Skeptophilia (skep-to-fil-i-a) (n.) - the love of logical thought, skepticism, and thinking critically. Being an exploration of the applications of skeptical thinking to the world at large, with periodic excursions into linguistics, music, politics, cryptozoology, and why people keep seeing the face of Jesus on grilled cheese sandwiches.

Monday, October 7, 2019

Pulled from the fires

Note bene: If you haven't read Umberto Eco's brilliant medieval murder mystery The Name of the Rose and are planning to, be aware that the next couple of paragraphs contain spoilers.  If you'd like to read the book and don't want to know the solution, skip down to the stars!

One of the most devastating scenes in The Name of the Rose happens right near the end, when the main characters, the Sherlock-Holmes-like Brother William of Baskerville and his friend and pupil, Brother Adso of Melk, confront the murderous old religious nutter Brother Jorge of Burgos in the place that is the center of all the action -- the labyrinthine Library at the top of the Aedificium of the (unnamed) monastery where the story takes place.  The Library was built not to collect and disperse knowledge but to hide it; Librarian after Librarian voraciously hoarded manuscripts of all sorts but always wanted to be in control of who got to read what, feeling that some books were not fit reading material for anyone but the most holy.

Brother Jorge himself was the Librarian before he had to resign the position because of his failing eyesight, but still kept a tight rein over who got to read what, acting through his proxy (and the nominal Librarian after Jorge retired), Brother Malachi of Hildesheim.  And when Jorge discovered that there was a copy of a particular manuscript in the Library -- the long-lost second volume of Aristotle's Poetics -- that implied that the main purpose of living was not prayer and self-mortification but laughter and joy, he was willing to go to any length to stop people from finding out about it and (in his mind) destroying the solemn foundation of the Church itself.  In the end, he sets fire to the Library, destroying all of the thousands of irreplaceable manuscripts (and himself in the process) rather than let Brother William get his hands on the copy and make others aware of its existence.

All through the book, the Library was built up to mythic proportions.  Eco recreates in us a sense of what it must have been like to witness the burning of the Great Library of Alexandria, an event that it pains me to think about even now.  But now, some scientists have found a way to salvage at least some manuscripts thought lost to fire forever.

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

Everyone's familiar with the devastation Mount Vesuvius wrought on the cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum on the 29th of August in the year 79 C.E.  If you haven't already done so, you should watch this amazing, nine-minute-long animation that puts you right in the middle of the eruption -- something that makes me very, very thankful I'm in a tectonically benign part of the world.

The main explosion of the volcano occurred at about one o'clock in the afternoon (we have a good account of the details from the historian Pliny the Younger, who witnessed the cataclysm and survived, and his uncle Pliny the Elder -- who wasn't so lucky).  The blowout vaporized a good chunk of the top of the mountain and triggered a pyroclastic surge that geologists estimate was around 300 C and traveling at over 100 kilometers an hour.  Anyone who had survived the previous rains of ash and rock that morning was flash-fried, and then covered up by 25 meters of volcanic ash deposited in the six hours that followed.

Some artifacts survived.  Buildings (although damaged by the pyroclastic flow and the concomitant earthquakes) were found preserved when excavations began in earnest in the eighteenth century.  Tiles and paintings were remarkably unscathed, and there are pieces of art from the ruined city that look like they were created yesterday.  Rather horrifyingly, there are casts and molds of a good many of the victims, who were cooked by the blast, encased in ash, and then once their bodies decayed, the cavity was filled with minerals seeping in, leaving bizarre human shapes still in the contorted positions where they fell.

Anything else made of organic matter, though, was pretty well incinerated.  Any bits of charred wood that survived rotted away within a few years after the eruption.  Even less likely to survive were parchments -- written records -- although the carbonized remains of almost two thousand scrolls were found when the city of Herculaneum was excavated.

Tantalizing to think there still could be readable information there, to wonder what lost treasures of literature and history those blackened cylinders might be.  But there was no way to see if anything was still there other than ash, nor a way to unroll them and find out without having them crumble to powder...

... until now.

Brent Seales of the University of Kentucky, working with a team made up of Jens Dopke, Francoise Berard, Christy Chapman, Robert Atwood, and Thomas Connolley, has pioneered a technique that hinges on the fact that a lot of the inks used by the ancients had traces of lead and other heavy metals which are still present in the tracery of script on the burned fragments.  By taking the scrolls -- without unwrapping them and causing further damage -- and using a targeted beam of x-rays, scientists can see inside them and possibly piece together what the text actually said.

One of the scrolls charred by Vesuvius and recovered from Herculaneum

"A new historical work by Seneca the Elder was discovered among the unidentified Herculaneum papyri only last year, thus showing what uncontemplated rarities remain to be discovered there," said Dirk Obbink of the University of Oxford, who has worked with the team to train the algorithm to read the burned scrolls using parchments that have already been (at least partially) deciphered.  "It's my hope that the scrolls might even contain lost works, such as poems by Sappho or the treatise Mark Antony wrote on his own drunkenness.  I would very much like to be able to read that one."

As would a lot of us.  The idea that something thought lost forever might be restored is thrilling, and the work Seales's team is doing is groundbreaking.  Until we develop time travel and go back to save the manuscripts from the Library of Alexandria, it's our best chance to find new primary sources from the ancients -- something that historians, and bibliophiles like myself, have dreamed about for years.

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

I am not someone who generally buys things impulsively after seeing online ads, so the targeted ad software that seems sometimes to be listening to our conversations is mostly lost on me.  But when I saw an ad for the new book by physicist James Trefil and astronomer Michael Summers, Imagined Life, it took me about five seconds to hit "purchase."

The book is about exobiology -- the possibility of life outside of Earth.  Trefil and Summers look at the conditions and events that led to life here on the home planet (after all, the only test case we have), then extrapolate to consider what life elsewhere might be like.  They look not only at "Goldilocks" worlds like our own -- so-called because they're "juuuuust right" in terms of temperature -- but ice worlds, gas giants, water worlds, and even "rogue planets" that are roaming around in the darkness of space without orbiting a star.  As far as the possible life forms, they imagine "life like us," "life not like us," and "life that's really not like us," always being careful to stay within the known laws of physics and chemistry to keep our imaginations in check and retain a touchstone for what's possible.

It's brilliant reading, designed for anyone with an interest in science, science fiction, or simply looking up at the night sky with astonishment.  It doesn't require any particular background in science, so don't worry about getting lost in the technical details.  Their lucid and entertaining prose will keep you reading -- and puzzling over what strange creatures might be out there looking at us from their own home worlds and wondering if there's any life down there on that little green-and-blue planet orbiting the Sun.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]





Saturday, October 5, 2019

The cosmic net

A fascinating new piece of research by the astrophysicists is using information from twelve billion light years away to elucidate what happened 13.8 billion years ago, at the moment of the Big Bang -- they've found the long-hypothesized "cosmic filaments," streaks of (mostly) hydrogen that extend from galaxy to galaxy and cluster to cluster.  In a paper that appeared in Science this week, titled "Gas Filaments of the Cosmic Web Located Around Active Galaxies in a Protocluster," a team led by Michele Fumagalli of Durham University found hard evidence of yet another prediction of the Big Bang Theory: that random variations ("anisotropies") in the first fraction of a second of the universe led to clumps of matter connected by streamers, with huge voids in between.

The authors write:
Cosmological simulations predict that the Universe contains a network of intergalactic gas filaments, within which galaxies form and evolve.  However, the faintness of any emission from these filaments has limited tests of this prediction.  We report the detection of rest-frame ultraviolet Lyman-α radiation from multiple filaments extending more than one megaparsec between galaxies within the SSA22 protocluster at a redshift of 3.1.  Intense star formation and supermassive black-hole activity is occurring within the galaxies embedded in these structures, which are the likely sources of the elevated ionizing radiation powering the observed Lyman-α emission.  Our observations map the gas in filamentary structures of the type thought to fuel the growth of galaxies and black holes in massive protoclusters.
So very early on, the universe was a network of thin (well, thin on a cosmic scale, anyhow) filaments of matter, and where they crossed the matter density was high enough to trigger star, and eventually galaxy, formation.

The large-scale structure of the universe.  Each of those pale blue curves is made up of millions, possibly billions, of galaxies.  [Image is in the Public Domain, courtesy of NASA]

Almost against my will I was reminded of a rather captivating image from Buddhist philosophy called "Indra's Net."  I first ran into this when I was an undergraduate, and I and some friends took a class in which we were required to read Douglas Hofstadter's mindblowing chef d'oeuvre, entitled Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid.  This book, which combines charm, wit, music, art, and a confounding amount of high-level number theory, was a fascinating read, but there are large parts of it that -- although I was a reasonably good math student, and in fact minored in the subject -- went over my head so fast they didn't even ruffle my hair.

But the parts that I found accessible were brilliant, and he drew together a great many disciplines -- one of which was Zen Buddhism.  In that section, he described the great net that stretches across the universe as follows:
The Buddhist allegory of "Indra's Net" tells of an endless net of threads throughout the universe, the horizontal threads running through space, the vertical ones through time.  At every crossing of threads is an individual, and every individual is a crystal bead.  The great light of "Absolute Being" illuminates and penetrates every crystal bead; moreover, every crystal bead reflects not only the light from every other crystal in the net—but also every reflection of every reflection throughout the universe.
It's a cool metaphor for interconnectedness in whatever realm you like to apply it to, be it social interactions, ecological connections, the evolutionary tree of life, whatever.  But I always hesitate to bring this kind of thing up, because it's so tempting to take the metaphor as the reality -- the heart of the problem with books like Frijtof Capra's The Tao of Physics and Gary Zukav's The Dancing Wu-Li Masters, where the authors take a rather hand-waving explanation of quantum physics (about all you can do if you remove the math), draw some comparisons to Taoist and Buddhist philosophy, and forthwith conclude that the success of quantum physics as a model shows that Taoism and/or Buddhism is the real explanation for everything we see.

Confusing the model for the reality is a hazard on a lot of levels, and I had to watch that constantly when I was teaching.  I had a number of analogies I used -- the Krebs Cycle as a merry-go-round where two kids get on and two kids get off on every turn, active transport gateway proteins as revolving doors you have to pay to use, DNA as a universal recipe book.  I tried to keep the comparisons so silly that there was no way anyone would think they were real, but I still remember the student who started an essay, "So, antibodies are trash tags..."

But the comparison between the cosmic filaments crossing and generating galaxies at each intersection, and the magical Net of Indra spanning the cosmos with a reflecting jewel everywhere the threads cross, was just too pretty not to mention.  I hope it won't get in the way of your appreciation of the actual research, though, which is even more beautiful.  It's astonishing that sitting here, on this little spinning ball in the outer reaches of a quite ordinary galaxy, we've been able to learn about the structure of the universe from the very largest scales to the very smallest.  So whatever else you can say about human accomplishments, you have to admit that one is pretty impressive.

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

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is by the team of Mark Carwardine and the brilliant author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the late Douglas Adams.  Called Last Chance to See, it's about a round-the-world trip the two took to see the last populations of some of the world's most severely endangered animals, including the Rodrigues Fruit Bat, the Mountain Gorilla, the Aye-Aye, and the Komodo Dragon.  It's fascinating, entertaining, and sad, as Adams and Carwardine take an unflinching look at the devastation being wrought on the world's ecosystems by humans.

But it should be required reading for anyone interested in ecology, the environment, and the animal kingdom. Lucid, often funny, always eye-opening, Last Chance to See will give you a lens into the plight of some of the world's rarest species -- before they're gone forever.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]





Friday, October 4, 2019

Ignoring the unimportant

Before I get into the subject of today's post, I want all of you to watch this two-minute video, entitled "Whodunnit?"

*****

How many of you were successful?  I know I wasn't.  I've watched it since about a dozen times, usually in the context of my neuroscience class when we were studying perception, and even knowing what was going on I still didn't see it.  (Yes, I'm being deliberately oblique because there are probably some of you who haven't watched the video.  *stern glare*)

This comes up because of some recent research that appeared in Nature Communications about why it is we get tricked so easily, or (which amounts to the same thing) miss something happening right in front of our eyes.  In "Spatial Suppression Promotes Rapid Figure-Ground Segmentation of Moving Objects," a team made up of Duje Tadin, Woon Ju Park, Kevin C. Dieter, and Michael D. Melnick (of the University of Rochester) and Joseph S. Lappin and Randolph Blake (of Vanderbilt University) describe a fascinating experiment they conducted that shows how when we look at something, our brains are actively suppressing parts of it we've (subconsciously) decided are unimportant.

The authors write:
Segregation of objects from their backgrounds is one of vision’s most important tasks.  This essential step in visual processing, termed figure-ground segmentation, has fascinated neuroscientists and psychologists since the early days of Gestalt psychology.  Visual motion is an especially rich source of information for rapid, effective object segregation.  A stealthy animal cloaked by camouflage immediately loses its invisibility once it begins moving, just as does a friend you’re trying to spot, waving her arms amongst a bustling crowd at the arrival terminal of an airport.  While seemingly effortless, visual segregation of moving objects invokes a challenging problem that is ubiquitous across sensory and cognitive domains: balancing competing demands between processes that discriminate and those that integrate and generalize.  Figure-ground segmentation of moving objects, by definition, requires highlighting of local variations in velocity signals.  This, however, is in conflict with integrative processes necessitated by local motion signals that are often noisy and/or ambiguous.  Achieving an appropriate and adaptive balance between these two competing demands is a key requirement for efficient segregation of moving objects.
The most fascinating part of the research was that they found you can get better at doing this -- but only at the expense of getting worse at perceiving other things.  They tested people's ability to detect a small moving object against a moving background, and found most people were lousy at it.  After five weeks of training, though, they got better...

... but not because they'd gotten better at seeing the small moving object.  Tested by itself, that didn't change.  What changed was they got worse at seeing when the background was moving.  Their brains had decided the background's movement was unimportant, so they simply ignored it.

"In some sense, their brain discarded information it was able to process only five weeks ago," lead author Duje Tadin said in an interview in Quanta.  "Before attention gets to do its job, there’s already a lot of pruning of information.  For motion perception, that pruning has to happen automatically because it needs to be done very quickly."

The last thing a wildebeest ever ignores.  [Image licensed under the Creative Commons Nevit Dilmen, Lion Panthera leo in Tanzania 0670 Nevit, CC BY-SA 3.0]

All of this reinforces once again how generally inaccurate our sensory-integrative systems are.  Oh, they work well enough; they had to in order to be selected for evolutionarily.  But a gain of efficiency, and its subsequent gain in selective fitness, means ignoring as much (or more) than you're actually observing.  Which is why we so often find ourselves in situations where we and our friends relate a completely different version of events we both participated in -- and why, in fact, there are probably times we're both right, at least partly.  We're just remembering different pieces of what we saw and heard -- and misremembering other pieces different ways.

So "I know it happened that way, I saw it" is a big overstatement.  Think about that next time you hear about a court case where a defendant's fate depends on eyewitness testimony.  It may be the highest standard in a court of law -- but from a biological perspective, it's on pretty thin ice.

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

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is by the team of Mark Carwardine and the brilliant author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the late Douglas Adams.  Called Last Chance to See, it's about a round-the-world trip the two took to see the last populations of some of the world's most severely endangered animals, including the Rodrigues Fruit Bat, the Mountain Gorilla, the Aye-Aye, and the Komodo Dragon.  It's fascinating, entertaining, and sad, as Adams and Carwardine take an unflinching look at the devastation being wrought on the world's ecosystems by humans.

But it should be required reading for anyone interested in ecology, the environment, and the animal kingdom. Lucid, often funny, always eye-opening, Last Chance to See will give you a lens into the plight of some of the world's rarest species -- before they're gone forever.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]





Thursday, October 3, 2019

Breaking the world in two

It's no revelation to regular readers of Skeptophilia that I'm fascinated with quantum physics.

In fact, some years ago I was in the car with my younger son, then about 17, and we were discussing the difference between the Many-Worlds and the Copenhagen Interpretation of the collapse of the wave function (as one does), and he said something that led to my writing my time-travel novel, Lock & Key: "What if there was a place that kept track of all the possible outcomes, for every decision anyone makes?"

And thus was born the Library of Possibilities, and its foul-mouthed, Kurt-Cobain-worshiping Head Librarian, Archibald Fischer.

The Many-Worlds Interpretation -- which, put simply, surmises that at every point where any decision could have gone two or more ways, the universe splits -- has always fascinated me, but at the same point, it does seem to fall into Wolfgang Pauli's category of "not even wrong."  It's not falsifiable, because at every bifurcation, the two universes become effectively walled off from each other, so we wouldn't be able to prove or disprove the claim either way.  (This hasn't stopped fiction writers like me from capitalizing on the possibility of jumping from one to the other; this trope has been the basis of dozens of plot lines in Star Trek alone, where Geordi LaForge was constantly having to rescue crew members who fell through a rip in the space-time continuum.)

So it was with great curiosity that I read an article written by physicist Sean Carroll that appeared in Literary Hub last week, that looks at the possible outcome in our own universe if Many-Worlds turns out to be true -- and a way to use quantum mechanics as a basis for making choices.

[Image is in the Public Domain]

Carroll writes:
[Keep in mind] the importance of treating individuals on different branches of the wave function as distinct persons, even if they descended from the same individual in the past.  There is an important asymmetry between how we think about “our future” versus “our past” in Many-Worlds, which ultimately can be attributed to the low-entropy condition of our early universe. 
Any one individual can trace their lives backward in a unique person, but going forward in time we will branch into multiple people.  There is not one future self that is picked out as "really you," and it’s equally true that there is no one person constituted by all of those future individuals.  They are separate, as much as identical twins are distinct people, despite descending from a single zygote. 
We might care about what happens to the versions of ourselves who live on other branches, but it’s not sensible to think of them as "us."
Carrol's point is whether, if you buy Many-Worlds, we should concern ourselves with the consequences of our decisions.  After all, if every possible outcome happens in some universe somewhere -- if everything that can happen, will happen -- then the net result of our decision-making is exactly zero.  If in this branch, you make the decision to rob a bank, and in the other, you decide not to, this is precisely the same outcome as if you decided not to in this branch and your counterpart decided to go through with the robbery in the other one.  But as Carroll points out, while it doesn't make any overall difference if you take into account every possible universe, that's a perspective none of us actually have.  Your decision in this branch does matter to you (well, at least I hope it does), and it certainly has consequences for your future in the universe you inhabit -- as well as restricting what choices are available to you for later decision-making.

 If you'd like to play a little with the idea of Many-Worlds, you can turn your decision-making over to a purely quantum process via an app for iPhones called "Universe Splitter."  You ask the app a two-option question -- Carroll's example is, "Should I have pepperoni or sausage on my pizza tonight?" -- and the app sends a signal to a physics lab in Switzerland, where a photon is sent through a beam-splitter with detectors on either side.  If the photon goes to the left, you're told to go with option 1 (pepperoni), and if to the right, option 2 (sausage).  So here, as in the famous Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment, the outcome is decided by the actual collapse of an actual wave function, and if you buy Many-Worlds, you've now chopped the universe in two because of your choice of pizza toppings.

What I wonder about, though, is that after you get the results, the decision-making isn't over; you've just added one more step.  Once you get the results, you have to decide whether or not to abide by them, so once again you've split the universe (into "abide by the decision" and "don't" branches).  How many of us have put a decision up to a flip of the coin, then when the results come in, think, "That's not the outcome I wanted" and flip the coin again?  What's always bothered me about Many-Worlds is that it's an embarrassment of riches.  We're constantly engaging in situations that could go one of two or more ways, so within moments, the number of possible outcomes in the entire universe becomes essentially infinite.  Physicists tend to be (rightly) suspicious of infinities, and this by itself makes me dubious about Many-Worlds.  (I deliberately glossed over this point in Lock & Key, and implied that all human choices could be catalogued in a library -- albeit a very, very large one.  That may be the single biggest whopper I've told in any of my fiction, even though as a speculative fiction writer my stock in trade is playing fast-and-loose with the universe as it is.)

Carroll is fully aware of how bizarre the outcome of Many-Worlds is, even though (by my understanding) he appears to be in favor of that interpretation over the seemingly-arbitrary Copenhagen Interpretation.  He says -- and this quote seems as fitting a place to stop as any:
Even for the most battle-hardened quantum physicist, one must admit that this sounds ludicrous.  But it’s the most straightforward reading of our best understanding of quantum mechanics.   
The question naturally arises: What should we do about it?  If the real world is truly this radically different from the world of our everyday experience, does this have any implications for how we live our lives?

Largely—no. To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum events...  As counterintuitive as Many-Worlds might seem, at the end of the day it doesn’t really change how we should go through our lives.
********************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is by the team of Mark Carwardine and the brilliant author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the late Douglas Adams.  Called Last Chance to See, it's about a round-the-world trip the two took to see the last populations of some of the world's most severely endangered animals, including the Rodrigues Fruit Bat, the Mountain Gorilla, the Aye-Aye, and the Komodo Dragon.  It's fascinating, entertaining, and sad, as Adams and Carwardine take an unflinching look at the devastation being wrought on the world's ecosystems by humans.

But it should be required reading for anyone interested in ecology, the environment, and the animal kingdom. Lucid, often funny, always eye-opening, Last Chance to See will give you a lens into the plight of some of the world's rarest species -- before they're gone forever.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]





Wednesday, October 2, 2019

Inside an animal's mind

There's a doggy intelligence test that most dogs can't pass -- for an interesting reason.

The test involves placing a treat on the floor, stepping ten feet or so away, and letting the dog into the room.  You point to the treat, and the dog has to use that information to find the treat (i.e., not just sniff around until they blunder on it).

It may seem simple, but success at this requires a remarkable degree of sophistication.  What the dog has to be able to do is to look at you, understand the concept of "pointing," and then think, "If I were where (s)he is, what direction would his/her finger appear to be pointing at?"  In other words, the dog has to realize that another individual is seeing things from a different perspective, and has different information about how the world looks.

Success at this test shows the rudiments of a theory of mind -- an understanding that all sentient individuals see what's around them from their own personal point of view.  Most dogs in this scenario will respond by coming up and sniffing the person's hand, or by becoming confused and simply wandering around because they don't have any idea what the owner is expecting them to do (and usually finding the treat accidentally, so in some sense, they win anyhow).

Only one of the many dogs I've known was able to pass the Theory of Mind Test.  She was a neurotic, hyperactive half border collie, half coonhound named Doolin.  Doolin is far and away the smartest dog I've ever known.  She figured out how to unlatch the slide bolts on our gates with her teeth -- simply from watching us do it.  She not only passed the Theory of Mind Test, she also had no problem with the Mirror Test -- when she saw her reflection, she knew it was her and not another dog.  The first time she saw her reflection in a full-length mirror, she barked -- once.  Then she sort of went, "Oh, ha-ha, that's me, I get it" and never did it again.

Doolin the Canine Genius.  Yes, she did always look this fretful.  I guess being that smart means you've got a lot on your mind.

On the other hand, one of our current dogs, Lena -- who, and I say this with all due affection, has the IQ of a lint ball -- spends hours entertaining herself by standing at the end of our dock and barking at her own reflection in the pond.  ("There's that damn water dog again!  She's a pretty wily one, that water dog, but I'll get her this time!")

Lena, whose perpetually happy expression communicates either "What, me worry?" or else, "Derp."

This comes up because of a cool study published last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, called, "Great Apes Use Self-Experience to Anticipate an Agent’s Action in a False-Belief Test," by Fumihiro Kano, Satoshi Hirata, and Masaki Tomonaga (of Kyoto University), and Josep Call and Christopher Krupenye (of the University of St. Andrews).  What the researchers did was to show half of their ape test subjects a test box with an opaque barrier and half a box with a transparent barrier, then they were allowed to observe a human interacting with the barrier from a distance where it was impossible to tell whether the barrier was opaque or transparent.  In other words, they had to interpret the behavior of another individual not based on what they themselves were seeing, but what they could infer about what the individual himself saw.

And they did it flawlessly.  When the ape saw that an object had been moved behind an opaque barrier, they guessed that the human trying to look through the barrier wouldn't know it'd been moved -- and the ape's eyes tracked in the direction of where it expected the human to reach (i.e., where the object was before the barrier was lowered).  From these results, it's clear that apes understand that each individual -- ape or human or otherwise -- has his or her own perspective, and they're not all the same.  Like us humans, they recognize that we don't all have access to the same information.

What this immediately brings up for me is our treatment of non-human animals.  My Animal Physiology professor in college -- one of the only college teachers I had who was truly an asshole -- scoffed at the idea that animals had emotions or could experience pain in the same way a human did.  With the perspective of time, I now realize that he hadn't come to this conclusion based on any scientific evidence, but because it made it much easier for him to rationalize hurting animals "in the name of science" without it putting a ding in his conscience.  We now know that many species grieve the death of one of their fellow creatures, bond strongly to their owners, and remember both good and bad treatment (if you don't believe this last one, take a look at this short video of a lion who was reintroduced to the wild, and then a year later remembered the people who'd rescued him -- a video that never fails to bring me to tears).

So we need to throw out this silly dichotomy of "human versus animal."  First, humans are animals.  Second, all the things we think of as being quintessentially human -- emotions, bonding, logic/problem solving, and ability to take another's perspective -- are not either/or, "we've got 'em and you don't" characteristics.  They exist on a spectrum, and our determination to see ourselves as qualitatively different from the rest of the animal kingdom should be jettisoned as the wrong-headed nonsense it is.  Any difference between us and our non-human cousins is purely quantitative -- and the quantities involved are appearing to be, on the whole, exceedingly small.

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

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is by the team of Mark Carwardine and the brilliant author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the late Douglas Adams.  Called Last Chance to See, it's about a round-the-world trip the two took to see the last populations of some of the world's most severely endangered animals, including the Rodrigues Fruit Bat, the Mountain Gorilla, the Aye-Aye, and the Komodo Dragon.  It's fascinating, entertaining, and sad, as Adams and Carwardine take an unflinching look at the devastation being wrought on the world's ecosystems by humans.

But it should be required reading for anyone interested in ecology, the environment, and the animal kingdom. Lucid, often funny, always eye-opening, Last Chance to See will give you a lens into the plight of some of the world's rarest species -- before they're gone forever.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]





Tuesday, October 1, 2019

Noise alert

The week after I retired I made the mistake of saying to my wife, "I don't know what I'm going to do with all of my free time!"

Two days later we found out we had to have major foundation work done on our house.  I do mean major; erosion and settling on one corner was causing the slab to twist, and if we didn't do something, we were going to have our slab -- and almost certainly our walls -- crack catastrophically.

So yeah.  Me and my big mouth.  It's times like this I have a hard time maintaining my status as Non-Superstitious Guy.

The foundation work required that we more or less gut our formerly-finished basement.  We were already planning on redoing it, just not this completely or this precipitously.  It could be a nice space -- it's got a walk-out (we're built on a hill, which is part of what caused the problem in the first place) and with some messing about it could be a den or even a rental apartment, now that we're empty nesters and it's just me and Carol in this big house.

Me and my son working on demolition.  You can probably see the amazing family resemblance between us.

In any case, this all comes up because of a paper that appeared last week in Nature Communications  about why we perceive some sounds as unpleasant (such as shop vacs, reciprocating saws, dehumidifiers, and air filters -- all of which we had going at once down there).  And it turns out that it's not just the volume (amplitude) of the sound waves.

In "The Rough Sound of Salience Enhances Aversion Through Neural Synchronisation," by Luc H. Arnal, Andreas Kleinschmidt, Laurent Spinelli, Anne-Lise Giraud, and Pierre Mégevand of the University of Geneva, we find that the degree of perceived unpleasantness of a sound has to do with repeated peaks in "fast repetitive modulations" in the sound.  Put simply, there are two kinds of frequency most sounds have: the fundamental frequency of the tone, which we perceive as its pitch; and the rise and fall of overall loudness.  And what the researchers discovered is when that second frequency is between 30 and 150 hertz, we find it really unpleasant.  (One hertz is one vibration per second; so even 30 hertz is fast enough that we're not consciously aware of it as a repetitive noise.)

Apparently sounds in that range cause our neurons to synchronize at that frequency, heightening awareness and making them difficult to ignore.  The researchers suspect that it may be an evolved response because those sorts of noises may signal danger, but that's speculation at this point.

The authors write:
Fast repetitive modulations produce “temporally salient” flickering percepts (e.g. strobe lights, vibrators, and alarm sounds), which efficiently capture attention, generally induce rough and unpleasant sensations, and elicit avoidance.  Despite the high ecological relevance of such flickering stimuli, there is to our knowledge no existing operational definition of temporal salience and only limited experimental work accounting for the intriguing aversive sensation such auditory textures produce and the reactions they trigger.  Here, we introduce and explore the notion of temporal salience and investigate its behavioural and neural underpinnings.  Of note, although salience may not systematically result in aversive percept, we argue that in this specific context, temporal salience—owing to the imperative effect of exogenously saturating perceptual systems in time—constitutes a valid proxy of aversion.  Therefore, we hypothesise that providing fast, but still discretisable and perceptible, temporally salient acoustic cues should enhance neural processing and ensuing aversive sensation.
This discovery led to some surprising connections.  "These sounds solicit the amygdala, hippocampus and insula in particular, all areas related to salience, aversion and pain.  This explains why participants experienced them as being unbearable," said Luc Arnal, who was the paper's lead author.   "This is the first time that sounds between 40 and 80 hertz have been shown to mobilise these neural networks, although the frequencies have been used for a long time in alarm systems...  We now understand at last why the brain can't ignore these sounds.  Something particular happens at these frequencies, and there are also many illnesses that show atypical brain responses to sounds at 40 Hz.  These include Alzheimer's, autism and schizophrenia."

Which is unexpected and startling.  What is happening in the brain at those frequencies -- and how does it connect with overall mental functioning?  Does schizophrenia (for example) involve some sort of "brain noise" that is at a frequency that the sufferer can't ignore?

In any case, it's a fascinating piece of research, and on a more banal level explains why I find that shop vac so damned annoying.  At least we've got the demolition done, so I won't have any more huge messes to clean up.

Unless the universe is listening and causes some catastrophic upheaval in another part of our house.  You never know.  Just because I'm not superstitious doesn't mean I can't jinx myself.

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

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is by the team of Mark Carwardine and the brilliant author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the late Douglas Adams.  Called Last Chance to See, it's about a round-the-world trip the two took to see the last populations of some of the world's most severely endangered animals, including the Rodrigues Fruit Bat, the Mountain Gorilla, the Aye-Aye, and the Komodo Dragon.  It's fascinating, entertaining, and sad, as Adams and Carwardine take an unflinching look at the devastation being wrought on the world's ecosystems by humans.

But it should be required reading for anyone interested in ecology, the environment, and the animal kingdom. Lucid, often funny, always eye-opening, Last Chance to See will give you a lens into the plight of some of the world's rarest species -- before they're gone forever.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]





Monday, September 30, 2019

Feathered serpent gods and free association

Despite my fairly persistent railing against people who make outlandish, unverifiable claims, I find it even more perplexing when people make outlandish, demonstrably false claims, and amazingly enough I'm not talking about Donald Trump.

One of the problems, though, is that a lot of woo-woo claims are in the category of what physicist Wolfgang Pauli called "not even false" -- they're not verifiable in a scientific sense.  I mean, it's one thing to claim that last night your late Aunt Gertrude visited in spirit form and told you her secret recipe for making her Extra-Zesty Bean Dip.  I couldn't disprove that even if I wanted to, which I don't, because I actually kind of like bean dip.

But when someone makes a statement that is (1) falsifiable, and (2) clearly incorrect, and yet stands by it as if it made complete sense... that I find baffling.  "I'm sorry," they seem to be saying, "I know you've demonstrated that gravity pulls things toward the Earth, but I believe that in reality, it works the opposite way, so I'm wearing velcro shoes so I don't fall upward."

And for the record, I am also not talking about either Flat Earthers or biblical creationism.

This all comes up because of an article that appeared on Unexplained Mysteries a while back, the link to which I was sent by a loyal reader of Skeptophilia.  Entitled "Easter Island Heads -- They Speak At Last," it was written by L. M. Leteane.   If that name sounds familiar to regular readers of this blog, it's because Leteane has appeared here before, most recently for claiming that the Central American god Quetzalcoatl and the Egyptian god Thoth were actually the same person, despite one being a feathered snake and the other being a shirtless dude with the head of an ibis, which last I checked hardly look alike at all.  Be that as it may, Leteane concludes that this is why the Earth is going to end when a comet hits it in the year 3369.

So I suppose that given his past attempts, we should not expect L. M. Leteane to exactly knock us dead in the logic department.

But even starting out with low expectations, I have to say that he has outdone himself this time.

Here's the basic outline of his most recent argument, if I can dignify it by calling it that. Fasten your seatbelts, it's gonna be a bit of a bumpy ride.
  1. The Bantu people of south-central Africa came originally from Egypt, which in their language they called Khama-Roggo.  This name translates in Tswana as "Black-and-Red Land."
  2. Charles Berlitz, of The Mystery of Atlantis fame, says that Quetzalcoatl also comes from "Black-and-Red Land."  Berlitz, allow me to remind you, is the writer about whose credibility the skeptical researcher Larry Kusche said, "If Berlitz were to report that a ship was red, the chances of it being some other color is almost a certainty."
  3. The Olmecs were originally from Africa, but then they accompanied the god Thoth to Central America.  In a quote that I swear I am not making up, "That is evidently why their gigantic sculptured heads are always shown helmeted."
  4. The Babylonian goddess Ishtar was also a real person, who ruled in the Indus Valley for a while (yes, I know that India and Babylonia aren't the same place; just play along, okay?) until she got fed up and also moved to Central America.  She took some people with her called the Kassites.  This was because she was heavily interested in tin mining.
  5. Well, three gods in one place are just too many (three too many, in my opinion), and this started a war.  Hot words were spoken.  Nuclear weapons were detonated.   Devastation was wreaked.   Passive voice was used repeatedly for dramatic effect.
  6. After the dust settled, the Olmecs, who were somehow also apparently the Kassites and the Bantu, found themselves mysteriously deposited on Easter Island.  A couple of more similarities between words in various languages and Pascuanese (the language of the natives of Easter Island) are given, the best one being "Rapa Nui" (the Pascuanese name for the island) meaning "black giant" because Rapa is a little like the Hebrew repha (giant) and Nui sounds like the French nuit (night).  This proves that the island was settled by dark-skinned giant people from Africa.  Or somewhere.
  7. The Olmecs decided to name it "Easter Island" because "Easter" sounds like "Ishtar."
  8. So they built a bunch of stone heads. q. e. d.
[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Hhooper1 at English Wikipedia., Easter Island Ahu (2006), CC BY 2.5]

Well. I think we can all agree that that's a pretty persuasive logical chain, can't we?

Okay, maybe not so much.  

Let's start with the linguistic funny business.  Unfortunately for L. M. Leteane, there is a fundamental rule he seems to be unaware of, which is, "Do not fuck around with a linguist."  Linguistics is something I know a bit about; I have an M. A. in Historical Linguistics (yes, I know, I spent 32 years teaching biology.  It's a long story) and I can say with some authority that I understand how language evolution works.  

And one of the first things you're taught in that field is that you can't base language relationships on one or two words -- chance correspondences are all too common.  So just because roggo means "red" in Tswana (which I'm taking on faith because Leteane himself is from Botswana, and my expertise is not in African languages), and rouge is French for "red," doesn't mean a damn thing just because they happen to share a few letters.  Rouge goes back to the Latin ruber, then to Ancient Greek erythros, and finally to a reconstructed Proto-Indo-European root *reudr.  Any resemblance to the Tswana word for "red" is coincidental.  And as for "Rapa Nui" meaning "black giant" because of some similarity to those words in (respectively) French and Hebrew, that's ridiculous; Pascuanese is a Polynesian language, which is neither Indo-European nor Semitic, and has no underlying similarity to either French or Hebrew other than all of them being languages spoken by people somewhere.

And as far as Easter Island being named after Ishtar... well, let's just say it'll take me a while to recover from the headdesk I did when I read that.  Easter Island was so named by the Dutch explorer Jacob Roggeveen, because he first spotted it on Easter Sunday in 1722.  He called it Paasch-Eyland, Dutch for "Easter Island;" its official name is Isla de Pascua, which means the same thing in Spanish.   Neither one sounds anything like "Ishtar." 

And for the record: "Ishtar" and "Easter" don't have a common root anyway, something I dealt with back in 2014 when a thing kept being circulated that Easter was a pagan holiday involving sacrificing children to Babylonian gods.  Which I probably don't need to point out is 100% USDA Grade-A bullshit.  A quote from that post, which is just as applicable here: "Linguistics is not some kind of cross between free association and the game of Telephone."

And as for the rest of it... well, it sounds like the plot of a hyper-convoluted science fiction story to me.  Gods globe-trotting all over the world, bringing along slave labor, and having major wars, and conveniently leaving behind no hard evidence whatsoever.

The thing I find maddening about all of this is that Leteane mixes some facts (his information about Tswana) with speculation (he says that the name of the tin ore cassiterite comes from the Kassites, which my etymological dictionary says is "possible," but gives two other equally plausible hypotheses) with outright falsehood (that Polynesian, Bantu, Semitic, and Indo-European languages share lots of common roots) with wild fantasy (all of the stuff about the gods).  And people believe it.  His story had, last I checked, been tweeted and Facebook-liked dozens of times, and amongst the comments I saw was, "Brilliant piece of research connecting all the history you don't learn about in school!  Thank you for drawing together the pieces of the puzzle!"

So, anyway. I suppose I shouldn't get so annoyed by all of this.  Actually, on the spectrum of woo-woo beliefs, this one is pretty harmless.  No one ever blew himself up in a crowded market because he thought that the Olmecs came from Botswana.  My frustration is that there are seemingly so many people who lack the ability to think critically -- to look at the facts of an argument, and how the evidence is laid out, and to see if the conclusion is justified.  The problem, of course, is that learning the principles of scientific induction is hard work.  Much easier, apparently, to blather on about feathered serpents and goddesses who are seriously into tin.

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

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is by the team of Mark Carwardine and the brilliant author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the late Douglas Adams.  Called Last Chance to See, it's about a round-the-world trip the two took to see the last populations of some of the world's most severely endangered animals, including the Rodrigues Fruit Bat, the Mountain Gorilla, the Aye-Aye, and the Komodo Dragon.  It's fascinating, entertaining, and sad, as Adams and Carwardine take an unflinching look at the devastation being wrought on the world's ecosystems by humans.

But it should be required reading for anyone interested in ecology, the environment, and the animal kingdom. Lucid, often funny, always eye-opening, Last Chance to See will give you a lens into the plight of some of the world's rarest species -- before they're gone forever.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]