How not to evaluate educators

In his talk "The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us" (which you can, and should, watch in its entirety here), Daniel Pink describes how the micromanagement and punishment-and-reward system built into the American workplace model simply don't work.  Pink, who worked as an aide to Labor Secretary Robert Reich and who was listed as one of the fifty most influential management thinkers in the world, describes several studies that have findings that are astonishing -- including one that found that in tasks that require engagement and creativity, reward-and-punishment strategies lead to poorer performance.

But what interests me most comes in the middle of the talk, where he describes an Australian software company, Atlassian, that instituted a policy that runs completely counter to the usual business model.  Once a month, every employee at Atlassian is given an entire day to do whatever they'd like to -- in Pink's words, "you can work on whatever you want, with whoever you want, but you have to show us the result in 24 hours."

"In that one day of pure, undiluted autonomy," Pink states, "this has led to a whole array of fixes for existing software, and a whole array of ideas for new products that otherwise would never have emerged."

Autonomy, then -- up to a point, certainly, but far beyond what most businesses are willing to try -- increases productivity, engagement, motivation, and morale.  We do our best, most creative work without someone breathing down our necks.

Which brings me to the latest from the New York State Department of Education.

Some of you may remember from previous posts that the most recent brainstorm from NYSED is that this year the teachers are getting numerical grades.  Yes, folks, in a month or so, I'm going to be getting a report card!

Only fair, you might say, given that I do the same to my students.  And honestly, I have no problem with accountability; I welcome being observed and evaluated.  There is nothing to be gained by a policy that allows inadequate teachers to continue indefinitely in the same job.

The problem is the way the grade is calculated.  Part of it is based on observations by an administrator; but 40% comes from how well students meet "SLOs" -- "Student Learning Objectives" -- based on their performance on standardized tests.  To determine whether the students met their SLOs, an exit exam is administered, and used to see if the student met or exceeded a "target" score based on scores on a pre-assessment.

Let me give you an example from my own class that will illustrate why this is a statistically spurious method.

I teach, amongst other things, AP Biology.  It's a notoriously tough subject, full of technical terms and difficult concepts.  For this class, the "pre-assessment" used is the average of the students' scores on the Regents (Introductory) Biology and Regents Chemistry exams.  Now, the problem is, these are both dramatically easier classes and exams; most of the students who made it to AP Biology scored in the 90s on the Regents Biology exam and at least in the 80s on the Regents Chemistry exam.  So the students walk in with, most of them, a "pre-assessment" score of around 90.

Then, at the end of the year, they hit my cumulative, college-level final.

I can say that almost without exception, everyone scores lower on that exam than they did on their "pre-assessment."  In fact, this year, 12 out of 23 students who took my final did not meet their "state target scores" -- in other words, in New York State's eyes, the students, and I, have failed.  From the point of view of the people at NYSED, it looks like the year my students spent in my class actively made them stupider.

But it gets better.  Because just yesterday, we received a communiqué from Ken Slentz, the Deputy Commissioner of Education in New York State.  The message stated that students who are not eligible to take the science Regents exams because they did not turn in enough labs during the school year -- New York has a requirement that high-school-level science students do a minimum of thirty hours of labs to get credit -- are counted as zeroes against the teacher's score.

You read that right.  A student who was out for medical reasons, and who is on home tutoring and cannot do labs -- which three of my students were, this year, for months at a time -- not only is penalized by not being allowed to take the final exam, but that zero is counted as a failure of the teacher's.  Students who simply disengage, and decide that they have no particular interest in turning in anything, are also counted against the teacher's evaluation score.  "It is the responsibility of the teacher to ensure that all students meet lab requirements so that they are able to sit for the Regents exam," Slentz wrote in an email that was sent to every high school science teacher in New York.  "The Department recommends that districts... create processes that ensure students have opportunities to make up lab requirements."

As a student put it, when I discussed this policy in my Critical Thinking classes, "Wow.  First, teachers have an incentive to give easy final exams.  Now they have an incentive to lie about whether we turned in our lab reports."

In the case of the teachers in my school, I have to say that virtually all of them have responded with indignation.  "I'll be damned if I'll compromise the integrity of my course for some bullshit rule," one said.  "If the state wants to grade me down because of things that are outside of my control, they can knock themselves out."

But what it has done is to destroy morale.  More and more teachers I know are actively looking for other jobs.  One, a friend of long standing who has young children in the school, is looking into finding a way to take her own children out of the public school she teaches in -- a stinging vote of no confidence in the direction public education is going.

My fear, though, is that this trend of turning everything -- students and teachers alike -- into numbers is only beginning.  Micromanaging b-b stackers like Deputy Commissioner Slentz, who evidently don't have the vaguest idea of the reality of classroom teaching, will accomplish nothing by these new mandates but driving those of us who actually care about educating children into other jobs.

As for me: I'm not too far from retirement, and would be eligible for a buy-out (should one be offered) in three years.  I can stick it out that long.  How much longer I'll be able to keep my morale up is another matter.  But after all, given the mediocre grade I'm likely to get on my Report Card this year, it's probably better that I start thinking about getting a job where my evaluation is actually based on my level of performance.

Choosing an intelligent designer

Here we go again.

Last week, the Springboro (Ohio) City Community School District announced that they are considering a policy that would "encourage students to 'think critically' about 'controversial' issues like evolution, abortion, climate change, UN Agenda 21 and sustainable development. The policy directs teachers to fully explore 'all sides' of these issues."

To take the two pieces of the proposed policy that I actually know enough to comment on, there is no controversy in scientific circles about evolution and climate change -- a point I have made often enough that I don't see the need to defend it further here.

What makes this situation interesting was something that appeared on Reddit yesterday -- a back-and-forth email exchange between an Ohio resident who is outraged by the policy, and Kelly Kohls, president of the Springboro School Board.  I quote the posted emails below:

Ms Kohls et al,

As someone who grew up in Cincinnati during the 70s and 80s, I well remember the attempts to bring religious teachings into the classroom. As it has been ruled clearly unconstitutional many times, you are merely wasting time and resources better spent on actually helping children of your school district. Please keep religion at home or in your houses of worship. It has no place in a science classroom. There is no scientific controversy with respect to Evolution except within the ranks of the fundamentalists.
In case you or your board are unsure about the legal precedents, please see:
Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
Segraves v State of California (1981)
McLean v Arkansas BOE (1982)
Edwards v. Aguillard (1897)
Webster v New Lenox (1990)
Peloza v Capistrano (1994)
Freiler v Tangipahoa Paris BOE (1997) - this one SPECIFICALLY mentions "critical thinking" by the way, and calls it what it is, a ruse.
Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005)
There are more but I think you get my point.
Please, please, please...focus on facts. You are educators. You should act like it.
Thank you for your time,

Stuart Thomas

Ms. Kohls responded as follows.  I would run out of "sics" so you'll just have to keep in mind that this is verbatim:

Please read the rulings, they are not saying unconstitutional or illegal. Please also go to the Discovery Institute and view the science the blows gigantic wholes in Evolution. I also went to school in the 70's and 80 and and do not agree with you.

Please focus on the facts and read the rulings for yourself.

Kelly Kohls

The original poster, in apparent bafflement at getting a response from a school board president that barely qualified as English, wrote back the following:

Ms Kohls,

I'm, first of all, surprised that you would actually cite The Discovery Institute, which is clearly a heavily biased lobbying group and advances only one view, the completely unscientific concept of creationism.

Second, you ask me to "read the rulings", which I have. I would not have cited the cases if I hadn't. Granted, in some cases, it may have been a lower court ruling which may not be citable in a higher court but, and I know you know this, the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court cases clearly define constitutionality. In no case did creationists prevail. This should be of particular interest and goes back to my earlier point that this attempt to inject religion into a secular environment is futile at best, and ultimately harmful to the students in your district.

Let me address your points one by one, and, while I grant that not every case was lifted to the Supreme Court, creationism was never upheld and religious rights were never violated by the teaching of evolution:

"they are not saying unconstitutional or illegal"
I'll just start at the first three...
Epperson v. Arkansas - The U.S Supreme Court found that, ultimately, it was unconstitutional. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruling was overturned by the US Supreme Court. "The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools." Please note the use of the word "constitutional".
Segraves v State of California - Summarized as "learning about evolution in public schools does not infringe upon the free exercise of religion." Your First Amendment rights are not violated. Note that if you teach the Christian version, you then automatically violate the rights of people of other religions.
McLean v Arkansas - "the Act was passed with the specific purpose by the General Assembly of advancing religion," which violates the First Amendment.

"I also went to school in the 70's and 80 and and do not agree with you"
Whether or not you agree with me is not the issue here. The issue is Constitutionality. On this point, you are already at a disadvantage. I am unclear why you think you can overturn decades of previous rulings.
Would you like me to continue or do you understand that your "facts" are not, in any way, facts.

"blows gigantic wholes in Evolution"
Honestly, I'm appalled that in your reply, you, as an educator, did not even know the difference between "whole" and "hole". Now, I know this is not a specific refutation of your argument and normally I would have overlooked it, but you are on the Board of Education. By now, I would have hoped that the simple act of proof-reading would have been second nature.

This is a battle which you will not win. Again, you are welcome to your beliefs, but keep them out of the classroom unless you are willing to allow scientists into your church to "teach the controversy".

Regards,

Stuart Thomas

At this point Ms. Kohls had evidently had enough of Mr. Thomas and his damn logical, rational thinking, because she sent back a one liner:

Thanks for your opinion and I respectfully disagree.

 I, too, thought it was interesting that she would immediately blow her cover and mention the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based "think tank" (although I use that phrase with some reluctance) that has championed forcing Christian intelligent design and climate change denialism into public school curricula.  They are adamant especially about the former, and more than one of the posts on the Institute website tears into the idea of abiogenesis, stating that the origins of life required a "skilled technical chemist" -- i.e., a deity who got life going.

Fine.  God started life, did he?  I'll be sure to teach that next year in my biology classes.  The problem is, which Scientific Theory of God do you want me to use?  Intelligent designers abound in the mythology of humanity.  We have more than a few to choose from:

The first humans were generated by the Sky (Marduk) having sex with the Earth (Tiamat).  [Babylonian]

The Earth is made of the dead body of a frost giant, and the first humans were carved out of logs.  [Norse]

Dry land was formed by a deity (Izanagi) stirring the Celestial Sea with his spear.  The first humans were the children of Izanagi by his wife (Izanami), but she had also previously given birth to a leech, a floating island, and a child who was on fire, which musta hurt like hell.  [Japanese]

The first people were made out of rocks and minerals by a god called "Black Hactcin."  [Jicarilla Apache]

The first life was created out of pond muck by a guy named Obatala.  Some of the weirder-looking creatures in the world were made while Obatala was drunk, which I would expect accounts for the duck-billed platypus.  [Yoruba]

So, anyhow.  I'd guess that Mr. Thomas is right, and that this latest assault on science is doomed to fail, but for cryin' in the sink, it does get tiresome fighting the same battles over and over again.  In any case, keep your eye on Ohio.  As for me, I'm off to go prepare my lesson on how the different races of humans came about because a god named "Kche Mnedo" didn't bake some of them long enough, and the half-baked ones came out as white people.

The coolness of Pope Francis

The Roman Catholic world is buzzing because of an announcement made at morning mass last Wednesday by Pope Francis.

"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone,” the pope said.  "'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!  We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!'  But do good: we will meet one another there."  [Source]

This isn't the first time that the new pope -- just installed as the church's leader -- has weighed in on us nonbelievers.  Shortly after his election, he told a crowd,

[W]e also sense our closeness to all those men and women who, although not identifying themselves as followers of any religious tradition, are nonetheless searching for truth, goodness and beauty, the truth, goodness and beauty of God.  They are our valued allies in the commitment to defending human dignity, in building a peaceful coexistence between peoples and in safeguarding and caring for creation.

As an atheist, I think that all of this is nice to hear, and I have to say that Pope Francis seems like a pretty cool guy.  And this kind of statement is a refreshing change from what we secularists usually hear.  After all, being told over and over that you're going to burn in horrible agony for all eternity is a little off-putting, even if you don't technically believe that hell exists.  Especially given how happy the folks who say those things seem to be about it.  You can take schadenfreude too far, in my opinion.

But of course, it was only a matter of time before the rest of the Catholic world questioned Francis' statement.  The powers-that-be need to remind the world that they're still an exclusive club, however welcoming the pope was trying to be.  Reverend Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesperson, clarified Pope Francis' statement by saying that "every man or woman, whatever their situation, can be saved.  Even non-Christians can respond to this saving action of the Spirit.  No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin."  On the other hand, Rosica said that people who are aware of the Catholic church "cannot be saved" if they "refuse to enter her or remain in her."

So, anyhow, I'm of two minds about all of this.  On the one hand, I think that being treated with more respect by the religious is pretty awesome, and I'm impressed with the fact that Pope Francis has reached out his hand to us atheists.  In no way do I want to be seen as scorning what was, honestly, an unprecedented and kind gesture.

But on the other hand, the implication is still, "... even though you're wrong about the most important question in the universe."  Now, to be fair, we all kind of start out from that stance -- that we have the answers, and anyone who disagrees is very likely to be mistaken.  Obviously, I wouldn't consider myself an atheist if I thought the pope et al. were right.  But isn't his approach kind of curious, when you think about it?  The pope seems to be saying, "Hey, atheists, we recognize that you can be nice people and do good stuff.  So why don't you just accept that god exists and start coming to church?"  You have to wonder why he thinks that's an appealing offer, given that by definition, we atheists see no particular reason to tie up our Sunday mornings worshiping a god that we are pretty sure isn't there, and asking for forgiveness for a bunch of things that mostly are just basic human nature.

In any case, it's all a step in the right direction.  I'm all for dialogue, mutual understanding, and treating each other nicely.  We don't all have to agree, after all, but it's just so much nicer if we just get along and tolerate one another.  It'd be wonderful if some of the other religions on Earth would follow Pope Francis' lead, and move toward acceptance of people of other beliefs -- or no belief at all.

Yeah, I'm looking at you, Muslims.

Wand waving and hand waving

Consider four general truths about your average human.

First, people are attracted to novelty.  Look at how often "New and Improved!" shows up on product labels -- although I've always wondered how something can be "new" and "improved" simultaneously.

Second, the idea of curing chronic pain is a pretty attractive proposition to a lot of us.  Many people deal with pain sufficient to change our lifestyles, and in some cases bad enough to trigger thoughts of suicide.  All of us know someone whose life has been plagued with chronic pain.  Because of this, tremendous amount of (legitimate) medical research goes into developing therapies to manage, treat, or mitigate pain.

Third, we have the sad fact that most folks don't have much background in real science, so anything with science-y words is going to sound impressive, even if on analysis those words don't turn out to mean much.

And fourth, it's pretty obvious that money is a powerful motivator.

Add these four things together, and you have the makings of a scam of mammoth proportions.

Meet the Amega Amwand -- a device that uses "minerals and crystals" that have been treated with an "amized fusion process" (the details of which are, of course, a proprietary secret) to treat pain.  The minerals and crystals are encased in a steel sleeve the size of a ballpoint pen.  To treat the pain, all you basically do is to wave the wand around over the painful area, and the pain miraculously goes away.

How can this possibly work, you may be asking?  They say that the wand accesses "zero-point energy" and then uses that to stimulate your body's "bioelectric fields" and it promotes healing.  Of course, we also have the disclaimer that the wand "is not intended to treat, prevent, cure, or diagnose any medical condition," which makes me wonder what exactly "Improves body’s ability to self-regulate – more harmonized bodily functions like never before!" means.

Oh, and a video interview with a guy who sells the things says it'll also make your wine taste better.  Your food, too.  Why?  Because it "oxidizes" it.  Now, in case you're curious, burning something is also oxidation.  And my general experience with burnt food is that it doesn't, in fact, make it taste better.  But maybe that's just me.  (You should definitely watch this video, which ends with an interview with a physicist that debunks the whole claim.)

I haven't told you yet how much these things cost.  The website I linked above has wands priced at $370 each -- $704 for one that has "activated rubies" in it.

Add this to the fact that the Amega brand is a multi-level marketing (pyramid) scheme -- and this explains why Sam Adams, who is identified in the video as being one of the top "generations" of the company, is allegedly making $3,600 a day from this stuff.

So, here's the central point: could this thing actually work?

The simple answer is: no.  There's no way that a magic wand filled with minerals can have any effect on your body.  It's not "shooting out energy" (as the site claims); it's not "inducing homeostasis" any more than your body's systems already were; and it's not stimulating anything in you except the placebo effect.  The whole hand-waving "explanation" given on their website basically amounts to throwing out some technical-sounding jargon and making extravagant promises, including the inadvertently humorous statement that "this Zero Point Energy Field, gives a ginormous amount of Life Giving Energy to the body and reminds it’s [sic] cells where they came from."

Oh, and by the way: the idea of "accessing the zero-point energy" is bullshit.  Zero-point energy is a real thing, defined as the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system could have.  If you could "extract energy" from it, then it wouldn't be the lowest possible energy, you know?  To quote the Wikipedia article directly:

As a scientific concept, the existence of zero-point energy is not controversial although the ability to harness it is.  Over the years, there have been claims of devices capable of extracting usable zero-point energy.

In quantum theory, zero-point energy is a minimum energy below which a thermodynamic system can never go.  Thus, none of this energy can be withdrawn without altering the system to a different form in which the system has a lower zero-point energy.

Current claims to zero-point-energy-based power generation systems are in contradiction with known physics laws and have the status of pseudoscience.

So there you go, then.

I live in perpetual amazement that people fall for something like this, especially given how pricey these things are.  I mean, if I were in chronic pain, I might risk twenty bucks on something that was a little sketchy -- but $370?  $704 for the special, ruby-enhanced version?  I suppose pain could motivate people to try something out of desperation -- which makes what these hucksters are doing even more reprehensible.  Because getting rich by selling a steel sleeve full of snake oil is also, for the unethical, a strong motivator.

After all, it's no new thing that a fool and his money are soon parted -- nor that there's a sucker born every minute.

Magic in the water

It's always struck me as baffling to see people how much people will pay for woo-woo stuff.  Not so much the alt-med stuff like homeopathy, because there, the recipient has been bamboozled (usually via some science-y sounding nonsense about vibrations and energies and quantum signatures) into thinking that the remedy being sold actually does something that has been verified experimentally.  (i.e., they have been lied to.)

On the other hand, it's less understandable to see someone buying something that doesn't even come with any sort of rational explanation -- when the item being sold falls into the Magic, Pure & Simple department.  It's probably narrow-minded of me, but whenever I hear about this sort of thing, I always think, "How on earth do people expect this to work?"

For example, there's Temitope Balogun Joshua, the Ghanaian pastor of the Synagogue Church of All Nations in Accra.  Joshua, a charismatic figure who attracts huge crowds in Ghana, Nigeria, Benin, and Togo, goes about preaching the gospel and selling stuff, including "new anointing water."  "New anointing water" has been blessed by Reverend Joshua and has been credited with miraculous cures of diseases, and the relieving of stress and anxiety.  It usually sells for 80 cedis (about $40) per bottle -- a sizable sum in West Africa.

Well, unfortunately, a radio station announced last Saturday that Reverend Joshua would be giving away bottles of "new anointing water" for free at the service on Sunday.  Crowds began to form at two in the morning.  So many people showed up that it "brought traffic in large parts of Accra to a standstill."  And then, when the doors opened, there was a stampede, which killed four and injured thirty.

Joshua himself was apparently upset by how the whole thing turned out, and he's promised to pay the hospital expenses of the ones who were injured.  This shouldn't be a hardship...

... because apparently his net worth exceeds $15 million.  That, my friends, is a crapload of bottles of water.

Now, it's not that I think this kind of magical thinking is uncommon, mind you.  After outlaw John Dillinger was gunned down, bystanders soaked handkerchiefs and the hems of skirts in his blood.  Earlier, men and women who met their end by losing their heads had their spilled blood treated the same way -- notable examples were Anne Boleyn and King Louis XVI.  The idea of magic (of various kinds) clinging to a substance, be it water, blood, or something else, is as old as humanity.

But still.  How, precisely, do these folks think Reverend Joshua's bottles of miracle water can work?  I know I'm approaching this from my squared-off, show-me-the-goods rationalism, and that the mystical worldview allows for all sorts of other stuff going on.  But try as I might, I just can't see how this guy's magic potions and preaching have made him worth $15 million, despite his hawking his wares in some of the poorest countries in the world.

Magical thinking, apparently, is big business, even if you don't resort to science-y words.

On a more hopeful note, though, is a second story, this one from Spain.

Another idea that is hardly new is the love spell -- magic cast to make the target of your amorous feelings fall in love with you, or (more prosaically) at least willing to have sex with you.  Like Reverend Joshua's magic water, this one is still with us today, and is still as ineffective as ever -- as Zaragoza businessman José Laparra found out.

Laparra, the owner of Spanish football team Club Deportivo Castellon, had his eye on a woman who evidently was resistant to his advances.  Frustrated, he went to a psychic, Lucia Martin, who said she would help him -- if he paid her $210,000.

Now that is desperation.

Be that as it may, Martin said she knew the very spell, and she took Laparra's money, and proceeded to do her magical stuff.  To no avail; Laparra was no more successful than before.  So he went to Martin, and demanded his money back.

Only fair, I suppose, but according to the source, the psychic "foresaw his arrival" and tried to prevent him from entering.  She called the police, who came in, and found the money wrapped up in a newspaper -- and promptly arrested Laparra, because he'd apparently paid the psychic by embezzling the money from the funds belonging to his football club.

Laparra, for his part, proceeded to have an "anxiety attack," which is hardly a surprise, considering the circumstances.  Maybe someone should have gotten him some "new anointing water."

The New Holy Writ

This morning, I'm pondering what it takes for a piece of writing to be accepted as Holy Writ.

Now, anything can be seen as divinely inspired, if you're willing to play fast-and-loose with the definition of fiction.  We've seen, for example, that there are people who think that The Lord of the Rings is describing actual history, and others who have decided that H. P. Lovecraft's pantheon of Elder Gods is real.  But I'm wondering what it would take for such an idea to spread beyond just a handful of wingnuts.

I'm talking the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Sutras, the Vedas.

Clearly, there's a religious answer to all of this, and I'm not trying to be disingenuous by ignoring it.  Of course adherents to a religion believe, to one extent or another, that their holy book was divinely inspired, if not the exact word of god, or gods, or whatever.  But if you look at it from the outside, it does pose an interesting question -- and not one that is as easily answered for most religions as it is for Christianity, for which the history of the documents in question, and how decisions were made about which texts to incorporate into the Bible and which to exclude, are somewhat better known.  (See this page for a good overview of how the biblical canon was put together.)

All of this comes up because yesterday I stumbled on a claim by a guy named Marshall Vian Summers to have a "New Message from God."  It showed up on Reddit, and in fact has its own subreddit that I saw because it got cross posted to r/Atheism.  This new message was, Summers says, received over a thirty-year period from god himself, and "is not based on any existing religious tradition or spiritual teaching."  (You can see a summary and excerpts on Summers' website here.)

On July 1 and 2 Summers is having an "event" in Boulder, Colorado to proclaim his new message (which apparently hinges on the idea that the Divine Deity wants to "end our isolation" and allow us to interact with our alien brothers and sisters on other planets).  His candidate for the next generation Holy Scripture runs to over 9,000 pages, and will be available for purchase on July 15.

Being a writer myself, I can tell you that to write 9,000 pages, no matter what the content, is no mean feat even if you are divinely inspired.  So whatever else you can say about the guy, you have to admire his dedication.

Anyhow, I read a bit of what's on his website, and most of it sounds like pretty ordinary stuff.  (One passage goes, "But who can recognize the Messenger?  He appears to be very average. He is not sensational looking.  He does not hold a great position in the world.  He will disappear into the masses of people.  He will walk amongst them.  No one will recognize him, except perhaps for those who have been struck by the Revelation.")  There certainly wasn't anything there that struck me as being of divine origin, but then, I suppose that's to be expected.  What I wonder, however, is what other folks -- people who are, perhaps, more receptive to persuasion on the topic of religion than I am -- will make of Summers' writing.  After all, all current holy writings started this way; with some person or group of people writing a bunch of stuff down, and then saying, "Look, I have this book I wrote, except it wasn't really me that thought it up, I was just taking dictation from god!  It's really great!" 

It's always been a matter of curiosity to me why people gravitate toward certain belief systems, beyond ones into which they were born (the vast majority of people, after all, belong to the same religion as their parents and community members -- making geography a far stronger driver of belief than any perception of the inherent truth of a religion).  But new ideas do come along, and (as I said) every religion was new at some point.  What happens in a person's mind that makes them read something, or hear someone speak, and think, "This is it?"

Anyhow, I must say, Summers isn't doing it for me, not that anyone would probably expect that he would.  It'll be interesting to see how people react to his "event" and book release in July -- if he is hailed as the latest prophet of The Truth, or if -- as happens to most self-proclaimed Mouthpieces of God -- he, and his 9,160 page Holy Scripture, will simply vanish back into obscurity.

Living on light

When is a claim so bizarre that it deserves to be dismissed out of hand?

The fair answer is "never."  If we were to use a "common sense about how the world works" approach to decide what claims don't even merit an experiment, scientists would probably never have discovered quantum entanglement (for example).  Still, I think there are times when laws of science have been so well established, have been verified in such a myriad of ways, that anyone who says they've discovered an exception probably deserves nothing more than a dismissive laugh.  (This probably explains why the United States Patent Office will no longer even read submissions for designs for perpetual motion machines.)

All of which brings us to a 65 year old spiritualist named "Naveena" who claims she is living on nothing but light for nourishment.

Naveena does drink water, tea, and (most importantly) coffee, because let's face it; you just can't get that warm morning buzz from gulping down rays of sunlight.

She's not the first to make such a claim.  There's an Indian yogi named Prahlad Jani who claims he hasn't eaten or drunk anything in seventy years.  He allows himself to "dip in water" and sometimes "gargle," but he doesn't swallow.  Ever.  Another, who calls herself "Jasmuheen" but whose legal name is Ellen Greve, is an Australian who wrote a book called Pranic Nourishment: Living on Light.  Jasmuheen participated in a test of her claims, which had to be discontinued after 48 hours because she was on the verge of going into shock from dehydration.  About four of her followers who died, she denies all responsibility, and in fact said about one, "(Lani) Morris was not coming from a place of integrity and did not have the right motivation."

So now Naveena is going to try the same thing.  Maybe her "motivation and integrity" are better.

"As early as 1910 Richard Steiner, scientist and philosopher, proclaimed that 'Matter is Condensed Light.'  Breatharians, Sun-gazers and Yogis have claimed the capacity to 'Live On Light' for centuries but without hard evidence their claims have been dismissed and ridiculed," Naveena said in a press release last week.

Yes, well, Steiner may have said that, but basically, he's wrong.  We now have this thing that explains the properties of matter and energy, and how they interact.  It's called "physics."  Recommended that you take a course or two in it.

Of course, she admits that things might not work out for her.

"Since death is what normally occurs when a person does not eat food, she warns people not to try this," her press release stated.  "It might be untrue or it might be that there are certain criteria needed in terms of physical, mental and spiritual readiness."

And that's just it, isn't it?  If you can fall back on blaming the practitioner for the failure -- as Jasmuheen did with the death of Lani Morris -- you don't have to admit that the whole claim is a sham.  As far as Prahlad Jani, I'd bet that he's simply lying.  There are organisms that can survive on light -- they're called plants.  Animals like us, on the other hand, don't get by so well unless we're allowed to nosh every so often.  So unless Jani et al. can show me that their cells contain functional chloroplasts, I'm not buying it.  (Here's the Skeptic's Dictionary's take on Jani, which outright calls him a fraud.)

Still, I guess Naveena has the right idea.  At least she's willing to participate in a test.  She's got a YouTube channel, from which she is broadcasting updates.  The problem is, given the extraordinary claim we've got here, just periodic film clips documenting her progress aren't going to be enough to convince me, and (I suspect) most people; if what Naveena is doing is real, I'd want some round-the-clock footage, that she had no way of controlling, that would assure me that she wasn't periodically sneaking out for a cheeseburger.

So that's today's dip in the deep end of the pool (just immerse your toes!  No ingesting the water!).  My guess is that one of two things will happen, in Naveena's case; (1) she'll discontinue her experiment, voluntarily, at the advice of her doctor; or (2) she'll be exposed as a hoaxer.  Either way, the "breatharians" and their "living on prana and light" will remain a fringe claim, meriting nothing but a shrug and the comment, "sorry, the world doesn't work that way."