Regular readers may remember that a couple of weeks ago, I wrote about an experiment being performed by psychologist Chris French and science writer Simon Singh to test, under controlled conditions, the alleged telepathic powers of some self-proclaimed psychics. (You can read the original post here.) French and Singh conducted the test at the University of London, and in a deliberately ironic gesture, released the results two days ago -- on Halloween.
And the results were... (drum roll please):
Zilch.
The two "psychics" who had agreed to participate were asked to write down something about each of five volunteers who were concealed behind a screen. Afterwards, the five volunteers were asked to pick the descriptions that fit them best. The psychics achieved a hit rate of one in five -- exactly consistent with chance alone. [Source]
Now, so far, I find nothing particularly surprising about this. I've read a great deal of the literature regarding controlled tests of psychics, mediums, and so on, and also about human cognitive biases -- confirmation and dart-thrower's bias, the "Clever Hans" effect, and so on. When researchers are not exceptionally careful to screen out and control for these sorts of things, the results are immediately suspect -- which is why I don't think most anecdotal evidence in this realm, of the "I Went To A Psychic And She Was So Amazing" kind, is logically admissible.
What is more interesting is the reaction of one of the psychics who participated in the test, the rather unfortunately-named Patricia Putt. "This experiment doesn't prove a thing," Ms. Putt said. She went on to explain that she needs to be face-to-face with a client to establish a connection of "psychic energy." When she is allowed to see her clients, her "success rate is very high."
She ended with a snarky comment that the scientists had designed the test simply to prove what they already believed -- accusing them, with no apparent sense of irony, of confirmation bias.
"Scientists are very closed-minded," she said.
My response is that of course she prefers to work face-to-face, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with "establishing a connection of psychic energy." The psychics I've seen working first hand do what they do by paying close attention to body language -- they have trained themselves to watch their clients' every twitch, because that cues them in to how well they're doing, and where to go next with the "reading." I still recall seeing a psychic doing a reading for students in a high school psychology class that I was asked to attend (and of course I was thrilled to have the opportunity to do so!). The psychic, a woman named Laura, never took her eyes off the student she was doing a "reading" for, and as soon as the student gave the slightest sign that she was saying something that was off-base, she'd shift direction. And later in the class, I gave a quick glance at the clock on the wall -- I had a class to teach the following period -- and Laura immediately said, "Am I out of time?" And she hadn't even been doing a "reading" for me at the time -- I was sitting in the back of the classroom, and she simply noticed my eyes moving!
So despite Pat Putt's objections, I'm not buying that French and Singh deliberately set up the experiment to make her fail, or that they're closed-minded, or that the screens they used were made of special psychic-energy-blocking materials. The most reasonable explanation for the results is simply that the alleged telepaths were unable to perform, and that they accomplish their "very high success rate" with face-to-face clients a different, and probably quite natural, way. Admittedly, these were only two psychics, and a single experiment, and this hardly rules out the existence of psychic abilities in the global sense; but it very much places the ball in the court of folks like Derek Acorah, Sylvia Browne, and Sally Morgan. If what you are doing is not simply a combination of prior research, information provided by assistants, and sensitivity to human body language -- if you really are, improbably and amazingly, picking up on human thoughts through some sort of hitherto undetected "psychic energy field," I would very much like you all to man-up and do what any critical thinker would demand:
Prove, under controlled conditions, that you are able to do what you claim. And if you cannot do that, kindly have the decency to stop ripping people off.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Brains, mysticism, and melting faces
"Well, I saw it. I saw it with my own eyes."
You hear that a lot, in claims of the paranormal. I was just sitting there, in my room, and the ghost floated in through the wall. I was outside at night, and I saw the UFO zoom across the sky. I was at the lake, and I saw ripples in the water, and a dinosaur's head poked out and looked at me.
In a court of law, "eyewitness testimony" is considered one of the strongest pieces of evidence, and yet time and again experimental science has shown that your sensory apparatus and your memory are flawed and unreliable. It doesn't take much to confuse your perception -- witness how persuasive many optical illusions are -- and if you couple that with how easily things get muddled in your memory, it's no wonder that when eyewitness claims of the paranormal are presented to scientists, most scientists say, "Sorry. We need more than that."
Just last week, a study published in the Journal of Neuroscience put another nail in the coffin of our perceptual integrative systems, showing how easy it is to trigger someone to see something that isn't there in a completely convincing way. [Source] Ron Blackwell, an epileptic, was in the hospital having tests done to see if a bit of his brain that was causing his seizures could be safely removed. As part of the pre-surgical tests at Stanford University Hospital, his doctor, Dr. Josef Parvizi, had placed a strip of electrodes across his fusiform gyrus, a structure in the temporal lobe of the cerebrum. And when the electrodes were activated, Blackwell saw Dr. Parvizi's face melt.
"You just turned into somebody else," Blackwell said. "Your face metamorphosed. Your nose got saggy, went to the left. You almost looked like somebody I'd seen before, but somebody different." He added, rather unnecessarily, "That was a trip."
This study has three interesting outcomes, as far as I'm concerned.
First, it shows that the fusiform gyrus has something to do with facial recognition. I'm personally interested in this, because as I've described before in Skeptophilia, I have a peculiar inability to recognize faces. I don't have the complete prosopagnosia that people like the eminent science writer Oliver Sacks has -- where he doesn't even recognize his own face in a mirror -- but the fact remains that I can see a person I've met many times before in an unfamiliar place or circumstance, and literally have no idea if I've ever seen them before. However -- and this is relevant to Parvizi's study -- other human features, such as stance, gait, and voice, I find easily and instantly recognizable. And indeed, Blackwell's experience of seeing his doctor's face morph left other body parts intact, and even while the electrodes were activated, Blackwell knew that Dr. Parvizi's body and hands were "his." So it seems that what psychologists have claimed -- that we have a dedicated module devoted solely to facial recognition -- is correct, and this study has apparently pinpointed its location.
Second, this further supports a point I've made many times, which is that if you fool your brain, that's what you perceive. Suppose Blackwell's experience had occurred a different way; suppose his fusiform gyrus had been stimulated by one of his seizures, away from a hospital, away from anyone who could immediately reassure him that what he was seeing wasn't real, with no one there who could simply turn the electrodes off and make the illusion vanish. Is it any wonder that some people report absolutely convincing, and bizarre, visions of the paranormal? If your brain firing pattern goes awry -- for whatever reason -- you will perceive reality abnormally. And if you are already primed to accept the testimony of your eyes, you very likely will interpret what you saw as some sidestep into the spirit world. Most importantly, your vehement claims that what you saw was real cannot be accepted into evidence by science. Ockham's Razor demands that we accept the simpler explanation, that requires fewer ad hoc assumptions, which is (sorry) that you simply had an aberrant firing pattern occur in your brain.
Third, this study has significant bearing on the stories of people who claim to have had "spiritual visions" while under the influence of psychoactive drugs. One in particular, DMT (dimethyltryptamine), present in such ritual concoctions as ayahuasca, is supposed to create a "window into the divine." A number of writers, particularly Terence McKenna and Rick Strassman (the latter wrote a book called DMT: The Spirit Molecule), claim that DMT is allowing you to see and communicate with real entities that are always there, but which only the drug allows you to experience. Consider McKenna's account of his first experience with the chemical:
My response, predictably, is: of course you saw weird stuff, and thought it was real. What did you expect? You monkey around with your brain chemistry, and you will obviously foul up your perceptual apparatus, and your ability to integrate what's being observed. It's no more surprising that this happens than it would be if you spilled a cup of coffee on your computer, and it proceeded to behave abnormally. If you short out your neural circuitry, either electrically (as Parvizi did) or chemically (as McKenna and others did), it should come as no shock that things don't work right. And those altered perceptions are hardly evidence of the existence of a mystical world.
In any case, Parvizi's accidental discovery is a fascinating one, and will have wide-reaching effects on the study of perceptual neuroscience. All of which supports what a friend of mine, a retired Cornell University professor of human genetics, once told me: the 21st century will be the century of the brain. We are, she said, at a point of our understanding of how the brain works that corresponds to where geneticists were in 1912 -- we can see some of the pieces, but have no idea how the whole system fits together. Soon, she predicts, we will begin to put together the underlying mechanism -- and at that point, we will be starting to develop a complete picture of how our most complex organ actually works.
You hear that a lot, in claims of the paranormal. I was just sitting there, in my room, and the ghost floated in through the wall. I was outside at night, and I saw the UFO zoom across the sky. I was at the lake, and I saw ripples in the water, and a dinosaur's head poked out and looked at me.
In a court of law, "eyewitness testimony" is considered one of the strongest pieces of evidence, and yet time and again experimental science has shown that your sensory apparatus and your memory are flawed and unreliable. It doesn't take much to confuse your perception -- witness how persuasive many optical illusions are -- and if you couple that with how easily things get muddled in your memory, it's no wonder that when eyewitness claims of the paranormal are presented to scientists, most scientists say, "Sorry. We need more than that."
Just last week, a study published in the Journal of Neuroscience put another nail in the coffin of our perceptual integrative systems, showing how easy it is to trigger someone to see something that isn't there in a completely convincing way. [Source] Ron Blackwell, an epileptic, was in the hospital having tests done to see if a bit of his brain that was causing his seizures could be safely removed. As part of the pre-surgical tests at Stanford University Hospital, his doctor, Dr. Josef Parvizi, had placed a strip of electrodes across his fusiform gyrus, a structure in the temporal lobe of the cerebrum. And when the electrodes were activated, Blackwell saw Dr. Parvizi's face melt.
"You just turned into somebody else," Blackwell said. "Your face metamorphosed. Your nose got saggy, went to the left. You almost looked like somebody I'd seen before, but somebody different." He added, rather unnecessarily, "That was a trip."
This study has three interesting outcomes, as far as I'm concerned.
First, it shows that the fusiform gyrus has something to do with facial recognition. I'm personally interested in this, because as I've described before in Skeptophilia, I have a peculiar inability to recognize faces. I don't have the complete prosopagnosia that people like the eminent science writer Oliver Sacks has -- where he doesn't even recognize his own face in a mirror -- but the fact remains that I can see a person I've met many times before in an unfamiliar place or circumstance, and literally have no idea if I've ever seen them before. However -- and this is relevant to Parvizi's study -- other human features, such as stance, gait, and voice, I find easily and instantly recognizable. And indeed, Blackwell's experience of seeing his doctor's face morph left other body parts intact, and even while the electrodes were activated, Blackwell knew that Dr. Parvizi's body and hands were "his." So it seems that what psychologists have claimed -- that we have a dedicated module devoted solely to facial recognition -- is correct, and this study has apparently pinpointed its location.
Second, this further supports a point I've made many times, which is that if you fool your brain, that's what you perceive. Suppose Blackwell's experience had occurred a different way; suppose his fusiform gyrus had been stimulated by one of his seizures, away from a hospital, away from anyone who could immediately reassure him that what he was seeing wasn't real, with no one there who could simply turn the electrodes off and make the illusion vanish. Is it any wonder that some people report absolutely convincing, and bizarre, visions of the paranormal? If your brain firing pattern goes awry -- for whatever reason -- you will perceive reality abnormally. And if you are already primed to accept the testimony of your eyes, you very likely will interpret what you saw as some sidestep into the spirit world. Most importantly, your vehement claims that what you saw was real cannot be accepted into evidence by science. Ockham's Razor demands that we accept the simpler explanation, that requires fewer ad hoc assumptions, which is (sorry) that you simply had an aberrant firing pattern occur in your brain.
Third, this study has significant bearing on the stories of people who claim to have had "spiritual visions" while under the influence of psychoactive drugs. One in particular, DMT (dimethyltryptamine), present in such ritual concoctions as ayahuasca, is supposed to create a "window into the divine." A number of writers, particularly Terence McKenna and Rick Strassman (the latter wrote a book called DMT: The Spirit Molecule), claim that DMT is allowing you to see and communicate with real entities that are always there, but which only the drug allows you to experience. Consider McKenna's account of his first experience with the chemical:
So I did it and...there was a something, like a flower, like a chrysanthemum in orange and yellow that was sort of spinning, spinning, and then it was like I was pushed from behind and I fell through the chrysanthemum into another place that didn't seem like a state of mind, it seemed like another place. And what was going on in this place aside from the tastefully soffited indirect lighting, and the crawling geometric hallucinations along the domed walls, what was happening was that there were a lot of beings in there, what I call self-transforming machine elves. Sort of like jewelled basketballs all dribbling their way toward me. And if they'd had faces they would have been grinning, but they didn't have faces. And they assured me that they loved me and they told me not to be amazed; not to give way to astonishment.A generation earlier, Carlos Castañeda recounted similar sorts of experiences after ingesting datura root and psilocybe mushrooms, and like McKenna and Strassman, Castañeda was convinced that what he was seeing was absolutely real, more real in fact than the ordinary world around us.
My response, predictably, is: of course you saw weird stuff, and thought it was real. What did you expect? You monkey around with your brain chemistry, and you will obviously foul up your perceptual apparatus, and your ability to integrate what's being observed. It's no more surprising that this happens than it would be if you spilled a cup of coffee on your computer, and it proceeded to behave abnormally. If you short out your neural circuitry, either electrically (as Parvizi did) or chemically (as McKenna and others did), it should come as no shock that things don't work right. And those altered perceptions are hardly evidence of the existence of a mystical world.
In any case, Parvizi's accidental discovery is a fascinating one, and will have wide-reaching effects on the study of perceptual neuroscience. All of which supports what a friend of mine, a retired Cornell University professor of human genetics, once told me: the 21st century will be the century of the brain. We are, she said, at a point of our understanding of how the brain works that corresponds to where geneticists were in 1912 -- we can see some of the pieces, but have no idea how the whole system fits together. Soon, she predicts, we will begin to put together the underlying mechanism -- and at that point, we will be starting to develop a complete picture of how our most complex organ actually works.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Boo.
It is not, perhaps, particularly insightful to state that Halloween is a weird holiday. However, in this case I don't mean "weird" in the sense of "spooky," but in the sense of "why the hell do people actually enjoy this?"
That said, it's not that I don't enjoy participating myself. Last year, for example, I spent the entire school day wearing a vampire costume, complete with fake blood, a cape, and white stage makeup. The only downside was that I couldn't wear the plastic teeth during class because they had a regrettable tendency to make me drool, something that I bet never happens to real vampires.
So far today at my school, I've seen a variety of witches, several clowns, a few butterflies, a pink inflatable pig, a Viking, and Barack Obama. I found Obama the scariest, and I don't mean that as some kind of sly political statement. It's odd, but I've always found rubber masks of all kinds - even the ones intended to be funny - to be seriously creepy. I think it's the fact that they look human (the best ones look really human) but even while the person inside the mask talks, the expression never changes. I, and I suspect a lot of people, react viscerally to facial expressions, or lack thereof; we're wired to pick up cues from people's faces, and when there are none there to pick up, it's disconcerting, even if you know that the mask is just rubber and that there's a real (and friendly) person underneath. It's no coincidence that we describe the affect-less faces of the insane "mask-like." The whole thing is reminiscent of the concept of the "uncanny valley," about which I wrote last year (you can read the post here if you're interested).
Even so, I should perhaps mention that I collect masks. I have brought home masks from most of our many overseas travel adventures, and they are hung all over our walls (usually in places that take you by surprise and so elicit a bigger reaction when you come around the corner or close the door). I also really enjoy costumes, especially well-done or clever ones. (At a Halloween party years ago, a biology teacher friend of mine and his wife, who was a physician's assistant, came dressed in an odd fashion. He was wearing the pants from a set of military camouflage, and nothing else. She was wearing the top half (with very short shorts). When I asked what they were, he replied, "Guess. We're a human body part." After some questioning, I discovered that they were the upper and lower G.I.)
But I do love being scared, and also being scary. My mask collection is one of my most prized possessions, even though -- or perhaps because -- it's kind of creepy. I thoroughly enjoy a good horror movie, and in my fiction writing I frequently make a valiant attempt to scare the absolute bejeezus out of you. This tendency, which if not universal, is at least very common, begs an explanation. Why do we like to be scared?
It probably varies from person to person, but I can say that for myself, it's kind of a reassurance that I'm safe and sound. I don't gravitate toward slasher films -- to me, those are too close to the kind of thing that actually happens, and I have no real desire to watch people, even if they are actors, getting gruesomely massacred. But a really atmospheric, spooky film about the supernatural is a wonderful experience, largely because after it's over (whew) I can look around at my comfortable house, and think, "thank god this house isn't haunted by ghouls." And if, later that night, there are some bumps and creaks, and I get scared again, I still know that when I wake up the next morning the sun will be shining (well, okay, this is upstate New York; at least the sun will be rising) and I will still be safe. I'm alive and unhaunted, and I can get a cup of coffee and revel in the fact that my disbelief in evil spirits has been once again supported by events.
In my opinion, the best exploration of this need to be absolutely terrified was The X Files. I'm not referring to the movies, both of which (to me) were disappointing, but the television series. Like any series, they had a few dogs, but the best of them rank right up there with the scariest things I've ever seen. If you're an aficionado, you might remember the episode "Patience" -- about the batlike creature who waits for twenty years to avenge its murdered mate, and goes around killing all the people who had anything to do with its death. At the end - when the only remaining survivor is in his cabin in the woods, and hears a noise in the fireplace, and goes to investigate - there's nothing's there, but then he turns around, and OH MY GOD THE BAT THING IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM. Quite possibly the single scariest moment in the history of television. Even if you knew it was going to happen, it was the quintessence of all of those childhood fears of the monster under the bed, or what might be looking in the window if you pulled the curtains apart just a crack in the middle of the night. I don't know about you, but I had a hard time opening the back door to let my dogs in after watching that. I love my dogs dearly, but it was a sore temptation to let them fend for themselves outside that night.
Then again, we have the added benefit that watching horror films burns calories. A study just released by some researchers at the University of Westminster found that you can burn a good 200 calories just sitting there shivering. The best burn, they found, came from watching The Shining (which I would agree is a damn scary film), followed by Jaws and The Exorcist. Of course, this is probably offset by the tendency of most movie watchers to nosh on pizza, popcorn, and beer while watching, but still, it bears mention as one benefit of indulging in a scary movie every so often. And there's also, of course, the fact that if you're watching the movie with your significant other, the inevitable huddling together on the couch that these movies usually cause could result in some further, um, calorie-burning activity after the movie ends.
So you can see that there are a multitude of benefits that come from being frightened. It's only human -- the evidence is that we've been telling scary stories for a very, very long time, and in virtually every culture studied. Still, it may be that some of you don't share this need to periodically be scared to the point of pants-wetting. If so, you may find this post nothing more than mildly mystifying. To the rest of you, I will only wish you a happy Halloween, and sweet dreams tonight.
That said, it's not that I don't enjoy participating myself. Last year, for example, I spent the entire school day wearing a vampire costume, complete with fake blood, a cape, and white stage makeup. The only downside was that I couldn't wear the plastic teeth during class because they had a regrettable tendency to make me drool, something that I bet never happens to real vampires.
So far today at my school, I've seen a variety of witches, several clowns, a few butterflies, a pink inflatable pig, a Viking, and Barack Obama. I found Obama the scariest, and I don't mean that as some kind of sly political statement. It's odd, but I've always found rubber masks of all kinds - even the ones intended to be funny - to be seriously creepy. I think it's the fact that they look human (the best ones look really human) but even while the person inside the mask talks, the expression never changes. I, and I suspect a lot of people, react viscerally to facial expressions, or lack thereof; we're wired to pick up cues from people's faces, and when there are none there to pick up, it's disconcerting, even if you know that the mask is just rubber and that there's a real (and friendly) person underneath. It's no coincidence that we describe the affect-less faces of the insane "mask-like." The whole thing is reminiscent of the concept of the "uncanny valley," about which I wrote last year (you can read the post here if you're interested).
Even so, I should perhaps mention that I collect masks. I have brought home masks from most of our many overseas travel adventures, and they are hung all over our walls (usually in places that take you by surprise and so elicit a bigger reaction when you come around the corner or close the door). I also really enjoy costumes, especially well-done or clever ones. (At a Halloween party years ago, a biology teacher friend of mine and his wife, who was a physician's assistant, came dressed in an odd fashion. He was wearing the pants from a set of military camouflage, and nothing else. She was wearing the top half (with very short shorts). When I asked what they were, he replied, "Guess. We're a human body part." After some questioning, I discovered that they were the upper and lower G.I.)
But I do love being scared, and also being scary. My mask collection is one of my most prized possessions, even though -- or perhaps because -- it's kind of creepy. I thoroughly enjoy a good horror movie, and in my fiction writing I frequently make a valiant attempt to scare the absolute bejeezus out of you. This tendency, which if not universal, is at least very common, begs an explanation. Why do we like to be scared?
It probably varies from person to person, but I can say that for myself, it's kind of a reassurance that I'm safe and sound. I don't gravitate toward slasher films -- to me, those are too close to the kind of thing that actually happens, and I have no real desire to watch people, even if they are actors, getting gruesomely massacred. But a really atmospheric, spooky film about the supernatural is a wonderful experience, largely because after it's over (whew) I can look around at my comfortable house, and think, "thank god this house isn't haunted by ghouls." And if, later that night, there are some bumps and creaks, and I get scared again, I still know that when I wake up the next morning the sun will be shining (well, okay, this is upstate New York; at least the sun will be rising) and I will still be safe. I'm alive and unhaunted, and I can get a cup of coffee and revel in the fact that my disbelief in evil spirits has been once again supported by events.
In my opinion, the best exploration of this need to be absolutely terrified was The X Files. I'm not referring to the movies, both of which (to me) were disappointing, but the television series. Like any series, they had a few dogs, but the best of them rank right up there with the scariest things I've ever seen. If you're an aficionado, you might remember the episode "Patience" -- about the batlike creature who waits for twenty years to avenge its murdered mate, and goes around killing all the people who had anything to do with its death. At the end - when the only remaining survivor is in his cabin in the woods, and hears a noise in the fireplace, and goes to investigate - there's nothing's there, but then he turns around, and OH MY GOD THE BAT THING IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM. Quite possibly the single scariest moment in the history of television. Even if you knew it was going to happen, it was the quintessence of all of those childhood fears of the monster under the bed, or what might be looking in the window if you pulled the curtains apart just a crack in the middle of the night. I don't know about you, but I had a hard time opening the back door to let my dogs in after watching that. I love my dogs dearly, but it was a sore temptation to let them fend for themselves outside that night.
Then again, we have the added benefit that watching horror films burns calories. A study just released by some researchers at the University of Westminster found that you can burn a good 200 calories just sitting there shivering. The best burn, they found, came from watching The Shining (which I would agree is a damn scary film), followed by Jaws and The Exorcist. Of course, this is probably offset by the tendency of most movie watchers to nosh on pizza, popcorn, and beer while watching, but still, it bears mention as one benefit of indulging in a scary movie every so often. And there's also, of course, the fact that if you're watching the movie with your significant other, the inevitable huddling together on the couch that these movies usually cause could result in some further, um, calorie-burning activity after the movie ends.
So you can see that there are a multitude of benefits that come from being frightened. It's only human -- the evidence is that we've been telling scary stories for a very, very long time, and in virtually every culture studied. Still, it may be that some of you don't share this need to periodically be scared to the point of pants-wetting. If so, you may find this post nothing more than mildly mystifying. To the rest of you, I will only wish you a happy Halloween, and sweet dreams tonight.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Breaking news: Hurricane Sandy caused by the "homosexual agenda"
Well, up here in lovely upstate New York we're about three-quarters of the way through the remnants of Hurricane Sandy, and we only lost power for a short time yesterday afternoon. Thus far, we've been mighty fortunate -- when I look at the photographs coming in of the devastation along the coast, I'm reminded of hurricanes I lived through as a child in southern Louisiana, of flooded streets, ripped-off roofs, and electricity out for days or weeks. So all in all, we've been pretty lucky.
Sandy has been a weird storm in a lot of ways. It's amazingly powerful, for a late-season hurricane; it followed a highly uncharacteristic track; and it merged with an on-land winter storm as it made landfall, causing it to strengthen as it moved over land, not weaken (as most tropical storms do). All of this, I'm sure, is making you wonder what could be the cause of such a peculiar set of circumstances. And I'm certain that it will come as no surprise for you to find out that the answer is:
Gays.
Yes, folks, the homosexual contingent are at it again, according to ultra-religious wingnut Reverend John McTernan. [Source] "God is systematically destroying America," McTernan said. "Just look at what has happened this year. ...Both candidates are pro-homosexual and are behind the homosexual agenda. America is under political judgment and the church does not know it!" He then goes on to explain that god is creating storms to smite the US because of our increasing acceptance of gays.
All of this makes me pretty angry. I mean, really: give us atheists a little credit, too! Every time God Smites The Wicked With His Mighty Hand, all you hear about is how he was aiming for the gays. Don't you think he'd be even more eager to smite us godless nonbelievers? After all, a good many of the gays and lesbians I know are Christians, and barely any of the atheists are. It kind of pisses me off that here I sit, as obvious a target as any I can think of, and all god smote me with was a stiff breeze. It seems kind of anticlimactic.
There's also the problem with this theory that if god is trying to Smite The Gays using Hurricane Sandy, his aim could use some improvement. One of the areas that Sandy clobbered was rural West Virginia, which saw blizzard conditions including two to three feet of wet snow, knocking out the power and shutting down roads. And it's not like Appalachia is exactly a hotbed of homosexuality. Yeah, okay, New York City got hit pretty hard, as did Atlantic City, and I'd expect the Gay Sex Quotient of both of those places is fairly high. But you'd think that given the tools god has to work with -- tornadoes and lightning, not to mention your tried-and-true method of just having something heavy drop out of a window -- he could take out the gays with pinpoint precision if that was what he was really trying to do. A hurricane seems awfully broad-brush.
It does bring up, too, the question of why these preachers are so concerned about who is having sex, and how they're doing it. Is it just me, or do these guys seem a little bit sex-obsessed? After all, the bible goes on and on about all sorts of other things that are Naughty In God's Eyes, but you barely hear any preachers saying that god created a hurricane because you collected firewood on the sabbath, or because you ate pork, or because you wore clothing made of two different kinds of thread woven together. All of these are expressly prohibited in Leviticus -- in fact, a guy got stoned to death for the first one -- but these days, god has apparently forgotten about all of the other rules. Maybe it's because god finds what goes on in people's bedrooms more interesting to watch, I dunno.
In any case, if you live in the northeastern US, I hope you escaped the worst of the damage from the storm. And whether it was caused by the gays, or by what anyone with an IQ that exceeds his shoe size thinks -- that it was caused by a confluence of weather phenomena -- let's concentrate on helping the folks who weren't so lucky pick up the pieces and put their lives back together. Because, after all, that's one of the things that the atheists agree with the Christians on; charity is a virtue.
Sandy has been a weird storm in a lot of ways. It's amazingly powerful, for a late-season hurricane; it followed a highly uncharacteristic track; and it merged with an on-land winter storm as it made landfall, causing it to strengthen as it moved over land, not weaken (as most tropical storms do). All of this, I'm sure, is making you wonder what could be the cause of such a peculiar set of circumstances. And I'm certain that it will come as no surprise for you to find out that the answer is:
Gays.
Yes, folks, the homosexual contingent are at it again, according to ultra-religious wingnut Reverend John McTernan. [Source] "God is systematically destroying America," McTernan said. "Just look at what has happened this year. ...Both candidates are pro-homosexual and are behind the homosexual agenda. America is under political judgment and the church does not know it!" He then goes on to explain that god is creating storms to smite the US because of our increasing acceptance of gays.
All of this makes me pretty angry. I mean, really: give us atheists a little credit, too! Every time God Smites The Wicked With His Mighty Hand, all you hear about is how he was aiming for the gays. Don't you think he'd be even more eager to smite us godless nonbelievers? After all, a good many of the gays and lesbians I know are Christians, and barely any of the atheists are. It kind of pisses me off that here I sit, as obvious a target as any I can think of, and all god smote me with was a stiff breeze. It seems kind of anticlimactic.
There's also the problem with this theory that if god is trying to Smite The Gays using Hurricane Sandy, his aim could use some improvement. One of the areas that Sandy clobbered was rural West Virginia, which saw blizzard conditions including two to three feet of wet snow, knocking out the power and shutting down roads. And it's not like Appalachia is exactly a hotbed of homosexuality. Yeah, okay, New York City got hit pretty hard, as did Atlantic City, and I'd expect the Gay Sex Quotient of both of those places is fairly high. But you'd think that given the tools god has to work with -- tornadoes and lightning, not to mention your tried-and-true method of just having something heavy drop out of a window -- he could take out the gays with pinpoint precision if that was what he was really trying to do. A hurricane seems awfully broad-brush.
It does bring up, too, the question of why these preachers are so concerned about who is having sex, and how they're doing it. Is it just me, or do these guys seem a little bit sex-obsessed? After all, the bible goes on and on about all sorts of other things that are Naughty In God's Eyes, but you barely hear any preachers saying that god created a hurricane because you collected firewood on the sabbath, or because you ate pork, or because you wore clothing made of two different kinds of thread woven together. All of these are expressly prohibited in Leviticus -- in fact, a guy got stoned to death for the first one -- but these days, god has apparently forgotten about all of the other rules. Maybe it's because god finds what goes on in people's bedrooms more interesting to watch, I dunno.
In any case, if you live in the northeastern US, I hope you escaped the worst of the damage from the storm. And whether it was caused by the gays, or by what anyone with an IQ that exceeds his shoe size thinks -- that it was caused by a confluence of weather phenomena -- let's concentrate on helping the folks who weren't so lucky pick up the pieces and put their lives back together. Because, after all, that's one of the things that the atheists agree with the Christians on; charity is a virtue.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Storms, earthquakes, and coincidences
Here I sit, having battened down the hatches in preparation for Hurricane Sandy (due to arrive in the wee hours tonight), and two things are on my mind.
First, why don't you ever hear the verb "to batten" used for anything other than "hatches?" No one battens down windows, doors, throw rugs, or anything else. You never hear of anyone leashing their dog to a post, for example, and then saying, "I have battened down Rex." It seems like a useful word, and it's a pity it has such a restricted usage. So I think all of you should make a point, during the next few days, of using the verb "to batten" in unorthodox ways.
Second, I've already begun facepalming over the eruption of woo-woo conspiracy theories claiming that Hurricane Sandy, Typhoon Son-Tinh (which just slammed into the Philippines and Vietnam this weekend), and the 7.7 magnitude Canadian earthquake that caused tsunami warnings to be issued in Hawaii (there were high waves, but no serious damage) are all due to President Obama using HAARP to monkey around with things. Or possibly chemtrails. Or both. They don't seem to have any clear idea of how any of this actually could be manmade, but that still hasn't stopped them from claiming that it is, that President Obama is sitting in his underground bunker, an insane smile on his face, and pressing buttons and pulling levers, and saying, "Now they'll be sorry! I've caused a massive hurricane that will hit Washington, DC, causing widespread flooding and destruction! Despite the fact that I live there! That's how evil I am! Mwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!"
You think I'm joking. Already websites like the rather ironically-named "Aircrap" are buzzing with statements such as, "You can't be expecting me to believe that all three of those events, occurring so close together, is just a coincidence?"
Actually, yes, that is exactly what I'm expecting you to believe. When events coincide, this is called "a coincidence." Given that the Earth experiences storms and earthquakes virtually on a daily basis, there will be times when several of these events happen in close succession because of no other factor than random chance. We don't have to posit such absurdities as President Obama activating tractor beams from space via HAARP, or jets out of Newark spraying aerosols via their contrails to lay down a pathway for the storm, to account for this. Both of which were, in all apparent seriousness, claimed by people on these sites. And all of which shows that people who don't understand (1) the laws of statistics, (2) atmospheric science, and (3) geology, and who also (4) have spent too much time watching bad disaster movies on the Syfy channel, should really just keep their mouths shut.
So, anyway, that's our dip in the deep end of the pool for today. Me, I'm not worried about HAARP or chemtrails, but I am a little worried that we'll lose power for a while, because we're supposed to get some serious wind here. So if I am incommunicado for a few days, that's why, and I offer my apologies in advance, and a promise to write again as soon as I can. I'll sign off here with my hopes that if you are in the path of the storm, you and your loved ones are safe and sound, and your homes undamaged. As for me, I'm off to school to batten down the students.
First, why don't you ever hear the verb "to batten" used for anything other than "hatches?" No one battens down windows, doors, throw rugs, or anything else. You never hear of anyone leashing their dog to a post, for example, and then saying, "I have battened down Rex." It seems like a useful word, and it's a pity it has such a restricted usage. So I think all of you should make a point, during the next few days, of using the verb "to batten" in unorthodox ways.
Second, I've already begun facepalming over the eruption of woo-woo conspiracy theories claiming that Hurricane Sandy, Typhoon Son-Tinh (which just slammed into the Philippines and Vietnam this weekend), and the 7.7 magnitude Canadian earthquake that caused tsunami warnings to be issued in Hawaii (there were high waves, but no serious damage) are all due to President Obama using HAARP to monkey around with things. Or possibly chemtrails. Or both. They don't seem to have any clear idea of how any of this actually could be manmade, but that still hasn't stopped them from claiming that it is, that President Obama is sitting in his underground bunker, an insane smile on his face, and pressing buttons and pulling levers, and saying, "Now they'll be sorry! I've caused a massive hurricane that will hit Washington, DC, causing widespread flooding and destruction! Despite the fact that I live there! That's how evil I am! Mwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!"
You think I'm joking. Already websites like the rather ironically-named "Aircrap" are buzzing with statements such as, "You can't be expecting me to believe that all three of those events, occurring so close together, is just a coincidence?"
Actually, yes, that is exactly what I'm expecting you to believe. When events coincide, this is called "a coincidence." Given that the Earth experiences storms and earthquakes virtually on a daily basis, there will be times when several of these events happen in close succession because of no other factor than random chance. We don't have to posit such absurdities as President Obama activating tractor beams from space via HAARP, or jets out of Newark spraying aerosols via their contrails to lay down a pathway for the storm, to account for this. Both of which were, in all apparent seriousness, claimed by people on these sites. And all of which shows that people who don't understand (1) the laws of statistics, (2) atmospheric science, and (3) geology, and who also (4) have spent too much time watching bad disaster movies on the Syfy channel, should really just keep their mouths shut.
So, anyway, that's our dip in the deep end of the pool for today. Me, I'm not worried about HAARP or chemtrails, but I am a little worried that we'll lose power for a while, because we're supposed to get some serious wind here. So if I am incommunicado for a few days, that's why, and I offer my apologies in advance, and a promise to write again as soon as I can. I'll sign off here with my hopes that if you are in the path of the storm, you and your loved ones are safe and sound, and your homes undamaged. As for me, I'm off to school to batten down the students.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
The LHC, lawsuits, and the time-traveling seagull of doom
Sometimes I feel like all I do in this blog is to deliver bad news. Gullibility and credulousness are rampant, not to mention hoaxers and charlatans who are eager to turn a quick buck by ripping off the less rational segment of society. All around us we see examples of absurd, counterfactual nonsense, and evidence that a regrettably small number of laypeople have any idea of how science actually works.
It thrills me no end that today I have a cheering story, a story of the triumph of critical thinking over fearful, superstitious woo-woo. The gist: German courts have ruled, once and for all, that the Large Hadron Collider is what physicists say it is -- a scientific device designed to investigate the subatomic world -- and that it most definitively is not going to destroy the entire universe, or even just the Earth. [Source]
Claims that the LHC is going to kill us all have been going around for some time. I suppose that it was inevitable that people would be afraid of the device, given the fact that subatomic physics is a fairly esoteric area of study, poorly understood by anyone who doesn't have a master's degree or better in physics. For another thing, it's hard not to be awestruck simply by how amazingly big it is. The tube down which particles are accelerated to near-light speed, and then smashed into targets, is 27 kilometers in circumference. The magnets in the device alone weigh over 27 tons, and require 96 tons of liquid helium to keep them at the right (extremely cold) temperature.
So it shouldn't be surprising that the woo-woos got freaked out by the thing. Here are a few cheery suggestions they made about what was going to happen when the LHC was activated:
Well, of course, now that the LHC has been running off and on since 2009, and we haven't died, a lot of the furor has died down. There have been no black holes, new universes, or strangelets, France remains unvaporized, and there have been no further visits from the Time-Traveling Seagull of Doom. But not all of the craziness has ceased, of course. Whatever else you might say about woo-woos, they're tenacious. Just because the destruction of The Universe As We Know It hasn't happened yet, they claim, doesn't mean that it won't ever.
So there have been lawsuits to try to stop the research. The most recent was launched by a German woo-woo who filed suit in both Germany and Switzerland to halt operations, because, after all, you never know when we might all be swallowed by a black hole, and when that happens it will be too late.
And unlike the court case earlier this week in Italy, where unscientific foolishness won the day, here the courts ruled in favor of science. There is no evidence, the judge ruled, that anything being done at the LHC is dangerous in the global sense. Physicists are quite certain that any claims of black holes and new universes are impossible, and that was good enough for the court. The suit was thrown out, and (it is to be hoped) the plaintiff was instructed to become better educated in science before wasting the legal system's time further.
So, it might be rare, but we should cheer it when it happens: sometimes the rationalists win.
It thrills me no end that today I have a cheering story, a story of the triumph of critical thinking over fearful, superstitious woo-woo. The gist: German courts have ruled, once and for all, that the Large Hadron Collider is what physicists say it is -- a scientific device designed to investigate the subatomic world -- and that it most definitively is not going to destroy the entire universe, or even just the Earth. [Source]
Claims that the LHC is going to kill us all have been going around for some time. I suppose that it was inevitable that people would be afraid of the device, given the fact that subatomic physics is a fairly esoteric area of study, poorly understood by anyone who doesn't have a master's degree or better in physics. For another thing, it's hard not to be awestruck simply by how amazingly big it is. The tube down which particles are accelerated to near-light speed, and then smashed into targets, is 27 kilometers in circumference. The magnets in the device alone weigh over 27 tons, and require 96 tons of liquid helium to keep them at the right (extremely cold) temperature.
So it shouldn't be surprising that the woo-woos got freaked out by the thing. Here are a few cheery suggestions they made about what was going to happen when the LHC was activated:
- It would produce a mini black hole that would devour the Earth.
- It would produce a Higgs boson that would then generate a new universe inside ours, ripping apart our universe from the inside out.
- It would create a particle called a "strangelet" that then would convert everything it touched into "strangelets," and the whole world would explode in a burst of, um, strangeness.
- The beam would break loose from containment and vaporize France. Some American conservatives, of the sort who still eat "Freedom Fries" with their cheeseburgers, thought this was a good idea.
Well, of course, now that the LHC has been running off and on since 2009, and we haven't died, a lot of the furor has died down. There have been no black holes, new universes, or strangelets, France remains unvaporized, and there have been no further visits from the Time-Traveling Seagull of Doom. But not all of the craziness has ceased, of course. Whatever else you might say about woo-woos, they're tenacious. Just because the destruction of The Universe As We Know It hasn't happened yet, they claim, doesn't mean that it won't ever.
So there have been lawsuits to try to stop the research. The most recent was launched by a German woo-woo who filed suit in both Germany and Switzerland to halt operations, because, after all, you never know when we might all be swallowed by a black hole, and when that happens it will be too late.
And unlike the court case earlier this week in Italy, where unscientific foolishness won the day, here the courts ruled in favor of science. There is no evidence, the judge ruled, that anything being done at the LHC is dangerous in the global sense. Physicists are quite certain that any claims of black holes and new universes are impossible, and that was good enough for the court. The suit was thrown out, and (it is to be hoped) the plaintiff was instructed to become better educated in science before wasting the legal system's time further.
So, it might be rare, but we should cheer it when it happens: sometimes the rationalists win.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Playing with a full deck
So, today is my 52nd birthday, so Happy Birthday To Me, and all that sorta stuff. 52 seems like an interesting number -- not only is it hard for me to believe that I'm this old, it's the number of weeks in a year, the number of white keys on a piano, and the number of cards in a standard deck. (I mentioned this last one to a friend of mine, and said that as of today, I'd finally be playing with a full deck. She looked at me, raised one eyebrow, and said, "I think it's gonna take more than that.")
So I thought I'd step aside from my usual fare for a day, and present a list of 52 things I've learned in the last 52 years. I hope that you'll find some of them worthwhile.
1) Make a habit of being genuine. Deception, even of yourself, can't be maintained forever.
2) If you want to find out whether someone is actually nice or not, watch how they treat dogs, cats, children, restaurant wait staff, and salespeople.
3) Live life with passion.
4) Don't take everything so damned seriously. Most of the things that happen are, in the long run, irrelevant.
5) Don't overeat, but eat food you like. Vegan raw-food enthusiasts who drink only wheat grass juice will still eventually die.
6) Being a loner isn't noble. Being a loner is cowardly.
7) Complaining a lot pisses people off and solves essentially nothing.
8) Don't be ashamed of your tastes in art, music, books, and so on. Anyone who ridicules you because of something that is a simple matter of opinion is an asshole.
9) There is nothing shameful about crying in public.
10) Relaxing and wasting time are not the same thing.
11) There are some people in this world who will be determined to see you as a different person than who you really are. Fighting this is probably a waste of time.
12) Changing things from the top down seldom works. The only real way to change things is from the bottom up.
13) People are always in love with their own delusions, and we all have them.
14) Spending more time outside is usually a good thing.
15) You can't be depressed if you are speaking what is truly in your heart.
16) Don't be afraid to take off your clothes in a gym locker room. Most of the people who would care what you look like naked are in the other locker room.
17) In general, you will have more regrets about what you didn't do than what you did do. (Unless what you're planning on doing is killing someone.)
18) Find some way to be creative. Everyone is creative if they allow themselves to be.
19) You can't be unhappy for long if you have a snoring dog at your feet.
20) If you can, travel. It is the most mind-expanding thing you can do.
21) Most of us could do with having fewer opinions and asking more questions.
22) If you put only half of yourself into an endeavor, it will be a waste of time for everyone involved.
23) There is very little that you will not be able to deal with better after a good night's sleep.
24) No matter how good you are at something, there will always be people who are better and worse than you are. Be happy for the ones who are better and be courteous to the ones who are worse.
25) Don't be afraid to say no to people.
26) Don't be afraid to say yes to people.
27) Get out on the dance floor. You're more conspicuous just standing there than you would be if you were out dancing with the rest of us.
28) If life hands you lemons, the hell with lemonade. Make lemon meringue pie.
29) If you go to another country, eat what they eat. You can get Big Macs at home.
30) Cultivate tolerance.
31) Be willing to laugh at your own quirks.
32) One of the best tests for whether or not you should do something is to ask, "Will I be glad I did this ten years from now?"
33) Be willing to lose an argument once in a while.
34) Cruelty is never justified.
35) Be unpredictable sometimes.
36) Don't talk once the movie has started.
37) Always keep in mind that much of what is on the internet is complete bullshit.
38) Pay attention when children talk to you. It may not be interesting to listen to, but it's still important.
39) Exercise more.
40) You are not in competition with everyone. All conversations aren't battles for superiority.
41) Sarcasm can be funny, but use it with caution.
42) Life is too short to drink bad beer.
43) Fundamentally, gullibility and cynicism come from the same place; an unwillingness to commit oneself to the hard work of thinking.
44) Every once in a while, go out at night and spend some time looking up at the stars. It’s worthwhile being reminded how small we are.
45) A sincere apology goes a long, long way.
46) Don't trust anyone who comes to your door trying to sell you a political ideology or a religious belief system.
47) Play more.
48) Waste less.
49) Remember that most of the things we worry about won't come to pass.
50) There are times when things look hopeless, and the world seems bleak. Hope anyway.
51) You will sometimes fail at things you desperately want to succeed at. Try anyway.
52) You will sometimes get your heart broken. Love anyway.
So I thought I'd step aside from my usual fare for a day, and present a list of 52 things I've learned in the last 52 years. I hope that you'll find some of them worthwhile.
1) Make a habit of being genuine. Deception, even of yourself, can't be maintained forever.
2) If you want to find out whether someone is actually nice or not, watch how they treat dogs, cats, children, restaurant wait staff, and salespeople.
3) Live life with passion.
4) Don't take everything so damned seriously. Most of the things that happen are, in the long run, irrelevant.
5) Don't overeat, but eat food you like. Vegan raw-food enthusiasts who drink only wheat grass juice will still eventually die.
6) Being a loner isn't noble. Being a loner is cowardly.
7) Complaining a lot pisses people off and solves essentially nothing.
8) Don't be ashamed of your tastes in art, music, books, and so on. Anyone who ridicules you because of something that is a simple matter of opinion is an asshole.
9) There is nothing shameful about crying in public.
10) Relaxing and wasting time are not the same thing.
11) There are some people in this world who will be determined to see you as a different person than who you really are. Fighting this is probably a waste of time.
12) Changing things from the top down seldom works. The only real way to change things is from the bottom up.
13) People are always in love with their own delusions, and we all have them.
14) Spending more time outside is usually a good thing.
15) You can't be depressed if you are speaking what is truly in your heart.
16) Don't be afraid to take off your clothes in a gym locker room. Most of the people who would care what you look like naked are in the other locker room.
17) In general, you will have more regrets about what you didn't do than what you did do. (Unless what you're planning on doing is killing someone.)
18) Find some way to be creative. Everyone is creative if they allow themselves to be.
19) You can't be unhappy for long if you have a snoring dog at your feet.
20) If you can, travel. It is the most mind-expanding thing you can do.
21) Most of us could do with having fewer opinions and asking more questions.
22) If you put only half of yourself into an endeavor, it will be a waste of time for everyone involved.
23) There is very little that you will not be able to deal with better after a good night's sleep.
24) No matter how good you are at something, there will always be people who are better and worse than you are. Be happy for the ones who are better and be courteous to the ones who are worse.
25) Don't be afraid to say no to people.
26) Don't be afraid to say yes to people.
27) Get out on the dance floor. You're more conspicuous just standing there than you would be if you were out dancing with the rest of us.
28) If life hands you lemons, the hell with lemonade. Make lemon meringue pie.
29) If you go to another country, eat what they eat. You can get Big Macs at home.
30) Cultivate tolerance.
31) Be willing to laugh at your own quirks.
32) One of the best tests for whether or not you should do something is to ask, "Will I be glad I did this ten years from now?"
33) Be willing to lose an argument once in a while.
34) Cruelty is never justified.
35) Be unpredictable sometimes.
36) Don't talk once the movie has started.
37) Always keep in mind that much of what is on the internet is complete bullshit.
38) Pay attention when children talk to you. It may not be interesting to listen to, but it's still important.
39) Exercise more.
40) You are not in competition with everyone. All conversations aren't battles for superiority.
41) Sarcasm can be funny, but use it with caution.
42) Life is too short to drink bad beer.
43) Fundamentally, gullibility and cynicism come from the same place; an unwillingness to commit oneself to the hard work of thinking.
44) Every once in a while, go out at night and spend some time looking up at the stars. It’s worthwhile being reminded how small we are.
45) A sincere apology goes a long, long way.
46) Don't trust anyone who comes to your door trying to sell you a political ideology or a religious belief system.
47) Play more.
48) Waste less.
49) Remember that most of the things we worry about won't come to pass.
50) There are times when things look hopeless, and the world seems bleak. Hope anyway.
51) You will sometimes fail at things you desperately want to succeed at. Try anyway.
52) You will sometimes get your heart broken. Love anyway.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)