Friday, the Silicon Valley Mercury reported that 21 people were treated at a local hospital for burns after participating in a firewalking activity at an event organized by inspirational speaker Tony Robbins. (Source)
My first reaction was that I find it hard to fathom how 21 people were injured. One or two, okay. But 21? You'd think that even by person number 5, the rest of the crowd would see that persons number 1 through 4 were writhing on the ground, screaming with agony, and would say, "Hmmm. Maybe not. I think I'll just watch from the sidelines, thanks." But that's not what happened. Mr. Robbins kept telling the participants, "C'mon! You can do it! This time it's really going to work!", and for some reason they kept believing him. Perhaps he had them lined up in reverse order of IQ, so that each person in line was incrementally stupider than the previous one.
The interesting thing is that even now, Robbins and the events staff aren't admitting that walking on hot coals is basically a stupid thing to do. "We have been safely
providing this experience for more than three decades, and always under
the supervision of medical personnel," a spokesperson told reporters after the fiasco on Friday. "We continue to work with local
fire and emergency personnel to ensure this event is always done in the
safest way possible."
And even the injured firewalkers aren't willing to say that the problem is that "hot things will burn you." One participant, Andrew Brenner, told reporters that he did get burned, but it was his own fault, for not having enough "faith and concentration." "I did it before, didn't get
into the right state and got burned," Brenner said. "I knew I wasn't at
my peak state. I didn't take it as serious."
What strikes me about all of this -- besides the general observation that given a contest between "faith and concentration" and "extremely hot object," the hot object is going to win every time -- is how this is indicative of the lemming-like aspects of human behavior. All of us, when in large groups, tend to participate in behavior that we would never dream of doing while alone or in smaller groups. Look at the kinds of things that can happen at athletic events, concerts, and festivals. I think it unlikely, for example, that I would paint my face, shoulders, and chest red-and-white (Cornell colors, for those of you who are non-New Yorkers) in any group with less than ten members, and the number might rise to 25 if we were talking about a freezing cold day in early March. However, at the ECAC hockey finals, buoyed up by the energy of thousands of cheering Big Red hockey fans...? But perhaps I've incriminated myself enough already.
It all comes from being a social primate, really. We do what the group does, for a variety of reasons. Most of such behavior is probably pretty harmless, honestly, and the sociologists would point to its importance in group cohesion and our sense of belonging. Of course, the dark side of this tendency is the capacity for mob violence. In groups, people will often break their own moral and ethical precepts, not then (if ever) recognizing the point where they crossed that line, because a sort of group mentality takes over. As Stanislaw Lec said, "Every snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty." And from one of my own personal favorites, Terry Pratchett: "The IQ of a mob is equal to the IQ of its stupidest member, divided by the number of people in the mob."
Leaders, from corporate CEOs to high school principals to motivational speakers, take advantage of this tendency, often with the best of motives. Get the group stirred up; get them excited about something. Identify a few of the major power brokers in the group (the Head Lemmings), and get them on your side. At that point, you can propose damn near anything, and the whole group will follow you. I've seen it accomplish great things; in my own school, five years ago, the creation of our highly successful electives program was accomplished using just such a method. Of course, it's also resulted in riots, crusades, and wars. Any tendency in human nature can be used for good or for evil.
Or just to make people do stupid stuff, like walking across a fire pit after the first twenty people burned their feet up, just because some silly motivational speaker was shouting, "do it! I believe in you!"
Monday, July 23, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
Flea, tick, and baloney repellent
Do you subscribe to views of medicine that involve the words "frequency" and "vibration?" Do you think that when you're ill, it would really be a good idea to take a "remedy" from which every last potentially useful molecule has been removed? Do you think that when you get the sniffles, it's because you have a clogged chakra?
Do you have pets?
If you answered all of those questions "yes," you will be thrilled to know that the woo-woos have now extended their wacko ideas into treating Fido, Mr. Fluffums, and your other furry friends.
A friend of mine sent me a link yesterday advertising "Only Natural Pet EasyDefense Flea & Tick Tags," available for $71.99 (on sale), should you have no better uses for 72 bucks, which in my opinion would include using it to start a campfire. Here is the pitch, which (for the record) I am not making up:
1) Seriously?
2) I kind of doubt that my "pet's own energy" repels much of anything. I own two dogs that seem to be magnets for dirt, filth, burs, and dead animal residue, so I think if this tag somehow enhanced my "pet's own energy," every bad-smelling thing in a five-mile radius would suddenly fly through the air toward my house, sort of like the last scene in the movie Carrie only way more disgusting.
3) Saying that something you're promoting is "somewhat similar to the basic principles of homeopathy" is not a selling point, okay? This is a little like a person running for political office saying that his fiscal policy is "somewhat similar to the basic principles of fraud."
4) What is a "quantum mechanic?" Is this a guy who wears a jumpsuit with "Rick" embroidered on the pocket, who works on atoms? "Well, it's gonna be kind of expensive. I had to rotate your quarks, and your electrons' spin kinda had a bit of a shimmy, so I replaced the bearings, and then tuned up the nucleus and lubed the neutrons. She should run pretty smooth now."
The advertisement then goes on to say that the EasyDefense tag is "completely safe for your pet, with no possible side effects." I'm sure this is true. In fact, in my opinion, they should broaden that statement to read, "completely safe for your pet, because it has no effects whatsoever."
It is unclear to me whether there should be a point where the government steps in to prevent hucksters from making claims that are clearly false. However, being that caveat emptor seems to be the general rule, there's nothing to stop anyone from claiming anything, even if it's total baloney (although there are some restrictions with respect to human health -- you are required to state, "The FDA has not evaluated these claims" if, in fact, what you are claiming is patently untrue). In general, the law sides with the seller -- for example, just last week, a Louisiana judge ruled that the claims of fortunetellers and mediums to be psychic are protected free speech. [Source] This makes it all the more important that people learn critical thinking skills early -- because that is the only thing I know that acts to repel frauds, fakes, and phonies. And it does so without even having to resort to using "quantum mechanic's refined frequencies."
Do you have pets?
If you answered all of those questions "yes," you will be thrilled to know that the woo-woos have now extended their wacko ideas into treating Fido, Mr. Fluffums, and your other furry friends.
A friend of mine sent me a link yesterday advertising "Only Natural Pet EasyDefense Flea & Tick Tags," available for $71.99 (on sale), should you have no better uses for 72 bucks, which in my opinion would include using it to start a campfire. Here is the pitch, which (for the record) I am not making up:
Protect your dogs and cats from fleas, ticks and mosquitoes naturally! The Only Natural Pet EasyDefense Flea & Tick Tag is a safe, chemical-free way to keep harmful pests off of your pet. Using state of the art holistic technology, the EasyDefense Tag utilizes your pet’s own energy to create a natural barrier to pests. There are no chemicals or pesticides involved. It is completely safe for pets and humans in the household...Okay. I do have a few questions about this:
The EasyDefense tag is treated with a bio-energetic process and sealed in an electro-magnetic shielded envelope. When opened and placed on your pet, it uses your pet's own inherent energy to send out frequencies that repel pests. The process operates with quantum mechanic's [sic] refined frequencies, and is somewhat similar to the basic principles of homeopathy. (It does not use traditional energy forms like electrical, chemical, thermal, magnetic, or radioactive.)
This holistic energetic approach combines the knowledge of Eastern medicine with advanced Western technology, and is the result of more than 10 years of targeted research in collaboration with renowned doctors and scientists. This quantum energy approach has been used in Europe for many years to enhance human health and wellness through the energizing of objects, water, drinks, and supplements.
1) Seriously?
2) I kind of doubt that my "pet's own energy" repels much of anything. I own two dogs that seem to be magnets for dirt, filth, burs, and dead animal residue, so I think if this tag somehow enhanced my "pet's own energy," every bad-smelling thing in a five-mile radius would suddenly fly through the air toward my house, sort of like the last scene in the movie Carrie only way more disgusting.
3) Saying that something you're promoting is "somewhat similar to the basic principles of homeopathy" is not a selling point, okay? This is a little like a person running for political office saying that his fiscal policy is "somewhat similar to the basic principles of fraud."
4) What is a "quantum mechanic?" Is this a guy who wears a jumpsuit with "Rick" embroidered on the pocket, who works on atoms? "Well, it's gonna be kind of expensive. I had to rotate your quarks, and your electrons' spin kinda had a bit of a shimmy, so I replaced the bearings, and then tuned up the nucleus and lubed the neutrons. She should run pretty smooth now."
The advertisement then goes on to say that the EasyDefense tag is "completely safe for your pet, with no possible side effects." I'm sure this is true. In fact, in my opinion, they should broaden that statement to read, "completely safe for your pet, because it has no effects whatsoever."
It is unclear to me whether there should be a point where the government steps in to prevent hucksters from making claims that are clearly false. However, being that caveat emptor seems to be the general rule, there's nothing to stop anyone from claiming anything, even if it's total baloney (although there are some restrictions with respect to human health -- you are required to state, "The FDA has not evaluated these claims" if, in fact, what you are claiming is patently untrue). In general, the law sides with the seller -- for example, just last week, a Louisiana judge ruled that the claims of fortunetellers and mediums to be psychic are protected free speech. [Source] This makes it all the more important that people learn critical thinking skills early -- because that is the only thing I know that acts to repel frauds, fakes, and phonies. And it does so without even having to resort to using "quantum mechanic's refined frequencies."
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Kiss kiss bang bang
There's apparently a evolutionary significance to kissing. Who knew? I'm an evolutionary biologist by background, and I didn't know. Me, I just thought it was kind of fun.
Wendy Hill, a neuroscientist at Lafayette College in Pennsylvania, published research a couple of years ago that indicates that there are changes in levels of hormones when couples kiss. Apparently, Hill's team paid heterosexual couples to kiss for fifteen minutes, and measured blood levels of various hormones before and after (and I can only imagine the lines of horny college guys waiting to sign up for this opportunity). (Source)
The results were intriguing. In particular, the hormone oxytocin seems to be affected by kissing. Oxytocin is one of the "feel-good hormones," and has been nicknamed the "cuddle hormone" because it is associated with the maternal instinct and caring for an infant, and the fact that its levels skyrocket in both genders immediately after orgasm. The research indicates that oxytocin levels spike in men during kissing, but they fall in women. This I find surprising, but I can't find anywhere that the researchers speculated as to why oxytocin falls in women after they kiss. This to me would seem to indicate that men feel better after kissing and women feel worse, which seems a little odd. Maybe it's because kissing makes men think about having an orgasm and makes women think about taking care of a infant.
In any case, it's interesting that 90% of human societies (according to the research study) "practice kissing." I don't know about the other 10%. Perhaps they rub foreheads together, or something. Perhaps they don't practice any more because they've figured out how to do it right. It's a mystery.
The other intriguing find of the study was that men prefer "sloppy kisses," whereas evidently women don't. The researchers explain this by positing that saliva contains trace amounts of testosterone, which is linked to increased sex drive in both genders, and swapping spit is a way of dialing up the response in your partner. So, I guess that sloppy kisses are just another human male equivalent of the peacock shakin' his tail feathers -- a chemical way of saying, "hey, baby." So, it falls in the same category as going to the gym to build up your biceps or owning a Jaguar. It's a non-verbal statement that says, "I am just the most virile male you will ever meet in your life. I have so much testosterone that I can just throw it away. You definitely want me to be the father of your children."
Recently Paul Zak, "the world's expert on oxytocin," has published further studies (read about them here) that support the claim that oxytocin has a role in more than just sex, pair bonding, and the mother/infant relationship; it's apparently vital in all sorts of positive social interactions. Zak, in fact, calls oxytocin "the moral molecule." His studies indicate that people's oxytocin levels rise when they have pleasant encounters of all sorts; and if given boosts of oxytocin artificially, they tend to make more moral decisions and behave with more generosity and trust. Oxytocin levels also spike, Zak found, when people play with their pets, socialize with their friends, and watch romantic movies with happy endings. All of these are activities that are connected with pair bonding, social cohesion, and reciprocity -- phenomena that are intrinsic to life as a social primate, so no wonder this response is ubiquitous. It'd be a pretty unpleasant world without it, wouldn't it?
Ah, natural selection. It explains so much.
Anyway, I find all of this stuff pretty fascinating, and I wish you luck conducting any empirical research on the subject that you have the opportunity to do. Here's to raised oxytocin levels.
Wendy Hill, a neuroscientist at Lafayette College in Pennsylvania, published research a couple of years ago that indicates that there are changes in levels of hormones when couples kiss. Apparently, Hill's team paid heterosexual couples to kiss for fifteen minutes, and measured blood levels of various hormones before and after (and I can only imagine the lines of horny college guys waiting to sign up for this opportunity). (Source)
The results were intriguing. In particular, the hormone oxytocin seems to be affected by kissing. Oxytocin is one of the "feel-good hormones," and has been nicknamed the "cuddle hormone" because it is associated with the maternal instinct and caring for an infant, and the fact that its levels skyrocket in both genders immediately after orgasm. The research indicates that oxytocin levels spike in men during kissing, but they fall in women. This I find surprising, but I can't find anywhere that the researchers speculated as to why oxytocin falls in women after they kiss. This to me would seem to indicate that men feel better after kissing and women feel worse, which seems a little odd. Maybe it's because kissing makes men think about having an orgasm and makes women think about taking care of a infant.
In any case, it's interesting that 90% of human societies (according to the research study) "practice kissing." I don't know about the other 10%. Perhaps they rub foreheads together, or something. Perhaps they don't practice any more because they've figured out how to do it right. It's a mystery.
The other intriguing find of the study was that men prefer "sloppy kisses," whereas evidently women don't. The researchers explain this by positing that saliva contains trace amounts of testosterone, which is linked to increased sex drive in both genders, and swapping spit is a way of dialing up the response in your partner. So, I guess that sloppy kisses are just another human male equivalent of the peacock shakin' his tail feathers -- a chemical way of saying, "hey, baby." So, it falls in the same category as going to the gym to build up your biceps or owning a Jaguar. It's a non-verbal statement that says, "I am just the most virile male you will ever meet in your life. I have so much testosterone that I can just throw it away. You definitely want me to be the father of your children."
Recently Paul Zak, "the world's expert on oxytocin," has published further studies (read about them here) that support the claim that oxytocin has a role in more than just sex, pair bonding, and the mother/infant relationship; it's apparently vital in all sorts of positive social interactions. Zak, in fact, calls oxytocin "the moral molecule." His studies indicate that people's oxytocin levels rise when they have pleasant encounters of all sorts; and if given boosts of oxytocin artificially, they tend to make more moral decisions and behave with more generosity and trust. Oxytocin levels also spike, Zak found, when people play with their pets, socialize with their friends, and watch romantic movies with happy endings. All of these are activities that are connected with pair bonding, social cohesion, and reciprocity -- phenomena that are intrinsic to life as a social primate, so no wonder this response is ubiquitous. It'd be a pretty unpleasant world without it, wouldn't it?
Ah, natural selection. It explains so much.
Anyway, I find all of this stuff pretty fascinating, and I wish you luck conducting any empirical research on the subject that you have the opportunity to do. Here's to raised oxytocin levels.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
The woo-woos go high tech
I suppose it was only a matter of time. The woo-woos have gotten hold of high tech.
I find this a kind of curious idea, given how they harp so continuously on how their beliefs are Ancient Magick Passed Down From The Elders -- it never occurred to me that they would jump on the "app" bandwagon. But given the utility, ease of use, and low cost of your typical iPhone or iPad app, it was bound to happen.
So, put away your crystals and dowsing rods and sacred knives, and get out your electronic device of choice. Here's a few of the hundreds of apps I found.
Rune Magic ($2.99) - "Rune Magic is a state of the art application for rune divination and studying. Ask runes about your destiny, fortune, love, health and business. The application provides four types of runic divination with the detailed descriptions of rune meanings. The runes will tell you about the past, the present and the future, and also will give an advice about your problems. The application is also perfect for studying runes. A strict compliance with all magical rules makes application predictions highly accurate. Try it, you would be impressed! The application is on sale, it is the best time to buy it."
Ouija Board version 6.2 ($1.99) - "A talking board, generically referred as "Ouija Board" and also known as spirit board, witch board, oracle board, mystic board or channeling board, is any flat board printed with letters, numbers, and other symbols, to which a planchette or movable indicator points, answering questions from people at a séance. The fingers of the participants are placed on the planchette that is moved by the spirits about the board to spell out messages. These boards are considered to be a spiritual gateway used to contact the dead or to receive information from beyond."
New Age Stone and Crystal Guide ($3.99) - "New Age Stones and Crystals Guide provides metaphysical property information for hundreds of stones and crystals. Search through indexes of stone names or property types to find the exact stone needed for your self development. The most extensive virtual stone and crystal guide available, this application identifies stones helpful for improvement of spiritual, mental and psychological aspects."
Erzulie's Voodoo ($3.99) - "Learn all about the secrets of Voodoo & Vodou with the world’s FIRST authentic Voodoo app, from Erzulie’s Authentic Voodoo in the French Quarter of New Orleans. Erzulie’s Voodoo “Advanced” app delves into the roots, detailed history, advanced spiritual concepts, Vodou rituals and magic of this vast and mysterious tradition, written by highly experienced, initiated, Vodou priests and priestesses. Erzulie’s Voodoo Advanced App offers comprehensive information on Voodoo beliefs, performing your own authentic Voodoo spells, extensive sections on the Divine Voodoo Spirits (Lwa), how they are served in Vodou, and their Catholic Counterparts plus Magical Veve’s (sacred symbols of the Spirits), Spiritual Possession, New Orleans Voodoo, Palo Mayombe, Voodoo dolls, fetishes, Voodoo magic and much more... Perform your very own powerful Voodoo Love Spells, Wealth Spells and Banishing Spells with our extensive collection of authentic Voodoo rituals found only in the Erzulie’s Voodoo Advanced App, complete with their very own detailed instructions and resources."
Goddess Inspiration Oracle (free) - "Get inspired! The Goddess Inspiration Oracle offers a free one card oracle reading to grant you guidance for your day. It features eighty goddesses from around the world, all whom offer inspiration and guidance. These powerful feminine role models range from Abeona, goddess of gateways, to the Zorya, each of whom are represented in this app with gorgeous art and inspiring, well-researched text... Since time immemorial, humans have invoked the wisdom of goddesses by using oracles. Oracles provide an experience of synchronicity, a term created by Jung to describe a series of random events that connect within us to gain a deeper meaning. By doing so, the oracle helps us release information we already possess, thus allowing inspiration to strike when we most need it."
iTarot Classic (free) - "iTarot Classic provides straightforward two-card readings --"Daily Tarot" and "Love Tarot"-- with a streamlined design that makes consulting the Tarot effortless.
Features:
• Draw new cards with a simple shake
• Display only a one-card reading, if desired
• Use only the Major (or only the Minor) Arcana
• Allow or prohibit reversed cards
• Draw "Daily" and "Love" cards independently, from separate decks"
And those are just six out of hundreds. I'm kind of overwhelmed, and not just because I'm a Luddite. I just never would have thought that the whole electronic media thing would have caught on with these folks. My question is: do they really think it's the same thing? I mean, isn't the basis of these beliefs that when you handle the crystals, Tarot cards, rune stones, or whatever, the act of touching the objects is what is creating some kind of mystical interconnectedness of being? Can putting your fingers on a touch screen made in China really accomplish the same thing?
Maybe we should try a different app to see if we can get an answer to this question. How about:
Magic 8 Ball ($0.99) - "Magic 8 Ball™ has all the answers! And now it’s available for your iOS device! Ask it any yes or no question, shake your device (or tap the screen) and, “without a doubt,” it will give you an answer to life’s most complicated questions. Inquire about romance, friendship, school, work…whatever! "
Let's see... "Reply hazy, try again."
I shoulda known.
I find this a kind of curious idea, given how they harp so continuously on how their beliefs are Ancient Magick Passed Down From The Elders -- it never occurred to me that they would jump on the "app" bandwagon. But given the utility, ease of use, and low cost of your typical iPhone or iPad app, it was bound to happen.
So, put away your crystals and dowsing rods and sacred knives, and get out your electronic device of choice. Here's a few of the hundreds of apps I found.
Rune Magic ($2.99) - "Rune Magic is a state of the art application for rune divination and studying. Ask runes about your destiny, fortune, love, health and business. The application provides four types of runic divination with the detailed descriptions of rune meanings. The runes will tell you about the past, the present and the future, and also will give an advice about your problems. The application is also perfect for studying runes. A strict compliance with all magical rules makes application predictions highly accurate. Try it, you would be impressed! The application is on sale, it is the best time to buy it."
Ouija Board version 6.2 ($1.99) - "A talking board, generically referred as "Ouija Board" and also known as spirit board, witch board, oracle board, mystic board or channeling board, is any flat board printed with letters, numbers, and other symbols, to which a planchette or movable indicator points, answering questions from people at a séance. The fingers of the participants are placed on the planchette that is moved by the spirits about the board to spell out messages. These boards are considered to be a spiritual gateway used to contact the dead or to receive information from beyond."
New Age Stone and Crystal Guide ($3.99) - "New Age Stones and Crystals Guide provides metaphysical property information for hundreds of stones and crystals. Search through indexes of stone names or property types to find the exact stone needed for your self development. The most extensive virtual stone and crystal guide available, this application identifies stones helpful for improvement of spiritual, mental and psychological aspects."
Erzulie's Voodoo ($3.99) - "Learn all about the secrets of Voodoo & Vodou with the world’s FIRST authentic Voodoo app, from Erzulie’s Authentic Voodoo in the French Quarter of New Orleans. Erzulie’s Voodoo “Advanced” app delves into the roots, detailed history, advanced spiritual concepts, Vodou rituals and magic of this vast and mysterious tradition, written by highly experienced, initiated, Vodou priests and priestesses. Erzulie’s Voodoo Advanced App offers comprehensive information on Voodoo beliefs, performing your own authentic Voodoo spells, extensive sections on the Divine Voodoo Spirits (Lwa), how they are served in Vodou, and their Catholic Counterparts plus Magical Veve’s (sacred symbols of the Spirits), Spiritual Possession, New Orleans Voodoo, Palo Mayombe, Voodoo dolls, fetishes, Voodoo magic and much more... Perform your very own powerful Voodoo Love Spells, Wealth Spells and Banishing Spells with our extensive collection of authentic Voodoo rituals found only in the Erzulie’s Voodoo Advanced App, complete with their very own detailed instructions and resources."
Goddess Inspiration Oracle (free) - "Get inspired! The Goddess Inspiration Oracle offers a free one card oracle reading to grant you guidance for your day. It features eighty goddesses from around the world, all whom offer inspiration and guidance. These powerful feminine role models range from Abeona, goddess of gateways, to the Zorya, each of whom are represented in this app with gorgeous art and inspiring, well-researched text... Since time immemorial, humans have invoked the wisdom of goddesses by using oracles. Oracles provide an experience of synchronicity, a term created by Jung to describe a series of random events that connect within us to gain a deeper meaning. By doing so, the oracle helps us release information we already possess, thus allowing inspiration to strike when we most need it."
iTarot Classic (free) - "iTarot Classic provides straightforward two-card readings --"Daily Tarot" and "Love Tarot"-- with a streamlined design that makes consulting the Tarot effortless.
Features:
• Draw new cards with a simple shake
• Display only a one-card reading, if desired
• Use only the Major (or only the Minor) Arcana
• Allow or prohibit reversed cards
• Draw "Daily" and "Love" cards independently, from separate decks"
And those are just six out of hundreds. I'm kind of overwhelmed, and not just because I'm a Luddite. I just never would have thought that the whole electronic media thing would have caught on with these folks. My question is: do they really think it's the same thing? I mean, isn't the basis of these beliefs that when you handle the crystals, Tarot cards, rune stones, or whatever, the act of touching the objects is what is creating some kind of mystical interconnectedness of being? Can putting your fingers on a touch screen made in China really accomplish the same thing?
Maybe we should try a different app to see if we can get an answer to this question. How about:
Magic 8 Ball ($0.99) - "Magic 8 Ball™ has all the answers! And now it’s available for your iOS device! Ask it any yes or no question, shake your device (or tap the screen) and, “without a doubt,” it will give you an answer to life’s most complicated questions. Inquire about romance, friendship, school, work…whatever! "
Let's see... "Reply hazy, try again."
I shoulda known.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Bias, self-awareness, and evil spirits
If there's anything that is a sign of true intelligence, it's caution regarding accepting ideas at face value. The tendency of many, unfortunately, is to accept whatever is being said, or read, without question, especially if the claim comes from a reputable-looking source.
The issue becomes further complicated when we're biased ahead of time to accept (or reject) the source itself. A study (here) by Charles Lord and Cheryl Taylor, of Texas Christian University, indicates that people are more likely to accept as correct false statements if they're told that the false statement came from someone whose political or religious stance they share, and conversely, to think true statements are false if they're told that the true statement came from a source in the opposite ideological camp. Another study (here), by Emily Pronin, Daniel Yin, and Lee Ross of Stanford University, further indicates that just about everyone believes him/herself to be unbiased as compared to others; and worse still, a study by David Dunning (here) suggests that we are likely to rate ourselves as "above average" in knowledge, even in realms in which we score in the bottom quartile.
In other words, none of us is aware of how unperceptive, biased, and ignorant we actually are.
So, the salient question becomes: given that this is the case, how do we know what is true or false?
Well, in the absolute sense, we can't. We're trapped inside our own skulls, and certainty about anything is probably unrealistic. Science helps, because it establishes a baseline for validity, along with a reliance on hard data. But even science doesn't solve the problem entirely; as James Burke, one of the finest thinkers I know of, said, in his wonderful documentary series The Day the Universe Changed, "Even when you get the raw data, the situation doesn't improve. Because it isn't raw data. It's what you expected to find. You'd designed your equipment based on what you already thought was going to happen, so what your equipment is good at doing is finding the kind of data you reckoned you were going to find."
Still, the situation isn't as dire as all that, or we'd be in doubt about everything. There are ways we can detect specious thinking, and an assortment of red flags that will alert us to bias, slant, and outright lies. Let's look at one fairly simple example, which appeared in the rather goofy online magazine Who Forted? (although let's not dismiss it just because of the source; see paragraph 2).
Entitled "Bad Vibes: Can Dealing With Evil Spirits Kill You?", this article makes the claim that delving too deeply into the occult puts you in touch with "forces" that can have negative effects on your health. "(W)hat about those few people who make it a career to deliver the mortal souls of sinners from the grip of evil?" the author, Greg Newkirk, asks. "What of exorcists, demonologists, and ghost hunters with a flair for the dramatic and a reality show audience? Is there a risk in placing yourself between a negative spirit and it’s [sic] prey? Surely the religious will believe that it’s your own soul at stake, but do the scars of spiritual warfare have a physical manifestation? What I’m asking essentially amounts to one question: Can the pursuit of evil spirits affect your heath?"
Newkirk then goes on to describe the various ways in which evil spirits could cause you harm, including (to his credit) the practitioner simply experiencing continuous stress, fear, and negative emotions -- i.e., the effect could be real even if the spirits themselves aren't. (This, then, might qualify as a sort of nocebo effect -- a documented phenomenon in which a person who believes himself to be in harm's way from supernatural causes actually experiences negative health effects.)
The most interesting part, to me, is when Newkirk begins to list off various psychic researchers, exorcists, black magicians, and so on, gives a brief curriculum vitae for each, and describes how and at what age each died. If you want the complete stories, check out the link, but here's a list of names, ages, and causes of death:
1) It's short. Beware of small sample sizes. Given a small enough sample size, you can find just about any sort of statistically unlikely pattern you'd like. (Sort of like if you rolled a die four times in a row, and got four sixes -- and decided that the chance of rolling sixes on a fair die was 100%.)
2) Given that the writer already had decided that working with evil spirits is dangerous, it's pretty likely he'd have selected examples that supported the conclusion he already had, and ignored ones that didn't. This kind of cherry-picking of data isn't always this obvious -- unfortunately.
3) Even despite #2, this was the best he could do? The first two men listed actually lived longer than the average American (US male average life expectancy currently stands at 75.6 years). A third, Tom Robertson, is still alive, and has a form of cancer that is often treatable. A fourth, George Lutz, died young of cancer -- but one of two photographs of Lutz in the article shows him sitting with a cigarette in his hand, in front of a full ashtray!
My point here is that there's a middle ground between accepting a source whole-cloth or rejecting it out of hand. There's no substitute for taking a cautious look at the argument presented, asking yourself some pointed questions about bias and slant (especially, given the Lord and Taylor study, if the source is one you habitually agree or disagree with!), and engaging your brain, before deciding one way or the other. And, if there isn't enough information to decide, there's nothing wrong with simply holding a judgment in abeyance for a while -- indefinitely, if need be.
A wonderful take on the whole idea of how to analyze claims is the chapter entitled "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in Carl Sagan's wonderful book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (which, in my opinion, should be required reading in every high school science curriculum in the world). Check it out, while you're taking a break from expelling evil spirits. It'll be good for your health.
The issue becomes further complicated when we're biased ahead of time to accept (or reject) the source itself. A study (here) by Charles Lord and Cheryl Taylor, of Texas Christian University, indicates that people are more likely to accept as correct false statements if they're told that the false statement came from someone whose political or religious stance they share, and conversely, to think true statements are false if they're told that the true statement came from a source in the opposite ideological camp. Another study (here), by Emily Pronin, Daniel Yin, and Lee Ross of Stanford University, further indicates that just about everyone believes him/herself to be unbiased as compared to others; and worse still, a study by David Dunning (here) suggests that we are likely to rate ourselves as "above average" in knowledge, even in realms in which we score in the bottom quartile.
In other words, none of us is aware of how unperceptive, biased, and ignorant we actually are.
So, the salient question becomes: given that this is the case, how do we know what is true or false?
Well, in the absolute sense, we can't. We're trapped inside our own skulls, and certainty about anything is probably unrealistic. Science helps, because it establishes a baseline for validity, along with a reliance on hard data. But even science doesn't solve the problem entirely; as James Burke, one of the finest thinkers I know of, said, in his wonderful documentary series The Day the Universe Changed, "Even when you get the raw data, the situation doesn't improve. Because it isn't raw data. It's what you expected to find. You'd designed your equipment based on what you already thought was going to happen, so what your equipment is good at doing is finding the kind of data you reckoned you were going to find."
Still, the situation isn't as dire as all that, or we'd be in doubt about everything. There are ways we can detect specious thinking, and an assortment of red flags that will alert us to bias, slant, and outright lies. Let's look at one fairly simple example, which appeared in the rather goofy online magazine Who Forted? (although let's not dismiss it just because of the source; see paragraph 2).
Entitled "Bad Vibes: Can Dealing With Evil Spirits Kill You?", this article makes the claim that delving too deeply into the occult puts you in touch with "forces" that can have negative effects on your health. "(W)hat about those few people who make it a career to deliver the mortal souls of sinners from the grip of evil?" the author, Greg Newkirk, asks. "What of exorcists, demonologists, and ghost hunters with a flair for the dramatic and a reality show audience? Is there a risk in placing yourself between a negative spirit and it’s [sic] prey? Surely the religious will believe that it’s your own soul at stake, but do the scars of spiritual warfare have a physical manifestation? What I’m asking essentially amounts to one question: Can the pursuit of evil spirits affect your heath?"
Newkirk then goes on to describe the various ways in which evil spirits could cause you harm, including (to his credit) the practitioner simply experiencing continuous stress, fear, and negative emotions -- i.e., the effect could be real even if the spirits themselves aren't. (This, then, might qualify as a sort of nocebo effect -- a documented phenomenon in which a person who believes himself to be in harm's way from supernatural causes actually experiences negative health effects.)
The most interesting part, to me, is when Newkirk begins to list off various psychic researchers, exorcists, black magicians, and so on, gives a brief curriculum vitae for each, and describes how and at what age each died. If you want the complete stories, check out the link, but here's a list of names, ages, and causes of death:
- Malachi Martin, 78, brain hemorrhage
- Ed Warren, 79, cause not listed (but was chronically ill during the last five years of his life)
- Lou Gentile, early 40s, cancer
- George Lutz, 59, cancer
- Tom Robertson, still alive (from his photograph, he appears to be 60-ish), has prostate cancer
- Ryan Buell, still alive (age 30), has pancreatic cancer
1) It's short. Beware of small sample sizes. Given a small enough sample size, you can find just about any sort of statistically unlikely pattern you'd like. (Sort of like if you rolled a die four times in a row, and got four sixes -- and decided that the chance of rolling sixes on a fair die was 100%.)
2) Given that the writer already had decided that working with evil spirits is dangerous, it's pretty likely he'd have selected examples that supported the conclusion he already had, and ignored ones that didn't. This kind of cherry-picking of data isn't always this obvious -- unfortunately.
3) Even despite #2, this was the best he could do? The first two men listed actually lived longer than the average American (US male average life expectancy currently stands at 75.6 years). A third, Tom Robertson, is still alive, and has a form of cancer that is often treatable. A fourth, George Lutz, died young of cancer -- but one of two photographs of Lutz in the article shows him sitting with a cigarette in his hand, in front of a full ashtray!
My point here is that there's a middle ground between accepting a source whole-cloth or rejecting it out of hand. There's no substitute for taking a cautious look at the argument presented, asking yourself some pointed questions about bias and slant (especially, given the Lord and Taylor study, if the source is one you habitually agree or disagree with!), and engaging your brain, before deciding one way or the other. And, if there isn't enough information to decide, there's nothing wrong with simply holding a judgment in abeyance for a while -- indefinitely, if need be.
A wonderful take on the whole idea of how to analyze claims is the chapter entitled "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in Carl Sagan's wonderful book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (which, in my opinion, should be required reading in every high school science curriculum in the world). Check it out, while you're taking a break from expelling evil spirits. It'll be good for your health.
Monday, July 16, 2012
*ding* You've got mail!
I'm frequently the recipient of posted responses and emails, and I'm pleased to say that the majority of them are quite pleasant and supportive. Some, unfortunately, are downright hostile. Others fall somewhere in the middle -- questioning my views, requesting that I reconsider, providing me with additional source material that I didn't have before. And while compliments are awesome, I really appreciate the people who take the time to provide me with constructive criticism -- because, as I recently commented, I'm always happy to revise my views when presented with facts, evidence, or even a logical argument I hadn't heard before.
Last week, I was the recipient of three responses to recent posts, that I thought were worthy of responding to in a subsequent post. So, lo, here is the response. In order not to leave my readers on a negative note, I present them in decreasing order of vitriol.
The first one was a reply to my last post, regarding the "Baltic Sea Anomaly," in which I described the beliefs of certain folks that the structure is a sunken Nazi superweapon. The response I got said, in part, that the structure was "perfectly circular" with "vertical straight lines," and therefore couldn't be natural in origin; the writer then went on to say that "no one except me" claimed that the thing could interfere with planes, and asked why if I "obviously had no understanding of the facts" I "waste my time and my reader's time writing this drivel."
Well, okay, then. First of all, I'm not the one claiming that the alleged "Nazi superweapon" was interfering with airplanes; the source did, which I both quoted and posted a link to. I, you might recall if you'd read more carefully, was the one that doubted such claims were true. Second, I don't know where the responder took geometry class, but the "Anomaly" is certainly not a perfect circle. And as far as straight lines -- those abound in nature. In fact, I just saw yesterday, in a park not ten miles from my house, fault lines in a cliffside so straight they look like they were cut with a saw.
However, allow me to clarify one thing, because perhaps I did overstate my case. The point of the post was to rail against people who seem bound and determined, without any hard evidence, to turn this thing into something bizarre. My statement, "It's just a pile of rocks," should have said, "As far as the evidence we now have, there is no reason to reject the conclusion that it's just a pile of rocks." Could it be something else? Of course. It could be a drowned structure from a Stone Age settlement, constructed when the sea level was far lower. It could be a something-or-another from the Nazis. It could, although it is much less likely, be a crashed spaceship. But thus far, all we have is a few images, and some anecdotal reports of electronic equipment malfunctioning -- and myself, I am hanging onto the conclusion that William of Ockham would have favored, which is that it is some sort of geological formation, such as a faulted pillow basalt. If hard evidence proves me wrong, that's fine, and will undoubtedly be more interesting than my rather ho-hum explanation -- and I will happily eat crow and print a retraction here. But until that time, the wild speculation is getting to be rather tiresome.
The second response came as an email, shortly after I posted "Thought vs. experiment," which was about how experimentation (and data, and hard evidence) should be the sine qua non of understanding -- that knowledge, in my opinion, is seldom ever arrived at by simply "thinking about stuff." This generated a response, which I quote in part:
The difference, I think, is that for a skeptic (and I would include here skeptics who are inclined to believe in ghosts -- and there are a few out there), you don't stop at that assumption. You examine your evidence, and you keep your biases out front where you can see them -- and you look for more data. Skeptics, I think, tend to have restless minds, and aren't content with just saying, "Oh, okay, I know what that is, I can stop thinking about it now." We are, in our best moments, open to a revision of our explanations -- but only if the evidence supports it.
And as far as there not being a machine to detect ghosts, that one I've heard before -- the argument that goes along the lines of, "We didn't know x-rays existed until scientists built a sensor that could detect them. Maybe there are energies we haven't learned to detect, yet." That is possible, but I'd put it in the "doubtful" category -- physicists have become exceedingly good at measuring energy of varying types, even when those traces are faint (to give just one example, look at the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy study, which detects extremely small fluctuations in the microwave background radiation in the sky as a way of elucidating the structure of the early universe). I find it hard to believe that with all of the big effects that the woo-woos claim -- telekinesis, telepathy, spirit survival, and so on -- that none of our current devices can demonstrate unequivocal hard evidence of any of them.
The third response was to my post, "Grilled cheese sandwiches and sacred stones," which looked at the rather difficult question of how to respond to people who claim that you're not showing proper respect to an object that they venerate and you don't:
In any case, it all comes back to my favorite word, "evidence." A random pattern burned into a piece of toast is just not sufficient for me to conclude that Jesus has sent me his Holy Image. Some people in Venezuela declaring that a particular rock is their Wise Grandmother doesn't mean that out of respect for their cultural beliefs, I have to accept that it is literally true. I will fall back on what I said in the post; I believe in treating all people with respect, dignity, and kindness, but that does not require me to accept that what they're saying is correct.
In any case, I really appreciate the feedback, and although I would prefer not to have what I write referred to as "drivel," it's better to have hostile responses than no responses. As Brendan Behan famously said, "There's no such thing as bad publicity." So keep those cards and letters comin'.
Last week, I was the recipient of three responses to recent posts, that I thought were worthy of responding to in a subsequent post. So, lo, here is the response. In order not to leave my readers on a negative note, I present them in decreasing order of vitriol.
The first one was a reply to my last post, regarding the "Baltic Sea Anomaly," in which I described the beliefs of certain folks that the structure is a sunken Nazi superweapon. The response I got said, in part, that the structure was "perfectly circular" with "vertical straight lines," and therefore couldn't be natural in origin; the writer then went on to say that "no one except me" claimed that the thing could interfere with planes, and asked why if I "obviously had no understanding of the facts" I "waste my time and my reader's time writing this drivel."
Well, okay, then. First of all, I'm not the one claiming that the alleged "Nazi superweapon" was interfering with airplanes; the source did, which I both quoted and posted a link to. I, you might recall if you'd read more carefully, was the one that doubted such claims were true. Second, I don't know where the responder took geometry class, but the "Anomaly" is certainly not a perfect circle. And as far as straight lines -- those abound in nature. In fact, I just saw yesterday, in a park not ten miles from my house, fault lines in a cliffside so straight they look like they were cut with a saw.
However, allow me to clarify one thing, because perhaps I did overstate my case. The point of the post was to rail against people who seem bound and determined, without any hard evidence, to turn this thing into something bizarre. My statement, "It's just a pile of rocks," should have said, "As far as the evidence we now have, there is no reason to reject the conclusion that it's just a pile of rocks." Could it be something else? Of course. It could be a drowned structure from a Stone Age settlement, constructed when the sea level was far lower. It could be a something-or-another from the Nazis. It could, although it is much less likely, be a crashed spaceship. But thus far, all we have is a few images, and some anecdotal reports of electronic equipment malfunctioning -- and myself, I am hanging onto the conclusion that William of Ockham would have favored, which is that it is some sort of geological formation, such as a faulted pillow basalt. If hard evidence proves me wrong, that's fine, and will undoubtedly be more interesting than my rather ho-hum explanation -- and I will happily eat crow and print a retraction here. But until that time, the wild speculation is getting to be rather tiresome.
The second response came as an email, shortly after I posted "Thought vs. experiment," which was about how experimentation (and data, and hard evidence) should be the sine qua non of understanding -- that knowledge, in my opinion, is seldom ever arrived at by simply "thinking about stuff." This generated a response, which I quote in part:
You have written more than once in your blog that you will only accept something if you have hard evidence, and that beliefs in the absence of hard evidence are what you call "woo-woo." I think the flaw in your argument has to do with what you would consider "hard evidence." Why couldn't there be a natural phenomenon that we haven't yet designed a machine to detect? Maybe ghosts exist, and the only way to sense them is with our minds. You would rule that out because you don't see a needle moving on a device, and yet it's real. And my sense is that you're so closed-minded that even if you were to be presented with evidence for the supernatural, you'd rule it out because you'd already decided that none of that stuff is true.First of all, I must point out that the latter is the hazard not only with perennial skeptics like myself, but with everyone. We all come with our set of preconceived notions about how the world works. If I hear a creaking noise in an old house at night, of course my first inclination will be to assume that it's some sort of natural phenomenon (a branch rubbing the roof, an animal in the attic, or the like). But how is that different than the True Believer? To him/her, a creaking of the floorboards is automatically assumed to be evidence of haunting.
The difference, I think, is that for a skeptic (and I would include here skeptics who are inclined to believe in ghosts -- and there are a few out there), you don't stop at that assumption. You examine your evidence, and you keep your biases out front where you can see them -- and you look for more data. Skeptics, I think, tend to have restless minds, and aren't content with just saying, "Oh, okay, I know what that is, I can stop thinking about it now." We are, in our best moments, open to a revision of our explanations -- but only if the evidence supports it.
And as far as there not being a machine to detect ghosts, that one I've heard before -- the argument that goes along the lines of, "We didn't know x-rays existed until scientists built a sensor that could detect them. Maybe there are energies we haven't learned to detect, yet." That is possible, but I'd put it in the "doubtful" category -- physicists have become exceedingly good at measuring energy of varying types, even when those traces are faint (to give just one example, look at the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy study, which detects extremely small fluctuations in the microwave background radiation in the sky as a way of elucidating the structure of the early universe). I find it hard to believe that with all of the big effects that the woo-woos claim -- telekinesis, telepathy, spirit survival, and so on -- that none of our current devices can demonstrate unequivocal hard evidence of any of them.
The third response was to my post, "Grilled cheese sandwiches and sacred stones," which looked at the rather difficult question of how to respond to people who claim that you're not showing proper respect to an object that they venerate and you don't:
You shouldn't scoff at people for venerating, or finding spirituality, in objects. All of our ancestors did that very thing. I'll bet that there are objects you are attached to -- for sentimental reasons, perhaps, but still, it's not "just a thing" for you. And maybe the people who find spirituality in objects are right, and you're missing a big part of the universe by considering everything around you to just be inanimate matter.Well, first of all, I reread my post, and I didn't think I did much scoffing. At least, not nearly as much as I usually do. Maybe I did some covert, implied scoffing, I dunno. But in any case, the responder is correct that I don't think there is "spirit" in matter, and that our ancestors did, in general, believe that there was. Our ancestors, you might recall, believed a lot of other things, too, and a good many of them have since been proven to be false, so just because some great-great-grandmother of mine thought that a particular ring had magical powers doesn't impel me to believe it out of some sense of familial respect.
In any case, it all comes back to my favorite word, "evidence." A random pattern burned into a piece of toast is just not sufficient for me to conclude that Jesus has sent me his Holy Image. Some people in Venezuela declaring that a particular rock is their Wise Grandmother doesn't mean that out of respect for their cultural beliefs, I have to accept that it is literally true. I will fall back on what I said in the post; I believe in treating all people with respect, dignity, and kindness, but that does not require me to accept that what they're saying is correct.
In any case, I really appreciate the feedback, and although I would prefer not to have what I write referred to as "drivel," it's better to have hostile responses than no responses. As Brendan Behan famously said, "There's no such thing as bad publicity." So keep those cards and letters comin'.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
The Baltic Sea Anomaly, the Nazis, and "Vril"
The "Baltic Sea Anomaly" is becoming the woo-woo phenomenon that will not die.
You probably remember that the whole thing started last year, when some Swedish treasure-hunters discovered a pile of rocks on the floor of the Baltic Sea that was vaguely circular. The presence of a circular pile of rocks on these people had exactly the effect it would on anyone, provided he had the IQ of a jar of peanut butter: the people who took the photograph decided it was a downed spaceship.
This caused all sorts of excitement amongst the world of woo-woo, especially when the Ocean Explorer team who had made the initial "discovery" told the press that they couldn't go back because of funding problems and the onset of winter. They promised, however, to return this year, and anticipation grew, until a couple of months ago, they went back, took more photographs, and found that the downed spacecraft was...
... still just a pile of rocks. But they were really special rocks! Really! And this definitely isn't a publicity stunt intended to draw the whole thing out interminably!
The latter, of course, is happening anyway, because woo-woos are nothing if not tenacious. So, now we have a new proposal, based on the claim by the Ocean Explorer team that the "Baltic Sea Anomaly" (as the rocks have come to be known) was interfering with electronic equipment, that their cameras and so on "refused to work" when they got close to it.
So now, the pile of rocks has been morphed from a downed spacecraft into...
... wait for it...
... a superpowerful Nazi secret weapon. (Source)
Yes, this is quite an amazing pile of rocks, isn't it? It is a remnant of "super-secret WWII technology" that was "designed to block enemy radar and even causing ships and airplanes to lose their way, either crashing into the sea or sinking below the waves."
And as I've commented before, there is no silly idea that someone can't make sillier, so now the buzz is that this is the at-long-last evidence needed to prove the discovery by the Nazis of an ultrapowerful energy source called "Vril."
The whole Vril thing has been going around for years -- that the Nazis had found evidence of alien technology from a civilization on Alpha Centauri, and were working on a doomsday weapon that would be powered by "Vril." Apparently the story of the Nazis looking for Vril is true; it was one of a whole lot of ridiculous, pseudo-mystical lines of "research" the Nazis were pursuing. The fact that they were looking for Vril, though, is especially comical, because the whole idea came from an 1871 novel by Edward Bulwer-Lytton called Vril: The Power of the Coming Race, which the Nazis evidently didn't notice had been shelved in the "Fiction" section of the bookstore.
But that, of course, never stops either Nazis or conspiracy theorists, because they always have recourse to saying, "Of course it's shelved as fiction -- it was written in the guise of a fictional novel to cover up the fact that it was all true! How's that for a clever strategy?" And the result is that there are numerous secret and not-so-secret societies today that base their philosophy (if I can dignify it with that name) on the truth of the Vril story. (Here's a webpage that goes into detail about the Nazi Vril program, but unfortunately seems to take the whole thing a little too seriously; and a highly, but inadvertently, comical page that tells you how to purchase your very own hand-held "Vril Generator.")
So. Anyway. Can we just clarify a couple of things, here?
1) The "Baltic Sea Anomaly" is a PILE OF ROCKS. How many times do I have to say this? The Ocean Explorer team, in a sudden fit of honesty, admitted this when they went back there in May.
2) Call me a cynic, but I just flat-out don't believe that the pile of rocks is interfering with electronic equipment. That's just too convenient.
3) There's no such thing as "Vril." Bulwer-Lytton made it up for his novel.
4) The Nazis were, for the most part, superstitious, irrational loons, whose only use for science was to make weapons. Many of the reputable scientists they had fled to safety when the Nazis came to power, including Albert Einstein, Max Born, Enrico Fermi, Edward Teller, Hans Bethe, Erwin Schrödinger, Hans Krebs, and Bernard Katz, with the result that most of the "science" they accomplished with the ones who stayed behind was pure garbage.
5) Can we just move on to some other crazy idea, now? Because this one is seriously getting old.
You probably remember that the whole thing started last year, when some Swedish treasure-hunters discovered a pile of rocks on the floor of the Baltic Sea that was vaguely circular. The presence of a circular pile of rocks on these people had exactly the effect it would on anyone, provided he had the IQ of a jar of peanut butter: the people who took the photograph decided it was a downed spaceship.
This caused all sorts of excitement amongst the world of woo-woo, especially when the Ocean Explorer team who had made the initial "discovery" told the press that they couldn't go back because of funding problems and the onset of winter. They promised, however, to return this year, and anticipation grew, until a couple of months ago, they went back, took more photographs, and found that the downed spacecraft was...
... still just a pile of rocks. But they were really special rocks! Really! And this definitely isn't a publicity stunt intended to draw the whole thing out interminably!
The latter, of course, is happening anyway, because woo-woos are nothing if not tenacious. So, now we have a new proposal, based on the claim by the Ocean Explorer team that the "Baltic Sea Anomaly" (as the rocks have come to be known) was interfering with electronic equipment, that their cameras and so on "refused to work" when they got close to it.
So now, the pile of rocks has been morphed from a downed spacecraft into...
... wait for it...
... a superpowerful Nazi secret weapon. (Source)
Yes, this is quite an amazing pile of rocks, isn't it? It is a remnant of "super-secret WWII technology" that was "designed to block enemy radar and even causing ships and airplanes to lose their way, either crashing into the sea or sinking below the waves."
And as I've commented before, there is no silly idea that someone can't make sillier, so now the buzz is that this is the at-long-last evidence needed to prove the discovery by the Nazis of an ultrapowerful energy source called "Vril."
The whole Vril thing has been going around for years -- that the Nazis had found evidence of alien technology from a civilization on Alpha Centauri, and were working on a doomsday weapon that would be powered by "Vril." Apparently the story of the Nazis looking for Vril is true; it was one of a whole lot of ridiculous, pseudo-mystical lines of "research" the Nazis were pursuing. The fact that they were looking for Vril, though, is especially comical, because the whole idea came from an 1871 novel by Edward Bulwer-Lytton called Vril: The Power of the Coming Race, which the Nazis evidently didn't notice had been shelved in the "Fiction" section of the bookstore.
But that, of course, never stops either Nazis or conspiracy theorists, because they always have recourse to saying, "Of course it's shelved as fiction -- it was written in the guise of a fictional novel to cover up the fact that it was all true! How's that for a clever strategy?" And the result is that there are numerous secret and not-so-secret societies today that base their philosophy (if I can dignify it with that name) on the truth of the Vril story. (Here's a webpage that goes into detail about the Nazi Vril program, but unfortunately seems to take the whole thing a little too seriously; and a highly, but inadvertently, comical page that tells you how to purchase your very own hand-held "Vril Generator.")
So. Anyway. Can we just clarify a couple of things, here?
1) The "Baltic Sea Anomaly" is a PILE OF ROCKS. How many times do I have to say this? The Ocean Explorer team, in a sudden fit of honesty, admitted this when they went back there in May.
2) Call me a cynic, but I just flat-out don't believe that the pile of rocks is interfering with electronic equipment. That's just too convenient.
3) There's no such thing as "Vril." Bulwer-Lytton made it up for his novel.
4) The Nazis were, for the most part, superstitious, irrational loons, whose only use for science was to make weapons. Many of the reputable scientists they had fled to safety when the Nazis came to power, including Albert Einstein, Max Born, Enrico Fermi, Edward Teller, Hans Bethe, Erwin Schrödinger, Hans Krebs, and Bernard Katz, with the result that most of the "science" they accomplished with the ones who stayed behind was pure garbage.
5) Can we just move on to some other crazy idea, now? Because this one is seriously getting old.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)