Did you know that daddy-long-legs have an incredibly poisonous venom, so poisonous that they'd be the most deadly spider in the world, except their mandibles are so weak that they can't pierce human skin and inject it into you?
Did you know that you shouldn't throw rice at weddings, because birds will eat it, and then it will swell up in their stomachs and their stomachs will rupture and it will kill them?
Well, if you answered "No," good, because as it turns out, neither of these is true. The first one still makes the rounds despite its being entirely false -- not only did Mythbusters debunk it, but technically, daddy-long-legs aren't even true spiders (they belong to an arachnid group called "harvestmen"). As far as the birds, if that were true, it would make it hard to explain why there are a number of bird species who are major pests in rice fields -- they are presumably not taking the rice they steal home and cooking it in tiny rice pots before serving.
These old-wives'-tales, or urban legends, or whatever you want to call them, are still out there, and I still periodically get asked about them by students. But we have one advantage, these days, as compared to when I was young -- we now have the internet as a giant fact-checking device.
I've done a good bit of railing against the internet as being a conduit for bullshit, but used properly, it does have one truly wonderful function; if you have access to a computer, you can get nearly instantaneous access to information for the purpose of verifying claims. For example, take a look at the following website, "The Seven Black Presidents Before Obama," which (despite being written in 2008) is still circulating today. (In fact, I just saw it for the first time two days ago as a Facebook post.)
In case you don't feel like reading it, the gist is that there were seven earlier US Presidents -- Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Harding, Coolidge, Eisenhower, and a pre-George-Washington guy who was supposedly the first actual president, a gentleman named John Hanson -- who had significant amounts of African ancestry. And we're not just talking about one African ancestor way back; the site claims that Andrew Jackson, for example, was the son of an Irish woman by an African American father.
Well, the whole thing set my skepti-senses ringing immediately. For one thing, among the "evidence" given (if I can dignify it by that name) is that Coolidge's mother's maiden name was "Moor," and we all know that "Moor" is an old name for North Africans. (If that's the way it worked, I suppose President Bush was descended from a hedgerow.) Now, if this had been handed around thirty years ago, and you doubted it, your only recourse would have been a painstaking search through the encyclopedia, or, failing that, a trip to the library. As for me, it took me a grand total of fifteen seconds to find this page -- wherein each of the claims is analyzed, to be summed up as follows: "Historians' and biographers' studies of these presidents have not
supported such claims, nor have the claims above been peer-reviewed. They are generally ignored by scholars." (They also note that Coolidge's mother's maiden name, Moor, can not only mean "dark or swarthy," but also refers to a geographical feature common in the British Isles, and that there are tens of thousands of people named Moor(e) who aren't of African descent.)
The whole John Hanson thing, by the way, seems to be an outright fabrication that conflates John Hanson of Maryland (a Caucasian who was the president of the Continental Congress during the American Revolution) with a John Hanson who was an African American who went to Liberia in the 1800s and served as a senator there. The two were (obviously) different men. [Source]
So, the bottom lines is that we have even less excuse these days for (1) not checking what we're told, and (2) believing bullshit. Now, that's not to say that there isn't lots of bullshit out there on the internet. For example, 95% of the nonsense I rail about daily on this blog comes from the 'web. But there's an easy solution; the simplest way to find the good stuff is to append the word "skeptic" or "debunk" after what you're searching for on Google. That's what I did with the "Black Presidents" thing -- I just Googled "Seven Black Presidents Before Obama Debunk" and it brought up the page I linked above (and also a Snopes.com page that had basically the same information).
Anyhow, that's my musings on critical thinking for today. It looks like, in fact, Barack Obama really is the first African-American president, unless you count the fact that in reality we're all from Africa if you go back far enough. It did get me thinking, though, that what'll be even more interesting is if the College of Cardinals selects an African pope, which is looking like a possibility. Wouldn't it be cool to have the Catholic Church not run by an old, homophobic, bigoted white guy? An old, homophobic, bigoted black guy would be at least a step in the right direction.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Science, rigor, and hostility
One of the things I find hard to understand about woo-woos is their hostility toward the people who want to test their beliefs.
Not the actual charlatans, mind you. I get why they're hostile; we skeptics are trying to ruin their con game. But the true believers, the ones who honestly think they're in touch with Great and Powerful Other Ways of Knowing -- shouldn't they be thrilled that finally, there are scientists who will submit their claims to rigorous investigation?
Of course, they aren't, for the most part. They hate skeptics. Take, for example, the outright fury that James Randi's Million-Dollar Challenge evokes. This site even goes so far as to call Randi a cheat, and states that he and prominent skeptic Michael Shermer (author of the wonderful book Why People Believe Weird Things) are "not real skeptics." Then there's the piece "The Relentless Hypocrisy of James Randi," by Michael Goodspeed, which ends thusly:
So. Yeah. Randi and Shermer make people angry, but most of their objections seem to be just whinging complaints about "not playing fair" and denying specific requests (Goodspeed, for example, takes Randi to task for not even considering the claim of Rico Kolodzey, who claimed to be a "breatharian" -- that he could live on nothing but air and water. Me, I would not only have refused to consider Kolodzey's claim, I would have laughed right in his face. Maybe I'm "not a real skeptic," either.) You rarely hear anyone explain why the woo-woos think that the scientists' methods are wrong. Most of the attacks are just that -- free-floating ad hominems. Other than the occasional, Uri-Geller-style "your atmosphere of disbelief is interfering with the psychic energies," no one seems to have a very cogent explanation of why we shouldn't turn the hard, cold lens of science on these people's claims.
Except, of course, that none of them seem, under laboratory conditions, to be able to do what they claim to do. When pressed, or even when subjected to a simple set of controls, all of the claims fall apart. Of course, some of them even fall apart before that:
And it's not that we skeptics don't give them plenty of chances. Take, for example, last week's challenge by an Australian skeptics' group, the Borderline Skeptics, to anyone who thinks they can successfully "dowse" for water. Dowsing, for those of you unfamiliar with this claim, is the alleged ability to use vibrations in a forked stick to find water (or lost objects, or buried treasure, or a variety of other things). Dowsing has failed all previous tests -- most of the vibrations and pulls allegedly felt by practitioners are almost certainly due to the ideomotor effect. Still, dowsers are common, and vehement in their claims that their abilities are real. So the Borderline Skeptics have organized a challenge in which supposed dowsers have to try to locate buried bottles of water. The event is scheduled for March 10, and any winners will be candidates for a $100,000 cash prize.
And instead of being happy about this, dowsers are pissed. They've already started to claim that the game is rigged, that the Borderline Skeptics are a bunch of cheats, and that they wouldn't stoop to the "carnival sideshow atmosphere" that such a test would inevitably generate. "I will not debase myself," one alleged medium wrote about the James Randi challenge, "to have these cranks take pot shots at my God-given abilities."
Thou shalt not put thy woo-woos to the test, apparently.
You have to wonder, though, how anyone from the outside doesn't see this for what it is -- special pleading, with a nice dose of name calling and shifting of the ground whenever they're challenged. So I suppose I do get why the woo-woos themselves don't want to play; at the best, it would require them to reevaluate their claims, and at the worst, admit that they've been defrauding the public. But how anyone considering hiring these people, giving them good money, can't see what's going on -- that is beyond me.
Which brings me to my last news story -- just yesterday, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported that a Delray Beach psychic center was robbed by an armed man, who burst in brandishing a gun, made the three women and one child who were present at the time lie on the floor, and took all the money in the place.
You'd think they'd have seen this one coming, wouldn't you?
Not the actual charlatans, mind you. I get why they're hostile; we skeptics are trying to ruin their con game. But the true believers, the ones who honestly think they're in touch with Great and Powerful Other Ways of Knowing -- shouldn't they be thrilled that finally, there are scientists who will submit their claims to rigorous investigation?
Of course, they aren't, for the most part. They hate skeptics. Take, for example, the outright fury that James Randi's Million-Dollar Challenge evokes. This site even goes so far as to call Randi a cheat, and states that he and prominent skeptic Michael Shermer (author of the wonderful book Why People Believe Weird Things) are "not real skeptics." Then there's the piece "The Relentless Hypocrisy of James Randi," by Michael Goodspeed, which ends thusly:
I must again remark on the irony of self-described magicians trying so desperately to debunk paranormal phenomena. After all, Magic in its purest form is an embracing of the Unknown, and these people run from it every chance they get.I must point out, in the sake of honesty, that the Goodspeed article appeared at Rense.com -- the website owned by Jeff Rense, who is a wingnut of fairly significant proportions. RationalWiki says about Rense that he is an anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, conspiracy theorist, and alt-med peddler who is "the poor man's Alex Jones."
So. Yeah. Randi and Shermer make people angry, but most of their objections seem to be just whinging complaints about "not playing fair" and denying specific requests (Goodspeed, for example, takes Randi to task for not even considering the claim of Rico Kolodzey, who claimed to be a "breatharian" -- that he could live on nothing but air and water. Me, I would not only have refused to consider Kolodzey's claim, I would have laughed right in his face. Maybe I'm "not a real skeptic," either.) You rarely hear anyone explain why the woo-woos think that the scientists' methods are wrong. Most of the attacks are just that -- free-floating ad hominems. Other than the occasional, Uri-Geller-style "your atmosphere of disbelief is interfering with the psychic energies," no one seems to have a very cogent explanation of why we shouldn't turn the hard, cold lens of science on these people's claims.
Except, of course, that none of them seem, under laboratory conditions, to be able to do what they claim to do. When pressed, or even when subjected to a simple set of controls, all of the claims fall apart. Of course, some of them even fall apart before that:
And it's not that we skeptics don't give them plenty of chances. Take, for example, last week's challenge by an Australian skeptics' group, the Borderline Skeptics, to anyone who thinks they can successfully "dowse" for water. Dowsing, for those of you unfamiliar with this claim, is the alleged ability to use vibrations in a forked stick to find water (or lost objects, or buried treasure, or a variety of other things). Dowsing has failed all previous tests -- most of the vibrations and pulls allegedly felt by practitioners are almost certainly due to the ideomotor effect. Still, dowsers are common, and vehement in their claims that their abilities are real. So the Borderline Skeptics have organized a challenge in which supposed dowsers have to try to locate buried bottles of water. The event is scheduled for March 10, and any winners will be candidates for a $100,000 cash prize.
And instead of being happy about this, dowsers are pissed. They've already started to claim that the game is rigged, that the Borderline Skeptics are a bunch of cheats, and that they wouldn't stoop to the "carnival sideshow atmosphere" that such a test would inevitably generate. "I will not debase myself," one alleged medium wrote about the James Randi challenge, "to have these cranks take pot shots at my God-given abilities."
Thou shalt not put thy woo-woos to the test, apparently.
You have to wonder, though, how anyone from the outside doesn't see this for what it is -- special pleading, with a nice dose of name calling and shifting of the ground whenever they're challenged. So I suppose I do get why the woo-woos themselves don't want to play; at the best, it would require them to reevaluate their claims, and at the worst, admit that they've been defrauding the public. But how anyone considering hiring these people, giving them good money, can't see what's going on -- that is beyond me.
Which brings me to my last news story -- just yesterday, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported that a Delray Beach psychic center was robbed by an armed man, who burst in brandishing a gun, made the three women and one child who were present at the time lie on the floor, and took all the money in the place.
You'd think they'd have seen this one coming, wouldn't you?
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Battle rejoined: the Oklahoma "Academic Freedom" bill
One of the frustrating things about being a skeptic is that I feel like I fight the same battles over and over. I know that there's a point to continuing the battle; new generations of kids keep coming, and they need people who are committed to teaching them to think rationally. And there are hopeful signs, such as a recent poll that indicated that the number of people who identify themselves as atheists has increased to its highest level ever (1 in 5).
But nowhere do I get that "oh, hell, here we go again" feeling like I do with the ongoing efforts by fundamentalist Christians to insinuate religion into public school science curricula. This time it's the state of Oklahoma, where state bill HB1674 -- the so-called "Academic Freedom Bill" -- will allow students to submit work without penalty, even if it contradicts the understanding of evidence-based science. [Source]
"I proposed this bill because there are teachers and students who may be afraid of going against what they see in their textbooks," said Gus Blackwell, a state representative and evangelical Christian who spent twenty years on the Baptist General Convention. "A student has the freedom to write a paper that points out that highly complex life may not be explained by chance mutations."
They're getting craftier, I have to say. Being that intelligent design and "irreducible complexity" didn't work (given that they are no more scientific than a theory that Christmas presents must be made by Santa Claus, given that there's no way that presents just show up by themselves on Christmas), they've had to turn to a different tactic -- branding disbelief in evolution as "critical thinking." And if it wasn't obvious that they were talking about evolution, and not, for example, the periodic table, the bill itself explicitly states that its purpose is to encourage teachers to point out "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of topics that "cause controversy," including "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
Yeah. And that has no political and religious agenda. Right.
A heartening point, though, is that of the eight "academic freedom" bills proposed since 2004, none have passed. So one can only hope that even in a relatively conservative, religious state like Oklahoma, wiser heads will prevail.
Isn't it interesting, too, that they call these bills "Academic Freedom" bills? They follow a long succession of pieces of legislation that are given names that are far more positive than their content -- No Child Left Behind, the Clear Skies Initiative, the Patriot Act. You have to wonder if legislators actually read the content of the bills they're voting on, or if they just look at the title, and think, "Whoa, I can't have it go on record that I voted against that." I suspect that some of them would probably vote for the Happy Bunnies and Rainbows Act even if the act itself legalized using tasers on kittens.
So, just to set things straight: "academic freedom" and "critical thinking" do not mean some brainwashed 9th grader writing a paper in biology class claiming that Adam and Eve rode triceratopses, and that his teacher then has to give him an A. Doubting mountains of evidence-based, peer-reviewed science because your pastor says different is not "thinking independently." And there are enough vocal rationalists in this country that every time you ultra-religious try this, we will fight you. No matter how tired of the battle we get.
Every damn time.
******************
Update, 22 February 2013: House Bill 1674 passed in committee, 9-8. [Source] I can only hope this generates a challenge in the courts.
But nowhere do I get that "oh, hell, here we go again" feeling like I do with the ongoing efforts by fundamentalist Christians to insinuate religion into public school science curricula. This time it's the state of Oklahoma, where state bill HB1674 -- the so-called "Academic Freedom Bill" -- will allow students to submit work without penalty, even if it contradicts the understanding of evidence-based science. [Source]
"I proposed this bill because there are teachers and students who may be afraid of going against what they see in their textbooks," said Gus Blackwell, a state representative and evangelical Christian who spent twenty years on the Baptist General Convention. "A student has the freedom to write a paper that points out that highly complex life may not be explained by chance mutations."
They're getting craftier, I have to say. Being that intelligent design and "irreducible complexity" didn't work (given that they are no more scientific than a theory that Christmas presents must be made by Santa Claus, given that there's no way that presents just show up by themselves on Christmas), they've had to turn to a different tactic -- branding disbelief in evolution as "critical thinking." And if it wasn't obvious that they were talking about evolution, and not, for example, the periodic table, the bill itself explicitly states that its purpose is to encourage teachers to point out "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of topics that "cause controversy," including "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
Yeah. And that has no political and religious agenda. Right.
A heartening point, though, is that of the eight "academic freedom" bills proposed since 2004, none have passed. So one can only hope that even in a relatively conservative, religious state like Oklahoma, wiser heads will prevail.
Isn't it interesting, too, that they call these bills "Academic Freedom" bills? They follow a long succession of pieces of legislation that are given names that are far more positive than their content -- No Child Left Behind, the Clear Skies Initiative, the Patriot Act. You have to wonder if legislators actually read the content of the bills they're voting on, or if they just look at the title, and think, "Whoa, I can't have it go on record that I voted against that." I suspect that some of them would probably vote for the Happy Bunnies and Rainbows Act even if the act itself legalized using tasers on kittens.
So, just to set things straight: "academic freedom" and "critical thinking" do not mean some brainwashed 9th grader writing a paper in biology class claiming that Adam and Eve rode triceratopses, and that his teacher then has to give him an A. Doubting mountains of evidence-based, peer-reviewed science because your pastor says different is not "thinking independently." And there are enough vocal rationalists in this country that every time you ultra-religious try this, we will fight you. No matter how tired of the battle we get.
Every damn time.
******************
Update, 22 February 2013: House Bill 1674 passed in committee, 9-8. [Source] I can only hope this generates a challenge in the courts.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
The archangel video hoax
I really, really dislike hoaxers.
I've made the point more than once in this blog that we skeptics have a hard enough time counteracting the built-in errors -- things like confirmation bias, dart-thrower's bias, and the inherent inaccuracies of our brains and perceptual apparatus. The last thing we need are people out there, callously and deliberately creating convincing fakes.
The latest in this long string of liars came to my attention because of a video link that popped up on Facebook. The individual who posted it headed it with the caption, "And you think angels aren't real!" Underneath, another poster had responded, "I don't see how this could possibly have been faked." So, naturally, I had to take a look... and so do you. So take two minutes and watch the whole thing. [Link: Is he SUPERMAN or an ARCHANGEL?]
Pretty wild, eh? If you watched it till the end, you might have noticed that they even got the angle of the shadows right -- as the truck bears down on the cyclist, the shadow turns and lengthens at just about the angle I'd expect.
Now that's what I call attention to detail.
So, why, then, don't I believe it's real?
Let's leave aside my usual objections that "there is no evidence that the world works this way." Let's just take what information we have from the video.
First, there is no reason to claim that this would be "impossible to fake." All you have to do is go to any recent action/adventure movie and consider how easy (albeit not cheap) it is to create completely convincing special effects. This one -- with shadowy figures disappearing and rematerializing -- would not be difficult at all to a sufficiently skilled video technician.
Second, did you notice the little spinning logo in the lower left? This is the logo for the owner of the YouTube channel that posted it -- a fellow who goes by the name Cybert9. So I took a moment to check out other videos he'd posted, and they included:
Then, we have the Chinese characters in the upper right. Notice those? I don't read or speak Chinese, so I'm going on second-hand information, but I found that the characters read "Zhu Xian."
Which is the name of a Chinese video production company that specializes in video games.
So, apparently, what we have here is a clip from a promotional video that was taken out of the original context, and launched into the repost network by someone who claimed that it was real. I'm not saying that Cybert9 was the one who perpetrated the original hoax; it may well be that he was somewhere further down the line, and was taken in like all of the other millions of people who have watched this video. (There are three versions of the "archangel video" that I found on YouTube, and together they have gotten well over two million total hits. And while a few commenters seemed to be of the opinion that it was fake, a good many posted comments like, "Wow! How can this not have been on the news?" and "It looks real to me. I believe it.")
The whole thing just pisses me off, because, as I said, it's not like there aren't a hundred natural reasons that people believe crazy stuff. My job as a skeptical writer and critical thinking teacher is hard enough, thanks. So, to the person who started this hoax, I have only one further thing to say:
I've made the point more than once in this blog that we skeptics have a hard enough time counteracting the built-in errors -- things like confirmation bias, dart-thrower's bias, and the inherent inaccuracies of our brains and perceptual apparatus. The last thing we need are people out there, callously and deliberately creating convincing fakes.
The latest in this long string of liars came to my attention because of a video link that popped up on Facebook. The individual who posted it headed it with the caption, "And you think angels aren't real!" Underneath, another poster had responded, "I don't see how this could possibly have been faked." So, naturally, I had to take a look... and so do you. So take two minutes and watch the whole thing. [Link: Is he SUPERMAN or an ARCHANGEL?]
Pretty wild, eh? If you watched it till the end, you might have noticed that they even got the angle of the shadows right -- as the truck bears down on the cyclist, the shadow turns and lengthens at just about the angle I'd expect.
Now that's what I call attention to detail.
So, why, then, don't I believe it's real?
Let's leave aside my usual objections that "there is no evidence that the world works this way." Let's just take what information we have from the video.
First, there is no reason to claim that this would be "impossible to fake." All you have to do is go to any recent action/adventure movie and consider how easy (albeit not cheap) it is to create completely convincing special effects. This one -- with shadowy figures disappearing and rematerializing -- would not be difficult at all to a sufficiently skilled video technician.
Second, did you notice the little spinning logo in the lower left? This is the logo for the owner of the YouTube channel that posted it -- a fellow who goes by the name Cybert9. So I took a moment to check out other videos he'd posted, and they included:
Chemtrails over Central AmericaSo I think we have a little problem with source credibility, here.
Shape-shifting Reptilian on TV
HAARP Activity again
Female masseuse hybrid
and... UFO Clouds
Then, we have the Chinese characters in the upper right. Notice those? I don't read or speak Chinese, so I'm going on second-hand information, but I found that the characters read "Zhu Xian."
Which is the name of a Chinese video production company that specializes in video games.
So, apparently, what we have here is a clip from a promotional video that was taken out of the original context, and launched into the repost network by someone who claimed that it was real. I'm not saying that Cybert9 was the one who perpetrated the original hoax; it may well be that he was somewhere further down the line, and was taken in like all of the other millions of people who have watched this video. (There are three versions of the "archangel video" that I found on YouTube, and together they have gotten well over two million total hits. And while a few commenters seemed to be of the opinion that it was fake, a good many posted comments like, "Wow! How can this not have been on the news?" and "It looks real to me. I believe it.")
The whole thing just pisses me off, because, as I said, it's not like there aren't a hundred natural reasons that people believe crazy stuff. My job as a skeptical writer and critical thinking teacher is hard enough, thanks. So, to the person who started this hoax, I have only one further thing to say:
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Breaking news: Russian meteor explosion causes major eruption of nonsense
Why oh why can't people just accept the scientific explanation for something? Why must they come up with wacky woo-woo bullshit every damn time?
I am, of course, referring to the news story that I'm sure all of you have heard of by now; the meteor explosion that injured over 1,000 people yesterday near Chelyabinsk in the Urals region of Russia.
It was, to be sure, quite an event. The shock wave from the explosion shattered windows and damaged buildings, and because it occurred near a populated area, it was captured more than once on cameras.
But the first problem with the public understanding of what had occurred was that it happened on the same day as a near pass by a different piece of rock, asteroid 2012 DA14. Eminent astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson went on record as saying that the two events were unrelated, and the fact that they occurred on the same day was nothing more than a coincidence.
But no. It couldn't be just a coincidence. Start with a post in the blog Twilight Language, wherein we find the following quote from "astrologer Philip Levine:"
Then we had Russian parliament member Vladimir Zhirinovsky blathering on that the meteor wasn't actually a meteor, it was an American weapons test:
Things only got worse from there. A "senior clergyman" in Yekaterinburg said the meteor was a Sign from God:
Which is more than I can say for major league baseball player José Canseco, who weighed in on the event with the following series of tweets:
NASA, of course, had the straight scoop, and said that the Russian explosion was, in fact, a meteor, and that this meteor and the flyby asteroid were unrelated:
To sum up: AAAARRRRGGHHH.
Oh, and one last thing; if you see people post a photograph that they claim is the crater from yesterday's meteor, and it looks like this:
Please do me a favor and set them straight. This is the Derweze Gas Crater in Turkmenistan, a place where a combination of natural gas seeps and soil that's high in flammable organic matter resulted in a giant burning hole in the ground. It has nothing to do with the meteor.
Thanks. I'll just go take my high blood pressure medication, now.
I am, of course, referring to the news story that I'm sure all of you have heard of by now; the meteor explosion that injured over 1,000 people yesterday near Chelyabinsk in the Urals region of Russia.
It was, to be sure, quite an event. The shock wave from the explosion shattered windows and damaged buildings, and because it occurred near a populated area, it was captured more than once on cameras.
But the first problem with the public understanding of what had occurred was that it happened on the same day as a near pass by a different piece of rock, asteroid 2012 DA14. Eminent astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson went on record as saying that the two events were unrelated, and the fact that they occurred on the same day was nothing more than a coincidence.
But no. It couldn't be just a coincidence. Start with a post in the blog Twilight Language, wherein we find the following quote from "astrologer Philip Levine:"
In other times and places, these would be a sign, a very big sign, saying something (what depends on which prophet or psychic you listen to). If you think the Universe is intelligent and an embodiment of some kind of Being, then you would want to know what It is saying.It strikes me as a damn coincidence. That's what you call it when two events coincide.
If, like most, you believe the Universe is just a random collection of debris with no meaning other than chaos, then Statistics is your God. And the statistical chance of ONE of these things happening is immensely small, but TWO on the SAME DAY, within hours, in this infinitely vast Universe, is something to give one pause.
If you aren't sticking your head in the sand, how does this coincidence/synchronicity strike you?
Then we had Russian parliament member Vladimir Zhirinovsky blathering on that the meteor wasn't actually a meteor, it was an American weapons test:
Those were not meteorites, it was Americans testing their new weapons... (Secretary of State John Kerry) was looking for (Russian Foreign Minister) Lavrov, and Lavrov was on a trip. He meant to warn Lavrov about a provocation against Russia.Right. Because that's plausible. The US Secretary of State calls up, and says, "Um... just so you know, we're about to blow up a weapon over one of your cities today. Hope you don't mind. Give my regards to the wife and kids."
Things only got worse from there. A "senior clergyman" in Yekaterinburg said the meteor was a Sign from God:
From the Scriptures, we know that the Lord often sends people signs and warnings via natural forces. I think that not only for the Ural [regions] residents, but for the whole of humanity, the meteorite is a reminder that we live in fragile and unpredictable world. It is the Lord's message to humanity, and we need to pray to understand it.Or, maybe, just consult an astronomer. They seem to understand it pretty well.
Which is more than I can say for major league baseball player José Canseco, who weighed in on the event with the following series of tweets:
No way was that a meteor in russia todayThe media is now calling Canseco a "meteor truther." Which makes me want to weep softly and bang my head against my desk.
Governments think truth is a poison that will kill them
we have lots of enemies dont underestimate them
long range test deal with russia operation meteor
north korea do the math
NASA, of course, had the straight scoop, and said that the Russian explosion was, in fact, a meteor, and that this meteor and the flyby asteroid were unrelated:
According to NASA scientists, the trajectory of the Russian meteorite was significantly different than the trajectory of the asteroid 2012 DA14, making it a completely unrelated object. Information is still being collected about the Russian meteorite and analysis is preliminary at this point. In videos of the meteor, it is seen to pass from left to right in front of the rising sun, which means it was traveling from north to south. Asteroid DA14′s trajectory is in the opposite direction, from south to north.But why listen to a bunch of silly old scientists when you can get your information from an astrologer, a clergyman, a batshit crazy politician, or a washed-up baseball player?
To sum up: AAAARRRRGGHHH.
Oh, and one last thing; if you see people post a photograph that they claim is the crater from yesterday's meteor, and it looks like this:
Please do me a favor and set them straight. This is the Derweze Gas Crater in Turkmenistan, a place where a combination of natural gas seeps and soil that's high in flammable organic matter resulted in a giant burning hole in the ground. It has nothing to do with the meteor.
Thanks. I'll just go take my high blood pressure medication, now.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Money, bias, and climate science
I've often wished that politics was more frequently informed by good science, but the pessimistic side of me (never very deeply buried) wonders if that is even possible. There are politicians who understand science, but given the complexity of the situations that lawmakers deal with -- combining the hard facts uncovered by scientific research with the economic and business impacts, considering how any proposed changes would affect the average citizen, and keeping in mind what it takes to get reelected -- it's no wonder that governmental policy often makes a hash out of it.
You need no conspiracies in effect to have that result. Our government is built in such a way that this is the inevitable outcome.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the current battle over climate change. You would think that people would see the simple dichotomy between whether climate change is actually happening (something about which climatologists are hardly in doubt) and what, if anything, should be done about it. It's amazing how few people understand that these two questions aren't the same thing. I have more than once seen people arguing, with no apparent awareness of a break in the logical chain, that climate change isn't happening because decreasing fossil fuel use would have devastating effects on our economy.
Oh, that it were that simple. If the world worked that way, I could just state that I didn't believe in my home and car needing expensive maintenance because it's having "devastating effects on my bank account," and they would magically take care of themselves.
Still, the politicization of the climate issue is having tremendous effects on the public perception of what is, at its base, a scientific question. Interesting, isn't it, that by and large liberals accept that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and conservatives deny it? You'd think that a scientific conclusion would be based upon the evidence, not on your political party. And the research is clear; as I mentioned in a recent post, the number of peer-reviewed studies that support climate change outnumber the ones that question it by over 500:1.
A study that was just reviewed in The Guardian points up why that may be. Over the past ten years, conservative billionaires have funneled over $120 million dollars into think tanks that have only one purpose; to cast doubt in the minds of voters and lawmakers regarding climate change. [Source] The two umbrella organizations that oversaw the handling of the funds -- Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund -- spent the money on strategic planning, public disinformation campaigns, and beefing up the coffers of the handful of scientists left who deny that climate change is real.
And the conservatives, with straight faces, accuse the climatologists of being in the pay of environmental organizations. I wonder who has deeper pockets, Donors Trust or the Sierra Club?
Lest you think that I'm just showing my bias here, take a look at "Plutocracy, Pure and Simple," by George Monbiot. Starting in 2002, the Republicans recognized that climate change could be used as a wedge issue, and that acknowledging the science was tantamount to political suicide. Conservative consultant Frank Luntz actually said, "Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate." And this script has been followed to the letter. The think tanks that were funded by Donors Trust, Donors Capital Fund, and the likes of the Koch brothers have generated not only campaigns to raise doubt in the minds of voters, but public school curricula that include explicit statements that whether climate change is happening is "a major scientific controversy."
By my definition, a "controversy" is "something people disagree about." 500:1 in favor hardly qualifies as a "controversy."
But of course, that's not how they want the layperson, the average citizen, to see the situation. They want the voters to think that the science is uncertain, because if the scientists can't even figure out what's going on, then we sure as hell don't want to give up our gas-guzzling cars and coal-fired power stations.
I find the whole thing infuriating. It's not that I don't realize that the profit motive can lead to abuses; money corrupts, and all that sort of thing. It's more that these wealthy donors and giant money-handling machines are sowing confusion in the minds of the average man and woman -- the people who, above all, need correct information in order to make informed decisions. And that confusion is leading to all of us, lawmaker and citizen alike, doing nothing, as the world continues to warm, the ice continues to melt, the seas continue to rise.
The result: let's stay with the status quo, even if it marches us right off a cliff.
You need no conspiracies in effect to have that result. Our government is built in such a way that this is the inevitable outcome.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the current battle over climate change. You would think that people would see the simple dichotomy between whether climate change is actually happening (something about which climatologists are hardly in doubt) and what, if anything, should be done about it. It's amazing how few people understand that these two questions aren't the same thing. I have more than once seen people arguing, with no apparent awareness of a break in the logical chain, that climate change isn't happening because decreasing fossil fuel use would have devastating effects on our economy.
Oh, that it were that simple. If the world worked that way, I could just state that I didn't believe in my home and car needing expensive maintenance because it's having "devastating effects on my bank account," and they would magically take care of themselves.
Still, the politicization of the climate issue is having tremendous effects on the public perception of what is, at its base, a scientific question. Interesting, isn't it, that by and large liberals accept that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and conservatives deny it? You'd think that a scientific conclusion would be based upon the evidence, not on your political party. And the research is clear; as I mentioned in a recent post, the number of peer-reviewed studies that support climate change outnumber the ones that question it by over 500:1.
A study that was just reviewed in The Guardian points up why that may be. Over the past ten years, conservative billionaires have funneled over $120 million dollars into think tanks that have only one purpose; to cast doubt in the minds of voters and lawmakers regarding climate change. [Source] The two umbrella organizations that oversaw the handling of the funds -- Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund -- spent the money on strategic planning, public disinformation campaigns, and beefing up the coffers of the handful of scientists left who deny that climate change is real.
And the conservatives, with straight faces, accuse the climatologists of being in the pay of environmental organizations. I wonder who has deeper pockets, Donors Trust or the Sierra Club?
Lest you think that I'm just showing my bias here, take a look at "Plutocracy, Pure and Simple," by George Monbiot. Starting in 2002, the Republicans recognized that climate change could be used as a wedge issue, and that acknowledging the science was tantamount to political suicide. Conservative consultant Frank Luntz actually said, "Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate." And this script has been followed to the letter. The think tanks that were funded by Donors Trust, Donors Capital Fund, and the likes of the Koch brothers have generated not only campaigns to raise doubt in the minds of voters, but public school curricula that include explicit statements that whether climate change is happening is "a major scientific controversy."
By my definition, a "controversy" is "something people disagree about." 500:1 in favor hardly qualifies as a "controversy."
But of course, that's not how they want the layperson, the average citizen, to see the situation. They want the voters to think that the science is uncertain, because if the scientists can't even figure out what's going on, then we sure as hell don't want to give up our gas-guzzling cars and coal-fired power stations.
I find the whole thing infuriating. It's not that I don't realize that the profit motive can lead to abuses; money corrupts, and all that sort of thing. It's more that these wealthy donors and giant money-handling machines are sowing confusion in the minds of the average man and woman -- the people who, above all, need correct information in order to make informed decisions. And that confusion is leading to all of us, lawmaker and citizen alike, doing nothing, as the world continues to warm, the ice continues to melt, the seas continue to rise.
The result: let's stay with the status quo, even if it marches us right off a cliff.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Water of life
I bet you think that water is healthful. I bet you buy the silly old scientifically-supported contention that plain, ordinary, clean water, direct from your tap, is the best thing for you, and that consuming enough water has been shown to reduce your likelihood of everything from high blood pressure to kidney stones.
Ha. A lot you know.
There's been a whole industry that's arisen whose motto is, "My water is better than your water." We have all of the bottled water companies, trampling each other to prove that their brand is the most Natural Clear Clean Mountain Spring Water you've ever drank, and everyone else's is the equivalent of drinking sewer effluent. (You may want to know that four-year study, released in 2000 by the National Resources Defense Council, showed that in general, bottled water has poorer quality with regards to chemical and bacterial contamination than typical municipal tap water.)
Then you have your vitamin-enhanced water, your fruit-flavored water, your aroma-essence-infused water. Many of these have enough sugar added that you risk type 2 diabetes just from walking past the display in the grocery store. And every year, new brands crop up.
But the silliness doesn't end there. Just yesterday, in rapid succession, I ran across two new, special kinds of water, and the wackiness of these two outstrips the claims of all of the other kinds of water put together.
Let's start with "Pi Water." I don't recommend clicking on the link, because the website is equipped with some sort of extremely annoying graphic device that makes the text blink, and I wouldn't want anyone having a seizure because of me. But anyhow, what is "Pi Water?" At first, I expected it to have something to do with 3.14159 etc., but no:
So, how was this "living energy water" discovered? It turns out that a guy was researching plants, and just kind of stumbled on it:
How might this work, you're probably asking? I know that's what I asked. Well, the site tells you, in great detail. I apologize for the length of this passage, but you really should read the whole thing:
I have to admit that I may be having trouble understanding this because I was too busy laughing about electrons being in an "erected state." I guess that in some sense, an erection is a type of excitation. Given that today is Valentine's Day, it does open up whole new possibilities for geeky come-hither lines: "Hey, baby, I'm in a highly energized quantum level tonight. You want to help my electrons return to the ground state?"
After this, the site goes on to blather on about how the "Pi Water" process infuses water with the subatomic particle called a "pi meson," and at that point, I gave up. (Go here to find out what a pi meson actually is.)
But we're not done here yet. Because I found a second site, a site that makes "Pi Water" look like Nobel Prize material. This site tells you how to make "Sun and/or Moon Water:"
So, we're back to my usual question: how can anyone with an IQ higher than that of road salt believe any of this horse waste? An average middle-school student knows enough science to recognize this as ridiculous. But evidently this kind of woo-woo foolishness is becoming increasingly popular, and because of that, is big business. Big lucrative business. (Google "structured water" and see how many hits you get. I dare you.)
I recognize that I'm probably shouting in a hurricane, here. The people who fall for this kind of claptrap are not the ones who are going to be reading skeptical websites. But still. "Pi Water?" Now with more pi mesons? Sun water with the sun's "vibratory energy of the complete color spectrum?" Egg-shaped containers to "gather cosmic frequencies?"
The whole thing just makes me want to give up water entirely. I'm thinking of switching to scotch.
Ha. A lot you know.
There's been a whole industry that's arisen whose motto is, "My water is better than your water." We have all of the bottled water companies, trampling each other to prove that their brand is the most Natural Clear Clean Mountain Spring Water you've ever drank, and everyone else's is the equivalent of drinking sewer effluent. (You may want to know that four-year study, released in 2000 by the National Resources Defense Council, showed that in general, bottled water has poorer quality with regards to chemical and bacterial contamination than typical municipal tap water.)
Then you have your vitamin-enhanced water, your fruit-flavored water, your aroma-essence-infused water. Many of these have enough sugar added that you risk type 2 diabetes just from walking past the display in the grocery store. And every year, new brands crop up.
But the silliness doesn't end there. Just yesterday, in rapid succession, I ran across two new, special kinds of water, and the wackiness of these two outstrips the claims of all of the other kinds of water put together.
Let's start with "Pi Water." I don't recommend clicking on the link, because the website is equipped with some sort of extremely annoying graphic device that makes the text blink, and I wouldn't want anyone having a seizure because of me. But anyhow, what is "Pi Water?" At first, I expected it to have something to do with 3.14159 etc., but no:
Pi Water is the water that is very similar to your body water (Living Energy). Living energy means “the energy to live.” Do you know anyone who rarely gets sick or recover quickly when they get hurt? These people have strong living energy. Pi Water has the same function (energy) that your body water has.My favorite part of this is the definition of "living energy." It reminds me of the entry in the glossary of my favorite science spoof, Science Made Stupid: "reasoning, circular (n.) -- see circular reasoning."
So, how was this "living energy water" discovered? It turns out that a guy was researching plants, and just kind of stumbled on it:
So... if you give humans something that makes plants flower, we'll blossom too?Pi Water was discovered in 1964 during the study of physiology of plants by Dr. Akihiro Yamashita, a professor at the Agricultural Department, Nagoya University. He was studying about FLORIGEN. What makes the bud become a flower? Researchers thought it might be related with hormones. They had named the phenomenon FLORIGEN and studied it.During the study, Dr. Yamashita discovered “body water,” which affects the difference of the bud change instead of hormones. He also discovered that the body water contains a very small amount of Ferric Ferrous Salt (Fe2Fe3) and the water has the function to control our body function normally. After that, through many studies and research, Dr. Yamashita succeeded to make the water that has the same function with your body water artificially and named it Pi Water.
How might this work, you're probably asking? I know that's what I asked. Well, the site tells you, in great detail. I apologize for the length of this passage, but you really should read the whole thing:
Pi Water is compounded with Fe2Fe3, which is effective when its quality becomes very small (2 x 10^-12 mol). At this level, Fe2Fe3 is an elementary particle, such as an electron, a proton and a neutron, and it works like a conductor of a medium to transmit energy and information to other substances. The following is the assumption of Pi Water principles at the present time:Oh. Okay. What?
Generation cycle of electron energy.
Substance generally consists of a group of molecules and a molecule is a group of atoms. An atom consists of atomic nuclei and electrons, and an atomic nucleus consists of protons and neutrons. The electrons circle, while spinning, around an atomic nucleus on a certain orbit. When the atom receives undulation of cosmic energy, the electrons start to spin faster and circle on farther than the usual orbit, causing the electrons to have high energy called, "erected state". However, the electrons cannot keep their erected state/high energy condition for too long, and they tries to get back to the usual orbit. In Pi Water, we believe that such energy creating cycles by the electrons are happening, and that the transmission of energy and information is very actively taking place.
I have to admit that I may be having trouble understanding this because I was too busy laughing about electrons being in an "erected state." I guess that in some sense, an erection is a type of excitation. Given that today is Valentine's Day, it does open up whole new possibilities for geeky come-hither lines: "Hey, baby, I'm in a highly energized quantum level tonight. You want to help my electrons return to the ground state?"
After this, the site goes on to blather on about how the "Pi Water" process infuses water with the subatomic particle called a "pi meson," and at that point, I gave up. (Go here to find out what a pi meson actually is.)
But we're not done here yet. Because I found a second site, a site that makes "Pi Water" look like Nobel Prize material. This site tells you how to make "Sun and/or Moon Water:"
Water was designed to carry the Sun’s sub-atomic nutrients (sound and color vibrations) to all living things. It was also meant to carry the cosmic energy of the moon, stars, and planets. This is referred to as The Music of the Spheres. Structuring the water first (as described in Chapter 11 of Dancing with Water) makes it more receptive to imprinting but simply placing water in the Sun or Moon will imprint the water to a certain degree.One more bit will suffice:
When making water in the sunlight, place it in a glass container directly on the Earth. This way, the gentler Earth frequencies will balance the strong solar energy. Depending on the position and strength of the sun, leave it exposed for no more than 10-30 minutes. (Direct sunlight on standing water will eventually rob it of its energy.) Drinking water that has been placed in the sunlight is a wonderful way to get the vibratory energy of the complete color spectrum. It is also very energizing... Setting water out on the night of the full moon creates water that carries the feminine energy of the full moon. If you want to lengthen the influence of the full moon (or of a particular full moon) in your life, this is a good way to do it. To program your water with the energy of the moon, stars, and planets, choose a clear night (it does not have to be a full moon). Place your covered, glass or egg-shaped clay container directly on the Earth in a place where it will receive the full night sky. (Glass allows the light of the moon and stars to penetrate the water better but the shape of the egg gathers cosmic frequencies just as efficiently—if not more so.)There also a part later about how you can enhance your sun and/or moon water by using crystals, copper triskelions, and "tensor rings." Just reading it made me pretty freakin' tense.
So, we're back to my usual question: how can anyone with an IQ higher than that of road salt believe any of this horse waste? An average middle-school student knows enough science to recognize this as ridiculous. But evidently this kind of woo-woo foolishness is becoming increasingly popular, and because of that, is big business. Big lucrative business. (Google "structured water" and see how many hits you get. I dare you.)
I recognize that I'm probably shouting in a hurricane, here. The people who fall for this kind of claptrap are not the ones who are going to be reading skeptical websites. But still. "Pi Water?" Now with more pi mesons? Sun water with the sun's "vibratory energy of the complete color spectrum?" Egg-shaped containers to "gather cosmic frequencies?"
The whole thing just makes me want to give up water entirely. I'm thinking of switching to scotch.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)