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, August 9, 2021

It's in the palm of your hand

Amongst the downsides of being superstitious is that sometimes, you find out you're in for some bad luck.

A girl I went to college with had a real thing for Tarot cards. And even considering the generally vague, this-could-apply-to-anyone interpretations of most Tarot card spreads, there are a couple of cards that are unequivocally bad.  The Nine of Swords, for example, isn't good news, which you could probably tell just from looking at it:


So, by the laws of chance (not that true believers think that's what's going on here, but still) -- every once in a while, you're going to get a bad spread of cards laid out in front of you by your friendly neighborhood fortuneteller.  And what did my college friend do, when it happened to her?

She picked up all of the cards, shuffled them, and laid them out again, until she got one she liked.

It's a more common response than you'd think.  Numerologists -- people who believe that everything can be converted to numbers, and those numbers control your future -- have been known to go through a legal name change if their names don't add up to a "good number."

Something similar is going on in Japan, where palmistry is all the rage.  You know: the idea that the lines on your palm somehow tell you how long you'll live, whether you'll become wealthy, whether you'll fall in love, and so on.  Now, palm lines aren't going to be so simple to change -- it's not as easy as changing your name, or picking up the cards if you don't like what you see.  So, what do you do if your life-line is short, if your heart line says you'll never find a nice person of whatever gender you favor, and so on?

You have them surgically altered.

I'm not making this up.  Surgeons in Japan are now being asked, with increasing frequency, to use an electric scalpel to burn lines in patients' palms to engrave a pattern that is thought to be lucky.  The surgery costs about a thousand bucks, which of course isn't covered by insurance.

Small price to pay, say true believers, if the outcome will bring money, love, long life, or whatever it is you're after.

"If you try to create a palm line with a laser, it heals, and it won’t leave a clear mark," said Dr. Takaaki Matsuoka, who has already performed five of these surgeries this year, and has another three scheduled soon.  "You have to use the electric scalpel and make a shaky incision on purpose, because palm lines are never completely straight.  If you don’t burn the skin and just use a plain scalpel, the lines don’t form.  It’s not a difficult surgery, but it has to be done right."

Before and after. Can't you just feel the luck radiating from the right-hand photograph?

Matsuoka seems like a believer himself, and not just an opportunist making a quick bunch of yen from the gullible.

"Well, if you’re a single guy trying to pick up a date, knowing palm reading is probably good.  It’s a great excuse to hold a lovely woman’s hands," he said, in an interview.  "Men usually wish to change their business related success lines, such as the fate line, the money-luck line, and the financial line.  The money-luck line is for making profits.  And the financial line is the one that allows you to save what you make.  It’s good to have both.  Because sometimes people make a lot of money, but they quickly lose it as well.  A strong fate line helps ensure you make money and keep it.  These three lines, when they come together just right, create the emperor’s line.  Most men want this."

As for women, Matsuoka says they mostly want to change the lines related to romance and marriage.

How could all of this work?  Matsuoka hedges a little on this question.

"If people think they’ll be lucky, sometimes they become lucky," he said, which makes him sound a little like the Japanese answer to Norman Vincent Peale.  "And it’s not like the palm lines are really written in stone—they’re basically wrinkles.  They do change with time.  Even the way you use your hands can change the lines.  Some palmisters will even suggest that their clients draw the lines on their hands to change their luck.  And this was before palm plastic surgery existed.  However, anecdotally I’ve had some success."

The last bit reminds me of the wonderful sketch by Mitchell & Webb, where a doctor tries to save his patient by extending his life-line with a ball-point pen:



I can't help but think that if any of these superstitious beliefs actually worked, they wouldn't work this way.  If Tarot cards, numbers, or lines on your palm -- or any of the other wacky suggestions you might have heard -- really do control our destiny, then just changing them to a pattern you like is kind of... cheating, isn't it?  You'd think that the mystical powers-that-be wouldn't let that happen.  If I were one of the mystical powers-that-be, I'd be pissed.  I'd probably trip you while you were carrying a full cup of hot coffee.

That'd sure show you.

Of course, a simpler explanation is that all of this is really just unscientific bullshit.  To test that conjecture, I may just break a mirror on purpose today, and cross the path of a black cat, and see if I can find a ladder to walk underneath.  Go ahead, Gods of Bad Luck, do your worst.  I'm guessing that I'll still make it all the way through the day without having a brain aneurysm.

And in any case, no one is getting close to my hands with an electric scalpel.  I have fairly extensive tattoos, so I'm no stranger to people doing ouchy things to my skin, but I draw the line at cutting into the palms of my hands with a laser.  That has gotta hurt like a mofo.

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

This week's Skeptophilia book-of-the-week is by an author we've seen here before: the incomparable Jenny Lawson, whose Twitter @TheBloggess is an absolute must-follow.  She blogs and writes on a variety of topics, and a lot of it is screamingly funny, but some of her best writing is her heartfelt discussion of her various physical and mental issues, the latter of which include depression and crippling anxiety.

Regular readers know I've struggled with these two awful conditions my entire life, and right now they're manageable (instead of completely controlling me 24/7 like they used to do).  Still, they wax and wane, for no particularly obvious reason, and I've come to realize that I can try to minimize their effect but I'll never be totally free of them.

Lawson's new book, Broken (In the Best Possible Way) is very much in the spirit of her first two, Let's Pretend This Never Happened and Furiously Happy.  Poignant and hysterically funny, she can have you laughing and crying on the same page.  Sometimes in the same damn paragraph.  It's wonderful stuff, and if you or someone you love suffers from anxiety or depression or both, read this book.  Seeing someone approaching these debilitating conditions with such intelligence and wit is heartening, not least because it says loud and clear: we are not alone.

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


Saturday, August 7, 2021

Sparkly happy people

A couple of weeks ago I described how several loyal readers are contributing to my ongoing progress toward insanity by sending me links to bizarre websites, accompanied by innocent-sounding messages like "I thought you'd find this interesting."

Never dangle bait like that in front of people who are as smart as these folks are.

It didn't take long before I got an email from one of them with the subject line, "I thought you'd find this interesting."  The body of the email contained only the single word, "Enjoy!" -- and a link to the website for the Hibiscus Moon Crystal Academy.

Well, like Rudyard Kipling's character Elephant's Child, one of my besetting sins is insatiable curiosity.  Knowing as I was doing so that I would probably regret it, I clicked the link.

A while back, I did a piece about Poe's Law, the general rule of thumb that a sufficiently well-done parody is indistinguishable from the thing it is parodying.  And looking at the website for Hibiscus Moon Crystal Academy, my first thought was, "Poe's Law.  This can't be real."

I mean, consider the following paragraph, that appears on the home page:
This is the place where the Crystal Hotties come to learn about the art & science of crystal healing.  We enjoy sharing all the wonders of working with healing crystals and exploring the physics & metaphysics behind how they work all while having lots of FUN.  The academy is taught by Hibiscus Moon, best-selling author of the book Crystal Grids: How and Why They Work.  Not sure where to begin?  No worries, Jelly Bean!  Subscribe to my weekly newsletter to ease you in and you’ll also receive a FREE Creating Sacred Space with Crystals eKit to get you started on your sparkly journey with crystal energy healing!
"Crystal Hotties?" "Jelly Bean?" "Crystal Grids?" "Sparkly journey?"

I... what?

But I spent the better part of an hour, at the cost not only of time but of countless innocent neurons in my prefrontal cortex who died agonizing deaths, looking at this website, and I have come away convinced.

These people are serious.

For example, consider the following passage:
I want to make sure that we attract the right kind of student here at the HMCA.  I love you all but we’re not all cut out to do the same things, you know?

First & foremost, I totally get that not everyone is cut out to do this light healer or crystal healer type of work.  Sometimes there are other things that need to get worked on first. No judgments there at all. 
That being said, I know that many get intimidated thinking “Who am I to be healing anyone?”  Here at the HMCA, we realize & teach that we can all heal each other & that healing is a 2-way street…both the facilitator & the “heal-ee” exchange & receive.  If we waited for all the healers to be PERFECT before they did any “healing” for anyone else….we’d all be waiting a LONG TIME! 
Next, if you’re looking for a course that simply spews out crystal properties for you to memorize then this is not the course for you.  I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that but there are other courses out there for you if that’s more of what you resonate with.  Our method teaches you to really get to know your crystals & we take a more personal approach to that.
That just doesn't have the sound of a parody, does it?

Fig. 1: Some crystals.  Are you feeling sparkly yet? [Image licensed under the Creative Commons Cristian V., Sodium chloride - crystals, CC BY-SA 4.0]

There are all sorts of books, videos, and products for sale, including a "Sparkly Space Clearing e-Kit," whatever the hell that is.  There are testimonials.  Their Facebook page has been "liked" almost 57,000 times.  They have, apparently, been endorsed by Massage & Bodywork magazine.  But here's some more from "Hibiscus Moon" herself:
What does it mean when your crystal cracks or breaks?

Sometimes it doesn’t mean anything at all.  It could be just plain ole’ science & physics that did it like a heavy impact or thermal shock: extreme hot to cold or cold to hot.

But sometimes a stone or crystal just breaks…with no explanation.

So then we have to look at energy.

Think of it as the singer & wine glass shattering scenario.  What causes that to happen?

The frequencies of the wine glass were perfectly pitched or perfectly oscillated with the sound frequency of the note that the singer was holding.  This created a 3rd resonant field of greater energy & that cracks the wine glass.

The same scenario may be taking place when our crystal cracks.  The vibrational frequency of the crystal may be synchronizing with a frequency in its environment & BOOM! Crack.

Keep in mind…crystals do not die or stop working b/c they’ve cracked or broken.  Please continue to work with them.  They are still there for you.

What if this happens more than once with a particular crystal?  Well, in that case, its work with you may be done.  Perhaps this is a sign to gift this piece on to whoever needs it more than you. Its work isn’t done, perhaps, it just needs to move on to someone else.

Now, the intense energy that caused the stone or crystal to crack, whether a physical impact or energetic impact was intense (especially if we’re talking about a quartz crystal)…& that my have temporarily altered the crystal’s normal vibrational frequency.  So you’ll want to give that crystal a little break for a bit. A little spa vacation with a nice cleansing.  But after about a month, it should be rarin’ to go again.

How do you do that?  You can do a meditation with the cracked/broken crystal & thank it for the work it has been doing for/with you.  Then since this a high amplitude energy that caused it to crack, you can do a good crystal re-tuning.  Then, I recommend giving it a little rest or retreat for a month buried in Mother Earth.  Ahhhh.  Be sure to mark the spot well so you can find it again!

So I hope that puts some of you at ease when a crystal cracks or breaks!  If you have any stories to share, we'd all love to hear!

Sparkles and Glittery Blessings,

Hibiscus Moon
Yup!  It could be plain "ole" science and physics!  Or maybe your crystal might need a "little spa vacation with a nice cleansing" so that it's "rarin' to go again!"

I don't know about you, but I'm going with the science and physics.

One of the problems I had, while reading all this, is not just that it seems to be composed of complete nonsense, but that the writer of the website (who I assume is "Hibiscus Moon") exhibits a perkiness level usually only seen in employees of Disneyland.  She keeps calling the readers "crystal hotties" and "sparkly friends" and "party people" and "crystalline cohorts," which I think was intended to be encouraging and friendly even though the last one sounds like a villain from Doctor Who.  All of her signoffs are something like "Oceans of Sparkly Blessings!"  Overall, her writing sounds like she could use a good sedative, or possibly just spending some time watching C-Span.

Now, don't get me wrong.  These people sound like lovely human beings, and honestly, I would much rather see folks cheerfully playing with their crystals than hurting each other.  It could well be that many of my country's problems could be solved if people like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity would just stop what they're doing every once in a while and contemplate healing their spiritual angst with a nice emerald (which, we find out on the site, is the Crystal of the Year.)

But as far as having anything to do with "ole" science and physics... this doesn't.  It's harmless enough to anything but your bank account, but any resemblance between "crystal healing" and an experimentally-supported medical modality is purely coincidence, or possibly the placebo effect.

And to the friend who sent me the link: you win this round.  You "crystal hottie," you.

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

Author and biochemist Camilla Pang was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder at age eight, and spent most of her childhood baffled by the complexities and subtleties of human interactions.  She once asked her mother if there was an instruction manual on being human that she could read to make it easier.

Her mom said no, there was no instruction manual.

So years later, Pang recalled the incident and decided to write one.

The result, Explaining Humans: What Science Can Teach Us About Life, Love, and Relationships, is the best analysis of human behavior from a biological perspective since Desmond Morris's classic The Naked Ape.  If you're like me, you'll read Pang's book with a stunned smile on your face -- as she navigates through common, everyday behaviors we all engage in, but few of us stop to think about.

If you're interested in behavior or biology or simply agree with the Greek maxim "gnothi seauton" ("know yourself"), you need to put this book on your reading list.  It's absolutely outstanding.

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


Friday, August 6, 2021

Research and rabbit holes

I've suspected for a while that the FBI is keeping a file on me based upon my Google search history.

This, I suspect, is something that plagues a lot of writers, but it's really hit home apropos of my murder mystery series, The Snowe Agency Mysteries, the research for which has resulted in some searches that would look seriously sketchy to anyone who didn't know I'm a writer.  These have included:
  • What anesthetic available to a veterinarian would kill a human the most quickly?
  • How fast does a bubble of air injected into an artery kill someone?
  • Would the remains of a person poisoned to death twenty years ago still show traces of the poison?
  • The behavior of psychopathic individuals
  • The physiology of drowning
  • How hard does a person need to be hit in the back of the head to knock them unconscious?
To anyone would-be Sherlocks out there: allow me to assure you that I have never killed, nor am I planning on killing, anyone.


Writing takes you down some interesting rabbit holes, and I'm not just talking about writing mysteries.  One of the reasons I love writing fiction is that I learn so much in the process -- it gives me a chance to stretch my own brain a little.  Here are a few things I had to research for books I've written:
  • Living conditions in 14th century Norway (Lock & Key)
  • Communications and surveillance technology (Kill Switch)
  • Eighteenth-century land grants in the northeastern U.S. (Descent into Ulthoa)
  • Ancient Greek timekeeping devices (Gears)
  • Medieval Jewish mystical traditions (Sephirot)
  • Creatures from Japanese mythology (The Fifth Day)
  • The effects of untreated type-1 diabetes (Whistling in the Dark)
  • Viking ship design (Kári the Lucky)
  • The rate of spread of the Black Death in England (We All Fall Down)
  • The structure and furnishings in homes in nineteenth-century southern Louisiana (The Communion of Shadows)
  • How long hydropower electric plants would keep functioning if left unattended (In the Midst of Lions)
And that's just scratching the surface.

I was chatting with a friend and fellow author a couple of days ago, and commented that fiction should open up new worlds, that if my readers are the same when they close the book as they were when they opened it, I've failed as a writer.  However, writing also opens up new worlds for the writer, lets us explore topics we'd otherwise never look into.  (It's all too easy to get lost in research -- to intend to sit down and write, and suddenly three hours have gone by, and all you've done is jump from one abstruse website to another, as my friend and writing partner Cly Boehs would be happy to tell you.)

There are two things about learning: (1) it's fun. And (2) you're never done.  And when it comes to writing, there are always new areas to investigate, new worlds to create.

So many stories to tell, so little time.

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

Author and biochemist Camilla Pang was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder at age eight, and spent most of her childhood baffled by the complexities and subtleties of human interactions.  She once asked her mother if there was an instruction manual on being human that she could read to make it easier.

Her mom said no, there was no instruction manual.

So years later, Pang recalled the incident and decided to write one.

The result, Explaining Humans: What Science Can Teach Us About Life, Love, and Relationships, is the best analysis of human behavior from a biological perspective since Desmond Morris's classic The Naked Ape.  If you're like me, you'll read Pang's book with a stunned smile on your face -- as she navigates through common, everyday behaviors we all engage in, but few of us stop to think about.

If you're interested in behavior or biology or simply agree with the Greek maxim "gnothi seauton" ("know yourself"), you need to put this book on your reading list.  It's absolutely outstanding.

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


Thursday, August 5, 2021

Letters from the home world

In choosing topics for this blog, I try not to have it simply devolve into taking random pot shots at crazies.  Loony ideas are a dime a dozen, and given the widespread access to computers that is now available, just about anyone who wants one can have a website.  Given these two facts, it's inevitable that wacky webpages grow like wildflowers on the fields of the internet.

When an alert reader brought this one to my attention, however, I just couldn't help myself.  Entitled "Did Humans Come From Another Planet?", it represents one of the best examples I've ever seen of adding up a bunch of facts and obtaining a wildly wrong answer.  The only ones who, in my experience, do this even better are the people who write for the Institute for Creation Research, and to be fair, they've had a lot longer to practice being completely batshit crazy, so it's only to be expected.

Anyhow, the contention of the "Did Humans Come From Another Planet?" people can be summed up by, "Yes. Duh."  We are clearly aliens, and I'm not just talking about such dubiously human individuals as Mitch McConnell.  All of us, the article claims, descend from an extraterrestrial race.  But how can we prove it?

Well, here's the argument, if I can dignify it with that term.
  1. Human babies are born completely unable to take care of themselves, and remain that way for a long time.  By comparison, other primate babies, despite similar gestation periods, develop much more rapidly.
  2. In a lower gravitational pull, humans could fall down without hurting themselves, "just like a cat or a dog."
  3. Humans have biological clocks, and in the absence of exposure to the external day/night cycle, they come unlocked from "real time" and become free-running.  So, clearly we came from a planet that had a different rotational period.
  4. Humans don't have much body hair.  At least most of us don't, although I do recall once going swimming and seeing a guy who had so much back hair that he could have singlehandedly given rise to 80% of the Bigfoot sightings in the eastern United States.
  5. Geneticists have found that all of humanity descends from a common ancestor approximately 350,000 years ago; but the first modern humans didn't exist until 100,000 years ago.  So... and this is a direct quote, that I swear I am not making up: "In what part of the universe was he [Homo sapiens] wandering for the remaining 250 thousand years?"
Now, take all of this, and add:
  1. Some nonsense about Sirius B and the Dogon tribe, including a bizarre contention that the Sun and Sirius once formed a double-star system, because this "doesn't contradict the laws of celestial mechanics;"
  2. The tired old "we only use 3% of our brains" contention;
  3. Adam and Eve; and
  4. the ancient Egyptians.
Mix well, and bake for one hour at 350 degrees.

The result, of course, is a lovely hash contending that we must come from a planet with a mild climate where we could run around naked all the time, not to mention a lower gravitational pull so we could just sort of bounce when we fall down, plenty of natural food to eat, and "no geomagnetic storms."  I'm not sure why the last one is important, but it did remind me of all of the "cosmic storms" that the folks in Lost in Space used to run into.  And they also came across lots of weird, quasi-human aliens, while they were out there wandering around.  So there you are.


In any case, that's today's example of adding 2 + 2 and getting 439.  All of this just goes to show that even if you have access to a lot of factual information, not to mention the internet, you still need to know how to put that factual information together in order to get the right answer.  For that, you need science, not just a bunch of nutty beliefs, assumptions, and guesses.  So, as usual, science FTW.


Which, of course, applies to a good many more situations than just this one, but as I've already given a nod to the Institute for Creation Research, I'll just end here.

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

Author and biochemist Camilla Pang was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder at age eight, and spent most of her childhood baffled by the complexities and subtleties of human interactions.  She once asked her mother if there was an instruction manual on being human that she could read to make it easier.

Her mom said no, there was no instruction manual.

So years later, Pang recalled the incident and decided to write one.

The result, Explaining Humans: What Science Can Teach Us About Life, Love, and Relationships, is the best analysis of human behavior from a biological perspective since Desmond Morris's classic The Naked Ape.  If you're like me, you'll read Pang's book with a stunned smile on your face -- as she navigates through common, everyday behaviors we all engage in, but few of us stop to think about.

If you're interested in behavior or biology or simply agree with the Greek maxim "gnothi seauton" ("know yourself"), you need to put this book on your reading list.  It's absolutely outstanding.

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


Wednesday, August 4, 2021

Music on the brain

A pair of new studies last week in The Journal of Neuroscience analyzed the connections between two phenomena related to music listening that I know all too well -- our ability to replay music in our imaginations, and our capacity for anticipating what the next notes will be when we hear the first part of a melody.

The first, which I seem to excel at, is a bit of a mixed blessing.  It's my one and only superpower -- I can essentially remember tunes forever.  In my ten years as flutist in a Celtic dance band, I had just about every tune in our repertoire memorized.  I'm lousy at connecting the names to the tunes, though; so when my bandmate would say, "Next, let's play 'Drummond Castle,'" and I responded, sotto voce, "How the hell does 'Drummond Castle' go?" she'd say, "It's the one that goes, 'deedly-dum, da-deedly-dum, dum-da-deedly-deedly-deedly,'" then I'd say, "Oh, of course," and proceed to play it -- in the correct key.


[Image licensed under the Creative Commons © Nevit Dilmen, Music 01754, CC BY-SA 3.0]

The most striking example of this was a tune that I remembered literally for decades without hearing it once during that time.  When I was about 25 I took a Balkan dance class, and there was one tune I especially liked.  I intended to ask the instructor what the name of it was, but forgot (indicating that my memory in other respects isn't so great).  In those pre-internet days, searching for it was damn near impossible, so I forgot about it... sort of.  Twenty years went by, and my wife and I went to a nine-day music camp in the California redwoods, and I made friends with an awesome accordionist and all-around nice guy named Simo Tesla.  One day, Simo was noodling around on his instrument, and instantaneously, I said, "That's my tune!"  There was no doubt in my mind; this was the same tune I'd heard, a couple of times, two decades earlier.

If you're curious, this is the tune, which is called "Bojerka":


The downside, of course, is that because I never forget a tune, I can't forget one even if I want to.  I'm plagued by what are called earworms -- songs that get stuck in your head, sometimes for days at a time.  There are a few songs that are such bad earworms that if they come on the radio, I'll immediately change the channel, because even a few notes are enough to imbed the tune into my brain.  (Unfortunately, sometimes just hearing the name is enough.)

And no, I'm not going to give examples, because then I'll spend the rest of the day humming "Benny and the Jets," and heaven knows I don't want to... um...

Dammit.

The second bit -- imagining what comes next in a piece of music -- also has a positive and a negative side.  The negative bit is that it is intensely frustrating when I'm listening to a song and it gets cut off, so that I don't get to hear the resolution.  The importance of resolving a musical phrase was demonstrated by my college choral director, Dr. Tiboris, who to illustrate the concept of harmonic resolution played on the piano, "Hark, the herald angels sing, glory to the newborn..."  And stopped.

Three or four of us -- myself included -- sang out "KING!" because we couldn't stand to leave the phrase unresolved.

The positive side, though, happens when I listen to a piece of music for the first time, and it resolves -- but not in the way I expected.  That thwarting of expectations is part of the excitement of music, and when done right, can send a shiver up my spine.  One of my favorite moments in classical music is a point where you think you know what's going to happen, and... the music explodes in a completely different direction.  It occurs in the pair of pieces "Quoniam Tu Solus Sanctus" and "Cum Sancto Spiritu" from J. S. Bach's Mass in B Minor.  (If you don't have time to listen to the whole thing, go to about 5:45 and listen for the moment you get lifted bodily off the ground.)


All of which is a long-winded way to get around to last week's papers, which look at both the phenomena of imagining music and of anticipating what will happen next, through the use of an EEG to determine what the brain is actually doing.  What the researchers found is that when you are imagining a piece of music, your brain is responding in exactly the same way as it does when you're actually listening to the piece.  When there's a silent bit in the music, your brain is functionally imaging what's coming next -- whether it's real or imagined.

What was more interesting is the brain's response to the notes themselves.  Imagined notes generate a negative change in voltage in the relevant neurons; real notes generate a positive voltage change.  This may be why when our expectations and the reality of what phrase comes next match up, we can often tune it out completely -- the two voltage changes, in essence, cancel each other out.  But when there's a mismatch, it jolts our brains into awareness -- just like what happens at the end of "Quoniam Tu Solus Sanctus."

I find the whole thing fascinating, as it ties together music and neuroscience, two subjects I love.  I've often wondered about why some pieces resonate with me and others don't; why, for example, I love Stravinsky's music and dislike Brahms.  These studies don't answer that question, of course, but they do get at our ability both to remember (and replay) music in our minds, and also why we have such a strong response when music does something contrary to our expectations. 

But I think I'll wind this up, and just add one more musical track that is pure fun -- the "Polka" from Shostakovich's The Age of Gold.  This is Shostakovich letting loose with some loony light-heartedness, and I defy anyone to anticipate what this piece is gonna do next.  Enjoy!



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

Author and biochemist Camilla Pang was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder at age eight, and spent most of her childhood baffled by the complexities and subtleties of human interactions.  She once asked her mother if there was an instruction manual on being human that she could read to make it easier.

Her mom said no, there was no instruction manual.

So years later, Pang recalled the incident and decided to write one.

The result, Explaining Humans: What Science Can Teach Us About Life, Love, and Relationships, is the best analysis of human behavior from a biological perspective since Desmond Morris's classic The Naked Ape.  If you're like me, you'll read Pang's book with a stunned smile on your face -- as she navigates through common, everyday behaviors we all engage in, but few of us stop to think about.

If you're interested in behavior or biology or simply agree with the Greek maxim "gnothi seauton" ("know yourself"), you need to put this book on your reading list.  It's absolutely outstanding.

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


Tuesday, August 3, 2021

The voices of our ancestors

One of the (many) reasons I love science is that as a process, it opens up avenues to knowledge that were previously thought closed.  Couple that with the vast improvements in technological tools, and you have a powerful combination for exploring realms that once were not considered "science" at all.

Take, for example, historical linguistics, the discipline that studies the languages spoken by our ancestors.  It is a particular fascination of mine -- in fact, it is the field I studied for my MA.  (Yes, I know I spent 32 years teaching biology.  It's a long story.)  I can attest to the fact that it's a hard enough subject, even when you have a plethora of written records to work with, as I did (my thesis was on the effects of the Viking invasions on Old English and Old Gaelic).  When records are scanty, or worse yet, non-existent, the whole thing turns into a highly frustrating, and highly speculative, topic.

This is the field of "reconstructive linguistics" -- trying to infer the characteristics of the languages spoken by our distant ancestors, for the majority of which we have not a single written remnant.  If you look in an etymological dictionary, you will see a number of words that have starred ancestral root words, such as *tark, an inferred verb stem from Proto-Indo-European that means "to twist."  (A descendant word that has survived until today is torque.)  The asterisk means that the word is "unattested" -- i.e., there's no proof that this is what the word actually was, in the original ancestor language, because there are no written records of Proto-Indo-European.  And therein, of course, lies the problem.  Because it's an unattested word, no one can ever be sure if it's correct (which the linguists will tell you straight up; they're not trying to claim more than they should -- thus the asterisks). 

So if you think a particular Proto-Indo-European root reconstructs as *lug and your colleague thinks it's *wuk, you can argue about it till next Sunday and you still will never be certain who's right, as there are very few Proto-Indo-Europeans around these days who could tell you for sure.

Okay, then how do the linguists even come up with a speculative ancestral root?  The inferred words in etymological dictionaries come mainly from the application of one of the most fundamental rules of linguistics: Phonetic changes are regular.




As a quick illustration of this -- and believe me, I could write about this stuff all day -- we have Grimm's Law, which describes how stops in Proto-Indo-European became fricatives in Germanic languages, but they remained stops in other surviving (non-Germanic) Indo-European languages.  One example is the shift of /p/ to /f/, which is why we have foot (English), fod (Norwegian), Fuss (German), fótur (Icelandic), and so on, but poús (Greek), pes (Latin), peda (Lithuanian), etc.  These sorts of sound correspondences allowed us to make guesses about what the original word sounded like.

Note the use of the past tense in the previous sentence.  Because now linguists have a tool that will take a bit of the guesswork out of reconstructive linguistics -- and shows promise to bringing it into the realm of a true science.

An article in Science World Report, entitled "Ancient Languages Reconstructed by Linguistic Computer Program, describes how a team of researchers at the University of British Columbia and the University of California - Berkeley has developed software that uses inputted lexicons to reconstruct languages.  (Read their original paper here.)  This tool automates a process that once took huge amounts of painstaking research, and even this first version has had tremendous success -- the first run of the program, using data from 637 Austronesian languages currently spoken in Asia and the South Pacific, generated proto-Austronesian roots for which 85% matched the roots derived by experts in that language family to within one phoneme or fewer.

What I'm curious about, of course, is how good the software is at deriving root words for which we do have written records.  In other words, checking its results against something other than the unverifiable derivations that historical linguists were already doing.  For example, would the software be able to take lexicons from Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, Catalan, Provençal, and so on, and correctly infer the Latin stems?  To me, that would be the true test; to see what the shortcomings were, you have to have something real to check its results against. 

But even so, it's a pretty nifty new tool.  Just the idea that we can make some guesses at what language our ancestors spoke six-thousand-odd years ago is stunning, and the fact that someone has written software that reduces the effort to accomplish this is cool enough to set my little Language Nerd Heart fluttering.  It is nice to see reconstructive linguistics using the tools of science, thus bringing together two of my favorite things.  Why, exactly, I find it so exciting to know that *swey may have meant "to whistle" to someone six millennia ago, I'm not sure.  But the fact that we now have a computer program that can check our guesses is pretty damn cool.

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

Author and biochemist Camilla Pang was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder at age eight, and spent most of her childhood baffled by the complexities and subtleties of human interactions.  She once asked her mother if there was an instruction manual on being human that she could read to make it easier.

Her mom said no, there was no instruction manual.

So years later, Pang recalled the incident and decided to write one.

The result, Explaining Humans: What Science Can Teach Us About Life, Love, and Relationships, is the best analysis of human behavior from a biological perspective since Desmond Morris's classic The Naked Ape.  If you're like me, you'll read Pang's book with a stunned smile on your face -- as she navigates through common, everyday behaviors we all engage in, but few of us stop to think about.

If you're interested in behavior or biology or simply agree with the Greek maxim "gnothi seauton" ("know yourself"), you need to put this book on your reading list.  It's absolutely outstanding.

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


Monday, August 2, 2021

Sponges, bird brains, and ugly plants

There's a story about Socrates, who was asked what he thought about his reputation for being the smartest man in the world.

The great philosopher thought for a moment, and responded, "If I am, it is only because I alone realize how little I know."

I think there's something to this.  Ignorance confers a kind of cockiness sometimes; another great thinker, Bertrand Russell, once said, "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."  It's inevitable that learning generates some level of humility, because one is always reminded of how much left there is to learn.

This is probably why I was so damn cocky as a college freshman.  Once I got to be a junior, I realized how foolish that was, as I got an inkling of how much I didn't know.  (Of course, nearly failing Classical Mechanics also had a dampening effect on my ego.  That was the moment I realized I didn't have the brains to be a physicist.)

Whenever I start perusing scientific journals -- a common occupation, as I'm looking for topics for Skeptophilia -- I'm amazed at what we've uncovered about the world we live in, and also how much there is left to learn.  That was one of my main takeaways from three scientific papers I came across last week; that, and a sense of wonder at how cool science is.

The first was a link sent to me by my buddy (and fellow writer) Gil Miller.  A paper in Nature by Elizabeth Turner, paleontologist at the Harquail School of Earth Sciences at Laurentian University, describes a find at a dig site in northwestern Canada that seems to contain fossils of one of the earliest and simplest animal groups -- sponges

What's mind-boggling about this discovery is that the rocks of the Stone Knife Formation, where the fossils were discovered, are about 890 million years old.  So if confirmed, this would predate the next-oldest undisputed sponge fossils by 350 million years.  This might just get a shoulder shrug, because most people -- myself included, unless I force myself to stop and think about it -- get lost when the numbers get large, so a 350 million year gap falls into the "it's big, but I can't visualize how big" category.  Let me put this number in perspective for you: if you went back 350 million years from today, you'd be in a world where there were no dinosaurs -- the earliest dinosaurs wouldn't appear for another 90 million years or so.

That's how far back Turner's discovery pushes the earliest animals.

If confirmed, this would place the origin of animals prior to the Cryogenian Period (also called the "Snowball Earth") of between 720 and 635 million years ago, one of the most massive worldwide glaciation events known.

The second paper, in Science Advances, is about the evolution of modern dinosaurs -- or, as we usually call them, "birds."  It's striking that the ancestors of today's birds survived a catastrophic bottleneck at the end of the Cretaceous Period 66 million years ago, caused by the double whammy of a massive meteorite collision and a near-simultaneous flood basalt eruption in what is now India.  (Scientists have yet to determine if the two events were connected -- if, perhaps, the collision destabilized the crust and caused the eruption.)

The paper centers on the discovery of a fantastically well-preserved fossil of Ichthyornis, an aquatic bird species of about 70 million years ago.  Picture a  gull with teeth, and you have a pretty good idea of what Ichthyornis looked like.  

Reconstruction of Icthyornis dispar [Image licensed under the Creative Commons El fosilmaníaco, Ichthyornis restoration, CC BY-SA 4.0]

What is remarkable about this fossil is the preservation of the skull, which gives the researchers a good look at the structure of the brain it once enclosed.  What they found is that the likelihood of a bird lineage surviving the bottleneck was largely due to one thing -- brain size.  Put simply, when the extinction came, the big dumb species tended to die out, and the small smart species survived.  

"Living birds have brains more complex than any known animals except mammals," said study lead investigator Christopher Torres, of the University of Texas and Ohio University.  "This new fossil finally lets us test the idea that those brains played a major role in their survival...  If a feature of the brain affected survivorship, we would expect it to be present in the survivors but absent in the casualties, like Ichthyornis.  That's exactly what we see here."

The third paper, in Nature, is about one of the world's weirdest plants -- Welwitschia mirabilis, of the deserts of Namibia.  The number of bizarre features of this plant are too many to list, but include:
  • The plant can live thousands of years, but only ever has two leaves.  (The Afrikaans name for the plant, tweeblaarkanniedood means, "two leaves, doesn't die.)  The leaves are strap-like and can eventually grow to four meters in length.  They eventually get shredded by the wind into what looks like a giant pile of seaweed.
  • The root is also about four meters in length, and looks like a giant carrot.
  • Despite its appearance, its closest familiar relatives are conifers, like pines, spruces, and firs.
To me it falls into the "ugly but fascinating" category.

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Muriel Gottrop, Welwitschia at Ugab River basin, CC BY-SA 3.0]

The current paper is about the Welwitschia genome, which has a number of interesting features.  First, it seems to have originated when there was a spontaneous duplication of the DNA about 85 million years ago that led to its being genetically isolated from its near relatives, after which it continued to develop along its own lines.  Duplication of the genome has an advantage -- providing extra copies of vital genes, so if mutation knocks out a copy, there's still a functional one available -- but it has the disadvantage of overproduction of gene products (too much of a protein can be as bad as not enough; this is why chromosomal duplications, as in Down syndrome, lead to developmental problems).

Welwitschia solved the disadvantage by a process called methylation, which chemically ties up and shuts down genes.  This is done during normal development in many species, where turning genes on and off at the right times is absolutely critical, and it also knocks out genetic parasites called transposons (a transposon is a segment of DNA that is able to copy itself and splice those copies elsewhere in the DNA -- a sort of copy-and-paste function gone haywire).  So Welwitschia ended up with a huge genome, of which a lot -- the researchers found about 55% -- is composed of shut-down transposons and other methylated (i.e. non-functional) sequences.

Also very weird is the balance between the different nitrogenous bases in Welwitschia's DNA.  You probably know that the "alphabet" of DNA is made up of four bases -- adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine -- and that they pair together like puzzle pieces, A with T, C with G.  So in normal DNA, there will always be exactly as much A as T and exactly as much C as G.

But the other ratios -- A to C, for example -- vary by species.  Still, the number of A/T pairs and C/G pairs is usually fairly close.  Unsurprisingly, this plant, which is an exception to so many rules, is an exception to this one as well -- only 29% of its DNA is made up of C/G pairs.

The upshot: this paper shows that an ugly but fascinating plant is even more interesting than we'd realized.

All of this, published just in the last week.  Which brings me back to Socrates.  I'm not claiming to be anywhere near as smart as he was, but I do share one belief with him.

So much to learn, so little time.

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

Author and biochemist Camilla Pang was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder at age eight, and spent most of her childhood baffled by the complexities and subtleties of human interactions.  She once asked her mother if there was an instruction manual on being human that she could read to make it easier.

Her mom said no, there was no instruction manual.

So years later, Pang recalled the incident and decided to write one.

The result, Explaining Humans: What Science Can Teach Us About Life, Love, and Relationships, is the best analysis of human behavior from a biological perspective since Desmond Morris's classic The Naked Ape.  If you're like me, you'll read Pang's book with a stunned smile on your face -- as she navigates through common, everyday behaviors we all engage in, but few of us stop to think about.

If you're interested in behavior or biology or simply agree with the Greek maxim "gnothi seauton" ("know yourself"), you need to put this book on your reading list.  It's absolutely outstanding.

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