Room for exploration

I've discussed the Fermi Paradox here at Skeptophilia before -- and the cheerful idea of the Great Filter as the reason why we haven't heard from alien life.  As I explained in a post last month, the explanation boils down to three possibilities, nicknamed the "Three Fs."

We're first, we're fortunate, or we're fucked.

Being an aficionado of all things extraterrestrial, that has never sat well with me.  The idea that we might be all alone in the universe -- for any of the three Fs -- is just not a happy answer.  Yes, I know, I always say that the universe is under no obligation to act in such a way as to make me happy.

But still.  C'mon... Vulcans?  Time Lords?  Ewoks?  G'gugvuntts and Vl'hurgs?  There's got to be something cool out there.  With luck, lots of cool things.  The Dentrassi, Quantum Weather Butterflies, Andorians, the Vashta Nerada...

Okay, maybe not the Vashta Nerada.  But my point stands.

The Andromeda Galaxy [Image licensed under the Creative Commons Adam Evans, Andromeda Galaxy (with h-alpha), CC BY 2.0]

So I was considerably cheered yesterday when I ran into a study out of Pennsylvania State University that attempted to estimate what fraction of the universe we actually have surveyed in any kind of thorough fashion.  The authors, Jason Wright, Shubham Kanodia, and Emily G. Lubar, write:

Many articulations of the Fermi Paradox have as a premise, implicitly or explicitly, that humanity has searched for signs of extraterrestrial radio transmissions and concluded that there are few or no obvious ones to be found.  Tarter et al. (2010) and others have argued strongly to the contrary: bright and obvious radio beacons might be quite common in the sky, but we would not know it yet because our search completeness to date is so low, akin to having searched a drinking glass's worth of seawater for evidence of fish in all of Earth's oceans.  Here, we develop the metaphor of the multidimensional "Cosmic Haystack" through which SETI hunts for alien "needles" into a quantitative, eight-dimensional model and perform an analytic integral to compute the fraction of this haystack that several large radio SETI programs have collectively examined.  Although this model haystack has many qualitative differences from the Tarter et al. (2010) haystack, we conclude that the fraction of it searched to date is also very small: similar to the ratio of the volume of a large hot tub or small swimming pool to that of the Earth's oceans.  With this article we provide a Python script to calculate haystack volumes for future searches and for similar haystacks with different boundaries.  We hope this formalism will aid in the development of a common parameter space for the computation of upper limits and completeness fractions of search programs for radio and other technosignatures.

The actual analogy Wright and his colleagues used is that saying our current surveys show there's no intelligent life in the universe (except for here, which itself seems debatable some days) is comparable to surveying 7,700 liters of seawater out of the total 1.335 billion trillion liters in the world's oceans.

So basing a firm conclusion on this amount of data is kind of ridiculous.  There could be intelligent alien species out there yelling, "Hey!  Earthlings!  Over here!  We're over here!", and all we would have to do is have our radio telescopes pointed a couple of degrees off, or tuned to a different wavelength, and we'd never know it.

Which is pretty cool.  Given the fact that my all-time favorite movie is Contact, I'm hoping like hell that people don't read Wright et al.'s paper and conclude we should give up SETI because it's hopeless to make a thorough survey.  When I think about what poor Ellie Arroway went through trying to convince her fellow scientists that her research was valid and deserved funding... yecch.  And if anything, the current attitudes of the government toward pure research are, if anything, worse than those depicted in the movie.

But despite all that, it's awe-inspiring to know we've got so much room to explore.  Basically... the entire universe.  So my dream when I was a kid, sitting out in my parents' yard with my little telescope, that as I looked at the stars there was some little alien boy in his parents' yard looking back at me through his telescope, may one day prove to be within hailing distance of reality.

********************************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is a fun one -- Hugh Ross Williamson's Historical Enigmas.  Williamson takes some of the most baffling unsolved mysteries from British history -- the Princes in the Tower, the identity of Perkin Warbeck, the Man in the Iron Mask, the murder of Amy Robsart -- and applies the tools of logic and scholarship to an analysis of the primary documents, without descending into empty speculation.  The result is an engaging read about some of the most perplexing events that England ever saw.

[If you purchase the book from Amazon using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to supporting Skeptophilia!]

Slap shot

Every time I find what I think must be the stupidest possible alt-med quack "cure," the alt-med crowd says, "Hold my beer."

We've looked at fire cupping.  We've considered quantum downloadable medicines.  We've investigated homeopathic water, bee sting acupuncture, and "rectal insufflation" (also known as blowing ozone gas up your ass).

But this one is the odds-on winner for the 2018 "How Gullible Can You Get?" Award: slapping therapy.

The idea here, which comes out of Traditional Chinese Medicine, is that if you're sick, the flow of chi through your meridians is stuck, and what you need is to jar it loose, similar to when you smack the bottom of a ketchup bottle to get the last bit out.

But I'm not talking about a few little love-taps, here.  This is one patient following a "treatment:"

The link I included above, which is to Frank van der Kooy's outstanding blog about scientific charlatans and medical quackery, describes a darker side of this kind of bullshit.  A six-year-old Australian boy with type-one diabetes, Aidan Fenton, was brought by his parents to a "self-healing course" run by Hongchi Xiao, and subjected to slapping therapy.  Xiao charged each participant $1,800, smacked their bare skin, and told them they could not receive ordinary medications during the "therapy" because it would "interfere with the flow of chi."

The boy, deprived of his insulin, went into hyperglycemic shock.  He was rushed to a hospital, but could not be revived.

The only positive note is that Xiao is being charged in the boy's death, and it's possible charges of negligence will be brought against the parents as well.

Let me cut to the chase, here.  There is absolutely no rigorous evidence of "chi" and "meridians," much less that something like a slap could change it somehow with beneficial results for your health.  If you don't take my word for it -- and you shouldn't, as I'm a layperson at best with respect to medical claims -- take a look at this article from way back in 1995 by Peter Huston, who has researched Traditional Chinese Medicine extensively.  It's fair and thoughtful -- and comes to the inevitable conclusion that there is no evidence for it whatsoever.  (This takedown of TCM in The Skeptic's Dictionary is equally unequivocal, and not nearly so gentle.)

So once again, we're faced with the objection of "what's the harm?" having a very specific answer.  The principle of caveat emptor should apply -- if someone who is ill wants to try a crackpot cure, that's their choice -- but when a child's life is at risk, the moral calculus changes.  In this case, it's criminal negligence at the very least.  And quacks like Hongchi Xiao need to be put out of the way for a long, long time.

********************************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is a fun one -- Hugh Ross Williamson's Historical Enigmas.  Williamson takes some of the most baffling unsolved mysteries from British history -- the Princes in the Tower, the identity of Perkin Warbeck, the Man in the Iron Mask, the murder of Amy Robsart -- and applies the tools of logic and scholarship to an analysis of the primary documents, without descending into empty speculation.  The result is an engaging read about some of the most perplexing events that England ever saw.

[If you purchase the book from Amazon using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to supporting Skeptophilia!]

Polar opposites

A new study out of Michigan State University has confirmed what a lot of us sensed all along: the polarization between the Right and the Left in the United States is about as bad as it's ever been.

Zachary P. Neal, a professor of psychology at MSU, did a statistical analysis of bill sponsorship and support from members of Congress, from the 1970s to the present:

Claims that the United States Congress is (becoming more) polarized are widespread, but what is polarization?  In this paper, I draw on notions of intergroup relations to distinguish two forms.  Weak polarization occurs when relations between the polarized groups are merely absent, while strong polarization occurs when the relations between the polarized groups are negative.  I apply the Stochastic Degree Sequence Model to data on bill co-sponsorship in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, from 1973 (93rd session) to 2016 (114th session) to infer a series of signed networks of political relationships among legislators, which I then use to answer two research questions.  First, can the widely reported finding of increasing weak polarization in the U.S. Congress be replicated when using a statistical model to make inferences about when positive political relations exist?  Second, is the (increasing) polarization observed in the U.S. Congress only weak polarization, or is it strong polarization?  I find that both chambers exhibit both weak and strong polarization, that both forms are increasing, and that they are structured by political party affiliation.  However, I also find these trends are unrelated to which party holds the majority in a chamber.

The last sentence is, I think, the most important.  It's easy for liberals to point fingers at conservatives (and vice versa) and lay the entire blame for polarization at the opposition's feet.  The truth, predictably, is more complex than that.  "In truth," Neal said, in a press release from MSU, "the only thing that is bipartisan in Congress is the trend toward greater polarization."

These results are discouraging, to say the least.  "What I’ve found is that polarization has been steadily getting worse since the early 1970s," Neal said.  "Today, we’ve hit the ceiling on polarization.  At these levels, it will be difficult to make any progress on social or economic policies...  We’re seeing lots of animosity in politics.  Although bills do occasionally get passed, they don’t stick around long enough, or never get fully implemented, and therefore don’t have lasting impact.  This kind of partisanship means that our democracy has reached a kind of stalemate."

[Image is in the Public Domain]

Neal doesn't look at cause (except the fact that the blame can't clearly be assigned to one party).  But I wonder how much of this is exacerbated by the rise of talk radio and partisan news channels.  When the goal becomes getting viewers (or listeners, or clicks), not accuracy and fairness, there's an incentive to play to people's basest motives -- fear, tribalism, resentment, retribution.  If you look at the rhetoric from people like Tucker Carlson (on the Right) and Ted Rall (on the Left) you'll find they do business with the same currency -- whipping up the righteous indignation of the people who already agreed with them.  It no longer depends on looking at the evidence in a dispassionate fashion, it has become instead a contest to see who can be the most outrageous and incendiary.

That, after all, keeps people watching, listening, and clicking, which pays sponsors -- who pay the commentators.

Until there's more of an incentive to report and analyze the news fairly, it's only going to get worse, as each party does what it takes to stay in power, which means keeping the voters convinced that if they don't vote the party line, BAD STUFF WILL HAPPEN.  The result?  We've tended to elect partisan hacks who don't care about anything but their own corporate sponsors, and the whole thing comes full circle.

"The solution could be electing more centrists to Congress," Neal said.  "But that’ll be tough because centrists often don’t appeal to American voters."

So the sad truth is that we're probably in for more of the same, and things getting worse before they get better.  I can only hope that at some point, people realize that the members of the opposition party are their neighbors, coworkers, teachers in their schools, members of their churches, and they can realize that disagreement has a human face.  That, I think, is the only way this will ever change.

********************************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is a fun one -- Hugh Ross Williamson's Historical Enigmas.  Williamson takes some of the most baffling unsolved mysteries from British history -- the Princes in the Tower, the identity of Perkin Warbeck, the Man in the Iron Mask, the murder of Amy Robsart -- and applies the tools of logic and scholarship to an analysis of the primary documents, without descending into empty speculation.  The result is an engaging read about some of the most perplexing events that England ever saw.

[If you purchase the book from Amazon using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to supporting Skeptophilia!]

Brain linkage

New from the "Should I Be Scared?" department, we have: the first experimental proof of a successful brain-to-brain interface.

To be sure, the information passed through it was rather rudimentary.  Two "senders" played a game of Tetris, and passed along to a "receiver" the information about whether a particular block had to be rotated or not in order to fit in the grid.  The receiver then recorded what the decision was -- and got it right with an accuracy of 81%.  Furthermore, in a second round where the receiver was given information about the accuracy of their choices, the researchers tried to muddy things up by injecting noise into the transmission from one of the senders.  The result?  The receiver was able to figure out which one of the senders to pay attention to -- which one had the highest accuracy -- and ignore the input from the channel with the noise.

The researchers -- Linxing Jiang, Andrea Stocco, Darby M. Losey, Justin A. Abernethy, Chantel S. Prat, and Rajesh P. N. Rao, of the University of Washington and Carnegie Mellon University -- are unequivocal about where this could lead.  "Our results," they write, "raise the possibility of future brain-to-brain interfaces that enable cooperative problem solving by humans using a 'social network' of connected brains."

Which certainly seems likely.  What worries me, however, is where else it could lead.  The technology is surely going to do nothing but improve, the interfaces working better and faster and more accurately.  At what point would it be possible to use such an interface to read a person's thoughts without their will?  To inject a directive, something like a post-hypnotic suggestion, into their brains?  To suppress or erase a memory of something you would prefer they didn't remember?

Of course, there are a lot of good directions we could go.  I've always thought I'd love to have a Matrix-style plug in the back of my head that would allow me to download information.  

Think of how cool that would be!  Even if (for example) you'd still have to learn the grammatical rules and semantic nuances of a language, you could simply input the dictionary into your brain and you'd never have to memorize the vocabulary (which has always been the sticking point for me, linguistics-wise).  And Jiang et al.'s optimistic prediction of using it as a tool for collaborative problem solving is kind of awesome as well.

But you have to admit, we humans don't exactly have a sterling track record of using scientific discoveries for positive purposes.  Our general approach has usually been "personal gain first, power second" -- and only as an afterthought, "Oh, yeah, we could also use this to benefit humanity."  

The problem is, once the cat's out of the bag, you can't exactly stuff it back inside.  As soon as someone shows proof of concept -- which Jiang et al. clearly have -- the next step will inevitably be refinement.  It's like the line from Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

I'm not saying we should halt this kind of research, but some caution seems advisable, especially since we're crossing the line into infringement on that most sacred and private realm -- one's own mind.  So I would urge anyone involved in this endeavor to move slowly, and take care to assure as best we can that this discovery won't be used as one more assault on free thought.

********************************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is a fun one -- Hugh Ross Williamson's Historical Enigmas.  Williamson takes some of the most baffling unsolved mysteries from British history -- the Princes in the Tower, the identity of Perkin Warbeck, the Man in the Iron Mask, the murder of Amy Robsart -- and applies the tools of logic and scholarship to an analysis of the primary documents, without descending into empty speculation.  The result is an engaging read about some of the most perplexing events that England ever saw.

[If you purchase the book from Amazon using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to supporting Skeptophilia!]

Nostalgia

I was talking with a friend this past weekend, and the subject of children's television came up.

"It all sucks," he lamented.  "There's nothing around any more that's the quality of what we had when we were growing up."

I certainly see what he was talking about.  In my opinion, Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck are up there in the top ten funniest comedy writing ever (not to mention brilliant animation, incredible voice-overs, and impeccable comic timing).

Classic episodes like "Duck Amuck" and "The Rabbit of Seville" and "Bully for Bugs" still make me howl with laughter even though I've seen them dozens of times.

Another winner was Bullwinkle, which combined completely offbeat, goofy humor with sharp political satire. 

The problem is, this kind of nostalgia only works if you've got a really selective memory.  There were some truly horrid children's shows when I was growing up.  One that sticks in my memory, because it not only was terrible but was, to put it bluntly, really fucking weird, was H. R. Pufnstuf.

If you've never seen this show, it's the adventures of an odious little twerp named Jimmy who has a magic talking flute, and somehow ends up in a land where the mayor is a green dinosaur with a Tennessee accent, and most of the characters are wearing full-body costumes supposed to be people, animals, or... pieces of furniture.  Oh, yeah, and the villain -- I shit you not -- is named "Witchiepoo."  It also had a really creepy fake laugh-track, so you knew when something funny had happened, because heaven knows there was no other way to tell.  To get a sense of the overall effect, imagine what would have happened if J. R. R. Tolkien wrote a script for Barney and Friends while tripping on acid.

Don't believe me?  Take a look at this little excerpt:

The whole thing was dreamed up by Sid and Marty Kroft, who also came up with The Banana Splits, which was similar not only in its frenetic, seizure-inducing pacing, but in its psychedelic content:

So I'm not quite buying the "things were so much better back then" argument.  We naturally tend to look at our own past in a sentimental fashion, so a lot of our memories are colored by that.  (Although I do wonder how much of my own sense that the world is a weird and chaotic place was generated by watching shows like H. R. Pufnstuf when I was eight years old.)

On a more serious note, isn't this the same thing that drives the whole MAGA phenomenon?  "Make America Great Again," by returning to... when?  When was America so great that we'd jump in a time machine and head back there?  The prosperous Fifties -- when minorities could be legally denied their rights as citizens?  The Roaring Twenties -- with its class stratification and reckless economic policy that led directly to the Great Depression?

Even earlier?  No matter where you look, it was all a mixed bag -- as it is now.  There has never been a time that was unalloyed good, and there have been plenty of times in the past when it has been significantly worse than it is now.  Consider, for example, what it was like for your typical feudal peasant.  When we think of medieval times, we tend to picture lords and ladies in fancy dress dancing the galliard, but fail to consider that this represented maybe five percent of the population -- and the other ninety-five percent spent their lives in backbreaking labor and lived in squalor.

So if I was offered a one-way trip in a time machine, I'd stay put, thank you very much.  If I were forced to choose, my criteria would be practical ones -- some time after the invention of indoor plumbing and general anesthesia.  Call me a stick in the mud, but I'm just fine right here.

And now, I need to take advantage of another wonderful modern invention, which is recorded music. Because if I don't do something to get that stupid damn "Oranges Poranges" song out of my head, I'm going to lose my marbles.

********************************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is a fun one -- Hugh Ross Williamson's Historical Enigmas.  Williamson takes some of the most baffling unsolved mysteries from British history -- the Princes in the Tower, the identity of Perkin Warbeck, the Man in the Iron Mask, the murder of Amy Robsart -- and applies the tools of logic and scholarship to an analysis of the primary documents, without descending into empty speculation.  The result is an engaging read about some of the most perplexing events that England ever saw.

[If you purchase the book from Amazon using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to supporting Skeptophilia!]

Quote miners

Quote mining is a particularly maddening way of misrepresenting a person's position.

This practice involves sifting through the writings of an opponent or opponents, and lifting quotes that, taken out of context, sound like they support the opposite viewpoint.  Here's a famous example, from Ken Ham's site Answers in Genesis, wherein he presents the following quote from Darwin's Origin of Species:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Sounds like old Charlie was doubting his own theory to the point of throwing his hands up in despair, doesn't it?  But only if you stop there, and don't read the very next paragraph:

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist… then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

Much in the same vein, consider the crowing over a new analysis of paleontological evidence I saw on more than one anti-evolution website, accompanied by comments like "the evolutionists admit there's no way evolution can be correct!"  Here's the excerpted quotes:

How do the large-scale patterns we observe in evolution arise?  A new paper in the journal Evolution by researchers at Uppsala University and University of Leeds argues that many of them are a type of statistical artefact caused by our unavoidably recent viewpoint looking back into the past.  As a result, it might not be possible to draw any conclusions about what caused the enormous changes in diversity we see through time...   Because the resulting patterns are an inevitable feature of the sorts of groups available for us to study, Budd and Mann argue, it follows that we cannot perceive any particular cause of them: they simply arise from statistical fluctuation.

Well, one of the sites made the mistake of linking to the actual press release about the study, on Science Daily, so I went and read it for myself.   Needless to say, there's nothing about the study that calls into question evolutionary theory; what it's saying is that using available fossil evidence to estimate changes in the rate of evolution may not be accurate.

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Ghedoghedo, Meganeura fossil, CC BY-SA 3.0]

But that's not how it's being cast.  The creationists are portraying this as the evolutionists waving a white flag and admitting that they've been wrong all along.  Which is disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst.

Quote mining -- and its statistical close cousin, cherry-picking -- smack of desperation, don't they?  It's almost as if they realize, deep down, that they have no legitimate, logical, evidence-based argument for their own stance, so they have to fall back on misrepresenting the opposing view.

The most frustrating part, though, is how confirmation bias enters into this.  Because my sense is that the people who are true believers never question whether the way the research is being portrayed is accurate.  I'd like to know how many of them, even when provided with a link, actually went and read the press release (much less the original, peer-reviewed paper).

I guess if you start out from the stance that your conclusion is true no matter what, you don't need to do any research, or (heaven forfend) reconsider your claim.

So that was my exercise in futility for the day.  And really, what Budd and Mann are doing is how science progresses; by people taking nothing for granted, questioning our base assumptions, asking the hard and controversial questions, and -- this is the most important part -- going where the evidence demands.

Which is the only honest way to approach understanding.

*****************************

This week's recommendation is a classic.

When I was a junior in college, I took a class called Seminar, which had a new focus/topic each semester.  That semester's course was a survey of the Book Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter.  Hofstadter does a masterful job of tying together three disparate realms -- number theory, the art of M. C. Escher, and the contrapuntal music of J. S. Bach.

It makes for a fascinating journey.  I'll warn you that the sections in the last third of the book that are about number theory and the work of mathematician Kurt Gödel get to be some rough going, and despite my pretty solid background in math, I found them a struggle to understand in places.  But the difficulties are well worth it.  Pick up a copy of what my classmates and I came to refer to lovingly as GEB, and fasten your seatbelt for a hell of a ride.

[If you purchase the book from Amazon using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to supporting Skeptophilia!]

DNA energy field laser frequency vibrations!

Every once in a while I'll run across a claim that is so wildly ridiculous that I question, for a time, if it is meant as a joke.  Sadly, the majority of them aren't.  As hard as it is for me to believe, given that we currently live in the most scientifically and technologically advanced society that the Earth has ever seen, there are a lot of people who believe stuff that is unrefined bullshit.

I ran into an example a few days ago, when a friend and loyal reader of Skeptophilia sent me an article entitled "Scientists Prove DNA Can Be Reprogrammed By Words And Frequencies," by Grazyna Fosar and Franz Bludorf.  The word "frequency" always acts like a red flag to me, as it is for some reason a word woo-woos like a lot, and throw about in absurd ways despite its having a rigid, and not especially thrilling, definition in the scientific world (three others are "energy," "vibration," and "field").  So I read the article, and found ample fodder for faceplanting right in the first paragraph, to wit:

THE HUMAN DNA IS A BIOLOGICAL INTERNET and superior in many aspects to the artificial one.  Russian scientific research directly or indirectly explains phenomena such as clairvoyance, intuition, spontaneous and remote acts of healing, self healing, affirmation techniques, unusual light/auras around people (namely spiritual masters), mind’s influence on weather patterns and much more.  In addition, there is evidence for a whole new type of medicine in which DNA can be influenced and reprogrammed by words and frequencies WITHOUT cutting out and replacing single genes.

So -- DNA causes auras and clairvoyance, not to mention "weather patterns." And here I thought weather patterns were caused by air masses moving around, and all that sort of thing.

But what do I know?

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons gerlos (original picture), modification: Mielon, Thunderstorm 003, CC BY-SA 2.0]

In any case, the authors are far from done:

The Russian biophysicist and molecular biologist Pjotr Garjajev and his colleagues also explored the vibrational behavior of the DNA...  The bottom line was: “Living chromosomes function just like solitonic/holographic computers using the endogenous DNA laser radiation.”  This means that they managed for example to modulate certain frequency patterns onto a laser ray and with it influenced the DNA frequency and thus the genetic information itself. Since the basic structure of DNA-alkaline pairs and of language (as explained earlier) are of the same structure, no DNA decoding is necessary.

Ooh, there we are -- "vibration!" That's two down, two to go.  My favorite part of this is that "no DNA decoding is necessary."  You don't have to know anything about how DNA actually works, apparently, to experience "endogenous DNA laser radiation."  Maybe it'll grant you superpowers, you think?  If so, I want to be able to fly.  You know, big feathery wings coming from my shoulders.  It'll make fitting into shirts tricky, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

But let's not get sidetracked, here.  Back to the article:

One can simply use words and sentences of the human language!  This, too, was experimentally proven!  Living DNA substance (in living tissue, not in vitro) will always react to language-modulated laser rays and even to radio waves, if the proper frequencies are being used...  Esoteric and spiritual teachers have known for ages that our body is programmable by language, words and thought.  This has now been scientifically proven and explained.  Of course the frequency has to be correct.  And this is why not everybody is equally successful or can do it with always the same strength.  The individual person must work on the inner processes and maturity in order to establish a conscious communication with the DNA.  The Russian researchers work on a method that is not dependent on these factors but will ALWAYS work, provided one uses the correct frequency.

"The human language" reprograms DNA?  Hmm.  I wonder if it has to be a specific language?   Russian, given that that's what the "scientist" who did this "research" speaks?   Would English do?   How about Sanskrit?  Or Swahili?  What about Pig Latin?  "This is Ordon-gay attempting to eprogram-ray your NA-Day."

But that's not all your DNA can do, when the proper "frequency" is achieved:

The Russian scientists also found out that our DNA can cause disturbing patterns in the vacuum, thus producing magnetized wormholes!  Wormholes are the microscopic equivalents of the so-called Einstein-Rosen bridges in the vicinity of black holes (left by burned-out stars).  These are tunnel connections between entirely different areas in the universe through which information can be transmitted outside of space and time.  The DNA attracts these bits of information and passes them on to our consciousness.  This process of hyper communication is most effective in a state of relaxation.  Stress, worries or a hyperactive intellect prevent successful hyper communication or the information will be totally distorted and useless.

I've been kind of stressed lately, which is probably why there have been no wormholes forming in my vicinity.

When hyper communication occurs, one can observe in the DNA as well as in the human being special phenomena.  The Russian scientists irradiated DNA samples with laser light.  On screen a typical wave pattern was formed.  When they removed the DNA sample, the wave pattern did not disappear, it remained.  Many control experiments showed that the pattern still came from the removed sample, whose energy field apparently remained by itself.  This effect is now called phantom DNA effect.  It is surmised that energy from outside of space and time still flows through the activated wormholes after the DNA was removed.

Yay! "Energy" AND "field!" We've scored four for four with this one! At this point, my DNA was tired of hypercommunicating at high frequencies and my wave frequency patterns felt like they needed a double scotch, so I pretty much stopped reading, although I did notice further along that the article mentioned the Schumann resonance, Princess Diana's funeral, remote sensing, UFOs, "troubled children," and anti-gravity.  So they've got their bases pretty well covered, woo-woo-wise.

And yes, this article appears to be entirely serious.  As do the comments, the first one of which was, "This appears to be how Jesus performed miracles.  The power of God is within us!" 

 Because Jesus had lasers, and all.

I find all of this simultaneously hilarious and discouraging.  Hilarious because the claims are so bafflingly stupid that I can't help but laugh when I read them; discouraging because there is, apparently, a large group of people who actually find them plausible.  As a science teacher, we try to provide what Carl Sagan calls "a candle in the dark" -- a way of seeing the world that gets past superstition and credulity, and bases our knowledge instead on evidence, logic, and rationality.  And to be sure, we've come a long way since the Dark Ages, when people believed that there were only four elements (earth, air, fire, and water) and frogs were spontaneously created from muddy water.   When I read stuff like this, however, it makes me realize how far we still have to go.

*****************************

This week's recommendation is a classic.

When I was a junior in college, I took a class called Seminar, which had a new focus/topic each semester.  That semester's course was a survey of the Book Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter.  Hofstadter does a masterful job of tying together three disparate realms -- number theory, the art of M. C. Escher, and the contrapuntal music of J. S. Bach.

It makes for a fascinating journey.  I'll warn you that the sections in the last third of the book that are about number theory and the work of mathematician Kurt Gödel get to be some rough going, and despite my pretty solid background in math, I found them a struggle to understand in places.  But the difficulties are well worth it.  Pick up a copy of what my classmates and I came to refer to lovingly as GEB, and fasten your seatbelt for a hell of a ride.

[If you purchase the book from Amazon using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to supporting Skeptophilia!]