the gyroscope and use this rotation to get electricity. The
\n4,320,000:1 gearing required is left as an exercise for the student,
\nas is naming the source of the energy it would generate.<\/p>\n
8.8: Can gyroscopes neutralise gravity?
\n—————————————<\/p>\n
Gyroscopes (or gyros) are a favorite of “lift” machine inventors
\nbecause many people have come across them and they behave rather
\noddly. However there is nothing all that mysterious about the
\nbehaviour of gyros. You can use Newtonian physics to explain them.
\nBriefly, if you imagine a bit of metal on the edge of a spinning gyro,
\nthen to turn the gyro you have to stop the bit of metal moving in its
\ncurrent direction and start it moving in another direction. To do
\nthis when it is moving fast you have to push it rather hard. Nothing
\nabout this makes the thing get any lighter (in fact to be pedantic,
\nthe gyro gets very slightly heavier when it spins, in accordance with
\nEinstein’s theory of relativity.)<\/p>\n
8.9: My prototype gets lighter when I turn it on
\n————————————————<\/p>\n
Weighing something which is vibrating on ordinary scales is a sure way
\nof getting a wrong answer. The vibration from the machine combines
\nwith “stiction” in the scales to give a false reading. As a result
\nthe weight reductions reported for such machines are always close to
\nthe limits of accuracy of the scales used.<\/p>\n
AIDS
\n====<\/p>\n
9.1: What about these theories on AIDS?
\n—————————————<\/p>\n
There are two AIDS theories that often appear in sci.skeptic. The
\nfirst is Strecker’s theory that the CIA invented HIV by genetic
\nengineering; the second is Duesberg’s theory that HIV has nothing to
\ndo with AIDS.<\/p>\n
9.1.1: The Mainstream Theory
\n—————————-<\/p>\n
The generally accepted theory is that AIDS is caused by the Human
\nImmunodeficiency Virus (HIV). There are two different versions of
\nHIV: HIV-1 and HIV-2. These viruses are believed, on the basis of
\ntheir genetic sequences, to have evolved from the Simian
\nImmunodeficiency Virus (SIV), with HIV-2 being much more similar to
\nSIV. Several years after the initial HIV infection, the immune system
\nis weakened to the point where opportunistic infections occur,
\nresulting in the syndrome of AIDS. A good reference for more
\ninformation on the “mainstream” view of AIDS is:<\/p>\n
The Science of AIDS : readings from Scientific American magazine.
\n New York : W.H. Freeman, c1989.<\/p>\n
More recently, it has been proposed that AIDS is actually an
\nauto-immune disease (where the body’s defences attack healthy cells in
\nerror) which is triggered by HIV.<\/p>\n
9.1.2: Strecker’s CIA Theory
\n—————————-<\/p>\n
Strecker’s theory is that the CIA made HIV in the 1970’s by combining
\nbovine leukemia virus (BLV) and sheep visna virus (OLV). The evidence for
\nthis theory is that the government was looking at biological warfare around
\nthen, and that there are some structural similarities between HIV and BLV
\nand visna. The evidence against this theory is:<\/p>\n
a: HIV has been found in preserved blood samples from the 1950’s.
\n [Anyone have a reference for this?]
\nb: We didn’t have the biotechnology back then for the necessary gene
\n splicing. (But maybe the CIA has secret advanced technology?)
\nc: The genetic sequences for HIV, SIV, BLV, and OLV are freely
\n available (e.g. from genbank). You can look at them and compare
\n them yourself. The HIV sequence is totally different from BLV and
\n OLV, but is fairly similar to SIV, just as the scientists say.<\/p>\n
One school of thought holds that the “AIDS was a U.S. biological
\nwarfare experiment” myth was extensively spread as part of a
\ndezinformatsiya campaign by Department V of the Soviet KGB (their
\n`active measures’ group). They may not have invented the premise
\n(Soviet disinformation doctrine favored legends originated by third
\nparties), but they added a number of signature details such as the
\nname of the supposed development site (usually Fort Meade in Maryland)
\nwhich still show up in most retellings.<\/p>\n
According to a defector who was once the KGB chief rezident in Great
\nBritain, the KGB promulgated this legend through controlled sources in
\nEurope and the Third World. The Third World version (only) included
\nthe claim that HIV was the result of an attempt to build a “race
\nbomb”, a plague that would kill only non-whites.<\/p>\n
Also see the question in section 0 about Conspiracy Theories.<\/p>\n
9.1.3: Duesberg’s Risk-Group Theory
\n———————————–<\/p>\n
Duesberg’s theory is: HIV is a harmless retrovirus that may serve as a
\nmarker for people in AIDS high-risk groups. AIDS is not a contagious
\nsyndrome caused by one conventional virus or microbe. AIDS is
\nprobably caused by conventional pathogenic factors: administration of
\nblood transfusions or drugs, promiscuous male homosexual activity
\nassociated with drugs, acute parasitic infections, and malnutrition.
\nDrugs such as AZT promote AIDS, rather than fight it. His theory is
\nexplained in detail in “Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired
\nImmunodeficiency Syndrome: Correlation but not Causation”, Proc. Natl.
\nAcad. Sci. USA V86 pp.755-764, (Feb. 1989).<\/p>\n
He claims as evidence for his theory:<\/p>\n
a: HIV does not meet Koch’s postulates for the causative agent of an
\n infectious disease.
\nb: The conversion rate from HIV infection to AIDS depends greatly on
\n the country and risk group membership, so HIV isn’t sufficient to
\n cause AIDS.
\nc: The HIV virus is minimally active, does not seem to infect many
\n cells, and is suppressed by the immune system, so how could it
\n cause problems?
\nd: It takes between 2 and 15 years from HIV infection for AIDS to
\n occur. HIV should cause illness right away or never.
\ne: HIV is similar to other retroviruses that don’t cause AIDS. There
\n seems to be nothing special about HIV that would cause AIDS.
\nf: AIDS patients suffer very different diseases in the US and Africa,
\n which suggests that the cofactors are responsible, not AIDS.
\ng: How could two viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2, evolve at the same time?
\n It doesn’t seem likely that two deadly viruses would show up
\n together.<\/p>\n
Virtually the entire scientific community considers Duesberg a flake,
\nalthough he was a respected researcher before he came out with his
\ntheory about AIDS. There is no suggestion that his theories are the
\nresult of a political agenda or homophobia.<\/p>\n
Some of the arguments against him are:<\/p>\n
a: People who receive HIV tainted blood become HIV+ and come down with
\n AIDS. People who receive HIV-free blood don’t get AIDS (unless
\n they get HIV somewhere else). Thus, it is the HIV, not the
\n transfusion, that causes AIDS.
\nb: The risk factors (homosexuality, drug use, transfusions, etc.) have
\n been around for a very long time, but AIDS doesn’t show up until
\n HIV shows up. People who engage in homosexuality, drug use, etc.
\n but aren’t exposed to HIV don’t get AIDS. On the other hand,
\n people who aren’t members of “risk groups” but are exposed to HIV
\n get AIDS. Thus, it is the HIV, not the risk factors, that causes
\n AIDS.
\nc: With a few recent exceptions, everyone with an AIDS-like immune
\n deficiency tests positive for HIV. Everyone with HIV apparently
\n gets AIDS eventually, after an average of 8 years.
\nd: Koch’s postulates are more of historical interest than practical
\n use. There are many diseases that don’t satisfy the postulates.
\ne: It is not understood exactly how HIV causes AIDS, but a lack of
\n understanding of the details isn’t a reason to reject HIV.
\nf: A recent study matched up people in the same risk groups and found
\n those with HIV got AIDS but those without HIV didn’t. The study
\n was titled “HIV causes AIDS”.<\/p>\n
More information can be found in published rebuttals to Duesberg, such
\nas in Nature V345 pp.659-660 (June 21, 1990), and in Duesberg’s debate
\nwith Blattner, Gallo, Temin, Science V241 pp.514-517 (1988).<\/p>\n
