“Ok, Larry. You take an 18” strand of floss, then you wind the ends around your middle fingers like this. No, your middle fingers. No, I don’t think it matters if it’s clockwise or counter-clockwise. Ok, got it? Now grasp the floss with your thumbs and index fingers, leaving about 3-4” of floss between them. No, it doesn’t have to be exactly 3-4”; whatever is comfortable for you. Ok, now you….”

This is where Larry’s eyes start to glaze over. I’m boring him to tears and we both know that when he leaves, he’s more interested in finding Pokémon creatures than he is than cleaning bacterial colonies out from between his teeth. But we in the dental profession still feel compelled to lecture, cajole, encourage, and sadly sometimes even shame our patients into learning the critical importance of flossing. We say cute aphorisms like “Only floss the teeth you want to keep” to drive home our point.

Why do we dental professionals have such a fanatical devotion to flossing? Certainly it’s because of overwhelming scientific evidence that flossing prevents cavities and gum disease, right? Why else would we all go through the inconvenient time consuming gymnastics of trying to slide that little piece of string between all of our teeth (or lying about doing same)? Sure, it’s a hassle, but ostensibly the evidence tells us that by doing so, we’ll get fewer cavities and our teeth won’t fall out, right? Looking at the dental literature, one would think that good studies about flossing and brushing would be abundant, but surprisingly this isn’t the case. Who knows why, but I assume that it’s one of those topics where efficacy was always presumed from experience – both the patient’s and the dentist’s. To be fair, there is robust biological plausibility for brushing and flossing;  it is unequivocal that the complex bacterial biofilm (commonly called “plaque”) found on teeth is necessary for both dental caries (decay) and gum disease to begin. There is a tight chain of events that leads to these diseases: bacteria colonize on tooth surfaces, they then metabolize the carbohydrates we consume in our diet, and the byproducts of this metabolism (chiefly acids and enzymes) erode tooth enamel as well as the tissues surrounding our teeth. This is a vast oversimplification of a complex process of course, but the take home message is that if the biofilm can be thoroughly removed, then the risks of cavities and gum disease are greatly reduced if not eliminated.

But some old news has been resurrected recently that casts doubt on the efficacy of flossing. Like Jason in the Friday the 13^th movie franchise, this story keeps coming back to life from time to time. The most recent iteration appeared in the New York Times on August 2^nd in a story by Catherine Saint Louis entitled “Feeling Guilty About Flossing? Maybe There’s No Need.” This article had a new twist, because it pointed out that “(t)he latest dietary guidelines for Americans, issued by the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, quietly dropped any mention of flossing without notice.” These dietary guidelines are just that, guidelines, evidence based recommendations for maintaining a healthy lifestyle and making wise dietary choices. Almost comically, this “quiet dropping” of flossing is framed in the article in a way that leads the reader to believe it’s the federal government that issues flossing regulations to its subjects. “For decades, the federal government — not to mention your dentist — has insisted that daily flossing is necessary to prevent cavities and gums so diseased that your teeth fall out” the article states. No, the federal government has “insisted” no such thing; they just make evidence based recommendations gleaned from other organizations like the American Dental Association. This mindset was further catalyzed in an article two days later, where an article entitled “How An AP Reporter Took Down Flossing” made the internet rounds. I won’t go into it too much (you can read it yourself), but in it, AP reporter Jeff Donn was interviewed about a story he did about the flossing “controversy.” His article pretty much mirrored the Times article mentioned earlier, but with one absurd twist. In a ploy that would make Kevin Folta’s foes proud, Mr. Donn filed a formal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the documentation behind the departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture’s original recommendations that flossing is a good idea. Alas, the conspiracy to foist flossing upon the American public by government was thwarted by Mr. Donn’s crack investigative skills and FOIA request (so he claims), and the flossing recommendation was removed from the next dietary guideline release.

The purpose of this article is not to ponder how much time and money were wasted filing and responding to Mr. Donn’s FOIA request, or to even question it, as he was within his rights to do so. Nor do I want to impugn his news story or his abilities as a reporter; from his perspective as a non-scientist, this looked like just the sort of juicy fodder that would make a great piece. Rather, as a dentist, my focus is to address the misconceptions regarding the referenced flossing research and my critiques on how the literature is consistently framed and presented to the public by journalists.

The Meta-Analyses

In an attempt to crystalize the data on the matter, a couple of systematic reviews were done, one in the Journal of Dental Research, a high quality, peer reviewed dental journal, and the other by the Cochrane Collaboration, also a well-respected resource for such endeavors. Both of the reviews have been out for a while (one was published in 2006, the other in 2011), but have recently popped up again in the lay press and presented as breaking news. As you might be able to guess, much of the “science journalism” is misleading or downright wrong.

The first systematic review I will cover is “Dental flossing and interproximal caries: a systematic review” by Hujoel, et. al. In this systematic review, the investigators assessed the effect of flossing on interproximal (between the teeth) caries (tooth decay) risk. Toothbrushing doesn’t reach between the teeth, therefore flossing is the logical solution to preventing cavities there. The authors identified six trials involving 808 subjects aged 4 to 13. In one of the reviewed studies, children were professionally flossed every school day for 1.7 years, which resulted in a 40% reduction of caries risk. Professional flossings every three months for three years as well as self-performed flossing for two years did not statistically alter caries risk. Again, they looked only at tooth decay reduction, not gum disease. The take home message from this review is that:

1. Flossing when done by professionals five days per week works! That means if everything goes just right, if you know what you are doing (e.g., you are a dental hygienist, a dentist, or just really anal), you have good visualization of the teeth from outside the mouth, you are motivated and do the job regularly, you can in fact reduce caries. This is the definition of efficacy.
2. If you don’t do it five days per week but just occasionally (even if you are good at it) there is no benefit in terms of lessening your chances of getting a cavity.
3. If you ask people (adolescents) to do it themselves, they can not achieve a good result. Why? They probably can’t technically do it right, don’t do it often enough, or some other unknown reason. This is the definition of effectiveness.
4. So the conclusion for caries prevention is that flossing has some efficacy but not good effectiveness when left to patients to be the flosser.

In the Cochrane review, “Flossing for the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults,” Sambunjak et. al. searched multiple data bases in all languages, going back to at least 1950, for studies which assessed the effects of flossing in addition to toothbrushing (as compared with toothbrushing alone) in the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults. Even with these broad search criteria, only twelve studies involving 582 participants were included in the systematic review. Seven of the trials were assessed as “unclear risk of bias”, while the remaining five were at “high risk of bias.” Plaque and gingivitis were the measured outcomes of the studies. While there was not much difference in the amount of plaque found on flossers and toothbrushers vs. toothbrushers alone, there was a statistically significant decrease in gingivitis in the flossing group at one, three, and six months. While this is a good thing, keep in mind that gingivitis is merely inflammation of the gums: the redness, puffiness, and bleeding you see in gums that aren’t healthy. This is to be distinguished from periodontitis, which is when the infection actually penetrates into the jaw bone surrounding the teeth, causing tooth mobility and ultimately tooth loss. So while this systematic review did show benefit in gingivitis reduction, there was no real benefit in terms of outcomes like tooth retention or other quality of life issues over the duration of the study. In a nutshell, the investigators concluded that “(t)here is some evidence from twelve studies that flossing in addition to toothbrushing reduces gingivitis compared to toothbrushing alone. There is weak, very unreliable evidence from 10 studies that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 and 3 months.” They also pointed out that in this review, “(n)o studies reported the effectiveness of flossing plus toothbrushing for preventing dental caries” in adults.

The take home message from this review is that flossing might make your gums less puffy, and likely makes your mouth feel better without those hunks of shredded chicken stuck in that annoying space between your molars, but the study didn’t show any major benefit as to disease prevention or tooth loss.

But the real question to be asked of the second systematic review is: Did the study not show a decrease in disease incidence because flossing really doesn’t do anything, or was it because it wasn’t properly designed to do so? Let me explain. Periodontitis (gum disease that progresses into the degradation of the jaw bone, loss of attachment between the tooth and supporting ligament between the tooth and bone, and deepening of the pockets between tooth and gum) is usually a chronic condition, often taking years or decades to develop and manifest its signs and symptoms. Most of the studies included in the meta-analysis were of relatively short duration; thus, they weren’t able to truly ascertain if flossing had an effect on periodontitis or not.

The other point I want to make is that since we know that most people don’t know how to floss properly, were these studies of flossing standardized enough so that we know that the participants were Grade A flossers? Did they all floss the same way? For the same amount of time? Same frequency? Did they lie about flossing like everyone else does?

CONCLUSIONS

At the end of the day, here’s what we can conclude about the two systematic reviews and the news articles that were spawned from them: first and foremost, the sensationalist news articles are right. The scientific research does not show that flossing is effective against tooth decay or gum disease. But then again, it doesn’t show it’s not. To say things like “flossing may be unnecessary” or “is your dentist lying to you” is a bit of a stretch and taking the data where it should not go. An AP reporter did not “take down” flossing. There are no high level conspiracies wherein the government and its minions (i.e. dentists and hygienists) are withholding information from an unsuspecting public.

Is flossing beneficial? When done properly and regularly, the evidence shows that it is beneficial. But I think we can all agree that better studies are needed before we can state unequivocally that flossing reduces cavities and gum disease. I don’t think it’s unscientific to tentatively accept that flossing’s health benefits are true, but it can’t be claimed as absolute based upon our available evidence. Remember too that there are other ways to clean the plaque from between your teeth. Interdental cleaners with tiny brushes, high quality electric toothbrushes, and gadgets like the Waterpik® are adjunctive aids to keep your mouth clean and healthy.

So when someone asks me “Does flossing work?”, my response is “It doesn’t not work.”

When the images start, I am already half asleep, which means I’ve done my job. The pictures start shooting in front of my eyes—circles and dots whirling in space, a droplet of water traveling across the screen on the goggles in front of me—as a man with a deep, resonant voice counts down from five: “You will go even deeper into this state of relaxation. Five. Four. Three. Two. One. Open your eyes.”

There are words on the screen, but I am not supposed to read them. There are images, but I am not supposed to focus my gaze. There is a score, and a voice coming through my headphones, but I am not supposed to listen too intently. The whole idea is to experience it all holistically. This is dream therapy, and it is the invention of Sandor Lengyel, a Hungarian inspirational speaker with a Tony Robbins-esque following.

This is my second dream therapy experience; my first was also in this room, and the video was the same both times, although I have switched up the voiceover from a woman to a man. My podcasting partner, Ross, is in the chair next to me, also half-asleep with goggles and earphones on. Although we are watching the same video, the staff takes care to “immerse” each client in the experience by blocking out the surrounding world. As Ross later points out, they don’t do a very good job of using the technology. The video is shot the same as any other video, and the affect is more like watching an iPad in bed, than being surrounded by virtual reality.

As I drift off, trying not to fall asleep but instead to stay in the “floating” space where all the benefits are supposed to come, the narrator continues his verbal onslaught. He is saying goofy, pseudoscientific things like, “The universe is real energy, but you are only partial energy, and by connecting with true energy, you can get the totality of true birth.” I made that up, but this is the level of fuzzy thinking. It is so vague and squishy that I cannot hang onto a sentence fragment long enough to analyze it and connect it to the rest of the thought, so each floats through my mind like so much water. And this is what I am told to do anyway: to experience, to feel, and not to think.

The film, which is the only one on offer, is forty minutes long and divided into three acts. The third act is the only one with actual cinematography instead of floating shapes. This one has cheesy stock shots of business people in suits pumping victory fists into the sky, women in bikinis hugging men on boats, and big elephants picking apples off of trees for small elephants. What am I supposed to get from this? What is the lesson here? What do these images mean? Nothing makes sense; it all just floats together. And since I’ve been told not to make sense of it, I’m doing a great job. My favorite image is of an inhumanly attractive man on a pool float, smiling up at me while he lounges in a backyard pool. The camera pans into the sky as he seductively smiles. It is terrifically unclear what the message is, but that guy sure is happy about it.

According to literature handed out at the center, the technology works by synchronizing the client’s brain waves through “special vibrating sound waves,” causing the client to process information in a specialized way in a “pleasant environment.” This magical formula, they claim, has a “pre-planned and built-in effect on the nervous system.”¹

The final thirty seconds of the movie are a testament to the power of a thesaurus, as the voiceover lists every empowering adjective he can possibly summon. “You are… alive, creative, energetic, invigorated, liberated, attuned, manifested, actualized, materialized…” the list goes on. Finally, with a whoosh of sunlight, he announces, “You are awake.” The screen transitions to an image of the sea, and I am told to click a button to summon the woman who will come remove my glasses and headphones and offer me tea. My session is over.

As I collect my things, I look around the office, which is decorated with inexplicable posters of people having a good time doing nothing. One woman is sitting in a door jam, having a laughing fit, while wearing the same goggles I was just wearing. One poster is just a close up of an enormous run in a woman’s stocking.

Ross and I sit in the front of the office and sip tea as we chat with the administrative assistant who books the appointments. She does the therapy herself and enjoys it. She can’t quite put her finger on what the results are, but she feels them. This is a theme with dream therapy. Both in the office and on the website, we can’t find what exactly we are supposed to get from this. The “benefits” are supposed to be much like meditation, but they aren’t specific about what benefits they mean. And the website and handouts (I leave with five) make more nebulous claims,² such as:

• “The dreaming state gives us permission to allow changes in us and we begin to behave and think differently, sometimes we experience a more evolved way of thinking, sometimes expansion…,” and
• “If we analyze and practice lucid dreaming; the ability to be conscious during dreaming, we can experience the benefits of a more efficient nervous system,” and
• “Small or big events may cause stress in our lives and can result in damages occurring in the brain and elsewhere in our bodies. This can have both an internal and external result. Our brain may have deficiencies and therefore problems manifest in the outside world.”

The impression I get from the Dream Reality Cinema (DRC) website and the handouts I gather from the center is that Dream Meditation is supposed to help me lucid dream, and that once I can control my own dreams, I can use them to act out any decisions I have to make in my real life. Dreams, then, become a sort of thought experiment, where you walk through your potential decisions, seeing what could be at each turn.

But the alleged benefits are physical too. The meditation “is able to fix daily occurring disturbances”³ (whatever those are), and it “synchronizes the brain waves. Even after one Dream Meditation experienced at DRC, the dreamer can expect to spend one to three nights sleeping deeper.”⁴ However, after two sessions, I don’t find that I sleep any differently.

The claims get weirder from there, and dare I say, more cult-like. In one essay, Lengyel’s wife, a sexologist named Dr. Emese Tóth, writes, “To recapture and retain childhood, youth, strength, openness, and purity is only possible through this Way [Dream Meditation]. The other elaborately advertised ways and roundabout ways are only an illusion, and create only illusions, not reality.”⁵ In one interview, Lengyel says that he regularly holds ten- to fifteen-hour lectures, in Russia and Hungary, “almost on a daily basis, always on different subjects,” about whatever he feels like talking about at the moment. He says that his students often get just a few hours of sleep a night, necessitating this deep level of relaxation when they do sleep. But students of totalist and cultic environments will recognize this as a classic coercion technique: sleep deprivation is often used as a tool of mind control. Is that the case here? There is no way to say without being there.

Perhaps the strangest moment in all of the literature provided by the DRC is when Dr. Emese Tóth, Lengyel’s wife and business partner, makes a passionate plea for the power of human intuition:

“The natural and much more efficient way of obtaining information is the direct, self-sufficient acquisition. That is, connecting to the raw, unprocessed, original information masses and copying or clearing the source. Completely independent from the media, books or other people. For those of us who were brought up in some kind of a school system, this idea might appear to be unsubstantiated.”

Here, she is clearly arguing that we should look to our own intuition and ability to tap into the “source” (that is, greater human knowledge available to all of us) instead of relying on pesky things such as science and observation. But she goes on,

“However, thousands of experiments, over 50 years of countless scientific documentation and experience all prove one thing, that it is reasonable to say that humans can become completely self-reliant in regards to acquiring information.”⁶

It is difficult to imagine someone changing courses more quickly or grandly in a single paragraph than this, from advocating trusting your own intuition because you don’t need science (yeah, take that, science!), to relying on science to “validate” your point. And, by the way, it goes without saying that “countless scientific documentation” does not prove that you don’t need studies. If anything, science has shown us repeatedly that our gut instincts are often wrong, our hearts often lead us astray, and our intuition is evolutionarily designed to be over-zealous.

Whatever Dream Reality Cinema is offering me, it isn’t science. It is a pleasant experience—the first time, anyway—but a costly one. And by the second time, I am antsy to finish up the film and go get lunch. Very few movies are worth $80 a pop. Maybe The Graduate. Maybe.

When I got home that day, I slept for a normal amount of time. I didn’t control my dreams. It was a typical night.

Notes

1. Tóth, Emese. “Short History of the Origins of DRC - Dream Reality Cinema.”
2. Tóth, Emese. “How Do Conventional and Lucid Dreams Come About? - Dream Reality Cinema.”
3. Tóth, Emese. “How Do Conventional and Lucid Dreams Come About? - Dream Reality Cinema.”
4. Tóth, Emese. “How Do Conventional and Lucid Dreams Come About? - Dream Reality Cinema.”
5. Tóth, Emese. “The New Renaissance of Dreams - Countdown to an Alternative Future - Dream Reality Cinema.”
6. Tóth, Emese. “How Do Conventional and Lucid Dreams Come About? - Dream Reality Cinema.”

This Thursday and Friday, there will be one of the best annual meteor showers you or your family can watch – the Perseids. And some experts are even predicting that there might be a meteor “outburst” this year – where the number of shooting stars increases beyond the usual rates.

This is a complicated year for watching the Perseid meteor shower, because the evening sky has a roughly half-lit-up moon in it, making it more difficult to catch the faint “shooting stars.” So if you can wait until the Moon sets (between midnight and 1 am), you should have better viewing in the pre-dawn darkness. That’s great advice for people on vacation or camping trips (and for insomniacs,) but probably not useful for those who have to get up for work! (If you are watching before midnight, one suggestion is to get into a moon shadow – a place where something blocks your view of the Moon and it’s easier to scan the sky.)

The best night is the evening of Thursday, Aug. 11 and morning of Friday, Aug. 12^th, although there could be significantly more meteors in the sky on the night before and the night after too.Meteors or “shooting stars” (which have nothing to do with stars) are pieces of cosmic dust and dirt hitting the Earth’s atmosphere at high speed and making a flash of light. These flashes could happen anywhere in the sky, so it’s best to view the shower from a dark, wide-open place. See the list at the end for viewing suggestions.

The Perseid meteors are cosmic “garbage” left over from a regularly returning comet, called Swift-Tuttle (after the two astronomers who first discovered it). The comet itself returns to the inner solar system every 130 years or so; it was last here in 1992. During each pass, it leaves dirt and dust behind and it is this series of long dirt and dust streams that we encounter every August. Some scientists who study comets and meteors are predicting that we might briefly encounter an especially crowded part of the debris stream this time.

By Channone Arif [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Each flash you see is a bit of material from the comet hitting the Earth’s atmosphere and getting heated up (and heating up the air around it) as it speeds through our thick atmosphere. Both the superheated dust and dirt and the heated air contribute to the visible light we observe. Since comets are left-overs from the early days of our solar system, you can tell yourself (or your kids) that each flash of light is the “last gasp” of a bit of cosmic material that formed some 5 billion years ago.

A few tips for best viewing:

ANDREW FRAKNOI’S EIGHT HINTS FOR “TAKING A METEOR SHOWER”

1. Get away from city lights and find a location that’s relatively dark
2. If it’s significantly foggy or cloudy, you’re out of luck
3. Your location should allow you to see as much of the dome of the sky as possible
4. Allow time for your eyes to get adapted to the dark (at least 10–15 minutes)
5. Don’t use a telescope or binoculars – they restrict your view (which means you don’t have to be part of the 1% with fancy equipment to see the shower; this is a show for the 99%!)
6. Dress warm – it can get cooler at night even in August (and don’t forget the insect repellent while you are outside)
7. Be patient (it’s not fireworks): keep looking up & around & you’ll see flashes of light
8. Take someone with you with whom you like to spend time in the dark!

Paul Offit is an American pediatrician who specializes in vaccines and infectious diseases. He is author of several books including his latest, Bad Faith: When Religious Belief Undermines Modern Medicine as well as a co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine and a very public advocate of vaccines. He was made a fellow of the Committee of Skeptical Inquiry in 2015 and will be speaking at CSICon Friday, October 28th at 11:00 a.m.

Susan Gerbic: Paul, I’m trying not to get all fan-girl over this interview, but it is going to be difficult. You have saved thousands of lives, maybe tens of thousands of lives over your career and it is just so frustrating to me that people like you aren’t more known by the public. I mean why should the Kardashians have their own show when we should see Keeping Up with Paul Offit instead? I just don’t get it. Everyone in the scientific skepticism community knows who you are, but just in case can you please give us an introduction?

By The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (photo credit) [CC BY 2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons

Paul Offit: I’m a professor of pediatrics in the division of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). For most of my professional career, I worked with a team at CHOP that created the strains that became the bovine-human reassortant rotavirus vaccine, RotaTeq. This vaccine was licensed by the FDA and recommended for universal use in children by the CDC in 2006. So we’re celebrating the ten-year anniversary of that vaccine this year. Since licensure, the vaccine has dramatically reduced the incidence of rotavirus-induced hospitalization in the United States and now is being used in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, thanks in large part to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. During this process, I learned how hard it was to make vaccines—to show that they were exactly what they were claimed to be. After publication of Andrew Wakefield’s paper claiming that the MMR vaccine caused autism, I learned how easy it was to damn them. So during the past fifteen years of so, I have tried to counter the anti-vaccine movement by 1) starting a Vaccine Education Center at CHOP that creates and distributes educational materials, 2) addressing vaccine issues with the media, and 3) writing narrative nonfiction books about vaccines for the general public. It’s been a wild ride.

Gerbic: In 2015, the GSoW project focused on Wikipedia pages concerning vaccines. One transformation I’m very proud of was one of my editors turning the Every Child by Two Wikipedia page from a stub with one citation to a wonderful page with twenty-eight citations. You are a Board Member of this health advocacy organization, please tell us more.

Offit: Every Child By Two was founded by Betty Bumpers and Rosalyn Carter when their husbands (Dale Bumpers and Jimmy Carter) were governors. But the real driving force behind that organization is Amy Pisani, a wonderful advocate for children’s health. Frankly, I’ve never met anyone as dedicated and hard working as Amy. Once, after I gave a talk about vaccine safety in front of a legislative committee in Connecticut, a mother came up to the podium and screamed at me for five minutes. I was a little shaken up. One of the state legislators gave me a ride back to the train station during which she said, “You know you’ve gotten to the center of things when you meet the very best people and the very worst people.” Amy is one of those very best people.

By BDEngler (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Gerbic: I’ve heard that vaccinations have done their job so well that people have forgotten how horrible that time was before we had them. Now they seem to think that we have eliminated all the bad diseases and we don’t have to bother anymore. In my home town of Salinas, California, our hospital has an actual iron lung machine in our medical museum. It has long been my goal to find a way to produce a short film or a public service video with that as the focus. Something along the lines of what Richard Saunders did with his video “The Vaccination Chronicles.” Is our ignorance of history a contributor to the problems we face with vaccine rates? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTprFOmIjIg

Offit: Yes. Not only have we eliminated many of these diseases; we’ve eliminated the memory of those diseases. When Jenny McCarthy says, regarding avoiding autism, that “I’ll take the frickin’ measles every time,” it tells you that she has no idea how bad the disease is. Every year before the measles vaccine was first introduced in 1963, about 50,000 people, mostly previously healthy children, would be hospitalized with the disease and 500 would die. Sadly, I think it is going to take some of these diseases coming back to some extent in order for us to realize their importance. Vaccines have been a victim of their own success.

Gerbic: Obviously, we all can’t be experts on virology and vaccines. I recently listened to a lecture by Debra Berliner at SkeptiCal who suggested that we should be more public about getting vaccinations, like when we wear the little “I voted” stickers. It should be the default position and we go about our lives with that attitude. When Mark Zuckerberg and his wife took their baby in for its shots, he posted a photo that went viral. Besides being vaccinated ourselves and sharing this attitude, is there more us as average people can do?

Offit: Or, maybe people who aren’t vaccinated should wear a large scarlet letter “A,” like Hester Prynne, so you can know whom to avoid in the grocery store. The truth is that we don’t like to tell other people how to raise their children. So when we see parents leaving their children vulnerable to these diseases, we think, “Well, that’s their choice.” But that choice is also a choice for your child. No vaccine is 100 percent effective. So even if your child is vaccinated, you aren’t assured absolute protection. And if you’re surrounded by people who aren’t vaccinating, both their children and your children are at risk. We should start getting angrier about this.

Gerbic: What are your thoughts concerning possible regulations of alt med? If an institution requires supplements to meet more stringent manufacturing requirements, will the result be that they become too expensive? Possibly discouraging their use?

Offit: If the dietary supplement industry were regulated—which is to say held to a standard of safety and efficacy—it would disappear.

Gerbic: Are there other countries doing a better job with their regulatory system?

Offit: I don’t know. I doubt it.

Gerbic: These questions are so academic for this interview; I feel like I need to lighten up the mood a bit. CSICon attendees will be interested in the answer to this question. Kirk or Picard?

Offit: I am sorry to say that I was never a fan of Star Trek. As a child of the 1950s and 1960s, my choices were Superman, Batman, Aquaman, and Iron Man. I would choose Superman because Krypton made him vulnerable, like the rest of us.

Gerbic: You are going to be speaking at CSICon this year; can you give us a hint of what you will be talking about?

Offit: I’ll be talking about our never-ending quest for pain relief without addiction. And how we keep making the same mistake over and over again.

Gerbic: Thank you so much for your time answering these questions; I’m really looking forward to hearing you speak at the upcoming CSICon.

La tontería olímpica oficial de Río 2016 se llama ventosaterapia, ‘cupping’ en inglés. Ha desbancado en el trono de las supersticiones deportivas a las cintas de esparadrapo de colores que se popularizaron en Londres 2012. Llevaba días preguntándome cuál iba a ser la pseudoterapia de los primeros Juegos Olímpicos de Sudamérica cuando en Twitter irrumpieron Michael Phelps y sus moratones en la espalda.

AL Bello/Getty Images

El 'cupping' es una de las pseudoterapias más estúpidas. Forma parte de la llamada medicina tradicional china y, según el Papiro Ebers, uno de los tratados médicos más antiguos, se practicaba ya en Egipto hace unos 3.500 años. Consiste básicamente en aplicar sobre la piel ventosas de cristal o cerámica para provocar vacíos en ellas, bien quemando una sustancia cuya combustión consume el oxígeno atrapado entre la ventosa y la piel, bien extrayendo el aire mediante una pequeña bomba. La consecuencia es la misma que la de un chupón de enamorado: un moratón.

Los practicantes de la ventosaterapia dicen que sirve para tratar anemia, hemofilia, artritis, desórdenes gastrointestinales, asma, depresión, dolores musculares, fatiga y hasta cáncer. Ésa no es la opinión de la ciencia. “Es un absurdo”, sentencia Vicente Baos, médico de familia y miembro del Círculo Escéptico, quien añade que “es una forma de acupuntura que en este caso los deportistas estadounidenses utilizan, según dicen, contra los dolores musculares y la fatiga. Pero es algo ridículo. Ese vacío provoca un desgarro de la piel y de los vasos sanguíneos superficiales. Por eso sale un moratón o directamente sangre. No tiene nada que ver con los músculos. Es un simple chupón”.

En 2012, la revista ‘PLoS ONE’ publicó una revisión de todos los estudios sobre ‘cupping’: los autores del trabajo concluían que, aunque podría tener cierta efectividad contra algunas dolencias, la calidad de las investigaciones era tan baja que no hay garantías de que se trate más que de placebo. Es decir, lo mismo que sucede con todas las terapias alternativas cuando se someten a análisis rigurosos. La Sociedad Estadounidense contra el Cáncer asegura, por su parte, que “no hay pruebas científicas de que (la ventosaterapia) suponga ningún beneficio para la salud" y que todos los informes de éxito "son anecdóticos. No hay pruebas científicas de que el ‘cupping’ pueda curar el cáncer o cualquier otra enfermedad”.

Michael Phelps publicó fotos de su tratamiento de ahuecamiento en su Instagram

Las cintas kinesio

Michael Phelps y otros miembros del equipo olímpico estadounidense están convencidos de que la ventosaterapia les va bien como otros deportistas lo están de la efectividad de otras pseudoterapias, amuletos y rituales supersticiosos. Hace cuatro años, veíamos en Londres a competidores de varias nacionalidades y disciplinas con las llamadas cintas kinesio, unos vistosos esparadrapos de colores que se inventó a finales de los 70 el médico alternativo japonés Kenzo Kase, quiropráctico y cromoterapeuta (de ahí lo de los colores). Ya saben, las supersticiones tienden a ir en manada.

“Vendar adecuadamente, por un profesional experto, una articulación o un músculo dañado resulta conveniente para la recuperación de una lesión y puede permitir que vuelva a utilizarse hasta cierto punto, incluso para competir”, me explicaba el biólogo José Carlos Pérez Cobo, entonces profesor de Fisiología Humana de la Universidad del País Vasco. Y mostraba su perplejidad por el uso de las cintas kinesio, que “no sujetan nada” y cuentan, además, con el inútil añadido de la cromoterapia.

Al igual que en el caso del ‘cupping’, una revisión de los estudios sobre las cintas kinesio publicada en la revista ‘Sports Medicine’ advertía en 2012 de que no hay ninguna prueba de que el esparadrapo mágico funcione mejor que el normal cuando se emplea bien. Ese trabajo, obviamente, no ha influido en los atletas que todavía hoy, en Río 2016, usan las cintas kinesio como no influirán las pruebas -o, mejor dicho, la falta de ellas- sobre la ventosaterapia en el ánimo de Phelps y sus compañeros. Más probable es que el escaparate olímpico popularice la estupidez del ‘cupping’.

La ventosaterapia, las cintas kinesio y la ahora olvidada pulsera Power Balance -que usaban estrellas como Shaquille O’Neal, Cristiano Ronaldo y Rubens Barrichello- son demostraciones de algo muy extendido en el deporte: la superstición. Raro es el deportista que no tiene alguna manía, algún tic, algún amuleto, alguna prenda, que cree que le da suerte. Desde unas medias determinadas hasta el tradicional crucifijo, pasando por entrar al terreno de juego siempre con el mismo pie, es todo dopaje mental que añade a quien lo practica un plus de confianza en que las cosas van a salir bien. Si no es así, ya culparemos a otras circunstancias, nunca al amuleto o ritual. Michael Phelps cree en el ‘cupping’, pero, si no entrenara ni fuera un portento físico, ya podían llenarle el cuerpo de ventosas que no serviría para nada. Como las bendiciones eclesiales al ‘Titanic’.

The question of whether or not psychology is a science is not new. It’s true that some aspects of psychotherapies, such as the psychoanalytic notion of repressed memory, have little or no basis in science. In their book Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me), social psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson showed how mental-health professionals wrongly diagnosed their patients with no prior memory of sexual abuse as having been molested. These therapists believed that hypnosis would recover the memory that had been repressed due to the trauma. In fact, hypnosis can create false memories. In addition, the failure to report traumatic experiences doesn’t mean the memory was repressed. As psychologists and authors of 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology note, even in those cases memory loss can be explained in terms of ordinary forgetting rather than repression. More critically, the authors explain that research actually shows that most people remember such traumatic experiences quite well in the form of disturbing flashbacks.

However, when science has been applied to the study of cognition and behavior, scientists have uncovered interesting phenomena through very clever experiments. This year, two fascinating classic psychological experiments have been portrayed in movies: Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment and Stanley Milgram’s shock experiment. In this column, I’ll discuss other interesting experiments in psychology.

The Morality of Babies

In one fascinating experiment conducted by developmental psychologists Karen Wynn, Paul Bloom, and colleagues at the Infant Cognition Center at Yale University, a baby watches a show with three puppet characters. The puppet in the middle has a ball and rolls to the puppet on the right, who rolls the ball back. Then, the ball is rolled for the puppet on the left who, instead of turning it back, runs away with it. End of the show. Then a researcher who isn’t aware of each puppet’s role in the play asks which one the baby prefers between the “nice” one (the one who turned the ball back) and “naughty” one (who ran away with the ball). In fact, developmental psychologists have conducted similar experiments with the same underlying aim: to verify if babies favor the helpful or the unhelpful “characters” over the others. The results have been consistent: about 80 percent of babies favor the good guy over the bad one. In a similar version of the experiment, the same show described previously was exhibited to each of the babies. In the end, the nice and bad puppets were put in front of the baby and a treat was placed in front of each puppet. In this version, the experimenter invited the baby to take one of the treats away. As expected from previous results, most babies in this experiment took the treat away from the bad puppet. More remarkable, as Paul Bloom says in his book Just Babies, the one-year-old baby “leaned over and smacked this puppet on the head”!

According to Paul Bloom, these experiments have shown that some aspects of morality come naturally to us, while others do not. What he proposes is that “certain moral foundations are not acquired to learning. They do not come from the mother’s knee, or from school or church; they are instead the products of biological evolution.” Just Babies is an excellent book that summarizes this and other studies psychologists have done with babies and children (Hamlin et al. 2007; 2011).

Altruism in Human Infants 
and Chimpanzees

Psychologists Felix Warneken and Michael Tomasello conducted a series of experiments where they presented eighteen-month-old human infants ten different situations in which an adult was having difficulties achieving a goal (Warneken and Tomasello 2006). Helping someone solve a problem is an interesting cognitive phenomenon because, in order to do so, one must know something about the goal as well as its current obstacles. The results of the experiment showed that infants helped humans in different kinds of situations, such as by handing several out-of-reach objects to the experimenter, completing the experimenter’s stacking of books after his failed attempt, and opening the door of a cabinet when the experimenter’s hands were full. It’s remarkable that in almost all cases the infants helped immediately—they helped before the experimenter looked to them or verbalized his problem. Moreover, they helped without receiving any benefits. Warneken, Tomasello, and colleagues have also conducted similar tests with chimpanzees, in which all of them reliably retrieved objects for humans (Warneken and Tomasello 2006; 2009).

Morality of Primates

Primatologist Frans de Waal has studied moral behaviors in nonhuman primates. As de Waal explained in his TED Talk, for decades it was assumed that only humans could care about the welfare of others. However, research has shown this is wrong. In an experiment, two chimpanzees were put in separate but proximate cages. In one of the cages, there is a basket with several tokens. There are two types of tokens identified by color. Only one of the chimps selects a token and delivers it to the researcher. The token-selector chimp always receives a food award. However, according to the token chosen, the other chimp does or doesn’t receive food. If the chimp chooses the “selfish” token, only she receives the food reward. If the chimp chooses the “prosocial” token, both of them receive food. It’s remarkable that, if the non-selector chimp applies some pressure (by spitting water for example), the selector chimp decreases her selection for the prosocial token, punishing the other monkey for bad behavior (Brosnan and de Waal 2003).

In another experiment, de Waal and his colleagues put two capuchin monkeys side by side in different cages. The monkeys were asked to do a simple task: to give back a small rock they received from a researcher. After they did it, they received a food reward. When the first monkey completed the task, she received a slice of cucumber. The other monkey also performed the same task but received a grape. The remarkable behavior happened when the first monkey performed that same task again and continued to receive the cucumber instead of grape that the other monkey had received. Since capuchin monkeys often prefer grape to cucumber, the monkey feeling the injustice threw the cucumber on the researcher (Horner et al. 2011)!

Cognition in Dogs

Evolutionary anthropologist Brian Hare, developmental psychologist Michael Toma­sello, and other scientists have shown in several experiments that dogs are very good at understanding human cues such as gazing or pointing. In one experiment, a piece of food was hidden without the dog’s awareness in one of two opaque cups. Then the experimenter points to the correct cup and lets the dog choose a cup. Dogs were able to locate the hidden food above the levels of chance. Experiments of this kind have also been done with chimpanzees, which have performed worse than dogs. In all of these tests, scientists have controlled for other possible cues that dogs were using, such as smell of foods or even attraction to motion. The dogs also were able to locate food using cues they never had seen before, such as a researcher pointing with a foot. They also identified the right cup even when the experimenter walked toward the other cup while pointing in the right direction (Hare and Tomasello 2005).

Scientists wondered why dogs have these remarkable skills, and several hypotheses were developed. First, dogs could learn to read human gestures as they grow up along with humans. However, tests have shown that even nine-week-old puppies performed as well as adult dogs. In addition litter-reared puppies, which have little human contact, performed just as well as puppies adopted by humans. Another possible explanation is that this ability was inherited from dogs’ ancestry. This also turned out to be wrong because wolves performed worse than dogs in understanding human communication intention (Hare and Tomasello 2005).

So, the last hypothesis remained: Did these skills evolve during domestication? The likely answer came from a big and brilliant experiment that started fifty-five years ago and continues today. In 1959, geneticist Dmitry Belyaev was interested in domestication and performed an experiment with two groups of foxes. In the control group, foxes were bred randomly. In the other group, the experimental line, a human tried to touch the foxes when they were seven months old. The fox kits that were friendly toward the human were bred with kits that showed the same behavior; fox kits that showed fear or even aggression toward humans were not bred. As Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods explain in their book The Genius of Dogs, after forty-five generations when Hare visited Belyaev’s creatures, the results were remarkable: some foxes (in the experimental group) had floppy ears, others had curled tails. In addition, the “experimental” foxes wagged their tails to him as he walked through their rooms. More critically, experimental foxes were much better at reading human gestures than the control group foxes, which performed as badly as wolves or chimpanzees (Hare et al. 2005). Hare and Woods are clear in their book about the results of these experiments: “Belyaev’s experiment had changed the foxes’ ability to read human gestures as a direct result of experimental domestication. Domestication, selecting the friendliest foxes for breeding, had caused cognitive evolution.”

Today, there are laboratories dedicated to study dog cognition, such as Duke Canine Cognition Center1, founded by Brian Hare, and the recently opened Canine Cognition Center2 at Yale University.

Notes

1. https://evolutionaryanthropology.duke.edu/research/dogs
2. http://doglab.yale.edu/

References

• Brosnan, S.F., and F.B.M. de Waal. 2003. Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature 425: 297–99.
• Hamlin, J.K., K. Wynn, and P. Bloom. 2007. Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature 450: 557–55.
• Hamlin, J.K., K. Wynn, P. Bloom, et al. 2011. How infants and toddlers react to antisocial others. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 19931–36.
• Hare, B., and M. Tomasello. 2005. Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9: 439–44.
• Hare, B., et al. 2005. Social cognitive evolution in captive foxes is a correlated by-product of experimental domestication. Current Biology 15(3): 226–30.
• Horner, V., J.D. Carter, M. Suchak, et al. 2011. Spontaneous prosocial choice by chimpanzees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 13847–51.
• Warneken, F., and M. Tomasello. 2006. Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science 311: 1301–1303.
• ———. 2009. Varieties of altruism in children and chimpanzees. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13: 397–402.

Are astrologers really able to prognosticate—to see the future as supposedly foreordained by the stars? Something wonderful happened to me in 2003 that I never saw coming. Had it been foreseen by stargazers in their forecasts for me in that year? What about a horoscope I commissioned for a special individual on an earlier occasion: How accurate did it prove to be? And what about a unique “Electronic Horoscope” I once tested at a carnival arcade?

Astrology

The “science” (actually pseudoscience) of astrology is a supposed means of character reading and fortune-telling. Had Ambrose Bierce included an entry for it in his witty The Devil’s Dictionary (1967), he might have defined it as “a means of picking a dupe’s pocket while he is gazing at the stars.”

Astrology is a system of divination based on the notion that, depending on their positions, celestial bodies somehow exert influence on people and events. Allegedly, when one is born, he or she comes under one of twelve astrological signs. They are listed in Figure 1 together with the main personality traits attributed to them, according to famed astrologer Evangeline Adams (1868–1932).However, according to astrology critic Milbourne Christopher (1970, 113–114):

Bypass the many objections astronomers and other scientists make to the movements of the planets as fixed astronomical calculations. Why is someone born at a certain time, on a certain day, in a certain part of the world of a certain nature? Did the originators of astrology study the traits of millions of people and discover that all those born at a specific time had identical characteristics and futures? No! Nor has it been proven since that the early fictions are fact.

Essentially, astrology may seem to be accurate because the astrologer supplies vague statements and generalities, which the credulous person attempts to apply to his or her own situation. (For a critical discussion of astrology, see Dean et al. 1996.)

Figure 1. Astrological signs, symbols, and traits by Evangeline Adams (1931).

A Daughter in the Stars

You will discover a beautiful thirty-six-year-old daughter you did not know you had, along with two grandsons. Your life will be changed forever.

This is the astrological forecast I should have received for 2003, but it never came. Should not that remarkable occurrence have been “in the stars”?

The discovery was the big event in my life that year, to say the least, but apparently no astrologer (or, for that matter, palmist, tarot reader, or other fortune-teller) had had an inkling of it. Not that I had checked them all, of course, but over the years I have visited many prognosticators and been unimpressed with their offerings—very unimpressed. After the wonderful revelation of parenthood in the fall of 2003, I decided to purchase three astrological guides that were still available on bookshelves. At last I am getting around to writing my assessment of these, although I thumbed through them at the time for their forecasts for me.

Having been born on December 1, I am, astrologically speaking, a Sagittarius. Such folk “are always seeking to expand their horizons” says one astrological guide (Polansky 2002, 299), being “noted for the development of the mind—the higher intellect—which understands philosophical, metaphysical and spiritual concepts.” That’s me all right, a poet, although the guide seems unaware of my analytical, detectivist bent. Another guide, aimed exclusively at Sagittarians, is by famed astrologer Sydney Omarr who states (2002, 176), “Sagittarius is the natural cheerleader of the Zodiac, spurring others on to make the most of themselves.” I certainly would like to be like that.

Regarding actual dates, the guide by Polansky (2002, 306–307) predicted a dynamic influence on Sagittarians by Uranus for the period of March 1 to September 15, specifically “a need for breaking the domestic routine (the rut), the domestic patterns and stifling family relationships.” But how wrong could one be? My family relationships were anything but stifling: As to immediate family, my parents were dead; I was largely estranged from my only sibling (an older brother); and I had neither wife nor children. That was to change, but the drama began with positive DNA tests a month later, on October 14.

Figure 2. Author and his daughter at their first meeting, November 26, 2003. (Author’s photo by Diana Harris.)

Briefly, in the fall of 2003 I learned of my daughter, Cherie—my only child—whose mother, Diana, had been my college sweetheart. (Diana left me in 1966 to return to her former boyfriend. While she thought she became pregnant, we now know she already was pregnant.) Three years after we knew Cherie was our child, the two of us (both divorced) married—almost exactly forty years later. (See my “Intuition: The Case of the Unknown Daughter” [Nickell 2005a].)

Polansky not only missed my learning of the existence of my daughter but also missed the big event for November: father and child meeting each other for the first time, on the 26th (see Figure 2). Instead, almost laughably the stargazer foresaw possibly “upheavals with uncles or aunts” (Polansky 2002, 327–330). A little 2003 Zodiac Guide failed equally, seeing only “new friends” and “home improvements” for November (Smither 2002, 47). Well perhaps the well-known astrologer and “psychic” Sydney Omarr would do better with his volume devoted entirely to Sagittarius. For October 14 Omarr did caution, “Be sure to obtain information about legal rights and permissions,” and he predicted a “romantic involvement.” However, I’m skeptical that that was supposed to mean, “DNA results reveal a long unknown child”! For November 26, did he see that I would travel from Amherst, New York, to Lexington, Kentucky, to meet my daughter? Alas, to the contrary, he advised: “Stay close to home. Stress harmony, voice, music, romance. What you have been seeking is right there, where you live . . .” (Omarr 2002, 287). Not to be too technical, I believe that would be counted as a miss. In the entire matter, astrologers were worse than useless.

Commissioned Reading

But if such off-the-shelf prognostications were failures, what about a targeted reading? It was too late to try that in my case, but as it happened, years before, I had tested this approach by having a reading made for an individual with a most unusual situation. The idea occurred to me when, in 1991, I came upon an astrology booth at an antiques show in Lexington, Kentucky. (I was living in Lexington then, teaching technical writing at the University of Kentucky where I had received my PhD in 1987.) As a test, I commissioned the seer to do a “yearly personal forecast” for a name and date of birth I gave her: Jean Michel Gambet, born December 22, 1948. One could hardly blame her for assuming this was a woman who, being approximately in my age range, was possibly a love interest—unless, of course, the astrologer was psychic (as many claim to be).I paid her in advance for the reading. Her brochure called her an “Astro-Numerologist” who combined the “sciences” of Astrology and Numerology in readings that were “done personally . . . no computers.” (Before I left to await the results by mail, the diviner asked if I was a Virgo, because, as she stated, I seemed “so detailed”; however, I informed her I was a Sagittarius.)

In fact, the subject whose reading I commissioned was a man who in 1982—just nine days before his thirty-fourth birthday—was found shot through the head and his body burned in his car. This was a unique case I had investigated with a forensic analyst and Lexington police homicide detectives. (I relate the investigation as “The Case of the Shrinking Bullet” in one of my books [Nickell with Fischer 1992, 107–129].)

Unfortunately, in what I could not distinguish from a computer printout, the ten-page reading that arrived seemed to be a generic one, suitable for anyone to read into it whatever he or she wanted (except for the subject’s birthdate of December 22, 1948, being acknowledged here and there). Despite being dead, the subject was blithely informed that “there will be financial ups and downs,” was most belatedly warned to “take special care against violence” (September 9, 18, 27), and was advised to “search for a deeper and more important life purpose,” along with other stock sayings (Key 1991). None of this was helpful to a man who died over nine years earlier.

Perhaps it will be thought unfair to have sought, as a test, a reading for a dead person, but this personal forecast purported to involve long time periods, and it occasionally referred to the past. It seems to me that if the oracular forces cannot even know if the subject is alive or dead, the pronouncements cannot really be meaningfully accurate.

‘Electronic Horoscope’

If astrology can be combined with numerology, then why not with palmistry? Indeed, such was an “Electronic Horoscope” I had the opportunity to test in an arcade on a carnival midway. It was allegedly “personalized from your palm reading by the miracle of electronics.” I came upon the savant machine while doing research for my book Secrets of the Sideshows (Nickell 2005b, 47). (See Figure 3.)

How would we test such a coin-operated device? (The reader might wish to pause here to consider the question and perhaps devise what I call an investigative strategy.)

Figure 3. The author investigating an “Electronic Horoscope” derived from a “Palm Reading” (sup- posedly scanned—but not). (Author’s photo.)

I did two things, both pretty simple. First, I decided to obtain two readings of the same hand, scanned as similarly as possible. The presumption would be that—if the method of analysis had merit—the readings would be the same each time for the same hand. In fact, however, they were completely different—consistent with random printouts from a bank of readings, generalized statements that seemingly fit pretty much anyone.

For example, the first read (in part):

YOUR PALM READING INDICATES A STABLE AND CONSTRUCTIVE PERSONALITY. YOU ARE HIGHLY METHODICAL AND PERSEVERING. YOU ARE CHARACTERIZED BY HONORABLE DEALINGS ESPECIALLY IN MONEY MATTERS AND GREAT RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED UPON YOU. YOU ARE VERY THOROUGH IN YOUR WORK AND YOUR CONSTRUCTIVE ABILITIES SHOULD BE GIVEN FREE REIN. YOU ARE ABLE TO GET ALONG EASILY WITH OTHERS. YOUR HIGHLY SENSITIVE INTELLECT AND PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU TO HANDLE LARGE ISSUES INVOLVING THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE. . . .

The second printout read:

YOUR PALM READING INDICATES THAT YOU ARE GENEROUS TO A FAULT WHERE YOUR FRIENDS ARE CONCERNED. YOU TEND TO BE SHY AND RESERVED WHEN MEETING PEOPLE. YOU ARE A PERFECTIONIST AND WORK HARD AT DOING YOUR JOB WELL. YOU TAKE GREAT PRIDE IN THE APPEARANCE OF YOUR HOME.

YOUR HOROSCOPE COMBINING THESE PERSONALTY TRAITS WITH THE ASTROLOGICAL ASPECTS OF YOUR SIGN, SHOW [sic] A HEALTHY TREND TOWARD A MORE OUTGOING AND CONFIDENT WAY OF LIFE. . . .

As a second test, I decided to avoid placing my hand on the machine at all. If the device made legitimate scans and analysis, then no reading should be generated. However, the printout came as usual, airily supplying more blather:

YOUR PALM READING INDICATES A PERSON WITH GREAT POWERS OF DISCRIMINATION AND INSIGHT. YOUR INTELLECTUAL DEX­TERITY, YOUR INTUITIVE FACULTIES, THE VERSATILITY OF YOUR WHOLE PERSONALITY GIVE YOU THE ABILITY TO DO WELL IN MOST FIELDS OF ENDEAVOR. THE SPEED OF YOUR MENTAL AND PHYSICAL REACTIONS IS ADVANTAGEOUS. YOUR CHARM AND UNDERSTANDING IN YOUR CONTACTS WITH OTHERS IS A RESULT OF ALERTNESS OF YOUR INTERESTS. YOU HAVE AN INTENSE LOVE OF DETAIL AND A HEALTHY SKEPTICISM AND YOUR MIND PREFERS TO CONCENTRATE ON THE WORLD OF IDEAS RATHER THAN OF ACTION. . . .

The device is thus revealed as a deception—suitable for entertainment only. I suspect that the cards were pre-printed and that the machine therefore neither scanned nor analyzed; it only dispensed pre-printed stock readings.

My three investigations—(1) comparing a major life event with three commercial horoscope readings, (2) commissioning a personalized reading for someone who happened to be deceased, and (3) experimentally testing an arcade “Electronic Horoscope”—all showed that such astrological readings are about as dependable as an assortment of slips from fortune cookies. Here is my forecast for you: Astrologers will have you in their sights, so you must guard against having a mind and wallet that are too open to pilfering.

References

• Adams, Evangeline. 1931. Astrology for Everyone. New York: New Home Library.(For chart summary, see Nickell 1991, 43.)
• Bierce, Ambrose. 1967. Devil’s Dictionary (originally published as The Cynic’s Word Book in 1906) New York: Castle Books.
• Christopher, Milbourne. 1970. ESP, Seers & Psychics. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
• Dean, Geoffrey, Arthur Mather, and Ivan W. Kelly. 1996. “Astrology,” in Stein 1996, 47–99.
• Key, Glenn. 1991. Personal Year Forecast for Jean Michel Gambet 1991 to 1992. Commissioned by Joe Nickell and received October 4.
• Nickell, Joe. 1991. Wonder-workers! How They Perform the Impossible. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.———. 2005a. Intuition: The case of the unknown daughter. Skeptical Inquirer 29(2) (March/April): 12–13, 33.
• ———. 2005b. Secrets of the Sideshows. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
• Nickell, Joe, with John F. Fischer. 1992. Mysterious Realms: Probing Paranormal, Historical, and Forensic Enigmas. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.Omarr, Sydney. 2002. Sydney Omarr’s Day-by-Day Astrological Guide for 2003: Sagittarius. New York: Signet.
• Polansky, Joseph. 2002. Your Personal Horoscope 2003. London: Thorsons.
• Smither, Suzanne. 2002. 2003 Zodiac Guide. Boca Raton, FL: Media Mini Mags.
• Stein, Gordon, ed. 1996. The Encyclopedia of the Para­normal. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

It was not your standard evolution/creationism debate—but it was a rematch from a debate that had been. I’m a skeptic, meaning I believe in nothing supernatural, but I’m not your stereotypical liberal atheist. I am a private atheist but a lifelong political conservative who is quite public and active when it comes to that conservatism, including by writing frequent letters to the editor since the 1970s. I’m tolerant of Christians and consider Christianity a major benevolent historical factor. I’ve always considered the religious questions important and treated them with respect. Many of my friends are clergy.

I have a bachelor’s degree in biology from Cornell and a master’s in entomology from Purdue, plus I have a strong self-taught background in history and folklore. I have no sympathy for creationism. By 1999, I had had enough of its low quality claims and tracts, and I attacked it in one of my letters in the paper. Creationists responded more tenaciously than liberals had responded to my conservative statements. They wouldn’t let go, and neither would I.

In 2003, a debate was set up with Chris Miller of Allegheny, a self-described veteran of 300 (now 600) creationist presentations. He is a petroleum engineer. I took the standard approach of explaining the overwhelming evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution. The audience was unimpressed. In letters to the paper, the same arguments and talking points kept reappearing no matter how many times they were demolished. I was hit with Pascal’s Wager twenty-four times when I quit counting. And that’s an issue of logic that’s unequivocal and not open to legitimate dispute.

In 2004, a friend and pastor challenged me to another debate. On the way in the door, I asked him what he actually knew about biology. “Well, the Bible,” was his answer. In 2005, another pastor and friend brought in a “PhD” to debate me on the radio. This man’s degree was from a school with no biology department, no geology department, no paleontology department, no physics department, no campus, and no accreditation. He is the author of a children’s book proclaiming as fact that dinosaurs and dragons are the same thing, but he goes off on many of the other creationist talking points, including one involving nuclear physics and “polonium haloes” that supposedly proves that the Earth is young. I noticed he didn’t realize neutrons and neutrinos were two different things. I exposed that on the radio, but the creationists, predictably, nevertheless declared victory.

In 2009, in a letter to the paper I challenged the creationists to put up or shut up. I pointed out that occasionally the New York State Geological Association meets at the State University in Fredonia and offers excellent field trips open to the public. I challenged any creationist to conduct an anonymous poll the next time this occurred. I would pay ten dollars for every participant who held creationist views if a creationist agreed to pay me one dollar for every participant who agreed that the Earth is billions of years old and all life has a common ancestor. Plus I would contribute an extra $1,000 if at least 50 percent of participants were creationists, provided the creationist agreed to pay me an extra $1,000 if not a single one was. These are people, I pointed out, who are not only educated to a professional level in relevant fields but who worked with rocks and the fossils day in and day out for a living. We could go beyond the problem of creationists who don’t know enough about the relevant subjects themselves to tell if they could believe me.

Two years later, in 2011, I restated the challenge and announced the meeting would be held in 2013. Creationists could attend and see for themselves if these people were frauds and fakers or if they knew what they were doing. They could look right at the evidence and ask questions. They could bring in their own experts. They wouldn’t have to take my word. I gave another reminder a month or two before the 2013 meeting. There was not one signup, not one curious inquiry, not one hint of interest.

And that was my main thrust at the February 21, 2015, debate, transcending the back and forth of over-worn talking points and arguments. I said it proves creationists have no interest in the evidence or the truth but just want to hear another believer reassure them of their preconceived opinions—opinions they don’t really understand. I told them they had had their “put up or shut up” moment and didn’t put up, so they have no more right to public contention.

The debate had been arranged by the same pastor who organized the one in 2003, this time with some encouragement from me. It was publicized in the local newspaper and on the radio plus in church bulletins, but most attended on the basis of word of mouth. I was conspicuously labeled by the organizer as an atheist as a marketing ploy. There were about seventy-five people present. Three were on my side (including my sister). I took second position by my choice from a coin toss. We each had thirty-five minutes, then five, then three. No questions of each other or from the audience.

Chris, my opponent, had a venerable Power­Point presentation with Darwin quotes. He flatly contended that there are no transitional fossils. He talked down to his audience.

I spoke of the origin of creationism and defined it from the moment it was born adhering to scripture in preference to evidence as advocacy, not science. I also had something to say about transitional forms and labeled the creationist contention about their absence as an “outright, blatant obvious, enormous lie many dozens of times over.” I used the Shubin fish-to-quadruped example, pointing out how Henry Morris in the early 1980s had used that as an illustration of a sequence that should but does not exist. “Well, now it does!” I noted, though I doubt if many listeners recognized the name Henry Morris. I also mentioned human evolution and the fact that creationists agree ferociously each fossil is clearly human or clearly ape, but despite all that clarity there is absolutely no agreement among them where the dividing line is.

In 2003, Chris made a big issue of information, as most contemporary creationists do, claiming it was all pre-packed by God into the genome and mutations cannot create new information nor can mutations be beneficial. With a piece of baler twine as a prop, I explained how mutations work and pointed out that the molecules have no way of knowing if a given mutation adds information or if it will be beneficial now or many generations later, because they cannot call ahead to God to find out.

Knowing that creationists can’t resist an appeal to divine authority, I noted that no one present had heard about creation directly from God. “If God talks to you, that’s divine revelation. When you tell me about it, that’s hearsay. When someone writes it down generations later, that’s folklore.” From there to composition, editing, selection, and translation of books in the bible by committees over thousands of years, I asked where the line is between divine infallibility and human fallibility and how do they know?

I wasn’t as diplomatic as I usually try to be. I insulted my audience to some extent. I lamented that creationists are making a laughingstock of Christianity and conservatism. I don’t think Chris or the audience was prepared for what they got. I was well satisfied. Outside the door the last thing as I left the building, I was hit with Pascal’s Wager one more time.

On August 27, 2013, a hunter on a 75,000-acre ranch north of Las Vegas, New Mexico, stumbled upon a bizarre sight: over 100 dead elk lay on the ground. The smell of death lingered in the air as the man approached, and the mystery only deepened. There was no obvious sign oftrauma such as bullet wounds or claw marks; they all simply dropped dead, apparently en masse and on the spot.

Livestock deaths, by themselves, are not unusual—there are many things that can fell large animals in our desert climes, including predators, poachers, a natural or man-made toxin, disease, drought, heat, starvation, and even lightning.

But so many animals dying off at the same time is very mysterious, and the fact that the elk all seemed to have died in under twenty-four hours (and were at the same stages of decomposition) only added to the puzzle. Wildlife officials soon ruled out most of these possibilities: The elk weren’t shot (nor taken from the area), so it was not poachers. Tests came back negative for anthrax, a bacterium that exists naturally in the Southwest and can kill large animals. Though lightning strikes are not uncommon (in fact New Mexico has an unusually high number of lightning strikes compared to other states), a strike killing over 100 animals at one time would be an incredibly rare event.

Another possibility was some sort of contamination of the well or water tanks, but initial tests were fruitless. According to an article in the Santa Fe New Mexican, “Game and Fish investigated the case, and department staff, as well as pathologists from veterinary diagnostic labs where tissue samples were tested, ruled out a broad range of other possible causes of the elk deaths: anthrax, epizootic hemorrhagic disease, botulism, lightning strike, poaching, pesticides and malicious poisoning. ‘We couldn’t find anything [toxic] in their stomachs and no toxic plants on the landscape,’” said Kerry Mower, a wildlife disease specialist with Game and Fish (Radford 2013).

As news spread, some conspiracy-minded folk soon speculated about links to animal mutilations, Satanists, UFOs, or even the dreaded Hispanic vampire el chupacabra (a mystery I investigated and solved in my 2011 book Tracking the Chupacabra: The Vampire Beast in Fact, Fiction, and Folklore).

Solving the Mystery (At Least That’s What They Want You to Think)

It took a little over a month—scientific sampling, testing, and analysis takes time—but scientists finally discovered what killed the elk. On October 22, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish issued a statement that read in part:

The Department of Game and Fish has concluded that a toxic algae bloom caused the deaths of more than 100 elk discovered Aug. 27 in northeastern New Mexico. Department biologists collected tissue samples from the dead elk and water samples from privately-owned land north of Las Vegas, N.M. The Department sent the samples to laboratories across the country. A lab found Anabaena, a form of naturally occurring blue-green algae that produces the deadly neurotoxin, anatoxin-a, in a water sample. This potent neurotoxin can cause illness and death within four to 12 hours if ingested.

“Based on circumstantial evidence,” said Kerry Mower, the Department’s wildlife disease specialist, “the most logical explanation for the elk deaths is that on their way back to the forest after feeding in the grassland, the elk drank water from a trough containing toxins created by blue-green algae or cyanobacteria.” Department biologists found the dead elk in a one-half mile by three-fourths mile area, and suspect that they died within the same 24-hour period. The elk showed signs of having struggled on the ground, symptoms consistent with poisoning from a neurotoxin.

Although some types of microscopic blue-green algae produce toxins, they seldom cause serious problems. During warm weather the algae can reproduce quickly in standing water, creating a bloom that releases deadly neurotoxins into the water. The conditions resulting in the elk mortality existed only a short period of time. Algae blooms occasionally kill livestock and pets, and can sometimes be harmful to humans. The Department investigated a wide variety of possible causes for the elk deaths in addition to the blue-green algae, including: anthrax, epizootic hemorrhagic disease, botulism, lighting strike, poaching, poisonous plants, malicious poisoning, toxic levels of sulfate and nitrate, and the possibility of an industrial or agricultural accident. The Department ruled out these causes of death.” (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 2013)

I dug deeper and did some of my own research to corroborate the story. I began with Casarette and Doull’s Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, a classic toxicology reference, which notes that “In warm weather, blooms of blue-green algae are not uncommon in farm ponds in temperate regions, particularly ponds enriched with fertilizer. Under these conditions, one species of alga, Anabaena flos-aquae, produces a neurotoxin, anatoxin-a, which depolarizes and blocks acetylcholine receptors, causing death in animals that drink the pond water. The lethal effects develop rapidly, with death in minutes to hours from respiratory arrest” (Klaassen 2001).

In other words, the elk herd suffocated to death, unable to breathe though on dry land, and the fast-acting toxin explains the animals’ strange, sudden deaths. In this case the algae appeared not in ponds but in three fiberglass livestock watering tanks not far from where the elk died. The algae-produced neurotoxin is similar to curare, the famous toxin found in poison-tipped arrows used by South American Indian tribes. Though anatoxin-a can be deadly to other animals including dogs and cattle, reports of human deaths are rare. New Mexico ranchers were advised to sanitize their livestock tanks to prevent further wildlife deaths.

Enter the Conspiracy Theorists

So the matter was settled: not hunters, not aliens, not roaming bands of Satanists or chupacabras. The deer drank water contaminated with a natural algae toxin. Except, of course, that’s not really what happened, because conspiracy theorists chimed in. The first came only a few days later. I wrote briefly about this case for Discovery News, and soon afterward a person using the screen name Kirby Carmichael emailed me with a rebuttal that addressed the following points:

Several problems exist with Mr. Radford’s article. . . . Anatoxin-A, the “real killer” referred to, was not found in any elk tissues or water samples. No Anabaena flos aquae was identified in any elk tissues. . . . The Anabaena flos aquae identified was found in a sample of water taken from a developed water tank, not a pond . . . and reports of human deaths from anatoxin-A are nonexistent, not rare.

I gamely replied:

Dear Kirby Carmichael, I received your e-mail with new information about the NM elk deaths, and I’d be happy to learn more. Below are your comments and my responses.

1) “Anatoxin-A, the ‘real killer’ referred to, was not found in any elk tissues or water samples. No Anabaena flos aquae was identified in any elk tissues. No tell-tale algae was found around the mouths of any elk.” Please provide references for this; I’d be happy to look at them.

2) “The Anabaena flos aquae identified was found in a sample of water taken from a developed water tank, not a pond.” That is correct, and what the story says. It states explicitly that the source was not a pond but instead a water tank. Since you agree with me on this point, it’s not clear why this is a “problem” with my article.

3) “Reports of human deaths from anatoxin-A are nonexistent, not rare.” Please provide references for this; I’d be happy to look at them. I’m surprised you can definitively state that no human has ever died from anatoxin-A. In fact according to a 2003 newspaper report, a Dane County coroner determined that Wisconsin teenager Dane Rogers died from exposure to anatoxin-A (http://www.whoi.edu/­science/B/redtide/notedevents/bluegreen/bluegreen_9-5-03.html). This case is also cited in a NOAA report: http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Centers/­HumanHealth/docs/michigan_workshop/xagoraraki_hab_workshop.pdf.

I replied to him on November 11, and again on November 14, and again on November 21, and again on December 2. After politely and repeatedly asking for information and evidence to back up his claims, I never heard back.

A Closer Look

These claims of a cover-up were puzzling to me. Who would want to mercilessly murder a hundred or so innocent elk? What organization would be so powerful as to kill a herd of elk, cover it up, and pay hush money to keep anyone from finding out about it?

The Albuquerque chapter of the Elk Eradication Corps? Unnamed evildoers? The Illuminati? And as long as we’re looking around for players in this mystery, where the hell were the Benevolent Protective Order of Elks? Shouldn’t they put down their bottles long enough to dispatch a crack team of investigators to do some of the elk protecting that they talk about? Speaking of the Elks, we’re back in the clandestine world of secret handshakes, arcane rituals that may or may not involve goat blood and Trader Joe’s horseradish mayonnaise.

The classic conspiracy organization is the Illuminati, a group founded in 1776 by Adam Weishaupt, a law professor in Bavaria. Weishaupt claimed to have been given mysterious, arcane knowledge by a “higher source,” which presumably could have been anything from God to extraterrestrials to voices in his head. The Illuminati organization resembled a pyramid scheme cult, with new initiates required to pledge total obedience to Weishaupt, and promises of greater revealed wisdom the more invested a member became. The Illuminati was outlawed in Bavaria in 1783, and by 1800 the group was all but defunct in Germany, but its ideas had spread to America, Europe, and elsewhere. Though the Illuminati only existed for less than two decades over two centuries ago, many conspiracy theorists believe that it remains active and powerful, and it is often associated with New World Order and anti-Jewish conspiracies.

But why would the Illuminati want to kill a bunch of elk in the middle of nowhere? They wouldn’t—unless of course they are in cahoots with one of the most powerful industries in the world: the oil and gas industry. What are they covering up?

Get with the program, Skippy: More like what aren’t they covering up? These bigwigs have their fat little fingers in everybody’s pie, and they have some stake in everything from waste disposal to Big Pharma to Angie’s List (here’s a hint for you: “Angie” is probably really “Angelo,” a Puerto Rican enforcer with fingers like éclairs who breaks legs for a living).

According to people who hear things (but don’t have the stones that I do to keep my readers in the know), the elk die-off was an accident. Nobody put a hit on the elk; it wasn’t a message from Angelo to some hunter. But it wasn’t innocent, either. What happened was that the elk died in a cloud of poisonous gasses or water that could have killed anyone in the area. Where did this toxic substance come from? Fracking.

Yes, that much-maligned target of environmentalists everywhere, the hydraulic fracturing method by which underground gas or oil is extracted by injecting water or fracturing fluids (some of which may be toxic) into the ground. Fracking is widely performed across the country, and the safety of this process has been challenged. An examination of the arguments for and against fracking is beyond the scope of this investigation. The point is that it was blamed for killing this hundred-strong elk herd.

Nobody was supposed to get hurt. No animals were supposed to die. It was all a minor mistake, an aberrant slip-up that reveals the dangers of this technology—if you just look at it the right way, through the eyes of a conspiracy theorist.

Fracking Conspiracies

A website called EarthJustice.org has a section on the dangers of New Mexico fracking. It reads, “As gas companies try to stake a claim in the Lewis Shale, they’re facing off against residents in towns like Aztec, who aren’t too happy about their new corporate neighbors. Energy giant BP has been drilling wells as close as 150 yards to people’s homes and has been buying up mineral rights all around the region. But in other parts of the state—like Santa Fe County and the Valle Vidal—residents have fought back and chalked up historic victories against oil and gas company abuses.” The website then shows a map of “some of the high profile incidents (‘fraccidents’) related to the country’s gas drilling boom that have already occurred in and around New Mexico.”

However, the only “fracking accident” mentioned in New Mexico is this: “One ranching family in San Juan County, New Mexico noted numerous spills and leaks at well pads on the public land where their cattle graze. After losing some of their herd they tested the other sick cattle from the area. Results from the Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory in 2005 found petroleum in the hair of 54 out of 56 animals tested” (Earthjustice 2013).

This is hardly a smoking gun indictment of fracking as a cause of death for an elk herd. In fact it’s not clear what it’s supposed to mean at all. It mentions some sick cattle that were apparently found in 2005 by one anonymous ranching family in San Juan County (which is near the Four Corners area), while the 2013 elk die-off happened near Las Vegas, hundreds of miles to the southeast in San Miguel County—and happened eight years later. What’s the connection? Who knows? It’s the sort of non-sequitur half-baked, quasi-anonymous dubious information that fuels rumors and conspiracy theories.

The Second Contact

The fracking conspiracy connection to the elk deaths soon appeared when a commenter named David Irwin replied to my piece: “I would be testing the local water supplies especially if Freakin Fracking operations are in the area, which are all over New Mexico. The chemicals they pump back into the ground enter our water supplies and eventually make them poisonous. If Fracking continues, every state they’re in will loose [sic] its water supply . . . then what? If [sic] baffles me why our legislators allow this to go on when there is so much evidence showing the damage it is doing by pollution of ground water and causing earthquakes and venting of toxic gases. When will enough be enough? When will Americans stand up and scream, ‘Let’s tar and feather every corporate CEO involved in these operations!’”

I got a semi-anonymous tip by email a few weeks later: “There’s a rumor going around that the NM environmental agency is covering up something else—that it was fracking fluids that caused the death of the elks. Have you heard anything along those lines? Obviously, if it was fracking fluid, it would not bode well for the oil and gas corporations seeking to expand drilling in that part of the state.”

I replied, “That’s an interesting theory, and it’s not surprising to me that such a conspiracy would arise in that context. There are many conspiracies that have an environmental pollution aspect, including HAARP (weather control), chemtrails, and so on. Is it possible that algae was NOT really found in stock tanks the elk drank from, and that it’s all a big cover-up or lie? I suppose anything is possible . . . the real question is, is there any evidence that the elk died from fracking fluid? If you know of any, I’d be happy to look at it.”

My correspondent got back to me a few days later: “We’re not sure that the environmental agency even tested for the presence of fracking fluids—in other words, they omitted testing for it so that they wouldn’t find it. It would all be found in the original requests sent to the lab from the agency, which we may seek to force the release of. . . . Might be a conspiracy theory that turns out to be true.”

I responded, “I guess I’m not following what you’re saying. . . . I’ve done water sampling testing and analysis, and it would not surprise me if they did not test for fracking fluids, or ricin, or polonium, or any number of other exotic possible toxins. . . . You can’t test for everything, it is impractical and extremely expensive. Are you suggesting that anatoxin-a was not found in the water samples, and that the lab and scientists faked those results? Or that the toxin was found but that it wasn’t at high enough levels to kill the elk?”

He replied, “Either one. . . . We believe that they may have fudged the results, and made an explicit choice not to test for fracking fluids in the nearby water supply.”

“Interesting,” I replied. “I guess anything is possible, though it seems far more likely that if fracking fluids killed the elk, the industry would simply have paid off the ranch owner for the loss and kept it quiet from the start. Why go through all the trouble of either planting algae in a water tank for others to find, or paying off labs to fake the results and thus needing to pay off a dozen or more people to keep quiet about it, and expose themselves to blackmail? Doesn’t make sense to me, but if you find anything I’d be happy to look at it with an open mind. . . .”

In fact, I followed that up with an offer to help him get information to prove his theory: “I don’t have a lot of time but I’m pretty good at research, perhaps I may be able to help . . . what specific documents, pieces of information, or sources are you unable to get that would help determine the truth?”

I never heard back. Either he realized that the Great Elk Conspiracy was unlikely, or maybe he figured I was part of the cover-up and he couldn’t trust me to help get the information. In any event, two different people endorsing conspiracy theories about the elk deaths contacted me, and in both cases I responded with facts, logic, and an open mind—not to mention an offer to review any evidence they had and even help uncover more evidence that supported their claims.

Conclusion

To be clear, I have no position on fracking one way or the other. I’ve heard lots of bad things about it, but I’ve also seen some bogus arguments against it. I’m not a paid shill for Big Oil and have no vested interest in the issue one way or the other. My only question is simply this: Is there good evidence that the massive elk die-off of 2013 was in any way caused by or related to fracking?

For part of the answer we can turn to public radio reporter Laura Paskus from KUNM.org—hardly known as a mouthpiece of Big Oil. In a July 11, 2012, article titled “New Mexico’s Fracking Legacy,” Paskus notes that

As the natural gas boom has spread to the eastern United States, the term “fracking” has become common in news reports coming out of Pennsylvania and New York. But fracking has been a part of New Mexico’s history for decades. After all, fracking is not a new technology. Halliburton pioneered hydraulic fracturing, as it’s officially known, in the 1940s. And it has been used around New Mexico for decades. . . . Fracking has been happening for a long time and its use is widespread in New Mexico. There are about 60,000 oil and gas wells in New Mexico—and 95 percent of those are fracked. (Paskus 2012)

So if there are about 57,000 oil and gas wells using hydraulic fracturing in New Mexico—and the fracking has gone on for decades and is as dangerous as claimed—then we should expect to see massive animal die-offs on a regular basis. The 2013 elk deaths should be just the tip of a huge iceberg, only one of dozens or even hundreds of massive, mysterious wildlife deaths that span decades across the state.

Instead, the 100 elk killed was such a rarity that it made national news, instead of being only the latest in a series. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish found a known, natural toxin in water the elk drank from. Sometimes it’s just as simple as that.

I’ve researched and written extensively about the psychology of conspiracy theories, and one core element is that simple explanations are often rejected in favor of complex scenarios. It can’t be as simple as elk drinking bad water: they must have been poisoned by toxic fracking chemicals that somehow only killed the elk (and no other nearby animals) and apparently left no trace. And of course it’s part of a greater cover-up to hide a threat to not only wildlife but New Mexicans as well. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It’s not up to me, or the Department of Game and Fish, or anyone else to prove that the elk did not die from some fracking-related cause. It’s up to those who claim that the deaths are related to the oil industry to provide evidence for their claims. The truth may be out there, and if there is hard evidence linking a fracking conspiracy to the elk deaths, I’ll be happy to see it. So far they have produced nothing but rumor and speculation.

I’m not saying that some conspiracy theories might not be true, and I’m not saying that fracking might not be dangerous to wildlife. I am saying that there is no evidence that the 100 New Mexican elk died of anything but the natural-but-toxic algae in their drinking water, and there’s no evidence that fracking had anything to do with it—much less that the deaths were covered up as part of a conspiracy. Of course, they’ll tell you, that’s what they want you to think. . . .

References

• Earthjustice. 2013. New Mexico and fracking. Earthjustice.org. Online at http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/new-mexico-and-fracking. Klaassen, Curtis. 2001. Casarette and Doull’s Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 2013. Toxic algae cause of 100 elk deaths in northeastern NM. New Mexico Wildlife News press release (October 22). Online at http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/publications/­press_releases/documents/2013/102213elkfinding.html.
• Paskus, Laura. 2012. New Mexico’s fracking legacy. 
Online at http://kunm.org/post/new-mexico-s-
fracking-legacy.
• Radford, Benjamin. 2013. Culprit in mysterious elk deaths found (November 7). Online at http://www.livescience.com/41022-mysterious-elk-deaths-
explained.html.

The Evil Twin Podcast is a loosely structured show involving twins Brad and Thad exploring, as they put it, the strange underbelly of “belief” in American culture and what it means to identify with various beliefs.

They love to interview guests and have covered topics such as conspiracy theories, sex addiction, and artificial intelligence. Many of their episodes take a look at specific religions. Most recently as of this writing, they have devoted two episodes to exploring Jediism.

Brad and Thad agreed to answer a few questions for the readers of Skeptical Briefs.

Gurmukh Mongia: You say that you’re skeptical even of skepticism. Would you like to expand on that and explain why you think skeptics shouldn’t take themselves too seriously?

Brad: Not taking ourselves too seriously is a big part of our approach and a big part of how we live our lives. If you were to compare and contrast the conversations we’ve had on the podcast, you would see that our tone is similar throughout. Whether we are talking to Rev. Ivan Stang, founder of the Church of the SubGenius, or Dr. Jennifer Bird about the Bible, we give the same amount of respect and the same level of irreverence.

As far as being skeptical of skepticism, it only makes sense if you have an attitude of questioning everything. To us, being skeptical of skepticism means being willing to go anywhere and being brave enough to look under every stone to find answers to the big questions in life.

Thad: Being skeptical even of skepticism means we are open to questioning our own perception of this reality to the point of asking “What is reality?” Skeptics often find themselves in the awkward position of thinking they have to find the answer to a question. The pursuit of truth can be exhausting and burdensome, so at times we need to look at life a little more like children and just play. This attitude helps to keep our minds open and not take shit so seriously.

Mongia: What was your inspiration for starting the podcast? What makes your show different?

Brad: I’d say that our inspiration for starting was a need to hang out and bullshit with each other. As we’ve aged and started families, we’ve found it difficult to justify meaningless hang-out time. Since neither of us are into watching team sports and we would rather be doing something fun than watching others do stuff, we decided a creative project like a podcast would be a fun challenge.

Our show is different because it’s an audio documentary of unique experiences. We’ve had the great privilege of having conversations with many people whose work is inspiring and changing the world, but we’ve also had a number of “mini-adventures.” We’ve been hypnotized, had a psychic reading, visited a Scientology center, attended a UFO convention, eaten Psilocybin mushrooms, and had a séance, to name a few. Plus, we’re twins.

Thad: Ditto.

Mongia: Do you have one or two favorite or most memorable shows? What are they and why?

Brad: I have a couple personal favorites. Many years ago I was introduced to the 1972 Academy Award–winning documentary called “Marjoe.” It’s a documentary about a young man who was forced into the ministry business at the young age of four. He was known throughout the South as a dynamic and energetic preacher. His parents made large sums of money off his work, $3-4 million by the time he was fourteen years old. In the film, you see him, now a twenty-something Atheist, finishing up his last few revivalist events and dealing with “coming out” to the public as a nonbeliever. In “Episode 021: Marjoe,” we interviewed Sarah Kernochan, director of “Marjoe.” This was one of my favorite episodes simply because I love that film.

My other personal favorite is “Episode 023: Mormonism, Part 1.” In this episode, I come out as an ex-Mormon who hasn’t spoken about it, outside of a small sphere of people, for twenty years. In that episode, we interviewed the founder of the Ex-Mormon Foundation, Richard Packham. He’s a man who has been instrumental in creating a strong community for ex-Mormons. He also revealed to us that he assisted a man named Mike Norton to infiltrate Mormon temples and video record the ceremonies. We interviewed Mike Norton (aka NewNameNoah on Youtube) in “Episode 024: Mormonism, Part 2.”

Thad: For me, the two most memorable shows so far have been “Episode 001: Taylor John Williams” and “Episode 017: Psilocybin Mushrooms.” Episode 001 was obviously our premiere episode but was also very personal because our guest was my stepson, who had just been a finalist on Season 7 of The Voice. Episode 017 was a mind blower because preparing for that episode I took a large dose of mushrooms and had an incredibly intense experience.

Mongia: Both you and Thad have experienced deconversion from religion. How have your experiences shaped your views on skepticism and influenced how you run your show?

Brad: For me, deconversion was about accepting obvious truths over heartfelt desire. Unfortunately, our egos make that difficult at times. How can something I’ve believed all my life be wrong? How can something I accepted as truth as a grown adult turn out to be incorrect? How could I have been so wrong? That I is what we try to play with, and as twins we have a special relationship with I. This is why on our logo, there is no I in Evl Twn.

Thad: My experience with religion led me to realize that my belief in God was based on blind faith alone. That blind faith was largely influenced by my upbringing and cultural influences up to that point in my life. As we stepped out of our little sandbox we grew up in, we realized that there was a great big playground full of different kinds of kids with different kinds of toys to play with. As we started to explore the bigger picture, we couldn’t help but to see that each kid was raised to see the world in a different way, to believe in God in a different way too. . . . We couldn’t help but be even more curious about why people believed in the things they did. That curiosity ended up being the greatest contribution to the show. •

The Evil Twin Podcast can be found on iTunes and on the web at eviltwinpodcast.com. It can be found on Facebook at facebook.com/EvilTwinPodcast and on Twitter through @EvilTwinPodcast.

The easternmost Canadian province—Newfoundland and Labrador—consists of Newfoundland Island (with an interior of myriad glacial lakes and forests) plus the Labrador territory on the mainland (with more lakes and land that is nearly half moss barrens and bogs). Newfoundland(as its name is often shortened) has a jagged coast marked by bays, cliffs, coves, islands, and fiords and is lined with fishing villages.

I visited the province in 2008 initially to investigate the Lake Crescent creature for an episode of Monster Quest (which aired on the History Channel September 17 of that year). Our crew was hosted by the villagers of Robert’s Arm who generously treated us to a huge seafood dinner and much “screech” (rum), while making each of us—in a rather drunken ceremony—an “Honorary Newfoundlander” (Nickell 2009).

I had flown into the airport at Deer Lake and driven to Robert’s Arm on a lucky Friday the thirteenth of June. After that night’s festivities and the next long day of filming, I set out on the Viking Trail for the World Heritage Site of L’Anse aux Meadows and, for the next few days, other sites including Labrador, finally flying out of Deer Lake on the eighteenth. Here are some investigative highlights.

Figure 1. Remains of Viking sod structures such as this are scattered about L’Ance aux Meadows at the tip of Newfoundland’s Northern Peninsula.

L’Anse aux Meadows

Various questionable Viking sites and artifacts are known—for instance a “Viking church” in Newport, Rhode Island (which is actually a stone windmill from the colonial period), and the Kensington Rune Stone (a forgery from the nineteenth century). However, there are genuine Viking artifacts—such as a Norse coin from the eleventh century, discovered on the Maine coast—although these may be either from Viking visits or simply the result of trade (Bahn 1995, 234–235; Feder 1996, 111–115).

It is indisputable, however, that there was a Norse settlement in early North America. It is located at the northernmost point of the island of Newfoundland. I made my way there on June 15, 2008 (having a picnic lunch of moose burger, as I wrote in my journal, “at a scenic beach site”). Arriving at L’Anse aux Meadows, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, I learned that it was believed settled by a Norse expedition led by Leif Ericson. The Vikings followed Greenland’s coast, crossed to Baffin Island and Labrador, then, traveling south, entered the Strait of Belle Isle where they saw land on either side of their ship. They crossed to the eastern side and there—at the tip of the Great Northern Peninsula—built a settlement of sod houses. This would serve as base camp for additional explorations southward (Bock 2008, 39).

The site was discovered in the early 1960s by a Norwegian team led by Helge and Anne Stine Ingstad. They had looked for Viking landing places along the eastern North American coast, searching northward from New England. Reaching the northern tip of Newfoundland Island, they were directed to a group of unusual mounds by a man named George Decker, one of the local residents who had long known there were ruins of an ancient settlement. Anne Stine Ingstad, an archaeologist, directed the excavation of the site from 1961–1968 (Bock 2008, 39; Colombo 1988, 1–2; Feder 1996, 116–118) (Figure 1).

In addition to eight turf houses, they discovered four boatsheds, an iron smithy, and a variety of artifacts. Radiocarbon dating provided a mean age of 920 ce (Feder 1996, 116–118). I studied the entire site, including museum displays, and sat at a fire in a sod hut with a costumed interpreter as part of the “Viking experience” (Bock 2008, 38) (Figure 2).

Helge Ingstad identified L’Anse aux Meadows as the long-sought Vinland—the Vineland or Wineland of the old Norse sagas—and others have accepted this as so. However, the Newfoundland climate of a thousand years ago, although warmer than now, would not have supported the growth of wild grapes. “Nevertheless,” as archaeologist (and CSI fellow and friend) Kenneth L. Feder concludes, “wherever Vinland actually was, the sagas seem to indicate quite clearly that the Vikings indeed discovered, explored and attempted to settle the New World about five hundred years before the Columbus voyages” (1996, 113).

Figure 2. “Viking” interpreter sits at the fire in a reconstructed hut on the site, founded ca. 920 ce. (Photos by Joe Nickell)

The Uniped Creatures

In his book of “unexplained” mysteries of Newfoundland and Labrador, Dale Jarvis (2005, 104–108) discusses a strange creature in his entry on L’Anse aux Meadows. He cites the medieval Icelandic narrative The Saga of Eirik the Red. This relates the death of Thorvald Eiriksson (i.e., Eirik’s son), who was killed by one of a supposed race of unipeds—or one-legged humanoids.

Jarvis (2005, 105) notes that “During the Middle Ages, people believed that the edges of the known world were populated by strange and often dangerous things, including one-eyed creatures or humans with the heads of dogs. One-legged men were par for the course!” One type was the sciapod, which (as depicted on the Mappa Mundi, a late thirteenth-century map) protected himself from the scorching sun with his single gigantic foot! In Scotland and Ireland, there was a pitch-colored monster covered in feathers from its foot to its head that was surmounted by a cockscomb. Known in English as Peg Leg Jack, it also had a single hand growing out its chest and just one eye, set in mid-forehead (Jarvis 2005, 106). However, Africa apparently held the most unipeds, including a Ugandan monster called “Kalisa”—a half-man with, well, half a body (one arm, one eye, etc.). States Jarvis (2005, 107), “Indeed, the thirteenth century Icelandic author of Eirik’s Saga was probably familiar with the theories current in his time that Vinland possibly extended all the way to Africa.”

To attempt to learn what kind of creature killed Thorvald, we must look at the account in chapter 13 of Eirik the Red’s Saga (given below in an 1880 translation [Sephton 1880]). The Vikings were on an expedition led by one Karlsefni:

One morning Karlsefni’s people beheld as it were a glittering speck above the open space in front of them, and they shouted at it. It stirred itself, and it was a being of the race of men that have only one foot, and he came down quickly to where they lay. Thorvald, son of Eirik the Red, sat at the tiller, and the One-footer shot him with an arrow in the lower abdomen. He drew out the arrow. Then said Thorvald, “Good land have we reached, and fat is it about the paunch.” [The sense seems to be that they had gotten fat off the bounty of the land. Thorvald died of his wound a bit later.] Then the One-footer leapt away again northwards. They chased after him, and saw him occasionally, but it seemed as if he would escape them. He disappeared at a certain creek. Then they turned back, and one man spake this ditty:—“Our men chased (all true it is) a One-footer down to the shore; but the wonderful man strove hard in the race. . . . Hearken, Karlsefni.”

The Norse words used to refer to the One-footer or uniped—einfæting, einfætingi, einfætigur, einfætingaland, etc.—are from the root meaning “one-foot” or “one footed.” In one narrative, Grettis Saga, it describes a man with a wooden leg (Einfætingur 2015).

Other than the assertion in Eirik the Red’s Saga, there is no reason to think the entity that killed Thorvald was from a race of One-footers—of which there is neither fossil record nor historical proof in any case. Rather, it appears the arrow-shooter was merely a single individual of those the Vikings called the skrælings: Native Americans who were the possible ancestors of the Beothuk and the Mi’Kmaq. The saga writer, a medieval scholar, may simply have added a stock motif of the genre of “medieval traveler’s wonder tales” (Einfætingur 2015). The assailant might even have been a one-legged Indian!

Deer Lake’s Roadside Specter

As we shall see, another Newfoundland entity is much more familiar to us—though not without a twist. It inhabits a “spooky story” told “several years ago” in the area of Deer Lake (Jarvis 2005, 137–138). I arrived there on returning from the Northern Peninsula (after a side trip to Labrador).

According to the tale, if one were driving at night from Deer Lake toward the city of Corner Brook one might encounter “a woman in a white dress.” Thereupon, “it was said,” one of two things happened. If the driver slowed down as if to offer a ride and pulled to the side of the road, “The woman would never be there,” and “The puzzled driver would carry on and not see the woman again.”

On the other hand, if the driver failed to stop, something even more puzzling “was said” to occur: “Those who carried on down the road without her would often turn their head to look into the mirror to see the woman. Terrifyingly, the woman would be seen suddenly sitting in the passenger side seat.” Allegedly, continues Jarvis (2005, 138), “It was local knowledge at the time that the strange hitchhiker was the ghost of a girl who had been trying to thumb a ride out of Deer Lake and who had been killed on the highway.”

Actually, of course, no such accident—or woman, white dress or otherwise—is known. The reader will naturally recognize this as one of the many versions (or variants, as folklorists say) of the ubiquitous urban legend known as “The Vanishing Hitchhiker.” The authority on the subject, Jan Harold Brunvand, famed folklorist (and another CSI fellow and friend) says in his The Vanishing Hitchhiker (1981, 24):

A prime example of the adaptability of older legends is “The Vanishing Hitchhiker”—the classic automobile legend. This returning-ghost tale was known by the turn of the [twentieth] century both in the United States and abroad. It acquired the newer automobile motif by the period of the Great Depression, and thereafter spawned a number of subtypes with greatly varied and oddly interlocking details, some of which themselves stemmed from earlier folk legends.

The many variants, observes Brunvand, point to “the legend’s incredible development.” Nevertheless, just to give the lady in white a chance to appear, on the evening of June 17, 2008, I drove from Deer Lake to Corner Brook—an uneventful trip.

The Phantom Trapper of Labrador

I was only briefly in Labrador, and that was in the summer rather than winter, so I was destined not to encounter the ghost trapper of Labrador. Nevertheless, the trapper had been a real man who had gone from his home on Newfoundland Island to Labrador to trap, crossing the Strait of Belle Isle, and I at least followed a similar route into that bleak northern land. (It took me along the coast to an archaic burial mound, the earliest known funeral monument in North America, about 7,500 years old; the ruins of Marconi’s historic Wireless Telegraph Station, built in 1904; and Point Amour Lighthouse, the tallest in Atlantic Canada.)

The story of the specter is part of Canadian folklore. It is summarized in Mysterious Canada (1988, 11) by John Robert Colombo (a friend from my Toronto days; he published some of my poems when he was editor of The Tamarack Review). He writes:

The desolation of Labrador is said to be the haunt of the Phantom Trapper or the Damned Trapper. Following several accounts there was once a trapper who led a wicked life. Despite his vile acts, which included peddling poisoned alcohol and attacking local women, he never repented his crimes and sins and died a natural death. But in death he found no rest, for to atone for his sins he was cursed to drive through the snow throughout eternity a matched team of fourteen pure white huskies. The vision of the Phantom Trapper making his ghostly rounds is said to be a harrowing one. Yet Newfoundlanders rejoice in the sight of him and his team, for he helps to guide lost travellers and trappers through blizzards to safety. This cursed, Cain-like creature was last spotted on his life-saving rounds in 1959.

The trapper’s name was Esau Gillingham. The true facts of his life are mixed with legend, in which he is sometimes called “Smoker” (after a vile alcoholic concoction he allegedly brewed—from spruce cones, yeast, and sugar—known as “smoke” [Jarvis 2005]). Gillingham left a will, which was probated in 1920, giving some facts about his family and property (Gillingham 1920). He was later fictionalized in White Eskimo: A Novel of Labrador, in which he was described as a “giant stranger” who “came down out of the hills in the dead of winter dressed in the skin of a white bear, driving a team of white dogs . . .” (Horwood 1972, 8; see also, Rosengarten 1973).

One storyteller relates that the trapper even painted his sled white, including its lashed-on keg of illicit alcohol, thus becoming nearly invisible in the snow. And so “The RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] tried their best to get their man, but it was like chasing a ghost” (Jarvis 2005; 2014). This transforming of the protagonist of the story into a ghost-resembling figure who subsequently becomes a ghost is a literary device known as foreshadowing (providing a hint of something to come [Quinn 1999, 130].)

Not surprisingly, there are variants of the tales told about the trapper. For example, regarding the motif (story element) of his all-white team of huskies, one source says there were eight dogs (Schlosser 2010), while another confidently states fourteen (Jarvis 2005, 143; 2014). In my experience, such precise details are less likely to be reported by someone having an apparitional experience (Nickell 2012, 345) than they are by raconteurs interested in dressing up a story.

Again, in the variant tales, the trapper’s fate was that he either became lost in a snowstorm and died (Jarvis 2014), or became drunk and suffered a fall from which he lingered for three days (Jarvis 2005, 143), or “went a little too far in his pursuit of a local innkeeper’s fair wife and was shot to death by her disgruntled husband” (Schlosser 2010). Then again, maybe he simply “died a natural death” (Colombo 1988, 11). You decide.

Consider the cleverness of the following story. A man with a dog team was lost in a blizzard when another man and team—all in white—came by and could be followed to the safety of some fishermen’s winter huts. When the man who had been lost remarked to a fisherman about the team that had passed before him, he received the reply that there had been no one ahead of him (Jarvis 2005, 143). This is the punch line that makes clear—with spine-tingling effect—that the tale is one of ghostlore.

When we study the variants, we can see how events are elaborated and multiplied. Compare the previous tale with a variant that has become greatly exaggerated:

Once a lost trapper found himself caught in a terrible blizzard, far from the nearest town. As he sought in vain to find a place to shelter from the storm, the phantom trapper appeared with his sleigh. Animal skins flapping in the raging wind and blinding snow, the phantom tenderly lifted the nearly-frozen man, placed him among the rugs of his sleigh, and drove the dying trapper to the nearest town. The phantom carried the man right into the inn, placed him gently on a chair by the door, summoned the innkeeper to care for the man, and then vanished right before the astonished innkeeper’s eyes. (Schlosser 2010)

But are the profound differences due to folklore (the oral tradition at work) or fakelore (writers deliberately making things up)? Could some of the tales even relate actual encounters with the phantom trapper?

Well, the tales frequently employ passive-voice constructions (“it was rumored that” [Schlosser 2010]), as well as other devices to obscure sources (“Other folks say,” “Legend maintains that,” “Still others claim” [Jarvis 2005; 2014]). This approach—in which alleged eyewitnesses’ names, dates, and precise source citations are missing—demonstrates that such narratives are written for their entertainment value. We should therefore give them no more seriousness than they deserve.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to CFI Libraries Director Tim Binga and Melissa Braun for their research assistance.

References

• Bahn, Paul G. 1995. 100 Great Archaeological Discoveries. New York: Barnes & Noble Books.
• Bock, Allan, ed. 2008. Where It’s At: Official 2008 Tourist Guide of the Viking Trail and Labrador Coastal Drive. St. Anthony, Newfoundland, Canada: Transcontinental Media.
• Brunvand, Jan Harold. 1981. The Vanishing Hitchhiker. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.
• Colombo, John Robert. 1988. Mysterious Canada: Strange Sights, Extraordinary Events, and Peculiar Places. Toronto: Doubleday Canada.
• Einfætingur: The One-Legged Beast from Eiriks Saga & the Medieval Traveler’s “wonder stories.” 2015. Online at http:/www.vikinganswerlady.com/Einfaettr.shtml; accessed July 21, 2015.
• Feder, Kenneth. 1996. Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology, 2nd ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.
• Gillingham, Esau. 1920. Probated will signed August 7, 1914; Newfoundland will books, vol. 11, p. 517. Online at http://ngb.chebucto.org/Wills/gillingham-esau-11-517.shtml; accessed July 24, 2015.
• Horwood, Harold. 1972. White Eskimo: A Novel of Labrador. Don Mills, Ontario: PaperJacks.
• Jarvis, Dale. 2005. Wonderful Strange: Ghosts, Fairies, and Fabulous Beasties. St. John’s, Newfoundland: Flanker Press, 142–144.
• ———. 2014. Smoker the ghostly trapper of Labra­dor. Online at http://www.thetelegram.com/OpinionColumnists/2014-12-15/article-3976088/Smoker-the-ghostly-trapper-of-Labrador/1; accessed July 23, 2015.
• Nickell, Joe. 2009. Quest for the giant eel. Skeptical Inquirer 33(4) (July/August): 18–20.
• ———. 2012. The Science of Ghosts: Searching for Spirits of the Dead. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
• Quinn, Edward. 1999. A Dictionary of Literary and Thematic Terms. New York: Checkmark Books.
• Rosengarten, Herbert. 1973. Survival of the fittest. Canadian Literature 58 (Autumn): 92–95; online at http://canlit.ca/reviews/survival_of_the_fittest; accessed July 23, 2015.
• Schlosser, S.E. 2010. Trapper’s Ghost: A Labrador Ghost Story. Online at https://americanfolklore.net/
folklore/2010/07/the_trappers_ghost.html; accessed July 23, 2015.
• Sephton, Rev. J. 1880. Eirik the Red’s Saga: A Translation. Read before the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool, January 12. A Project Guten­berg eBook, online at http://www.gutenberg.org; accessed July 17, 2015.

This might come as a shock to the millions of ghost enthusiasts out there: The scientific consensus is that ghosts are not spirits, remnants of the dead, recordings of energy, or supernatural entities. Our existing knowledge about nature does not point to a conclusion that ghosts are a single definable thing, paranormal or normal, that you can find, observe, measure, or study. Yet, there are about 200 guides to “ghost hunting” in print or e-book form that lay out ways to obtain evidence of or make contact with ghosts. Therefore, we have a conundrum at step one of any attempt at ghost hunting: we can’t define what a ghost is, and we do not know its properties because we’ve never determined that they exist and measured them. No ghost handbook has ever led anyone to catch and identify ghosts; they can only lead you to interpret something as a ghost.

In that sense, all ghost hunting books are worthless. So why bother with them?

First, it’s an interesting cultural phenomenon. Actively investigating reports of ghosts and paranormal activity is mainstream and a popular hobby and tourism draw. In 2010, there were over 1,000 paranormal investigation groups in the United States, the majority of which researched hauntings (Hill 2010). It’s not worthless to examine why people spend their time and money on this hobby and how they go about doing it.

Second, the idea of paranormal investigation contains important aspects of society’s attitudes toward finding out about the world, deciding what is meaningful and true, using science to examine questions, cooperating and trusting within a community, and taking part in a larger effort beyond one’s own small role in life.

I’m deeply interested in the second point. I’ve found that examining amateur paranormal group behaviors and output highlights concepts about science education and public discourse about belief and reality. In this piece (of which this is the first part), I mention eleven books on ghost hunting that I have examined. They have broad similarities and distinct differences. I will also review four books on the basis of the following:

1. Readability (language, errors, quality of writing)
2. Credibility (sources, supported arguments vs. speculation, factual correctness)
3. Overall value as a cultural product (buy it or not?)

I picked these particular books for several reasons. They span a significant spectrum in time over which we can watch the evolution of ghost hunting technique. I think they are generally representative of this narrow niche. There are better and worse ones, I’m sure. In searching for a selection, I realized I could not possibly read them all, nor would I want to spend money on them. Many appear to be self-published since several ghost investigation group leaders feel the need to have their own personal volume to use.

Please note that when I mention today’s “modern” ghost hunters, I am referring to those who have watched Ghost Hunters, Ghost Adventures, Paranormal State, and other television shows of this genre. It’s well-established (Hill 2010) that today’s popular hobby grew from fans of these shows who copied what they saw on TV as their preferred method.

Ghost Hunting: A Practical Guide (UK), Andrew Green, 1973

Andrew Green was called the “Spectre Inspec­tor” and was a well-educated pursuer of ghosts for sixty years. He felt that there was such an interest in the subject of ghosts that there was a need for a small, non-technical guide for the amateur. This is the “first-ever do-it-yourself guide for the psychic researcher.” Green eschews fanaticism and suggests that those interested in the ghost phenomenon study parapsychology, thus reflecting the thinking at that time that academic parapsychology would unlock the mystery of life after death. Therefore, a good portion of the book describes parapsychological concepts, such as telepathy, which he states can be an important consideration as to the cause of the phenomenon. He describes Zener card experiments, which would later appear as what ghost researchers study in Ghostbusters (1984). This portion of the book will be rather strange to those weaned on twenty-first-century ghost TV shows (if they manage to find and read this book at all).

Green was certain that psychic powers would soon be recognized (and respected) by science, the church, and society. He remarked that the existence of ghosts can hardly be challenged in the face of all the cases that have been reported—a common justification for investigators to do their thing. As with many paranormal investigators, Green considered serious ghost hunting important and “groundbreaking” work and the researchers as mavericks.

Contrasting Green’s book with modern ghost guides, we can see some striking differences:

• Crisis apparitions were described as “thought pictures.” These types of events were more commonly reported then (as were poltergeists). Both were seen to be manifestations of psychical powers. Today’s ghost hunters are rarely fluent in these historical parapsychological terms.
• EVPs were called Raudive voices and are not emphasized as evidence. Green thought there were too many potential pitfalls to use them this way.
• The technology was primitive compared with what we have today. Equipment included very basic detective-type materials: level, compass, strain-gage, sand or sugar, powder for fingerprints, thread, and maybe a camera. But the idea of measuring environmental variables was already being pursued by the Society of Psychical Research.
• Green mentions exorcism, but it was clearly not as common as today, and people were less bold about it. Today, the concept pervades pop culture, and it is treated as a stunt or a ritual that you can train yourself to do. It’s taken less seriously.
• Green’s advice is that the investigator must be thorough and careful in research and provide a sophisticated investigation. He recommends studying the geology, geography, and past owners. I get the impression that Green’s investigations were not the weekend overnighters of today’s ghost hunters. They were long-term investments in time and effort. The resulting report was to be of print quality!
• The investigator should never get involved in publicity for the case, Green advises. He recognized that some people are in it just for the attention, and this was not a proper impetus to do this work. Well, maybe that hasn’t changed. But to restrict all publicity is not what today’s investigators would agree to.

Green judges the “client” in terms of credentials. Note this curious “test”: “The production of a caseful of apparatus at the commencement of an investigation in itself constitutes a test, for the witness of a genuine phenomena [sic] will be, or should be, impressed with the serious nature of ghost hunting, while the fraudulent will be worried by the prospect of being exposed.”

That’s quaint. Times have changed.

Green states “I believe” this is the process and how it works, but—as with all other ghost hunting guides reviewed here—no support is given for these suppositions. For example: Heat extracted from the environment will energize a haunting. Such ideas about ghost manifestations are very old but have yet to be supported or well-argued.

In summary, Green subscribes to ghosts as real, but this guide provides a number of pieces of sound advice and many examples of normal causes that you will not find in any recent book. He is not as careless and overtly credulous as modern ghost hunters. Even though he makes some howlers, he knows his history. This book is well-written and properly edited; the language is written at a higher reading level than most. Some sources are cited in the text but not enough.

How to Be a Ghost Hunter, 
Richard Southall, 2003

This book appears to have been written in 2001 from the front information. That was at the start of the massive proliferation of ghost hunting groups in the United States. Southall is located in Parkersburg, West Virginia, so examples from around that area are included. He calls it a “unique handbook,” and it possibly was at the time. It is not now.

The book is of the “Confessions of a Ghost Hunter” type: ghosts are defined, historical aspects are mentioned, prior cases related, procedures and equipment are suggested, collection of data and evidence are described, and advice on forming a team is offered. Southall states he has a degree in journalism and psychology; the book also has a genuine publisher (of New Age books), which brings the quality and readability of this guide above most others. However, it follows the typical outline of information and includes many unsupported claims, assumptions, and statements of “fact.”

Here are some examples:

• Southall assumes that ghosts exist, that paranormal activity is ghost activity, and these certain descriptions are characteristics of ghosts. How he “knows” this is never explained. No sources are supplied.
• Various unsourced, undetailed anecdotes are included. The reader is asked to accept these “just so” without proper justification.• Undefined, science-sounding terms are used throughout: “highest amount of paranormal energy,” “life force,” “psychic energy.”
• If you investigate enough, you will encounter a “demonic entity.” The Ouija board can invite it in, so that device is dangerous to use. “The entity will concentrate on the one with the lowest psyche.”
• You can “recharge” a haunting with an object.
• “It is common knowledge in parapsychology and metaphysics” that everything has a life force or aura.
• Orbs are indications that an area contains a great deal of psychic energy. They concentrate around a person emanating psychic energy.

Why did Southall do a ghost hunting guide? To promote the topic. He was running a ghost tour at the time. He states his role shifted from investigation to teaching. This book fails to supply us with any sense of the author’s scientific credibility. He refers to fictional movies, such as The Sixth Sense, to suggest the real world is really like this. Southall states that the scientific method is the means to get “tangible, measurable evidence” as opposed to psychic impressions and divination, though the two methods can validate each other. He is not a scientist and it shows.

This book also shows its age. The equipment portion is written for someone who has never owned a camera. It is dull, overly simplistic, and sorely out of date with regards to use of digital equipment. He states this howler: “A photograph of a ghost cannot be denied.” This wasn’t even rational advice at the time, let alone in the age of phone apps.

He states a good investigator should be unbiased, but the language from start to finish is completely biased in the belief that an area is likely haunted. Short shrift is given to examination of mundane causes. But he advises to talk up your own credibility: “Clients love credentials and memberships.” The bibliography contains no journals or scientific sources, just references to other ghost hunters’ books and mass marketed paranormal pablum.

Southall’s writing projects the attitude of a good person who is concerned with people who are having a paranormal problem and want answers that he believes he can provide. He understands that people need reassurance that what they experience is understandable and things will be okay. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple, and misinformation like this makes it worse.

See the next issue of the Skeptical Briefs for more ghost hunting guide reviews from Sharon Hill.

Sharon Hill is a scientific and technical consultant for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and creator of DoubtfulNews.com. Read more at SharonAHill.com.

Reference

Hill, Sharon. 2010. “Being Scientifical: Popularity, Purpose and Promotion of Amateur Research and Investigation Groups in the U.S.” A thesis submitted to the faculty of the Graduate School of the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, in partial fulfillment of requirements for Degree of Master of Education (EdM). Online at https://idoubtit.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/hill_arigs_being_scientifical_thesis.pdf.

In 2009, I wrote an otherwise routine piece for LiveScience.com about doomsdays and apocalyptic beliefs. It’s pretty standard stuff, a subject I have written about many times over the years. And yet it remains in some ways one of my more controversial pieces, generating at least a handful of indignant emails every few months.

In the piece, “10 Failed Doomsday Pre­­­­­dic­­­­tions,” I briefly discuss apocalyptic beliefs and give ten examples from history, including the Heaven’s Gate cult, the Millerites, and others.

The Seventh-Day Adventists don’t email me to complain that I misrepresented their original founder, William Miller, in his failed doomsday claims. But the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) make their displeasure clear.

The offending passage is one sentence long: “Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon church, called a meeting of his church leaders in February 1835 to tell them that he had spoken to God recently, and during their conversation he learned that Jesus would return within the next 56 years, after which the End Times would begin promptly.”

My source for this is Doctrine and Cov­enants 130:14–17, written by Joseph Smith:

14. I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:

15. “Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.”

16. I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.

17. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.

This case offers an interesting glimpse into the religious mind and what happens when logic is applied to scripture. My purpose here is not to bash or criticize Mormons; those who know my work know that I’m an equal-opportunity critic of all religions when their claims conflict with science or logic. In this case, I am the one who has been accused of misrepresenting Mormon scripture. I offer this as a case study, and I am pleased to let readers make up their own minds.

Below are two representative email ex­­changes I had with Mormons about whether Mormon scripture suggests that Joseph Smith predicted the end of the world.

Cory: Please check your facts—there has never been a Mormon Armageddon prophecy. You are confusing this with the Church of Christ and other faiths that began in that time period, many of which set several end times dates. The stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) is and always has been that no one knows the time and place of the second coming. When you print misinformation like this, you perpetuate the ignorance of the American people. Please consult with official church sites when gathering information—it is the first rule of journalism: Go to the source.

Ben: Hello Cory. Actually, perhaps you should check your facts, and re-read the passages, especially this one: “Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let his suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.” It’s pretty clear that Joseph Smith is being told by God that he shall see Jesus before he turns 85—unless you’re saying that God did not know whether Smith would die before then?

Cory: I have read it, and am familiar with it. An omniscient God knew that Joseph would be killed before he reached the age of 85. IF the world would have been a kinder place and would not have reviled against the Prophet, it is possible that the Second coming may have taken place at an earlier time. But, as God knew, this would not be the case. The church’s official position has never been that of “knowing the date.” Never. Even wikkipedia [sic] has this right. You have only read 2 verses of the entire section, a common mistake for journalists who do not actually research their material, but take portions from other people’s opinions. Go to the official website, read from the official website. Don’t profess to be expert in an area without doing the hard work that accompanies it. Read the Doctrine and Covenants, or at least verses 16 and 17. I have spent 41 years in the church, having served as bishop and other positions of authority. I have taught decades of lessons, and have served a 2-year mission in Argentina. I have 2 bachelors and a masters degree from Purdue University and Indiana University, as well as 4 years of seminary and an additional 4 years of theological institute. I am very comfortable discussing religion, but I would never attempt to discuss another religion’s beliefs—I am not qualified. Just as you are not qualified to discuss mine. Please do not be offended, I am simply pointing out an error in your information. Thank you for your response and your polite conversation.

Ben: Thanks for getting back to me. . . . I’m glad to get the opportunity to better understand this passage from someone with 8 years of study in Mormon theology. I think we can both agree that God is omniscient (and thus knew when Smith would die, and whether or not he would see “the face of the Son of Man”). Just so I’m clear: Your interpretation of this scripture is that God deceived (or, at best, intentionally confused) Joseph Smith by telling him that he would see Jesus return if he lived to be 85, with God knowing full well that this would not occur? Is this correct? Or is there another logical interpretation I’m missing?

Cory: As Joseph petitioned the Lord repeatedly, at the behest of many members of the church (you will remember that at this time the religious fervor in the US was very high, and many churches were talking about end of days scenarios), he finally received revelation of this nature. It was the Lord’s intent to let Joseph and the early members of the church understand that the time was not at hand. There was no confusion intended, nor deceit. It is much like a father telling his child that should certain conditions take place, then a promised event would occur. Our Heavenly Father does not wish for us to know of the time or place, but rather to live each day as though it were our last (i.e., repenting and living the gospel). After wearing the Lord, as the Savior taught, he was given an answer—that the time was NOT near at hand, for both HE and Joseph knew that he would die as a martyr. Hope that helps. Again, Mormon.org is a great place to go for questions such as these. Also LDS.org. Both are official church sites.

Ben: Thanks, but I’m still not following your logic. You wrote:

“It was the Lord’s intent to let Joseph and the early members of the church understand that the time was not at hand. There was no confusion intended, nor deceit.”

Actually, the next line makes it clear that there was confusion, whether God intended it or not: “I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.”

“It is much like a father telling his child that should certain conditions take place, then a promised event would occur.”

Except that in your analogy, the father is not omniscient. A father who tells his child that if certain things happen (or certain conditions are met, i.e., obedience) then a promised event would occur (i.e., a party or trip to a park) does not know if the child, who has free will, will meet those conditions or not. An omniscient God telling Smith that if certain conditions are met that something will happen (knowing with certainty that they will not be met) is indeed deception, is it not?

If a doctor who has seen medical test results indicating with certainty that you have a month to live tells you that if you stop smoking and lose 20 pounds you’ll live another 10 years, would you consider that deceptive? If he knows that you will not stop smoking and lose 10 pounds in a month, and that you’re going to die anyway no matter what you do, is that not lying? How is that different than what God told Joseph Smith?

Cory: I just don’t see the deceit as you see it. Much of prophesy and promises the Lord makes throughout the scriptures is contingent on our choices, else all would be set in stone and our freedom to act would be negligent. You and I have had different experiences in our lives that have lead us feel differently regarding religion. In this matter we will never truly convince the other to believe or feel otherwise, so the need to “agree to disagree” is apropos. I would only hope that you would follow up with the church sponsored websites as a means to gathering more information and understanding, as I do not speak for the church. Again, thank you for your cordial replies.

Ben: I think you’re right; we just view these things differently. My purpose was not to degrade Mormons or anyone else. I think the real lesson I take from this is that people interpret scripture very differently—and each person believes that his or her own interpretation is the correct one. I doubt I’ll be writing about this again any time soon (that piece is actually a year or two old), but if I do I’ll add a caveat that others disagree with that interpretation. All best, BR.

A few months later I got another email:

James: I’m writing to address your list I read on Live Science, “10 Failed Doomsday Predictions.” Your claim about Joseph Smith predicting the 2nd Coming is wrong. The passage you’re referring to comes from the Doctrine and Covenants 130:14-17 which never gave a date for the Second Coming. All it said was that if he lived until 85, he would see the face of the Son of Man. I’ve included the passage for you below (highlighting the verse showing his uncertainty). No doomsday event was ever anticipated by members then nor now. Please do some more research before publishing these lists. We believe in Matthew 24:36 that no one knows the hour of the Second Coming.

Ben: I wrote that piece quite a while ago, but I’m happy to hear from you. You wrote, “All it said was that if he lived until 85, he would see the face of the Son of Man.” I fail to see a difference between what you wrote, and what I wrote. It seems quite clear from the quote. Are you interpreting this to mean that God did not know whether Smith would die before he reached 85? Or are you just saying that God’s words weren’t clear enough for Smith to understand them? I’m not sure what, exactly, you’re saying. . . .

(I never got a response.)

Religious scripture is, of course, notoriously open to interpretation. (Free Inquiry Editor Tom Flynn replied to me that “It’s best you never write about the time Joseph Smith prophesied that there were people living inside the moon, and one of his apostles would live to preach Mormonism unto them. . . .”) Different sincere people can read the same passages and come to very different conclusions about what the words mean. My inclusion of Joseph Smith as a failed doomsday prophet was not intended to disparage the Mormon faith but instead a historical fact based on Smith’s own writings. If other Mormons or religious scholars can explain why my interpretation of Doctrine and Covenants 130:14-17 is incorrect, I’m happy to hear it. Until then I stand by my work—at least until Armageddon.

Note: This piece is adapted from a February 1, 2013, CFI blog post of the same name.

When CFI launched the Anti-Superstition campaign in 2009, I thought it was all about empowering the different communities in Africa to abandon backward belief systems. I did not know that the experiences encountered during the campaigns could compel us to work for social justice. Sensitizing the communities we engaged about the dangers of superstitious belief, we were dawned by the reality of the plight of children in the rural of Kisumu, Kenya. The humane nature of CFI allowed us to address this problem. Thus, we established the Humanist Orphans Center, a center that empowers vulnerable children to achieve their maximum potential.

In Africa, dictated by traditional and religious beliefs, many parents make irrational choices that make their lives end abruptly, leaving behind children who have to struggle to survive. Few of the children eventually make it through with the help of their extended relatives. However, a big number is forced to choose paths that will keep them in poverty the rest of their lives.

Members of Ghana Humanist Association celebrates receiving reading materials, badges and fliers

To start with, the Humanist Orphans Center is established in Masogo, a rural market center in Muhoroni Sub-County. In this area, the majority of the population is Luo, who make up about 96%, with few Kisii and Nandi. Since time immemorial, the Luo community has believed in the powers of witchcraft, which in their language is termed as “Juok”. Luos still believe that some people harbor bad evil spirits that they can use to harm people at any time. A person who harbors the bad spirits (a witch) is called ‘Jajuok’ in Luo. Therefore, a witch is believed to cause death by planting bad spirit in people’s compounds, use their eyes to poison food, bring diseases to children, cause accidents, and many more. Mostly, the witch is believed to be jealous of successful people. This explains why the Luo community has for a long time never progressed because flourishing Luo people in the town believe that if they go to the rural homes and start development, they will be bewitched or killed through witchcraft. It explains why in the early 1980s and 90s, people who owned vehicles could hide them far away and trek the long distances to their rural homes since going with a car would give the impression that they were successful and attract witchcraft spell. As such, many Luo areas have not developed because of witchcraft belief. Many Luo people would rather build a good home in town than in the community where witches will cast spell and cause their deaths.

To explain more, the concept of “Chira” in the Luo community has for a long time made parents to make wrong choices in containing the devastating effects of HIV/ AIDS. Currently, HIV/ AIDS reports indicate that areas around Kisumu and its environs leads in HIV/ AIDS in Kenya. Perhaps, wife inheritance, a widely practiced tradition in Luo could explain the reason for high spread of the disease and Lake Victoria that attracts widows who sell sex for fish. With all these obstacles, traditional belief like Chira has still thwarted the fight to contain the disease within the Luo community. One of the best commentaries of Chira and its consequences in the Luo community is the discussions by Dr. Stephen Cook in his article, The African Concept of "Chira" and Ezekiel's "Sour Grapes" Proverb. In the Luo community, Chira is the belief that if you do something that is against the set Luo traditions, then you could suffer the consequences. These consequences could manifest themselves through diseases, famine, hunger, drought, and many more. As Cook explains, Luos believed that the suffering of children could be as a result of Chira. In this way, many parents have always chosen the path of ignoring the suffering of their children to blame it on Chira. Worse is the way many parents even up to these moment in the Luo communities have ignored the AIDS scourge. Cook puts it, quoting from Ezekiel’s Poem Sour Grape: "For a long time the Luo people denied the existence of the devastating effects of HIV/Aids. The symptoms of HIV/Aids were confused with the wasting away of chira." To put an emphasis on the quote, it is true that when parents who have HIV believe in Chira, they fail to take Anti-Retroviral drugs and end up dying. This is sad because if they could have chosen the right path of taking drugs, they could have lived for more years to educate their children to reach their potential.

Worse, instead of religions to take up the challenge and help empower these parents, they use the scourge to their advantage. Many religious crusades have aimed at healing HIV/ AIDS. Victims turn in masses and when they are prayed for, they are advised to abandon taking Anti-Retroviral drugs. In Uganda, many teens have been reported to have abandoned the drugs over faith healings. The same case has also been a threat in Malawi where parents are told to stop taking drugs. The same trend is very rampant in Masogo area where after attending healing crusades, parents stop taking medication and die within few months leaving behind many children who have a bleak future.

As such, setting up the Humanist Orphan Center was a response to the above irrationality. First, the approach was to empower the abandoned children and as we do our best for the children, we engage the community through advocacy. We started with empowering the extended relatives of the orphans we sponsor. We educated them about the dangers of some irrational traditional beliefs. We teamed up with HIV/ AIDS educators to give thorough education about the disease. Currently, we are seeing progress!

In this direction, I would like to thank the Center For Inquiry International for its massive support. When the former CEO and President of CFI, Ron Lindsay, visited Kenya in late 2015, he launched the Humanist Orphans Center and he was touched by the plight of children. He was confident that the Center would respond to the needs of the children and the community as a whole. True to his word, Ron made sure that the Center was one of the unique Humanist resource centers in Kenya and in early January 2016, the Center received massive support from CFI and he also made sure that the Center will continue to operate by allocating a sustaining package for a number of years. Accordingly, children in Masogo first saw a real computer for the first time at the center and they have continued to study computer packages free of charge.

Children learning computer at the Humanist Orphans Center

To add more, we also received a huge package of literature materials from CFI. In Africa, getting publications that advances rationality is still very hard. In most conferences I have attended across Africa, I have always noted that most Africans rely on the internet to look for resources. A good number do not have comprehensive books and hard copy materials that can be read to fully comprehend some of the arguments against backward thinking. As such, many Africans still do not have enough reading material to break away fully from the chains of religion. In this direction, receiving such a bunch of resources from CFI was a great experience and a break through.

Reading materials from CFI International

Surprisingly, words about receiving such massive literature reached many humanists across Africa and the first group that came in touch was in Ghana: the Ghana Humanist Association. Led by the current IHEYO African Working Group Secretary, Roslyn Mould, the group requested few reading materials and we sent them a package. On receiving the package, from CFI/ Kenya, they convened a meeting to celebrate receiving such unique gift. Already, we have received request from Tanzania Humanist Group led by Nsajigwa and Lucas Isakwisa. Moreover, the South African Humanist Group led by Bogani has also contacted us.

To finish, I would like to thank CFI for having sustained the activities of CFI Kenya since 2007 and have never stopped helping at any given moment. Working with an organization that transforms the lives of people in Africa is a great experience. When you pick a child who is giving up and see that face that was once dull bright again, I will never forget such a great human experience! Thanks to all the entire CFI Team I have been working with: Bill Cooke, Paul Fidalgo, Pat Beauchamp, Debbie Goddard, Tom Flynn, Barry Karr, Sarah Kaiser, and the rest of the CFI family. Your kindness and patience has given me the morale to continue with my work!

Physicist and CSI Fellow Mark Boslough recently interviewed climatologist and geophysicist Michael Mann, who will be speaking at CSICon Las Vegas.

Mark Boslough: To anyone who has followed the “climate wars,” your name is a household word. Deniers even coined the phrase “Mann-made global warming” in an attempt to make it synonymous with their belief that global warming is an elaborate hoax. From my vantage point as a scientist and skeptic, you seem to be the person they love to hate more than anyone else except perhaps Al Gore. Why do you think they have they singled you out from the scientific community as their poster child for sustained vilification?

Michael Mann: Well—there are certainly other leading climate scientists who have been frequent targets of climate change deniers. But I suppose there are a few things that are different in my case. For one, I am directly associated with one of the most prominent graphs in all of climate science, the “Hockey Stick” curve that my coauthors and I published back in the late 1990s. That curve became an icon in the climate change debate. It told a simple story—that the warming of the planet we’re experiencing is unprecedented. That made it a threat to fossil fuel interests and, as I detail in my book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, it made me a direct target of the industry-funded climate change denial machine. The Eye of Sauron was fixed on me. Rather than shrink from the battle, I chose to fight back—by defending my work in the public sphere and by devoting myself to public outreach and education. That no doubt further antagonized climate change deniers. Ultimately, they provided me a platform for informing the public discourse over what is arguably the greatest challenge we have faced as a civilization. I consider that a blessing, not a curse.

Boslough: As you say, you weren’t the only author of the 1998 Mann, Bradley, and Hughes “Hockey Stick” paper that made such an impact. You were just an up-and-coming post-doc and your coauthors were already prominent. I was taking a paleoclimatology course at the time and had never heard of you, but we were using Bradley’s textbook. A couple of years ago I attended a dinner for the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, and two guests sitting at my table introduced themselves as “Et and Al”. They were Bradley and Hughes, and the joke was a reference to their having been eclipsed by you. Do you think you were the main target of Sauron’s initial wrath because you were first author or because deniers mistook you for easy pickings?

Mann: That’s right. Interestingly, much of the focus was on me alone, rather than my two senior coauthors, Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes. I suspect the reason was two-fold. I was the first author and was quoted in most of the media coverage, so I was the scientist most directly associated with the research. But additionally, I was viewed as far more vulnerable to attack, as I was only a post-doc at the time, a far cry from the job security of a tenured faculty position (which both of my coauthors had). The climate change denial machine wanted to bring me down, to destroy my professional career before it even got going, to make an example of me for other younger scientists who might too consider speaking out about climate change. In The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, I refer to this as the “Serengeti Strategy.”

Boslough: Seems like this strategy backfired spectacularly in your case. Have they successfully destroyed anyone else’s career? Are they still pursuing the Serengeti method, or did they learn their lesson?

Mann: Well, yes—I like to think the hyenas tangled with the wrong zebra.

But unfortunately, this tactic continues to be deployed. Over the past year, the Republican chair of the House Science Committee, Lamar Smith of Texas, a recipient of considerable fossil fuel money, has initiated a campaign of persecution against leading climate scientists at NOAA and elsewhere, abusing his authority by serving them with vexatious subpoenas demanding their internal email correspondences and other such items, simply because he and the fossil fuel interests who fund his campaigns don’t like the conclusions of their research. This has sent a collective chill throughout the entire climate science community, and it speaks to the fact that the Serengeti Strategy is very much still alive and well.

Boslough: You say they are still going after leading climate scientists. But as I pointed out in my NCSE review of your Hockey Stick book, even hyenas know to attack the smallest and weakest members of a group. Is Smith really trying to destroy these scientists, or is he just trying to waste their time and discredit them in the eyes of his campaign donors and scientifically illiterate constituents?

Mann: Evil is as evil does. The motive, in the end, is personal destruction. It is to make cautionary examples of individual scientists for others who might think about playing a prominent role in the public discourse over climate change. Here’s what will happen to you if you too put your head above the parapet! Now, whether it is the politicians like Lamar Smith, James Inhofe, or Ted Cruz themselves who are driven by this motive, or whether they are just being loyal foot-soldiers of the fossil fuel interests who have this motive is, in the end, in my view immaterial. We must judge them by their actions and we must recognize them for the threat that they represent to society.

Boslough: Maybe there’s a selection bias involved in my perceptions. Am I only aware of the fittest survivors whose reputations within the scientific community were actually enhanced? Are there examples of climate scientists who couldn’t take it and quit? Or is it more subtle, with young scientists dissuaded from entering the field or keeping their heads down in a way that makes them invisible?

Mann: I suspect the real impact of the attacks is more difficult to detect. On the one hand, scientists coming into the field now appear to be more mobilized, more willing to confront misinformation and disinformation head on, more willing to engage in the public discourse, whether through social media or other means. But, what I worry about, are the young scientists we are losing to other fields, scientists confronted by a choice between those areas of science perceived as “safe” (e.g., dark matter, quarks, and black holes) and “unsafe” (e.g., climate change and other areas of environmental research) from attacks by vested interests and the politicians who do their bidding.

Boslough: I’m guessing you had no formal training in how to deal with political assaults on your science and had to learn it on the fly. Can those skills be taught to young scientists who are working in fields that make them vulnerable to attack?

Mann: Indeed, I did not. They don’t train you for this in graduate school science programs. Perhaps we need to add a boot camp experience to our graduate training. Not only can we teach young scientists how to function in the increasingly hostile environment they may find themselves, we must teach them to do so. Fortunately there is growing educational infrastructure for this within the scientific community. At meetings like the American Geophysical Union annual fall meeting (the largest member society in the Earth Sciences), there are now numerous workshops and sessions focused on science communication, the law, and other subjects that are critical to the defense of science from politically or ideologically-motivated attacks. It’s unfortunate that this is now part of the job description of doing science, but it’s a good thing that scientists are recognizing this and rising to the occasion. The stakes are simply too great—we cannot lose the battle against the forces of unreason and inaction. The silver lining is that we are now creating a whole generation of scientist communicators who are not only doing great science but are effectively communicating the science and its implications to the general public.

Boslough: Did I hear that you have another book coming out?

Mann: The Madhouse Effect represents a collaboration between myself and the Pulitzer Prize–winning editorial cartoonist of the Washington Post, Tom Toles. We attempt to use humor and satire, as embodied in Tom’s cartoons over the years (and a number of new cartoons exclusive to the book) to ridicule the absurdity of modern day climate change denialism. There is no better tool than satire to expose hypocrisy, and nowhere is there greater hypocrisy than the ongoing campaign by fossil fuel interests and their hired hands to deny the well-established science of human-caused climate change. Indeed, climate change denial would be humorous if the stakes weren’t so great. The book takes the form of an annotated compendium of Tom’s cartoons, which we use to explore everything from the fundamentals of science and how it works, to the scientific evidence behind climate change, the predicted impacts, the campaign to deny climate change, the hypocrisy of denialism, the dangers of geoengineering, and, finally, the path forward. Ironically enough, we end on a cautiously optimistic, forward-looking note.

Boslough: Since this interview is for a conference of skeptics, I have to ask one more thing. Why do some members of the media still refer to individuals who reject the scientific method and mainstream climate science as “skeptics” even though they embrace the pseudoscience of denialism? How can we educate the general public about what skepticism really means?

Mann: Yes—this continues to irk many of us. We need to restore the term skeptic to its rightful place in the scientific discourse. In the Madhouse Effect, we mock—with a great new Tom Toles cartoon exclusive to the book—the laughable manner in which climate change deniers attempt to claim the mantle of Galileo, when they are the very opposite of Galileo, or Einstein, or any of the great paradigm breakers in scientific history. Galileo was a talented, well-trained, mainstream scientist, versed enough in prevailing scientific thinking to identify subtle holes therein. He wasn’t a crank, so poorly versed in the science that he didn’t understand the basics—that’s what most climate change deniers are. Faux skepticism, i.e., denialism masquerading as skepticism, is another one of those aspects of the climate change debate that is so absurd that satire and ridicule is really the only way to address it properly. And that’s what we do in The Madhouse Effect.

One of the great things about skepticism is that there are many resources and avenues people find that will draw them to be a more critical thinker about their world. Speaking out: A 21^st Century Handbook for Women and Girls by Tara Moss is such a text: from the start it debunks stereotypes about differences between men and women’s language use, features a chapter on unconscious bias and its ramifications, and has a checklist on critical thinking that cites Dr. Steve Novella and criticalthinking.org. All of this within a powerful guide to helping women navigate the sometimes difficult online and offline scenarios they face when it comes to being heard and being respected.

Tara Moss is an author, journalist, TV presenter, and an outspoken advocate for the rights of women and children. Since 1999, she has written eleven bestselling books, which have been published in nineteen countries and thirteen languages. Tara has been a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador since 2007 and as of 2013, is UNICEF Australia’s National Ambassador for Child Survival. She has spoken at numerous schools on cyber bullying and online child safety, and in July 2015 was announced as the new Norton Family Ambassador on these issues. In 2015, she was also announced as Patron of the Full Stop Foundation for Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia, and launched the foundation at Parliament House. In 2015, she received an Edna Ryan Award for her significant contribution to feminist debate, speaking out for women and children and inspiring others to challenge the status quo.

Kylie Sturgess: Speaking out: A 21st -Century Handbook for Women and Girls—I loved the fact that your book dives into research and evidence at the very start, with the myth that women are more talkative based upon the presence of a protein found in rats, that even one of the researchers warned about extrapolating the results in order to link it to women and talkativeness. How much of your book has been inspired by the research that you did for your previous book, the memoir The Fictional Woman?

Tara Moss: Well, I’m interested in research in general on how often good data and research would debunk stereotypes and myths. And of course, the test that you were talking about that I relay in the book is the one done on rats and showed a certain level of protein in male rats and female rats. We decided this is the reason why women talk more. But in fact as far back as the 1990s, researchers have known that in sixty-one out of sixty-three studies looking at “talkativity” in different genders, in different settings, it was actually men who tended to talk more than women, particularly in public contexts or mixed gender contexts.

This is very important for the basis of the book Speaking Out because Speaking Out is about women and girls participating more in public life, so outside of the home. It focuses on those areas of influence in public spaces—home life is also very important, of course, but it’s not the focus of this particular book. And what we see is that even today, less than one out of every four people we hear from, or about, in the media is female. Of course, we know women have very low representation in parliament, in cabinets, and in areas of power, boardrooms, you name it. So, this book is about trying to counter some of that and it does start out by debunking some of the common myths and stereotypes around women—and in particular the one that keeps persisting that women apparently talk too much!

Sturgess: It’s a very Zeitgeist-y time for books on supporting women in the public sphere and to be in the public sphere; have you been encouraged by seeing this trend?

Moss: I’m not sure if I have seen a trend so much as there has been a kind of conversation happening about what’s been occurring? The statistics have improved a little; the study I mentioned earlier about less than one in four people being women that we hear from or about in the media, that was only 17 percent in 1995. So there has been improvement, but obviously not a massive one; it’s less than 10 percentage points over twenty years. So, there is certainly a lot more to be done and it could be done a bit faster. But I think some time just reminding ourselves that progress has been made can really show us that progress can happen, and of course shows us also we’re simply not there yet in terms of achieving parity in public voices and influence.

Sturgess: Writers like Caitlin Moran (How To Be A Woman) and Kameron Hurley (The Geek Feminist Revolution) have recent books out that encourage women to identify as feminists; yours is the first however I have ever seen with an Anti-Feminist Gas-Lighting Bingo card on the inside! Your book is labelled as a handbook; what inspired this particular format?

Moss: It is a handbook, so the Anti-Feminist Gas-Lighting Bingo is one of several bingo cards that I point out in the book—and these can be used if you are one of those women or girls who experience a lot of gas-lighting, or a lot of being dismissed, talked over, told you’re being crazy, told you’re hysterical, and people not actually listening what you have to say, or acknowledging your points or arguments. This happens even to women in parliament who are experts and who are women of influence. If it happens to them when the cameras are rolling, we know it certainly happens to women in regular day-to-day life, and sometimes these bingo cards are quite fun.

So if you are online, or you’re in a work scenario where you get the kind of response often that is not a constructive criticism, it’s simply dismissal—you can tick it off with your friends! The kinds of comments about “being hysterical,” being too emotional, needs a good lay; there’s various ones that are particularly anti-feminist and ones that advocates online get constantly, you might get them all in a single hour if you are online. And it’s a way of really pointing out the patterns of behavior when people are responding to women and girls and those particularly gendered patterns; the things that aren’t about the argument, they are not about constructive criticism, but they are about dismissals and are a very kind of gendered way to try to silence someone.

Those are types of things I think it’s good to compare notes on, because then when it happens to you, you see it coming from a mile away and you go, “Hang on, you aren’t addressing any of my points at all, you’re just putting out lazy insults saying I’m hysterical—let’s stick to the point. Let’s stick to the topic, and listen to what I have to say, and I'll do the same.”

Sturgess: Why choose the format of a handbook? Obviously, The Fictional Woman was more autobiographical. What was it like in the process of creating this book?

Moss: Well, if you'd asked me a few years ago if I would ever write a handbook, I would have thought that was a crazy idea. I never thought I'd be in a position to be doing so. What I found is, after The Fictional Woman came out, I had hundreds and hundreds of women and girls who I spoke to on the road, at schools and universities, and in finding line-ups or even line-ups at the grocery store. They had stories to tell me, and they had disclosures for me in terms of things that they identified with in The Fictional Woman, sometimes some very tough things as well, but they also had questions. They had specific questions about how you deal with criticism, how you deal with trolls and online abuse, how you deal with being dismissed, how you find the confidence to speak up, and how you can speak up.

After about eighteen months of very similar questions from hundreds of different people, I realized that I needed to try to write a book where I could distill some of this information down and really try to encapsulate some very practical and specific, concrete things that people can do when they're in this situation.

Sturgess: It seems like America is going to have its first woman as President. What's your take on what's happening in politics at the moment?

Moss: I certainly hope she’s the first President coming up because the alternative is not in my view very positive!

Sturgess: I'm wondering if I should send her a copy of this book quite frankly. I think she could probably use the bingo card.

Moss: I think she might enjoy it in terms of comparing notes, and she will have seen it all with the very public political career that she's had over the last couple of decades! I would say that, again, we need to brace ourselves for a lot of very sexist and gendered reactions to her. The ones that are legitimate political criticisms or criticisms about policies, those are things that are always welcomed in the public sphere and should be a regular part of healthy democratic debate, but unfortunately we do see there's a lot of name calling. There are a lot of very sexist responses, and we saw this of course as well with relation to Julia Gillard, Australia's first female prime minister—and isn't it kind of amazing just thinking about that for a moment that we're still having these firsts now?

It took 109 years for Australia to get a female prime minister, and during much of that time people said, "Everything's equal now. There's no need for feminism. Women can do whatever they want." It's just that we never let them. They never get to that position where they are supported enough to actually be a leader, so the fact that we're having these discussions now and we're still having firsts, shows me that there's a lot of change happening. That change isn't always going to be easy. So we need to kind of buckle in for what I think will be a pretty long election period.

Sturgess: Now, you're in the process of doing a PhD. How much of it has been tied into the book that we've got in front of us now, Speaking Out?

Moss: Well, the process of writing a PhD and being a postgrad student at the University of Sydney has certainly influenced some of my tips and tricks in the book on researching. In terms of the topic, I am researching gender and cultural studies, but it's a different area within that topic. This book isn't really directly tied to the thesis, and neither is The Fictional Woman, but I will certainly say that being in that academic environment has shown me again how important it is to look at your work critically, to practice good critical thinking, to practice good research techniques, and this is something you can do regardless of whether you'll ever be involved in the academic sphere.

This is one thing that I've really tried to do with this book, to take some of those techniques outside of the academic sphere and really make them available to everyone. This is something a lot of good teachers also teach in high schools, but it really doesn't get enough attention.

I think just reminding people that you can use those techniques, that you don't have to feel kind of afraid or overwhelmed with something like critical thinking, just by talking about it, by challenging yourself in that way, it can make you do really excellent research and when you speak out, you can then be more prepared, more solid in your argument, and you're less likely to have any kind of negative repercussions from your speaking out as well and that's what I really want for everyone who speaks out but particularly women and girls. I want them to feel confident when they speak out, and I want it to be a positive experience for them ultimately, so this is part of what the book Speaking Out aims to do.

CFI Board Member Leonard Tramiel recently interviewed SETI’s Jill Tarter. Many are familiar with Tarter’s work as portrayed by Jodie Foster in the movie Contact.

Leonard Tramiel: SETI is a topic of great general interest and the primary focus of your career. Are there any new developments in the SETI field in general and anything that would be of particular interest to the skeptical community?

Jill Tarter: Exoplanets and extremophiles have been the game changers during my career. I think skeptics would be particularly interested to understand that these pieces of the puzzle that we can validate have gone in the direction of making the universe at least appear more bio-friendly.

Life, as we know it, is a planetary phenomenon: life has evolved on this planet, it has been profoundly impacted by the planet, and in return, it has profoundly impacted the planet. (The same may be said for planetary moons, but we have no evidence yet). When I started out in this game we knew of nine planets—period. Because the SETI group at Ames (John Billingham’s Interstellar Communication Committee) and the participants of the 1971 Cyclops summer study wanted to know if other stars actually had planets, they began holding splinter workshops on the topic. Bill Borucki was one of the attendees. When SETI started getting golden fleeced, and having its funding attacked, John Billingham wisely asked David Black to take over these studies and move them to the space sciences side of the house to protect them from being tarred and feathered by association. Twenty-five years later, Kepler launched, and together with ground-based radial velocity studies has shown us there are more planets than stars in the Milky Way.

As a student, I learned that all life was powered by the Sun—that life could not exist where it was too hot or too cold, where pressures were much different from 1 bar, where the pH was far from neutral, or in intense radiation fields. Well we’re finally moving away from our equating life with human life and humans as being the pinnacle of evolution, and all these constraints have been demolished by extremophiles. They are, of course, only extreme from our point of view; they are well adapted and cozy in their own niches. For life as we know it, liquid water seems to be the limiting resource—everywhere we’ve looked, life is abundant, with perhaps parts of the Atacama Desert being the exception (or maybe our instruments are lacking in sensitivity). As for life as we don’t yet know it, our instruments are not designed to find that. So the sorts of “weird life” considered by the NAS in their 2007 report “The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems” could in fact exist on Earth today or on distant real estate orbiting other stars. Now that we know that real estate is there, extremophiles suggest we should investigate worlds unlike Earth as well as looking for Earth 2.0.

Tramiel: In keeping with the skeptical theme of CSICon, what are some common misconceptions about SETI?

Tarter:

1. That SETI and UFOs are related or the same thing. SETI uses the tools of the astronomer to attempt to find evidence of somebody else’s technology coming from a great distance. If we ever claim detection of a signal, we will provide evidence and data that can be independently confirmed. UFOs—none of the above.
2. That SETI is funded by the U.S. Government (or other federal authorities in other countries). This has not been true since 1993. SETI began as a NASA project within the life sciences division of the agency. Later it was moved to the space sciences division. In 1993 Senator Bryan (D-NV) introduced an amendment to NASA’s FY94 budget to terminate all funding for SETI, and he did so with vengeance, letting NASA know that its overall budget would suffer if NASA were to re-introduce SETI funding in future years. Since 1993, our searches at the SETI Institute have been privately funded through philanthropy. The Berkeley SETI Research Center (BSRC) has received some funding over the years from the National Science Foundation and NASA as part of its equipment development for CASPER.
3. We just got $100M from Yuri Milner. Not true. Yuri Milner made a pledge of $100M in July of 2015 to support ten years of SETI research, but none of that has come to the SETI Institute. Mr. Milner has written contracts with the Green Bank Telescope in West Virginia and the Parkes Telescope in NSW Australia to rent time on those facilities for SETI observations; he has also contracted with BSRC to build instrumentation for those facilities and conduct SETI observations.
4. That any signal detection will immediately be covered up by the U.S. military. Not true. SETI is just one of the many topics for conspiracy theorists. In fact, all the SETI research groups I know of have experienced false positive detections, and prior to the group being able to conduct full verification, the information has leaked to the public and become widespread without any apparent interest from any government.

Tramiel: Do a lot of people ask you about UFOs? How do you respond?

Tarter: Sigh.... Unfortunately, the answer is yes. In response I point out that I am sure that there is physics that we don’t yet understand, and that I wouldn’t be surprised if people had actually seen manifestations of such (sprites and elves—lightning traveling upwards from the top of a thunderstorm anvil cloud was a case in point in the twentieth century—and yes, scientists do themselves no favors by adopting such fanciful names). What is lacking is any credible evidence or data tying visual sightings with extraterrestrial spacecraft. None, zero, zip.

Tramiel: You have been a champion for increasing science literacy and skepticism for some time. What do you suggest CSI do to help increase the spread of our message?

Tarter: Get to the kids! Classes in skeptical thinking are just as important as sex ed in middle/high school. Use the web more. Randi, Penn and Teller, and even Keith Barry are a good start, but the audiences are relatively small and already adult. You need to become part of the atmosphere that the kids are absorbing via their devices—including games and apps. no clue about entry portal here; would suggest Reading Rainbow’s LeVar Burton or SimCity’s Will Wright. Carl Sagan had a good track record, but Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson have not been able to deliver.

Traducido por Alejandro Borgo, CFI/Argentina.

Recientemente me encontré con un programa de televisión -de esos basados en la vida real- que presentaba un ejemplo provocativo de tales casos: una mujer había sido brutalmente asesinada en su departamento. Su ex novio, con el cual había tenido un fuerte altercado, se convirtió en el primer sospechoso. Durante la investigación, a este hombre le “ofrecieron” hacer un test con el polígrafo (detector de mentiras) con el objeto de establecer su probable culpa o inocencia. Él accedió a la prueba y “falló”, lo cual indicaría su presunta culpabilidad. A pesar del resultado, la evidencia presentada en el juicio fue considerada insuficiente para condenarlo, y fue absuelto. Convencida de que el test del polígrafo era acertado, su comunidad local lo trató como a un paria y fue objeto de amenazas. Sin embargo, varios meses después, otro hombre, el verdadero asesino, fue aprehendido y condenado. Así, al menos para el primer sospechoso, aparte de sufrimiento, la historia tuvo un final satisfactorio, y el detector de mentiras resultó ser ineficaz y engañoso. El resultado lleva a una pregunta obvia: ¿cuántas veces se probó que era falsa la “detección de mentiras por una máquina”?

Gran parte del público estadounidense parece estar convencido de que el “detector de mentiras” es válido, como se indica en la literatura de “historias policiales” y en los programas de televisión, sean series, talk-shows o noticieros. Después de todo, con semejante avalancha de aprobación general, ¿quién podría dudar de la validez de una prueba como esta? La cuestión es que la ilusión en cuestión tiene muchos adeptos: funcionarios del Estado, departamentos de policía locales y agencias del orden público en todo el territorio de los Estados Unidos.

Pero examinemos la cuestión más de cerca. La exactitud del test debería estar sujeta a los métodos científicos modernos. Curiosamente, este desafío es llamativamente similar al que enfrentan los investigadores médicos cuando se evalúan varias pruebas que intentan establecer la presencia o ausencia de muchas enfermedades. Así las cosas, puedo brindar la evaluación de un método que, a menudo, fue analizado sin sentido crítico alguno.

El procedimiento y su historia

El “detector de mentiras” se usó durante casi un siglo y emplea un “polígrafo”, el cual, durante los interrogatorios, continuamente registra la presión sanguínea, la respiración, el pulso y la resistencia eléctrica de la piel (medida indirecta de la transpiración) del examinado. El formato usual compara las respuestas a preguntas “relevantes” con aquellas que se consideran preguntas de “control”. Las preguntas de control se refieren a hechos similares a los que están siendo investigados, pero se refieren al pasado del sujeto y son muy amplias. Por ejemplo: “¿Alguna vez traicionó a alguien que creyó en usted?”.

Se asume que una persona que está diciendo la verdad le teme más a las preguntas de control que a las preguntas relevantes. Ello se debe a que las preguntas de control están diseñadas para preocupar al sujeto acerca de su honradez (pasada), mientras que las relevantes preguntan sobre un crimen del cual son sospechosas. Un patrón de mayor cantidad de respuestas fisiológicas a las preguntas relevantes que a las de control lleva a un diagnóstico de “engaño”. Una mayor reacción a las preguntas de control lleva a un diagnóstico de “no engaño”. Si no hay diferencia entre las preguntas relevantes y las de control, el resultado de la prueba se considera no concluyente.

En el intento por mejorar la exactitud de las pruebas, se han sugerido métodos de interrogación como la “prueba de conocimiento de culpabilidad” (Ruscio 2005). Más que apuntar a determinar la veracidad de las respuestas a aspectos relevantes de un sujeto sometido a examen, esta técnica se propone exponer las respuestas “candentes” a preguntas que solo un individuo culpable pudiera dar. Esto se lleva a cabo con una serie de preguntas de multiple-choice (elección múltiple), una de las cuales contiene la información que lo incrimina. Este tipo de interrogación se limita solo a crímenes específicos, pero no ha sido lo suficientemente investigada y es muy probable que contenga los mismos defectos que el procedimiento convencional.

This article was originally featured in Skeptical Inquirer in English.
Click here to read it.

El test registra la actividad del sistema nervioso autónomo (involuntario) que tiene influencia en el pulso cardíaco, el ritmo respiratorio, la presión arterial y la transpiración. Aunque esta parte del sistema nervioso está activa todo el tiempo, se incrementa durante la excitación, la ira, la ansiedad, el miedo, o temor. Cualquiera de estas reacciones puede ser causada por el hecho de mentir. Pero el engaño es una función cognitiva que desafía la medición directa. Ciertamente, a través de la historia de la medicina científica, no hay estudios que hayan demostrado que la respuesta emocional ligada a la mentira pueda ser medida. Además, las reacciones asociadas con la mentira y otras tensiones emocionales puede ser muy variable. Algunas personas pueden permanecer tranquilas cuando se les pone un revólver en la sien. En cambio, otras pueden responder excesivamente -con latidos fuertes y palmas transpiradas- cuando simplemente se les da la mano. El examen del polígrafo, por sí mismo, a menudo causa miedo o ansiedad, y si tales respuestas son excesivas cuando se hace una determinada pregunta, el examinador podría considerar que alguien ha fallado al contestar una pregunta.

La evidencia

Debido a esta obvia imposibilidad biológica en esta era de medicina basada en la evidencia, la premisa de la detección por medio del polígrafo ha derivado en escepticismo y se considera una pseudociencia por la mayoría de la comunidad científica (Iacono 2001).

La Asociación Poligráfica Americana (APA), organización profesional de examinadores que usan el polígrafo, mantiene una absoluta fe en la exactitud de esta prueba. Tienen permisos para ejercer en 28 estados y en su revista, Polygraph, informan sobre estudios cuestionables desde el punto de vista científico y cuentan anécdotas sobre la exactitud de su profesión. La mayoría de estos miembros hacen un curso de seis semanas a seis meses sobre el arte de la poligrafía. No se les requiere tener experiencia en medicina, psicología o comportamiento, disciplinas en las que supuestamente deberían estar basados los tests.

Como era de esperarse, los examinadores que usaban el polígrafo usualmente manifestaban confidencialmente que la prueba era muy precisa, rondando el 95% de eficacia. Esto implica que si se les hace la prueba a 100 sospechosos, noventa y cinco de ellos serán detectados. Cinco de ellos van a ser falsos negativos y no serán detectados por este método. Por otro lado dirán que si usted está diciendo la verdad, tiene un 100% de chances de pasar el examen (Reid e Inbau 1977).

Sin embargo, para ser aceptable de acuerdo a los estándares científicos modernos, las dos características que deben establecerse son la sensibilidad y la especificidad de este test: la sensibilidad es el porcentaje de resultados positivos cuando se sabe que hay una mentira. La especificidad es el porcentaje de resultados negativos en ausencia de engaño. En ambos escenarios, para establecer la eficacia del test, la presencia de los mentirosos y honestos debe ser determinada independientemente del procedimiento del test en sí mismo. La verdadera exactitud debe provenir de casos de la vida real porque, por obvias razones, no puede derivarse de voluntarios que están en un laboratorio y no tienen la presión emocional de los verdaderos sospechosos. Para lograr esto, se examina a un grupo sin engaños conocidos, para evaluar los resultados. Pero la prueba de absoluta honestidad en tales individuos es evasiva, porque incluso si no hay mentiras, la ansiedad asociada al test puede causar falsos positivos, reduciendo la especificidad del test, lo cual confunde más las cosas.

Pero ¿que podemos decir de los resultados de los test en aquellos que son realmente culpables? Tenemos muy poco conocimiento sobre la frecuencia con que los mentirosos son tomados como personas confiables. Además, los sujetos culpables -y muchos otros- pueden controlar sus reacciones usando lo que se llama “contramedidas”, suficientes para tergiversar los resultados para producir un “falso negativo”. Un ejemplo sobresaliente de un falso negativo es el de Aldrich Ames, quien en 1995 pasó exitosamente cinco tests poligráficos durante su larga carrera en servicios de inteligencia, y, a pesar de ello, fue arrestado y condenado por espionaje. Luego de que el científico del Sandia National Labs, Alan P. Zelicoff publicara un sólido comentario en The Skeptical Inquirer llamando a los polígrafos “una peligrosa trampa” (Zelicoff 2001), Ames escribió una carta al editor de la prisión federal confirmando los puntos de vista de Zelicoff, agregando que los polígrafos son ciertamente “ciencia chatarra”, “una superstición”, y un “refugio contra la responsabilidad”. “Al igual que dejar el destino en manos de los astros o en las vísceras de animales, los burócratas pueden abandonar sus deberes y responsabilidades a pseudocientíficos e interrogadores disfrazándolos de técnicos”, escribió Ames (Ames 2001). En 2003, Gary Ridgway mostró otro ejemplo: se lo encontró culpable de ser el Asesino del Río Verde (Green River Killer), quien mató a cuarenta y nueve mujeres en la zona de Seattle. Irónicamente, Ridgway pasó la prueba del detector de mentiras en 1987, mientras que otro hombre -que se probó que era inocente- falló. Aunque estos casos aislados son tomados como anécdotas, incitan a pensar que el test falló y debería ser cuidadosamente investigado críticamente con herramientas científicas, empleando un gran número de pruebas, como se describe más abajo.

La prueba del polígrafo no fue sometida a la investigación científica moderna, por lo menos desde hace treinta años (Saxe et. Al 1983; Likken 1981). Desde ese entonces han habido varios estudios empleando una metodología más adecuada. A pesar de la imposibilidad de lograr un diseño de investigación completamente satisfactorio, estos tests refutan claramente la alta eficacia que supuestamente tenían. Estos estudios aparecieron en publicaciones de revisión por pares (Horvath 1977). Generalmente informaban una sensibilidad del 76 por ciento. Esto significa que de 100 mentirosos, solo setenta y seis de ellos iban a ser detectados por el polígrafo. Pero surgen más dudas acerca de esta aparente sensibilidad del test: el hecho de establecer la verdadera “culpabilidad” generalmente no puede disociarse de las pruebas poligráficas anteriores, las cuales pueden haber aportado confesiones y/o veredictos de culpabilidad en la corte, sesgando los datos y llevándolos a un valor de falsa alta sensibilidad del test. El examinador también puede albergar sospechas previas sobre la honestidad del examinado, lo cual puede causar errores en la interpretación de la prueba y a una mayor distorsión de los datos.

La habilidad de los examinadores también está asociada a la gran variabilidad de los resultados, creando una mayor fuente de inexactitud. Algunos departamentos de policía, más pequeños, con presupuestos limitados pueden designar a un oficial de policía como examinador. El oficial designado puede tener poco entrenamiento formal o directamente carecer de él, más allá del limitado entrenamiento que le da la empresa que le vende el polígrafo al departamento de policía. Esto puede conducir a errores basados en la predisposición del oficial, quien creerá que la mayoría de los sospechosos son generalmente culpables. El resultado es que el oficial puede clasificar un resultado no concluyente como falso. Si el oficial examinador se da cuenta de las circunstancias del individuo que está siendo sometido a prueba, y el peso de la evidencia indica que el sujeto testeado es probablemente quien perpetró un crimen, se hace virtualmente imposible una prueba sin distorsiones. Los oficiales generalmente son entrenados para hacer preguntas usando frases que pueden hacer que alguien conteste de manera que parezca admitir su culpabilidad. Este tipo de formato de interrogatorio podría ser inapropiado en un interrogatorio con polígrafo. Debido a estas razones, establecer la sensibilidad de estas pruebas es, por lo tanto, muy improbable ya que las estimaciones mencionadas más arriba son probablemente exageradas.

Peor todavía -aunque no sea sorprendente- es que los estudios informan un promedio de especificidad del 52 por ciento, lo cual significa que de 100 personas que no mienten, solo cincuenta y dos van a ser identificadas como gente que dice la verdad, mientras que cuarenta y ocho de estos individuos honestos van a ser considerados mentirosos. Estas cifras son similares a las observadas al arrojar una moneda al aire, lo cual puede tener una especificidad del 50 por ciento. Otros estudios (Brett et al. 1986; Kleinmuntz and Szucko 1984; Lykken 1981) incluso han mostrado menores valores de especificidad, indicando que los resultados “positivos” son virtualmente inútiles. En 2003, la Academia Nacional de Ciencias, luego de una amplia revisión, emitió un informe llamado El polígrafo y la detección de mentiras (National Academy of Scences 2003), indicando que la mayor parte de la investigación con polígrafos era “poco fiable, no científica y tendenciosa” y concluyó afirmando que cincuenta y siete de aproximadamente ochenta estudios de investigación -en los cuales la Asociación Poligráfica Americana confía- contenían graves fallas. Se llegó a la conclusión de que, aunque el test funcionaba mejor que el azar al detectar mentiras -lejos de ser perfecto- producía demasiados falsos positivos.

En todo caso, quizá hay una ventaja menor para someter a los sospechosos a esta prueba (Lykken 1981; Lykken 1991): del 25 al 50 por ciento de los examinados, bajo la intensa presión psicológica el examen, van a confesar, luego de haber sido persuadidos de que se les halló deshonestos por medios “científicos”. Es común que los examinadores, en una prueba poligráfica, interroguen a los sujetos que ellos mismos creen que “fallaron” al ser sometidos al test. Los examinadores pueden sostener que no hay forma de negar la culpabilidad objetiva demostrada por este aparato científicamente “imparcial”, y que la única opción viable es confesar, lo cual usualmente sucede. Pero, aunque parezca efectivo, ello nunca apoya al test en sí mismo. Tal vez varias formas de tortura, como el intento de asfixia, podrían ser igualmente efectivas. Y uno podría preguntarse cuán a menudo esta forma de interrogación puede hacer que personas inocentes admitan falsamente -aparte de otras amenazas- que cometieron algunos delitos.

¿Hay justificación para seguir usándolo?

Por todas las razones mencionadas, el uso del polígrafo como detector de mentiras potencialmente puede causar mucho daño a personas inocentes que son juzgadas injustificadamente como deshonestas por los resultados. Una simple falla podría arruinar la vida de una persona. Desde 1923, la evidencia sobre el polígrafo no ha sido admisible en casos judiciales porque la prueba se consideró falta de validez científica. Desafortunadamente, todavía se usa en varios estados. Además, a los sospechosos se les “ofrece” este test antes de los procedimientos usuales, pero si por alguna razón, los sujetos rechazan ser sometidos al test, ello puede ser tomado como presunción de culpabilidad. Si ellos, en cambio, aceptan ser testeados, corren el riesgo -que normalmente ocurre- de producir falsos positivos, lo cual, de acuerdo a fiscales y jurados, apoya el veredicto de culpabilidad. De esta manera, desde el punto de vista del acusado, éste se encuentra atrapado. Más lamentable aún es el intento de aplicar este test en las preselecciones para un puesto de trabajo o autorizaciones de seguridad. En este contexto, el testear grandes grupos con una tasa base baja de deshonestidad va a dar un gran número de falsos positivos, tal cual está incluido en los principios matemáticos del teorema de Bayes (Tavel 2012). Teniendo en cuenta estos conceptos, el Consejo de la Asociación Médica Americana sobre Asuntos Científicos (1986) recomienda que el polígrafo no se use en tests de preselección laboral y para otorgar autorizaciones para cuestiones de seguridad, con lo cual estoy totalmente de acuerdo.

Agregando claras restricciones a estas pruebas, la Ley Federal de Protección Laboral contra el Polígrafo, de 1998, virtualmente declaró ilegal el uso de polígrafos en relación a puestos de trabajo. Esa ley abarca a los empleadores privados del comercio interestatal, lo cual incluye a casi todas las compañías privadas que usan computadoras, el correo de los EE.UU., o un sistema telefónico para enviar mensajes a alguien que está en otro estado.

De acuerdo a la ley, es ilegal para todas las compañías privadas:

• Requerir, pedir, sugerir o hacer que un postulante a un empleo se someta a un test usando un detector de mentiras.
• Usar, aceptar, hacer referencia o averiguaciones sobre los resultados de cualquier prueba con el detector de mentiras llevada a cabo con el propósito de seleccionar empleados.
• Descartar, sancionar, discriminar o incluso amenazar con tomar acciones legales contra cualquier empleado o aspirante que se niegue a hacer la prueba del detector de mentiras.

Los aspirantes y empleados federales también están protegidos contra las pruebas que usan el detector de mentiras, mediante reglas del ámbito civil. A pesar de todas estas aparentes medidas de protección, muchas personas siguen siendo sometidas al examen poligráfico, sea para buscar trabajo o para retener puesto ya obtenido. Ley Federal de Protección Laboral contra el Polígrafo permite que se use en empleos relacionados con la seguridad y las drogas, o al investigar un robo específico u otros crímenes sospechosos.

El resultado de todo esto es que los exámenes continúan usándose en las agencias federales como el FBI, la CIA y la NSA (Agencia Nacional de Seguridad), donde es usual que se tomen decisiones respecto a las preselecciones laborales. Los aspirantes podrían suponer que estos tests son una forma de panorama inicial para comenzar a trabajar en una de estas agencias. También se les puede solicitar que se sometan al polígrafo de vez en cuando. Ante cualquier oferta laboral, la prueba del polígrafo es a menudo el último obstáculo. Bajo estas circunstancias, la necesidad de pasar la prueba puede ser un hecho estresante para cualquiera -especialmente para aquellos que no han sido sometidos anteriormente a una prueba poligráfica- y, por supuesto, como se ha explicado, ello puede fácilmente convertirse en un disparador de falsos positivos. De manera que semejante prueba, para estos propósitos, resulta difícil de defender.

Dadas las falacias de tales pruebas, uno podría asumir que los individuos motivados pudieran proveer instrucciones a los sujetos acerca de cómo pasar la prueba (usando medidas preventivas), llevando a la conclusión -correcta o equivocadamente- de que uno es sincero. Además, la administración de ciertas drogas para bloquear la reacción del sistema nervioso autónomo es algo esperable para pasar la prueba. De hecho, las instrucciones para pasar estos tests se puede conseguir fácilmente en alguno sitios de Internet. Por lo tanto es difícil comprender por qué alguien que dé instrucciones personales para estos fines pueda ser realmente procesado como si esto constituyera un delito. Esto es exactamente lo que ocurrió recientemente (Taylor 2013) cuando un hombre de Indiana fue acusado de “amenaza contra la seguridad nacional” al enseñar a los aspirantes a un determinado trabajo cómo pasar la prueba del detector de mentiras exitosamente. Fue sentenciado a ocho meses de prisión luego de que los agentes federales lo descubrieran en una estafa encubierta. Al momento de escribir esto, al menos un caso adicional está siendo investigado bajo cargos similares. Aunque los laberintos legales van más allá de esta discusión, el tema parece amenazar los derechos de la Primera Enmienda. Además, que esa instrucción sea posible expone las fallas de un procedimiento ampliamente considerado como pseudocientífico por la comunidad científica. Para dar un ejemplo más, podríamos presentar una analogía interesante, aunque absurda: supongamos que descubrimos que, a través del cierto entrenamiento, uno pudiera enseñar a las personas a saber cómo hacer pasar armas en los detectores de metales sin que suenen las alarmas. Lógicamente, tal revelación podría causar una de dos reacciones por parte de las autoridades: 1) reemplazar un test con fallas por uno que sea preciso, o 2) intentar silenciar a los entrenadores que están a favor de este “engaño” amenazándolos con penas legales, incluyendo la cárcel. La respuesta obvia a esta cuestión -número uno- no requiere de mucho razonamiento. Pero en cuanto al test poligráfico se refiere, esta respuesta está lejos de haber sido elegida por las autoridades, porque han optado por la segunda opción. El mero hecho de que esas autoridades hayan decidido suprimir la información de este tipo podría, por sí mismo, ser considerado como una admisión tácita de que tal prueba tiene serias fallas.

Conclusiones

Haciendo un resumen de todas las fallas del test el polígrafo, Iacono (2001) concluyó en un artículo titulado La detección de mentiras forense: procedimientos sin base científica, lo siguiente: aunque este tipo de pruebas puede ser útil como ayuda para una investigación y una herramienta para inducir confesiones, no es una prueba científica creíble. Su teoría está basada en afirmaciones ingenuas e inverosímiles acerca de su eficacia. Contiene un sesgo contra los individuos inocentes y puede ser demolida simplemente por provocar respuestas artificiales a las preguntas de control. Aunque no es posible evaluar adecuadamente la tasa de errores de esta prueba, las conclusiones están apoyadas por la investigación científica disponible en las mejores publicaciones de ciencias sociales.

Dada la enorme cantidad de evidencia sobre su ineficacia, tal cual lo he presentado aquí ¿cómo podemos, como sociedad, reaccionar a tal perversión de la ciencia? La solución lógica es abandonar completamente este método de prueba. La necesidad más urgente es eliminarlo de cuajo respecto de la selección de empleados. Todas las leyes estatales y federales que permitan el uso del polígrafo, dentro o fuera de un juzgado, deben ser eliminadas. Más todavía, mientras permanezca en uso, no hay justificación para acusar a aquellos que proveen información sobre como “pasar” un test como este.

Infortunadamente, varias organizaciones estatales y nacionales que certifiquen y autoricen el polígrafo -cuya subsistencia dependa de su existencia- están profundamente arraigadas en nuestra sociedad. Para erradicar esta plaga, la comunidad científica, así como otras que comprenden estos conceptos, deben educar al público y urgir implacablemente a las autoridades responsables para que no sigan perpetuándola.

Referencias

• American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs. 1986. Polygraph. Journal of the American Medical Association 256: 1172–75.
• Ames, Aldrich. 2001. The polygraphs controversy (letter to the editor). Skeptical Inquirer 25(6): 72–73.
• Brett, A.S., M. Phillips, and J.F. Beary. 1986. Predictive power of the polygraph: Can the “lie detector” really detect liars? The Lancet. 1: 544–547.
• Horvath, F. 1977. The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records. Journal of Applied Psychology 62: 127–136.
• Iacono, W.G. 2001. Forensic “lie detection”: Procedures without scientific basis. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice 1: 75–86.
• Kleinmuntz, B., and J. Szucko. 1984. A field study of the fallibility of polygraphic lie detection. Nature 308: 449–450.
• Lykken, D.T. 1981. A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. McGraw-Hill, New York.
• ———. 1991. Why (some) Americans believe in the lie detector while others believe in the guilty knowledge test. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science 26: 214–222.
• National Academy of Sciences. 2003. The Polygraph and Lie Detection, Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
• Reid, J.E., and F.E. Inbau. 1977. Truth and Deception: The Polygraph (“Lie Detector”) Technique. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore.
• Ruscio, J. 2005. Exploring controversies in the art and science of polygraph testing. Skeptical Inquirer 29(1): 34–39.
• Saxe, L., D. Dougherty, and T. Crosse. 1983. Scientific validity of polygraph testing: A research review and evaluation. Conference: OTA-TM. U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment.
• Tavel, M.E. 2012. Snake Oil Is Alive and Well: The Clash between Myths and Reality. Reflections of a Physician. Chandler, AZ: Brighton Press, 51.
• Taylor, M. 2013. Indiana man gets 8 months for lie-detector fraud. Seattle Times (September 6).
• Zelicoff, Alan P. 2001. Polygraphs and the national labs: Dangerous ruse undermines national security. Skeptical Inquirer, (July/August). Online at http://www.csicop.org/si/show/polygraphs_and_the_national_labs_dangerous_ruse
  _undermines_national_securit/.

Can I claim to be psychic? I predicted this. In a previous column, “Superfood Silliness” I wrote:

“At frequent intervals, yet another entrepreneur identifies yet another unfamiliar tropical fruit that can be imported and sold to gullible health nuts at exorbitant prices. I wonder what the next fad will be.”

I didn’t have to wonder for long. The latest superfruit fad is Kakadu plums, an exotic fruit from Australia. It is said to be “a gift of the Dreamtime by Aboriginal culture.” Australia’s native superfood, Kakadu plums contain up to 100 times as much vitamin C as oranges. It is said to be a powerful antioxidant, antibacterial, and antiviral agent with anti-ageing properties. “Put simply, it is magic!” In my opinion, the only thing magical about it is the magical thinking required to believe the claims for it.

The fruit can be eaten raw, but it is sold in many forms: as a juice; as a powder to be added to smoothies, breakfast cereals, and desserts; and even as face masks and scrubs.

The Claims

Natural News, one of the most notoriously unreliable sites on the Web, makes these claims for the health benefits of Kakadu plums:

• Its vitamin C improves brain function and fortifies the immune system.
• It contains phytochemicals (ellagic and gallic acids) that can be used to treat inflammatory allergic diseases, to kill cancer-causing cells, and to lower estrogen’s role in contributing to breast cancer.
• It contains trace minerals and antioxidants that nourish and invigorate the skin (vitamin E, zinc, iron, folate, lutein, and vitamin C). Vitamins C and E neutralize cell-damaging free radicals, preventing premature aging effects.
• It contains calcium needed for building bones and teeth and magnesium to help absorb the calcium. Thereby it guards against osteoporosis and other bone-related conditions.
• It is rich in dietary fiber, making it a natural cure for constipation and an effective weight loss food.

The Products

There are lots of Kakadu plum products available on various websites, and they are not cheap. Here are a few examples:

• 16 oz plum juice for $8.99
• 32 oz reconstituted juice mixture (for $19.99, marked down from $29.99)
• Sephora sells 0.5 oz DERMAdoctor Kakadu C Eye Souffle for $68
• Yurrku sells a day cream, 0.33 oz for $16.
• Lovingearth sells Kakadu plum powder and advertises it as “cane sugar free, gluten free, fair trade, dairy free, low GI, and vegan.” Gee, that must prove it’s good for you! Just add a teaspoon to a glass of water or juice. 50 Gm for $22.90.
• There’s even a dark spot corrector for $49.99 advertised with before and after pictures of a user’s décolletage. “A Fountain of Youth”? Reviews are mixed, with some customers saying it did nothing for them.
• You can grow your own tree: 5 seeds sell for $4.50.
• Actual trees will sell for $39.00 but are not yet available.
• Apparently Mary Kay tried to patent it but gave up.

The Unanswered Questions

It contains a lot of vitamin C. So what? Are you deficient in vitamin C? Do you have scurvy? Is there any reason you can’t get the vitamin C you need from more readily available and less expensive sources?

They say the vitamin C improves brain function; which brain functions, exactly, and how do they know? They say it fortifies the immune system; which of the many functions of the immune system does it fortify, how do they know, and what if your immune system is already overactive from an autoimmune disease? They say it can treat allergies and cancer and prevent premature aging; where is the evidence? They say it “invigorates” the skin; what does that even mean? They say calcium and magnesium prevent osteoporosis, but that’s only if you are deficient in those minerals, and the amount in the products is probably not enough to correct a deficiency. They say it works for constipation and weight loss because it is rich in fiber, but according to one product website, their daily dose contains only 1 percent of the recommended daily amount of fiber.

In short, they make a lot of unsubstantiated claims, but there have been no scientific studies suggesting that eating Kakadu plums or products derived from them would have any impact on health. I just don’t “get” the concept of superfruits. I see no reason to add superfruits to a diet that is already nutritionally adequate; it would certainly be foolish to eat them and use that as an excuse to skimp on your diet. But I can’t deny that superfruits are healthy for the sellers’ bank accounts.

Cockroach Milk? Good Grief!

Just when I thought superfood silliness had reached its peak, NPR announced another new potential superfood: cockroach milk. It seems there’s a Hawaiian species of Pacific beetle cockroach that gives birth to live young and feeds them with a pale, yellow liquid “milk” from her brood sac. It turns into crystals in the embryos’ guts and is time-released. A researcher in India analyzed it and found that it is one of the most nutritious substances on Earth, rich in fat and protein, contains all the essential amino acids, and is three times richer in calories than buffalo milk. And it doesn’t taste of cockroach; it is tasteless, at least according to the one individual who has ever dared to try tasting it. But the researcher warned that there was no evidence that it is safe for human consumption. And it’s hard to milk cockroaches, so he has sequenced the responsible genes and is trying to genetically alter yeast to produce it.

Don’t worry; no one is trying to sell the stuff yet. I can’t help but wonder if some enterprising marketer will capitalize on this news by grinding up cockroaches and trying to sell them to gullible customers. The yuck factor might interfere with marketing even if real or fake cockroach milk becomes available. While researching this I learned a new word: katsaridaphobia, fear of cockroaches. While not exactly afraid of them, I’m definitely intolerant. I’m not willing to share my home with them. When I lived in Florida I got very irritated when one of them ruined a glass of champagne by drowning in it when I left it unattended for a few minutes. I guess I should at least give them credit for having good taste; I never found one in a glass of water.

Cockroach milk? Good grief! How can the superfood marketers ever hope to top that? Never fear! Even if they can’t top it, I can confidently predict there will be some new superfood claim in another year or so. Wouldn’t it be great if we could guarantee health by eating certain foods? Dream on…

Joe Nickell, PhD and senior research fellow at CSI, has been investigating strange mysteries, miracle claims, the paranormal, and occult activities for close to fifty years. Most know him for his work as a columnist in the Skeptical Inquirer science magazine and his books, which range from solving historical mysteries and examining questioned documents, to poetry anthologies, to a recipe book for mint juleps, and, of course, the paranormal.

If you are at all familiar with Joe, you know that he has many “personas” and has many, many different experiences that he has shared on his website www.joenickell.com. One aspect common to his life as well as his work: Joe is a hands-on investigator. Unlike many investigators of these mysteries, Joe has physically examined crucial evidence firsthand—whether looking at a haunted house in Connecticut, a Bigfoot sighting in Western New York, or the purported diary of Jack the Ripper. This, and his ability to not dismiss out of hand despite his years of experience, makes him a true investigator.

Timothy Binga: Joe, after working with you for almost twenty years, I find your “modus operandi” seems to be different than that of most people looking into paranormal phenomena. What do you think makes you different from these other investigators?

Joe Nickell: I think I bring to my work as an investigator two main motivations. The first stems from curiosity. I want to learn, for example, exactly what are the explanations for the alleged occurrences in a particular case that have prompted some belief. Secondly, I am convinced that a hands-on approach is essential to that end.

Take what has been called “America’s most haunted house,” the Myrtles Plantation in Louisiana. It is supposedly still home to a murderous slave named Chloe, who, it is said, sought revenge on her cruel master by poisoning his wife and their two daughters. Some “debunkers” would dismiss the haunting as folklore and reports of ghostly phenomena as misperceptions or outright falsehoods—having little patience for the facts. Investigate all you want, such dismissers say, and there still won’t be any ghosts.

Binga: Tell us about your approach.

Nickell: If the question were simply “Do ghosts exist?,” then they are almost certainly correct. But I think their lack of curiosity prevents them from seeing the real question: What, in a given instance, causes people to think they are experiencing spirits? The debunkers—with their smarter-than-them attitude—speak only to their fellow doubters. They would apparently rather be right than effective. How much more likely they would be to convince others of the non-ghost probability if they actually learned the true facts in a case and could therefore teach—perhaps not to die-hard believers but the curious ones who are willing to listen and possibly have their minds changed.

Therefore, I accepted the invitation of the Discovery Channel in 2001 to spend a night alone in the old plantation house, and I also investigated the historical facts about the case. It turned out that “Chloe” never existed but was a product of fakelore (a writer’s creation). Moreover, the three who died at the Myrtles actually succumbed not to poison but to a yellow fever epidemic. The ghostly phenomena also yielded to investigation. For example, I found a loose shutter that could account for some mysterious banging noises at the site.

Binga: You have written about The Conjuring and Ed and Lorraine Warren many times over the years. You revisited these topics recently. Can you tell me about it?

Nickell: The Conjuring is a 2013 horror film based on a real family’s residence in a purportedly demon-plagued house in rural Rhode Island. Its tale is Hollywoodized from a trilogy by Andrea Perron, the eldest of five daughters of Roger and Caroline Perron, who lived in the eighteenth-century house for a decade, beginning in 1971. Although the alleged demonic activity was reported sporadically over the years, the movie sprang exaggerated horrors on a credulous public, yielding a major box-office success.

Meanwhile, Norma Sutcliffe has lived in the house with her husband Gerry for some three decades. They have had no trouble with demons, but the movie unleashed a “Conjuring-instigated siege of their property”—according to legal papers in their lawsuit against Warner Brothers. From harassing phone calls to unannounced visitors to Internet discussions about destroying the house because “it’s so full of evil,” the couple has suffered a loss of peace and quiet.

Binga: And you got further involved?

Nickell: Norma called me for help, and I set aside a week for a drive to Rhode Island to examine her restored house and property. I sought the real secrets behind phenomena the Perrons—egged on by the notorious “demonologist” Ed Warren and his “clairvoyant” wife Lorraine—attributed to demons. For example, the cellar door had repeatedly unlocked during the night or popped open to surprise someone who’d just walked by. Guided by Norma, I also toured the area, visiting old cemeteries and thumbing through town records to check numerous deaths reported to have occurred on the historic farm—for instance, a suicide by hanging in the barn attributed to a child-killing “witch” named Bathsheba.

How well do you think the facts supported the claims?

Binga: I’m going to go out on a limb and say you found no evidence for demons….

Nickell: Well, as it happened, Norma and Gerry also experienced the mysterious cellar door, but on examination they saw the cause: a warped door that kept the latch from fully engaging. Nighttime cooling of the woodwork and an easily depressed floorboard did the rest. After they fixed the problem—that “demon” went away!

I also learned that Bathsheba Sherman was no witch but a practicing Christian wife and mother. She killed no one, as far as any known records show, and not only never lived in the historic house but did not hang herself in the barn or anywhere else. She died of “paralysis” according to the official death record, corroborated in her obituary as “a sudden attack of paralysis”—almost certainly a stroke.

I have written a further article reporting on more of my findings (see the forthcoming November/December 2016 Skeptical Inquirer). The Perron case turns out to have been one of hysteria, misperceptions, exaggerations, and falsehoods. The lesson here is that “demons” are effectively dispelled by skepticism.

Binga: Regarding the Warrens, I know you have some personal history with them….

Nickell: Indeed! None of it pleasant.

The Warrens made something of a career of claiming to see and exorcise demons. Their modus operandi was to arrive—often uninvited—at the homes of “haunted” Catholic families and try to convince them that their “ghosts” or “poltergeists” were in fact demons. At some point the Warrens would suggest that lots of money could be made with book and movie deals; coauthors of the Warrens’ books have since told how they were encouraged to make things up so the books would be “scary.”

Roger Perron called the Warrens “a pair of two-bit charlatans.” I cannot disagree. I appeared with them on Sally Jesse Raphael for a pre-Halloween 1992 promotion of their book, with Allen and Carmen Snedecker, which was the basis for a hit film The Haunting in Connecticut. I found Ed Warren (now deceased) to be a belligerent and manipulative character who, backstage, swore like a sailor and was given to making veiled threats. If someone really could come back as a demon, Ed Warren would seem just the type.

Binga: Any final thoughts?

Nickell: I might add, in summing up, that in nearly half a century of investigating paranormal claims, I have discovered a big secret: If you don’t believe in alien abductions, demon hauntings, or the like, you will apparently be quite safe; the entities aren’t attacking skeptics!

Binga: Thanks Joe.