Quantcast
Channel: Special Articles - Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Viewing all 856 articles
Browse latest View live

Bigfoot at Mount Rainier?

$
0
0

As part of the Pacific Northwest, Washington State is a prime location for reports of Sasquatch—usually known since 1958 as Bigfoot. In one study (Nickell 2013, 15), involving 1,002 reports from 1818 to November 1980 (Bord and Bord 2006, 215–30), Washington had the greatest number of incidents: 110 (followed by California, 104; British Columbia, 90; and Oregon, 77).

In October 2013, led by a professional guide, I visited Mount Rainier and its vicinity, the locale of numerous alleged sightings, track discoveries, and photographs of the elusive creature (Bord and Bord 2006, 194, 259; Green 1978, 93, 392–95). Some screams—assumed without justification to be from Bigfoot—have also been recorded in the area (Green 1978, 393–95).

The Bigfoot Bear

Bigfoot tends to be spotted in bear territory, to mimic a bear’s behavior, and even to resemble a bear when—as it does in alert mode, especially—it stands upright (Nickell 2013). Consider these cases:

• In the autumn of 1912, near Oakville (between Mount Rainier and the Pacific) a woman saw a tall, bearlike/apelike creature looking in the window of her small ranch house (Green 1978, 389–90). Was it actually a bear, as she first thought?

• In about 1948 (as recalled many years later), a man named Clarence M. Foster was at Mad Lake (northeast of Rainier) when he saw what some have concluded was a Bigfoot. Foster saw it on the opposite shore and described the creature as thin, six feet tall, and squatting with its “arms” in the water. Foster first “thought it was a man but it seemed to be covered with black hair. Later he went to where it had been and could find no sign of a camp” (Green 1973, 15).

• In the summer of 1964, a prospector from Missouri was camping between Spirit Lake and Mount Adams (i.e., approximately due south of Mount Rainier) when he woke to see a seven-foot-tall man-beast, a “dirty brown” in color. He saw it for only “about thirty seconds” and only from the back, but, he recalled, “his legs seemed stuffy in comparison to the rest of his body” and “his front legs or arms” seemed to swing from side to side (Green 1973, 28). He insisted it was not a bear, but I suspect he had not previously encountered one standing upright. Apparently, as bears so often do (Herrero 2002, 116–24), this one had come into his camp looking for food.

• More recently (date not given), two bow hunters near Orting (northwest of Rainier) saw what they thought was a Bigfoot approximately three hundred yards away and watched it for a while. It reportedly stood upright, had a simian appearance, and was covered with black fur. One pro-Bigfoot source commented that “If they had been watching this creature with only their naked eyes, we might think it was just a bear, but since they used binoculars, that explanation is unlikely” (Davis and Eufrasio 2008, 91–92). Actually, binoculars do not necessarily prevent a misidentification at such a distance. The fact that the animal was standing upright may have led them to conclude it was not a bear but a Bigfoot, and that is what they then saw.

In short, can we be certain that eyewitness reports of hairy creatures, even if seen standing or briefly walking upright, are really Bigfoot—or could a witness be fooled by a bear? This could be not only because of poor viewing conditions (caused by distance, vegetation, darkness, etc.), but also because he or she has Bigfoot on the mind. My late colleague, the psychologist Robert A. Baker, called attention to “the power of expectation and how our activities and mental sets can influence our perceptions and beliefs” (Baker and Nickell 1992, 135–39).

On the Trail at Mount Rainier

At Mount Rainier National Park in late October 2013, accompanied by experienced guide Diann Sheldon, I spoke with an official at the park entrance (Challup 2013) who told us that the most active alleged Bigfoot sighting area was around Reflection Lake. He also informed us of someone dressing as Bigfoot—what I call “Bigsuit”—in outlying areas, specifically along Skate Creek Road (Forest Service Road 52, which we intersected coming and going). (See Figure 1.)

BigsuitFigure 1. “Bigsuit” outside Mount Rainier National Park. (Photo credit: Steve Wilson)

Sheldon took me into definite bear country—snow-covered trails at about 5,500 feet elevation on Rainier. There she pointed out some bear “scat” (droppings)—which, she observed, showed the bear had been feeding on the mountain ash berries that were common there. Farther on, we came across more such scat. Later, below the trails, we ate at the Paradise Visitor Center and Inn where I spoke to park rangers and volunteers.

One of the latter (Hollinger 2013) told me how, the previous summer, she had encountered a standing bear on Rainier, just fifty feet away from her—for what seemed a very long time! She pointed out that, with its front legs hanging at its side like arms, such a bear could resemble Bigfoot—especially if it was looking directly at the observer so that its face seemed flatter. She pointed out also that Mount Rainier black bears were often brown or cinnamon colored, which could make them seem even more Bigfoot-like.

She also stated that, at ranger housing at the Sunrise Visitor Center across the mountain, it was not uncommon for bears to be seen standing upright and looking in the windows in their perpetual search for food (Hollinger 2013). This common bear behavior (Nickell 2013) is also frequently reported of Bigfoot (e.g., Bord and Bord 2006, 224, 239–41, 251, 264, 271–72, 300, 303; Green 1973, 28, 38, 58; Green 1978, 252–53, 389–90). Before leaving Mount Rainier we staked out Reflection Lake on the mountainside (Figure 2), but no “Bigfoot bear” appeared.

Joe Nickell looking through binocularsFigure 2. Author searches, in vain, for Bigfoot at Reflection Lake, Mount Rainier National Park. (Author’s photo by Diann Sheldon)

Wild Creek Photos

Perhaps the most notorious “evidence” of Bigfoot in the Mount Rainier area consists of several photographs allegedly made in 1995 at Wild Creek in the nearby foothills by a forest patrol officer. However, numerous red flags are noted—as by Bigfoot authors Janet and Colin Bord (2006, 195) who state:

With any event where the subject is known to be elusive, clear photographs are naturally suspect. In this case we note that Bigfoot seems not to have moved from shot to shot, which seems unlikely, and the photographer must have been a very brave man indeed, to have stayed around long enough to shoot 14 photographs of an unpredictable monster. Also problematic about the Wild Creek photographs is the lack of good scale, the sense that computer manipulation software is involved, and that the supposed “forest patrol officer” has never been identified.

This lack of provenance for the photos is alone highly suspect (having served as a warning sign on the introduction of such notorious fakes as the Shroud of Turin, the Jack the Ripper diary, a forged copy of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and many other artifacts I have exposed as fakes [Nickell 2009, 42, 67–79, 167]).

Bigfoot in Rainier’s Crater?

Among the most far-fetched of alleged Bigfoot tales is one dating from 1895, but then—it may not be about Bigfoot at all!

The story appears in snippets (e.g., Lee 2013) in works billing it, for example, as a “fantastic encounter with what appears to be Bigfoot” (Dennett 2001, 36). Written by Mount Rainier explorer Major E.S. Ingraham in 1895, “The Old Man of the Crater” tells how he and an unnamed companion “were exploring the steam-caves at the time of my second visit to the crater of Mt. Rainier.” There, he spied some “peculiar marks” on the cave floor, along with a strange glow in the atmosphere. He determined to return later, and did so when his “three bedfellows were sound asleep.”

Creeping back into the cave, Ingraham says, he encountered “a figure of strange and grotesque appearance . . . writhing and floundering very much as a drowning man would do. . . .” He continued:

Its shape was nearer to that of a human being than of any other animal. The crown of its head was pointed, with bristled hair pointing in every direction. The eyeballs were pointed too; and while they appeared dull and visionless at times, yet there was an occasional flash of light from the points. . . . The nails of its fingers and toes were long and pointed and resembled polished steel more than hardened cuticle. I discovered that the palms of its hand and the soles of its feet were hard and calloused. In fact the whole body, while human in shape . . . seemed very different in character from that of the human species. (Ingraham 1895, 42, 44, 46)

When the light formed “an arch” above and between them, Ingraham soon found himself in a sort of telepathic communication with the creature, and for the next hour “received impressions.” However, when the Old Man of the Crater commanded Ingraham to follow him, he instead “broke the spell” and returned to his sleeping companions (Ingraham 1895, 46, 48).

This is clearly not about Bigfoot. Ingraham not only omits reference to the creature being covered in hair, but he goes on to say (1895, 48):

This is no myth. The old man told me of his abode in the interior, of another race to which he belonged and the traditions of that race; of convolutions and changes on the earth long, long ago; of the gradual contraction of a belt of matter around the earth until it touched the surface hemming in many of the inhabitants and drowning the remainder, and of the survival of a single pair. All was shut out and the atmosphere became changed. Gradually the remaining pair was enabled to conform to the new order of things and became the parents of a race which for the want of a better name I will call Sub-Rainians. This Old Man of the Crater had wandered far away from the abode of his race in his desire to explore. Far away from my home we had met, each out of his usual sphere.

Rather than Bigfoot, Ingraham is describing a creature of myth, while declaring otherwise as an element of verisimilitude (or semblance of truth), often used by writers—Poe for instance—to urge the reader to accept the fanciful as real. The creature is from an antediluvian1 (pre-Flood) world of which a pair (like Adam and Eve) survive the deluge to repopulate the species. Calling them the “Sub-Rainians” suggests subterranean, that is, the Underworld, the realm of the dead. And Ingraham’s caves ostensibly lead down into the fiery interior of the volcano, an unmistakable suggestion of death and Hell.

But what is the nature of this fantasy? Did it begin, say, with a hallucination caused by high-altitude oxygen deprivation—a “visionary” experience? Or was Ingraham merely penning a tale in the science-fiction tradition of hollow-earth adventures, like Jules Verne’s 1870 Journey to the Center of the Earth, as a whimsy for his readers? Could it even be a Masonic allegory of the Secret Vault (in Freemasonry, a subterranean repository of secrets that in the end, remain hidden)?2 E.S. Ingraham was, in fact, a Freemason (Sherman 1890, 66). Among their secrets, Masons teach that death—both literally and figuratively—is a continuation toward perfection (Macoy 1989, 117–18).

Whatever Ingraham intended, his creature is not Bigfoot as traditionally portrayed. Yet the two entities do have something in common: both are, as far as current evidence suggests, imaginary.


Acknowledgments

In addition to individuals cited in the text, I am grateful to former CFI librarian Lisa Nolan for extensive research on E.S. Ingraham.

Notes

1. This is a term of significance in Free­masonry (Macoy 1989, 418), the relevance of which will be noted presently.

2. In Freemasonry the ritual of the Secret Vault is part of the Royal Arch degree, so Ingraham’s use of the words vaulted, arch, and the like seem to take on allegorical significance. (Masonry has been defined as “a peculiar system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols” [Masonic Bible 1964, 26].) The “peculiar marks” suggest Masons’ Marks (inscribed signs by which Masons are distinguished) and the “mysterious glow” could signal Darkness Visible (which in Masonry serves “only to express that gloom which rests on the prospect of futurity” [Macoy 1989, 479]—a theme indeed of Ingraham’s tale). (See Nickell 2001, 227–33.)

References

Baker, Robert A., and Joe Nickell. 1992. Missing Pieces: How to Investigate Ghosts, UFOs, Psychics, and Other Mysteries. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Bord, Janet, and Colin Bord. 2006. Bigfoot Casebook Updated. N.p.: Pine Winds Press.

Challup, Matthew S. 2013. Interview by Joe Nickell, October 27. (Note: Challup is Nisqually Supervisory Visitor Use Assistant, Mount Rainier National Park.)

Davis, Jeff, and Al Eufrasio. 2008. Weird Washington. New York: Sterling Publishing Co.

Dennett, Preston. 2001. Early American mountain Bigfoot. Fate 54(5) (May): 36–37.

Green, John. 1973. The Sasquatch File. Agassiz, BC: Cheam Publishing Ltd.

———. 1978. Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us. Seattle, WA: Hancock House.

Herrero, Stephen. 2002. Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance. Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press. Hollinger, Jodie. 2013. Interview by Joe Nickell, October 27.

Ingraham, E.S. 1895. The Pacific Forest Reserve and Mt. Rainier. Seattle: WA: Calvert Company, 42–48.

Lee, Regan. 2013. Frame 352: The Stranger Side of Sasquatch. Online at http://paranormalbigfoot.blogspot.com/2007/08/1895-encounter-sasquatch-on-mt-rainier.html; accessed November 6.

Macoy, Robert. 1989. A Dictionary of Freemasonry. New York: Bell Publishing Co.

Masonic Heirloom Edition Holy Bible. 1964. Wichita, KS: Heirloom Bible Publishers.

Nickell, Joe. 2001. Real-Life X-Files. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

———. 2009. Real or Fake: Studies in Authentication. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

———. 2013. Bigfoot Lookalikes: Tracking Hairy Man-Beasts. Skeptical Inquirer 37(4) (September/October): 12–15.

Sherman, Edwin A. 1890. Brief History of the A. & A.S. Rite of Freemasonry, new ed. Oakland, CA: Carruth & Carruth, Printers.


IIG at IAC

$
0
0

On November 13, 2014, a few representatives from the Independent Investigations Group (IIG) in Los Angeles visited Culver City, California, one of the three U.S. locations for the International Academy of Consciousness (IAC). We were there to attend an introductory lecture that described the IAC and its various activities. The main IAC offices are in Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States, with associate offices in over a dozen other countries.

Jim Underdown at the IAC

The IAC began as the Center for Continuous Consciousness in 1981 under an MD named Waldo Vieira, who would write a book in 1986 called Projectiology: A Panorama of Experiences of the Consciousness Outside the Human Body. Projectiology, of course, is the scientific study of experiences beyond the body. Out of body experiences (OBEs) seem to be their headline phenomenon. (The folks at the IAC, by the way, like their pseudoscientific cousins in the Church of Scientology, are fond of making up sciencey-sounding words such as conscientiology, holomaturity, and cosmoethics. Indeed, their brochure labels the IAC as “a mini-cog in an assistantial maxi-mechanism.”)

In addition to OBE, they believe in past lives, various paranormal phenomena, energetic healing, chakras, and loads of other new age blather. As you might guess, there is little actual science being practiced by these folks. One thing we noticed was that they seem to confuse experimentation with explanation or testimonials. Their brochure states that “participative research requires that the researcher be both the scientist and the object of the study.”

Skeptics admit that there are plenty of people who experience out-of-body-type dreams, but differ from the IAC as to what’s actually going on. The IAC believes that a less-dense spiritual energy can leave the body with lucidity and travel through the physical world. They conduct classes that claim to teach this ability, though we were told that success depends partially on the student. (Four class modules start at $130.)

We in the IIG love this kind of claim because it’s so easily tested. We’ll place a word or number in a place familiar to the claimant and simply ask him or her to project over to the (isolated) spot and reveal the answer. No such test has been passed under controlled conditions.

The volunteers we met at the IAC office were not evil. In fact, they seemed to be quite pleasant folks—seekers of some higher truth that either their religion or worldview wasn’t quite satisfying. We don’t blame them for searching for a warmer and fuzzier way to look at the world. We just wish they’d learn enough science that would line that world up with reality a little better.

Your Holiday Dinosaur

$
0
0

Most vertebrate paleontologists agree that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs. To paleontologists, there is no simple bird-dinosaur dichotomy. Rather there is a continuum of animals that are at first, clearly dinosaurs (like Tyrannosaurus and Velociraptor), then at the end are clearly birds, like all the modern birds that we see. We recognize lots of ‘in between’ animals, like Archaeopteryx that appear to be at once both bird and dinosaur.

To simplify, many, including me, refer to birds as dinosaurs. Sometimes, we add the term ‘avian’ or ‘non-avian’ to the front of dinosaur, to distinguish between modern, flying birds and their relatives, and the big scary ones that went extinct 65 million years ago.

The interesting outcome is that what this means is that, at least in the United States, we traditionally have a huge family meal on the fourth Thursday of November, in which we consume vast quantities of roasted dinosaur meat.

All right, but how do we know that?

If you’re like me, you need only go outside and hang out with the chickens to realize that these are just feathered versions of the velociraptors from the original Jurassic Park movie.

Yeah, but maybe they based those off of chickens.

I can do better than that, I promise. What is presented here is a re-hashing of what is already available here, at the University of California Museum of Paleontology’s website.

They start with a simple turkey skeleton and explain some of its dinosaurian features:

The skeleton of the Wild Turkey, Meleagris gallipavo. Here is the basic skeleton. Credit: University of California Museum of Paleontology. Copyright 1994-2014 by the Regents of the University of California, all rights reserved. Used with permission.The skeleton of the Wild Turkey, Meleagris gallipavo. Here is the basic skeleton. Credit: University of California Museum of Paleontology. Copyright 1994-2014 by the Regents of the University of California, all rights reserved. Used with permission.

I’ll be expanding on this using this nice summary of the similarities between birds and dinosaurs prepared by Thomas Holtz, based on the skeletal drawing above.

The skeleton of the Wild Turkey, adapted to show dinosaurian features. In black is the basic skeleton. Red arrows highlight characteristics shared between birds and dinosaurs. Credit: Skeleton from UCMP Copyright 1994-2014 by the Regents of the University of California, all rights reserved. Used with permission.; Red highlights: Thomas Holtz (@TomHoltzPaleo on Twitter)The skeleton of the Wild Turkey, adapted to show dinosaurian features. In black is the basic skeleton. Red arrows highlight characteristics shared between birds and dinosaurs. Credit: Skeleton from UCMP Copyright 1994-2014 by the Regents of the University of California, all rights reserved. Used with permission.; Red highlights: Thomas Holtz (@TomHoltzPaleo on Twitter)

There are a lot of terms here that might be a little overwhelming, so I’d like to summarize them first. We’ll go step by step, highlighting the evolution and relationships between birds and dinosaurs.

First, let’s consider the taxonomy – the scientific names. These are listed from most inclusive (the biggest groups) to the most specific (smaller groups – subsets of the next group up).

  • Archosauriformes – A subset of reptiles including crocodylians, dinosaurs, and birds.
  • Ornithodira – A subset of archosauriforms that are more closely related to dinosaurs and birds than to crocodylians.
  • Dinosauromorpha – Includes only dinosaurs and birds, and some other closely related animals.
  • Dinosauria – The dinosaurs (which includes birds).
  • Theropoda – Mostly carnivorous dinosaurs, characterized by being bipedal and having three functional digits on the feet, and a fourth digit separated from the rest of the toes
  • Neotheropoda – A broad group that includes all but the most primitive of theropods
  • Tetanuridae – A subgroup of neotheropods that are characterized by having a stiff tail.
  • Avetheropoda – These are more advanced theropod dinosaurs and birds. These are more bird-like.
  • Maniraptoraformes – Avetheropods that possess wings and stiff feathers.
  • Maniraptora – Includes long arms and three-fingered hands with some special adaptations to the wrist.
  • Eumaniraptora – specialized maniraptorans with an especially mobile tail. Archaeopteryx is a Eumaniraptoran.
  • Pygostylia – possess the specialized tail of modern birds called the pygostyle, which is short and stubby, but great for tail feathers to attach to.
  • Ornithothoraces – show fusion of ankle and foot bones, as well as fusion of wrist and hand bones, characteristic of birds.
  • Euornithes – Have a fully modern pygostyle, but still has primitive features like belly ribs (gastralia).
  • Carinatae – possess a keeled sternum, used in powered flight
  • Aves – lack teeth. These are modern birds.

We can illustrate these relationships in the following drawing. Bigger boxes are larger taxonomic divisions and include more animals. The divisions get smaller and smaller as we move toward modern birds, Aves (in darkest red).

Aves - G.E. Lodge (T.M. Keesey) Public Domain Pygostylia - Changchengornis hengdaoziensis - Matt Martyniuk CC 3.0 NC-SA-By Eumaniraptora - Archaeopteryx - T.M.Keesey Public Domain Maniraptora - Jianchangosaurus yixianensis - Hanyong Pu, Yoshitsugu Kobayashi, Junchang Lü, Li Xu, Yanhua Wu, Huali Chang, Jiming Zhang, Songhai Jia & T. Michael Keesey CC 3.0 By Neotetanurae - Sciurumimus albersdoeferi - Gareth Monger CC 3.0 By Theropoda - Tyrannosaurus rex - Scott Hartman CC 3.0 NC-SA-By Theropoda - Eodromaeus murphi - Conty (Modified) CC 3.0 By Apatosaurus - Scott Hartman CC 3.0 NC-SA-By Pterosauria - Preondactylus buffarinii - Mark Witton CC NC-SA-By Ornithodira - Dromomeron romeri - Nobu Tamura CC 3.0 By Crocodylia - Crocodylus porosus - Steven Traver Public Domain Archosauromorpha - Prolacerta broomi - T.M. Keesey Public DomainAves – G.E. Lodge (T.M. Keesey) Public Domain
Pygostylia – Changchengornis hengdaoziensis – Matt Martyniuk CC 3.0 NC-SA-By
Eumaniraptora – Archaeopteryx – T.M.Keesey Public Domain
Maniraptora – Jianchangosaurus yixianensis – Hanyong Pu, Yoshitsugu Kobayashi, Junchang Lü, Li Xu, Yanhua Wu, Huali Chang, Jiming Zhang, Songhai Jia & T. Michael Keesey CC 3.0 By
Neotetanurae – Sciurumimus albersdoeferi – Gareth Monger CC 3.0 By
Theropoda – Tyrannosaurus rex – Scott Hartman CC 3.0 NC-SA-By
Theropoda – Eodromaeus murphi – Conty (Modified) CC 3.0 By
Apatosaurus – Scott Hartman CC 3.0 NC-SA-By
Pterosauria – Preondactylus buffarinii – Mark Witton CC 3.0 NC-SA-By
Ornithodira – Dromomeron romeri – Nobu Tamura CC 3.0 By
Crocodylia – Crocodylus porosus – Steven Traver Public Domain
Archosauromorpha – Prolacerta broomi – T.M. Keesey Public Domain

Features of all of these groups are seen in the turkey. Let’s go through and explain them all.

Archosauroformes

  • Antorbital fenestra – This refers to a particular opening in the skull that lies directly in front of the eye socket. This is why it’s hard sometimes to figure out which hole is the eye-hole in a T. rex skull. Antorbital literally means ‘in front of the eye.’ Fenestra means ‘window.’
antorbital fenestra in a dinosaurThe antorbital fenestra in a dinosaur. Credit: Steveoc86 CC 2.0 By-SA

Archosaurs include organisms like modern crocodilians, all dinosaurs, and birds. Modern lizards, snakes, and turtles are not archosaurs.

Euparkeria, an Archosauriform: Credit: Nobu Tamura CC 2.5 By: Euparkeria, an early Archosauriform: Credit: Nobu Tamura CC 2.5 By

 

Ornithodira

  • Endothermy? – This is a fancy way to say ‘warm-blooded.’ It’s possible that warm-bloodedness – the ability to generate body heat – evolved in ornithodirans.
  • Cervical vertebrae distinct from dorsal vertebrae – The bones of the back can be divided into several groups, the cervicals (neck), dorsals (where the ribs attach), lumbar (the lower back in humans – rib-free in other animals), sacral (where the pelvis attaches), and caudal (tail bones). Prior to this, the cervical vertebrae weren’t different than dorsal vertebrae. They all had ribs.
Alligator cervial-to-dorsal vertebrae transitionAlligator cervial-to-dorsal vertebrae transition. Vertebrae are very similar, only really distinct by having ribs (dorsal vertebrae only). Four cervical vertebrae to the left, five dorsal to the right.
Cervical-to-dorsal vertebrae transition in a duckCervical-to-dorsal vertebrae transition in a duck. Notice the change in the shape of the vertebrae. Five complete cervical vertebrae to the left, three dorsal vertebrae to the right.

 

Dinosauromorpha

  • Parasagittal stance – This is standing with the limbs directly under the body (like humans, horses, and birds), rather than sprawled out to the side (like crocodiles and salamanders).
  • Hinge-like ankle joint – Because of the improved stance, the foot can now hinge nicely on the shinbone (tibia)  in a forward and back motion. They were not able to rotate their ankles like we can.

 

Dinosauria

  • Obligate bipedality – This means they have no choice but to stand on two legs. Sure, they might be able to put their hands down, but they couldn’t walk on all fours any more than we can. Being on their feet is their preferred mode of transportation. Makes it easy to use the hands for other things…
  • Endothermy? – It’s possible that warm-bloodedness evolved with the dinosaurs and not with the ornithodirans. We haven’t sorted this out yet.
  • Feathers? -There’s lots of evidence for feathers on dinosaurs. We’re not sure yet if all dinosaurs had feathers, or only certain groups. At this point it looks like pretty-much all of them had feathers.

 

Theropoda

  • Loss of digit V on hand – Digit V is equivalent to your pinky finger. Theropods only have four fingers.

 

Neotheropoda

  • Furculum – This is the wishbone in your turkey. Yeah, Tyrannosaurus had one. It didn’t look quite like the one you’ll get from your turkey, but it was there. Here’s where the furculum sits in a pigeon.
Pigeon furculum, also known as the wishbone. Credit: Toony CC 3.0 By-SA Pigeon furculum, also known as the wishbone. Credit: Toony CC 3.0 By-SA

The furculum of a dinosaur looks a little different than a turkey wishbone. But it’s there!

The furculm of Tyrannosaurus. Credit: Conty, Dinoguy2 CC 2.5 By-SA The furculm of Tyrannosaurus. Credit: Conty, Dinoguy2 CC 2.5 By-SA

 

 Tetanuridae

  • Feathers? – Well, if feathers hadn’t evolved earlier, they almost certainly had evolved by the time the tetanurans came about.

 

Avetheropoda

  • Loss of digit IV on hand – This is the same as your ring finger. Avetheropods only have three fingers.

 

Maniraptoriformes

  • Pennaceous feathers – These are the stiff feathers that have a stalk or quill. Before this, it may have been mostly downy fuzz.

 

Maniraptora

  • Laterally-oriented shoulder joint – The shoulder joint aims to the side, like ours does, rather than pointing toward the ground like most other animals.
  • Backwards-pointing pubis – The pelvis is composed of three parts, the ilium, ichium, and pubis. In theropods like T. rex, the pubis points forward, but in birds this points backwards.
pelvis of a duckThe pelvis of a duck, showing the backward pointing pubis and pygostyle.
  • Enlarged sternum – This is where ribs connect in the front of the body. It is also where big muscles like the pectoralis connect. Enlarging the sternum allows for greater size and strength of the pectoralis muscles, which are important for flapping.
  • Semilunate carpal – This is a specialized wrist bone which allows the wrist to bend to the side.

 

Eumaniraptora

  • Proximally-mobile caudal vertebrae – These are the tail bones. Much of the tail is stiff, but the bones closest to the body (proximal) are able to move quite a lot. In birds, this flexibility is what allows them the move their tails around and steer so well.
  • Distally-placed metatarsal I – Metatarsal I is the foot bone connected to the big toe. To say ‘distally-placed’ means that it is placed far from the main part of the body, more close to the foot.

 

Pygostylia

  • Has a pygostyle – A pygostyle is specialized caudal vertebrae for the connection of tail feathers. It replaces the long, stiff tail of earlier dinosaurs.
pygostyleThe pygostyle, where the tail feathers attach in a bird.

 

Ornithothoraces

  • Carpometacarpus – This is a fusion of wrist and hand bones characteristic of birds.
Structure of the wing bones of a modern bird. Credit: Shyamal CC 2.5 SA-ByStructure of the wing bones of a modern bird. Credit: Shyamal CC 2.5 SA-By
Wing of a duck.Wing of a duck.
  • Tarsometatarsus – This is a fusion of ankle and foot bones also characteristic of birds.
Foot of a duck showing the fusion of the tarsus and metatarsus (what appears as a single bone above the toes)Foot of a duck showing the fusion of the tarsus and metatarsus (what appears as a single bone above the toes)
  • Additional cervical vertebrae – Unlike mammals, birds and their relatives aren’t limited to only seven neck vertebrae. They have many and kept gaining more allowing them to do crazy looking things like spin their heads around nearly 360 degrees.
  • Backward pointing metatarsal I – One toe – the equivalent of our big toe – points backwards on the foot.
Pigeon. Metatarsal I is part of the backward pointing toe. It is very close to the other toes, rather than higher on the foot.Pigeon. Metatarsal I is part of the backward pointing toe. It is very close to the other toes, rather than higher on the foot.

 

Euornithes

  • No unguals on manus – The third bone of the fingers (the one that has a nail on it) is missing.
  • Has a stubby pygostyle – Just like modern birds, the pygostyle is a little tiny thing.

 

Carinatae

  • Keeled sternum – Just like a yacht, the sternum in most birds has a keel sticking out from it. This provides even more surface for the pectoral muscles to attach. (This is also that delicious breast meat that we like so much.)
Pigeon keeled sternum. Credit: Toony CC 3.0 SA-by Pigeon keeled sternum. Credit: Toony CC 3.0 SA-by

 

Aves

  • Tibiotarsus – Some bones of the shin and the ankle have fused together to make one bone.
  • Toothless skull – No modern bird has teeth. The egg tooth they have when hatching is not a true tooth.

Your turkey shares all of these characteristics in common with various groups of dinosaurs. By extension, one could argue that all birds are dinosaurs.

A fun way to look at some of these relationships can be seen here, in this wonderful summary of the Origins of ‘Avian’ Characteristics (by Albertonykus on DeviantArt)

I invite you to discuss this over dinner this Thanksgiving or Christmas. I might do so myself. Maybe then the family will leave me alone.

Happiness, Religion, and the Status Quo

$
0
0

It is no defense of superstition and pseudoscience to say that it brings solace and comfort to people... If solace and comfort are how we judge the worth of something, then consider that tobacco brings solace and comfort to smokers; alcohol brings it to drinkers; drugs of all kinds bring it to addicts; the fall of cards and the run of horses bring it to gamblers; cruelty and violence bring it to sociopaths. Judge by solace and comfort only and there is no behavior we ought to interfere with. ~ Isaac Asimov, The Humanist

This famous quote from Isaac Asimov makes good sense to many of us. Many rationalists believe there is never an excuse for holding ideas that are unsupported by evidence. “It makes me happy,” is not a good reason. Nonetheless, the emotional benefits that accompany many superstitious, paranormal, and supernatural beliefs undoubtedly make them more difficult to discard. A recent study of religion and “system justifying beliefs” sheds light on just what is so comforting about religious belief in particular.

New York University (NYU) social psychologist John Jost, working with six other collaborators, published a study in the February 2014 issue of the Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology entitled “Belief in a Just God (and a Just Society): A System Justification Perspective on Religious Ideology.” This correlational study looked at levels of religious belief in relation to several “system justifying” notions, such as the belief that the world is a just place (i.e., people generally get what they deserve), belief in the Protestant work ethic (hard work will be rewarded), belief that the current free market economic system is fair, and belief that inequality is necessary and just.

The results—as is often the case—were complicated and somewhat mixed, but in general, Jost and his colleagues found that greater religious belief was correlated with greater endorsement of the status quo. Religiosity was also positively correlated with right-wing authoritarianism and political conservatism.

In one part of the study, Jost et al. used relatively large samples of atheist, agnostic, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, and Buddhist participants to examine these system-justifying views. Atheists, agnostics, and, in some cases, Jews showed significantly lower levels of endorsement of these system-justifying views. For example, atheists, agnostics, and Jews rated the item “Justice always prevails over injustice” significantly lower that Catholics, Protestants, and Buddhists. On other questions, Jews and Buddhists fell between atheists and agnostics on one end and Catholics and Protestants on the other.

In another part of the study, Jost and colleagues looked at the relationship of religiosity to four kinds of system justifying (i.e., status quo supporting) beliefs in three groups: rural Midwestern adults, online respondents, and NYU psychology students. In general, religiosity was positively correlated with system justifying views. Of all the possible correlations, only the rural adult sample failed to show a relationship between degree of religiousness and economic system justification, the belief that the current economic system was fair.

Citing this research and other studies, Jost and his coauthors suggested that both the status quo supporting beliefs they studied and religiosity have comforting effects. For example, previous research has shown that those who support current levels of inequality are happier. Similarly, religiousness has been found to be correlated with well-being.

There are some interesting nuances to these relationships. For example, one might assume that the comforting effects of religious belief would have particular value for lower-income individuals, but a previous study showed that religiosity was related to happiness for lower-income European Americans but not for lower-income African Americans.

By necessity, all of these investigations are correlational, and the cause and effect relationships that underlie them are undoubtedly complicated. But this research points to at least two reasonable observations. First, it is easy to see why both religious belief and support for the status quo are so popular. Both concepts appear to provide a refreshing salve for some of life’s stickiest problems. Second, these studies highlight an important challenge faced by those who would like to promote reason over religion, as well as by those who would like to motivate others in the interest of social change.

If religious and status quo supporting beliefs have a causal relationship with well-being, it will be hard to convince people to reject them. Discarding religion and/or endorsement of the current social order, will come at an emotional cost. Logical arguments about the lack of support for religious ideas and need for improvement of the social order will only sway people who value logic and evidence.

Unfortunately, many people value feelings, gut reactions, and intuition over reasoned argument. These religious people and defenders of the status quo will find it very difficult to reject bad ideas that feel so good.

In his argument for reason, Asimov uses examples of potentially damaging forms of behavior, such as drinking, smoking, gambling, and anti-social violence. But in today’s world, religious behavior is viewed in positive terms and it brings comfort to the believer.

The pursuit of happiness is a self-evident right guaranteed in the United States Declaration of Independence, but there are many ways to find it. A recent movement in economics argues that happiness and well-being should replace Gross Domestic Product as measures of the success of a nation. If happiness is the goal for many people, then those of us who support a scientific approach to life should probably turn more of our efforts toward articulating the joys of living with fewer illusions. Many of us are the kinds of people who are moved by a coolly reasoned argument based on logic and data. But this approach alone will not persuade everyone. If we hope to turn “we happy few” into the happy many, we should probably say more about the emotional benefits of a life of reason.


Jost, J. T., Hawkins, C. B., Nosek, B. A., Hennes, E. P., Stern, C., Gosling, S. D., & Graham, J. 2014. Belief in a just God (and a just society): A system justification perspective on religious ideology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 34(1), 56-81. Online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033220

Rankin, L., Jost, J. & Wakslak, C. 2009. System Justification and the Meaning of Life: Are the Existential Benefits of Ideology Distributed Unequally Across Racial Groups? Social Justice Research. Online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-009-0100-9

The $100,000 Flying Reindeer Challenge

$
0
0

What happens when the Independent Investigations Group and CSI go after “the mother of all extraordinary claims”? The IIG’s Dan Geduld takes the long arm of skepticism to North Pole Alaska to put our $100k on the line with Santa’s reindeer.

Discovery’s Mountain of Mystery Mongering: The Mass Murdering Yeti

$
0
0

A much-hyped two-hour Discovery Channel “documentary” aired on June 1, 2014. Titled Russian Yeti: The Killer Lives, the program delved into a decades-old pseudo-mystery known as the Dyatlov Pass incident in which nine Russian skiers died under unclear circumstances in the Ural Mountains.

Russian Yeti: The Killer Lives show title

The show was packed with dramatic “found footage” re-creations, dubious derring-do, a pulse-pounding score, and piles of speculation. Though not as blatantly hokey and contrived as the infamous pseudo-documentary Animal Planet program Mermaids: The Body Found (which fooled thousands of people, gave credence to the discredited “aquatic ape” theory, and spurred the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to put a note on their website debunking the existence of mermaids), it is nonetheless a textbook example of modern cable TV mystery-mongering and thus merits a closer look.

Here’s the premise, from a press release for the show: “On February 2, 1959, nine college students hiked up the icy slopes of the Ural Mountains in the heart of Russia but never made it out alive. Investigators have never been able to give a definitive answer behind who—or what—caused the bizarre crime [sic] scene. Fifty-five years later, American explorer Mike Libecki reinvestigates the mystery—known as the Dyatlov Pass incident—but what he uncovers is truly horrifying. . . .”

Focusing on the undisputed facts in this case, we know that at some point on the night of February 1, 1959, after nearly a week of skiing, Igor Dyatlov led the group to cut slits in their tent and leave through the cut for the safety of the wooded area below, most of them wearing their underwear or a few scraps of clothing. After they failed to return, a rescue party was sent, and tracks were followed from the tent to the woods, where all the skiers were found, some of them many months later. According to the autopsies, the cause of death for all of them was hypothermia, or freezing to death. Four of the nine also had internal injuries, and one of them, Ludmila Dubinina, was missing her tongue and had additional injuries to her eyes. The biggest mysteries are why the group abandoned their tent (with their supplies and clothes inside), apparently in a hurry through a cut in the fabric, and what caused their injuries.

There are many elements and claims to the Dyatlov Pass story, and many theories including UFOs, top secret government conspiracies, and unusual natural phenomena. I won’t be addressing those claims (in fact as we will see there’s really no need to invoke those anyway) but instead will focus on the plausibility of the newest theory as promoted in the new Discovery Channel show: that a Yeti was responsible for the mass murder of nine Russians in 1959.

The Group’s Injuries

Russian Yeti: The Killer Lives begins with the premise that the injuries sustained by the skiers were so grave and extraordinary that they could only have been inflicted by an inhumanly strong creature. The show says that according to the autopsies, the hikers suffered “horrific injuries,” including fractured ribs and a fractured skull attributed to a “compelling natural force” (in other words, some sort of blunt force trauma such as a fall or being crushed).

Unfortunately for the show, photographs of the dead hikers undermine most of the sensational claims. The photographs are crystal clear: the bodies were not “mutilated” at all. They were actually in fairly good shape for a party who had skied into the remote area, froze to death, and were discovered months later after exposure to the elements. Those who had cracked ribs were found at the bottom of a thirteen-foot ravine, and could have sustained the injuries falling into it or at some point after their death during the months before they were found, when buried by an avalanche or crushed by the weight of wet snow.

multiple photos of the Dyatlov partyPhotographs of the Dyatlov party taken by rescue teams in 1959. Screen captures from the Discovery Channel program Russian Yeti: The Killer Lives.

Libecki makes much of how the bodies were found, for example, of those last to be found, “their bodies crouched and intertwined as of they had been hiding.” The interpretation of their body positions “as if they had been hiding” suggests of course that they were hiding from something that would kill them—say, a pissed-off Yeti. However there’s a much more likely explanation for why two bodies lost in a frozen wilderness might be found dead “crouched” together and entwined. It’s a simple explanation that any fifth-grader can likely see but that apparently escaped world-renowned mountaineer Libecki: they were cold and lay together to conserve heat, as any novice hiker is taught to do. Maybe so, but what about the missing tongue?

The Missing Tongue

Mike Libecki says, “When I found out one of the students was missing a tongue immediately I knew this was not caused by an avalanche. Something ripped out the tongue of this woman.” Skeptics will likely immediately recognize the logical fallacy Libecki employs, that the only possible explanation for Ludmila Dubinina’s missing tongue is that “something ripped” it out of her mouth. How the woman’s tongue was removed would be a question best answered by a medical doctor or a pathologist instead of a mountaineer, but Libecki gamely takes a guess: some powerful animal targeted and removed it. The show spends a lot of time on the mystery of the missing tongue because it is the lynchpin to bringing up the Yeti as an explanation for this mystery.

Here we can bring in the skeptical dictum of Ray Hyman’s categorical imperative, which says that before trying to explain something we should make sure there is something to explain; in other words, question your assumptions. For example, if there is a mundane, simple, and likely answer for why the tongue is missing, then we don’t need to begin speculating about what may have taken her tongue, whether leprechauns, aliens, or Yeti.

blurry human-looking figureAn image—said to be of a mass-murdering Yeti—claimed to have been taken by a group of Russian skiiers who went missing in 1959. From the Discovery Channel program Russian Yeti: The Killer Lives.

As it happens, a tongue-eating Yeti—even assuming it exists—is by far the least likely explanation for a missing tongue. The “missing parts” aspect of this case is a familiar one to skeptics and has been invoked in countless other “unsolved” mysteries including the chupacabra, cattle mutilations, Satanic animal sacrifices, and aliens. Typically a mystery is mongered by those unfamiliar with—or who intentionally ignore—ordinary predation and decomposition. Lots of animals both big and small scavenge on the soft parts of dead bodies. If it was a tongue-hungry Yeti as Libecki suggests, why would it only have eaten one person’s tongue when there were eight more nearby just ready for the ripping? Furthermore, the process of actually ripping out the woman’s tongue would leave far greater injuries to Dubinina’s mouth, jaw, and head than were found.

The Hikers Meet a Yeti?

We then move on to something about a found military boot cover, proving that the Russian military got to the Dyatlov scene before the rescuers did (opening the door to conspiracy theories, of course). Then, to what (to Libecki) appears to be a cryptic passage written in a newspaper the students brought with them to write on saying, “From now on we know that the snowmen exist.” You might think that Libecki would want to consult the original document in order to independently authenticate such an apparently important clue, but he does not.

Libecki says, “The biggest question for me at this point is, why were the students so sure the Yeti exists?” But were the students actually “sure” the Yeti exists? Had Libecki looked at the original document, he would have seen that the students were not reporting an eyewitness sighting of a Yeti during their trip but instead making a joke. As a Fortean Times investigation noted, “Perhaps, though, we shouldn’t read too much into this; it goes on to say: ‘They can be met in the Northern Urals, next to Otorten mountain.’ Given the humorous tone of the ‘newspaper,’ it’s quite likely that the students were jokingly referring to themselves rather than recording a genuine sighting of an almasty [or Menk or Yeti].”

Thus the passage actually reads, “From now on we know that the snowmen exist. They can be met in the Northern Urals, next to Otorten mountain.” Taken out of context as presented by Libecki it seems mysterious, but in context it’s clearly a passing jest, akin to a Bigfoot buff mentioning in passing that he saw the creature at a gas station on the way to a forest to look for the beast. Russian Yeti: The Killer Lives and Mike Libecki would have us believe that the nine skiers had an encounter with a Yeti, which they not only saw and photographed but stalked. And yet none of the skiers mentioned anything else about the Yeti or their shock at having photographed the creature.

At the end of the show, after all the manufactured drama and running around, Mike Libecki admits that he found no real evidence that the Yeti exists, much less that it was responsible for the deaths of nine Russian skiers in 1959. “I did hear something strange,” is the best he can muster, which is weak sauce indeed given the previous two hours of breathless claims about photographs of murderous tongue-ripping Yetis.

The one thing known for certain about the Dyatlov Pass incident is that the information about what happened is fragmentary and incomplete. There are many reasons for this, including that there were no eyewitnesses; the bodies were not recovered until months later; the Russian investigation may not have been as thorough as we’d like; it was during the Cold War, and so on. The issue is further clouded by a variety of mystery-mongering writers who have interpreted (and cherry-picked) information to promote their own theories and agendas, including conspiracy theorists, alien and UFO researchers, and others.

There is a simpler explanation for what may have happened to the group that addresses the main questions and doesn’t invoke enraged, tongue-hungry Yetis, top secret Russian military conspiracies, or UFOs: they were caught in an avalanche. Svetlund Osadchuk and Kevin O’Flynn, writing in Fortean Times, note that several of those most familiar with the case have rejected wild theories and believe that ordinary events killed their friends.

My theory, for what it’s worth, is that the group woke up in a panic on that fateful night and cut their way out of the tent either because an avalanche had covered the entrance to their tent or because they were scared that an avalanche was imminent and that was the fastest way for all of them to get out quickly—better to have a potentially reparable slit in a tent than risk being buried alive in it under tons of snow. They were poorly clothed because they had been sleeping, and they ran to the safety of the nearby woods where trees would help slow oncoming snow. In the darkness of night, they got separated into two or three groups; one group made a fire (hence the burned hands) while the others tried to return to the tent to recover their clothing, since the danger had apparently passed. But it was too cold, and they all froze to death before they could locate their tent in the darkness. At some point some of the clothes may have been recovered or swapped from the dead, but at any rate the group of four whose bodies were most severely damaged were caught in an avalanche and buried under thirteen feet of snow (more than enough to account for the “compelling natural force” the medical examiner described); Dubinina’s tongue was likely removed by scavengers and ordinary predation.

We will, of course, never know what exactly happened, but it’s likely that some variation of this is the real explanation. The cause of the deaths of the skiers is not mysterious or “unknown” as is often suggested; it is in fact clear from the medical examiner’s report: hypothermia, or freezing to death. There’s really no reason to question the conclusion of the investigators who had firsthand access to all the available evidence at the time. Exactly what caused them to flee their tent can be speculated upon endlessly, but there’s no reason to assume that anything unknown or mysterious caused it. In the absence of evidence one wild theory is as good as the next.


References

Osadchuk, Svetlund, and Kevin O’Flynn. 2009. The Dyatlov pass incident. Fortean Times February: 245. Online at http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/1562/the_dyatlov_pass_incident.html.

Smith, Anthony. 2012. Dyatlov Pass explained: How science could solve Russia’s most terrifying unsolved mystery. Online at http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/3571/20120801/dyatlov-pass-explained-science-solve-russias-terrifying.htm.

An Introduction to Homeopathy

$
0
0

A brief guide to a popular alternative system of remedies based on a nineteenth-century concept that has no scientific validity.

Dr. Samuel HahnemannDr. Samuel Hahnemann, originator of homeopathy

In 1800, conventional medicine was a disaster. Doctors weakened patients with bloodletting and purging, they poisoned them with mercury and other harmful substances, and they often killed more patients than they cured. Dr. Samuel Hahnemann was looking for safer, more effective ways to help his patients. He had an epiphany after he took a dose of cinchona bark and developed symptoms similar to those of malaria, the disease cinchona was supposed to treat. He extrapolated from this one observation to conclude that if any substance causes a symptom in healthy people it can be used to treat the same symptom in sick people. He formulated this as the first law of homeopathy, similia similibus curentur, usually translated as “like cures like.” He diluted his remedies so that they would no longer cause symptoms; this led to his second law of homeopathy, the law of infinitesimals, which states that dilution increases the potency of a remedy. When he observed that his remedies worked better during house calls than in his office, he attributed it to jostling in his saddle bags, so he added the requirement of “succussion,” specifying that remedies must be vigorously shaken (not stirred) by striking them against a leather surface at every step of dilution.

Homeopathic remedies are usually labeled with the notation X or C, corresponding to ten and one hundred. 15C would mean that one part of remedy was diluted in 100 parts of water, one part of the resulting solution was again diluted in 100 parts of water, and the process was repeated fifteen times. Hahnemann died before Avogadro’s number was available to calculate how many molecules are present in a volume of a chemical substance. Today we can calculate that by the thirteenth 1:100 dilution (13C), no molecules of the original substance remain. Hahnemann typically used 30C remedies. At 30C, it would take a container thirty million times the size of Earth to hold enough of the remedy to make it likely that it would contain a single molecule of the original substance. The most popular homeopathic cold and flu remedy is sold as a 200C dilution, and there are even higher dilutions. Above the 1,000C level there are remedies designated as multiples of M, where 1M=1,000C.

An example will clarify the mind- boggling implausibility of homeopathy. If coffee keeps you awake, according to homeopathy dilute coffee will put you to sleep. The more dilute, the stronger the effect. If you keep diluting it until there isn’t a single molecule of coffee left, it will be even stronger. The water will somehow remember the coffee. If you drip that water onto a sugar pill and let the water evaporate, the water’s memory will somehow be transferred to the sugar pill, and that memory of coffee will somehow enable it to function as a sleeping pill.

painting by Alexander Beydeman1857 painting by Alexander Beydeman showing historical figures and personifications of homeopathy observing the brutality of medicine of the ninetenth century.

Later in his career, in order to explain the failures of homeopathy, Hahnemann came up with the idea that all disease is due to three miasms: syphilis, sycosis (gonorrhea), and psora (scabies, or itch). These could be inherited or the result of an infection; they had to be cleared before the homeopathic remedy could work.

Anything could be a homeopathic remedy. Soluble materials could be diluted in water or alcohol. Nonsoluble materials could be ground into powder (triturated) and diluted with sugar (lactose powder). Among remedies listed in the homeopathic Materia Medica are powder ground from pieces of the Berlin Wall, eclipsed moonlight, the south pole of a magnet, dog’s earwax, tears from a weeping young girl, rattlesnake venom, and poison ivy.

To find out which remedy does what, they are tested—not by controlled scientific studies but instead by “provings.” Healthy people ingest the substance and report everything that happens to them (for example, “my big toe itched at midnight, I got heartburn after eating a big meal, I felt angry”). There is no attempt to separate the ordinary vicissitudes of everyday life from symptoms caused by the substance. These reports are then compiled into a Repertory where the homeopath can look up a patient symptom or characteristic to see what remedies had been associated with it in the provings. For instance, there are twenty-nine listings for a patient’s facial expression, including astonished, bewildered, anxious when a child is lifted from a cradle, besotted, cold, and so on. A single remedy is listed for “cold”; seventeen are listed for “besotted.”

The homeopath then consults a second book, a Materia Medica, for a list of symptoms that are associated with each remedy. For natrum muriaticum, the book lists symptoms in all these areas: mind, head, eyes, ears, nose, face, stomach, abdomen, rectum, urine, male/female, respiratory, heart, extremities, sleep, skin, fever, and modalities. Examples of symptoms listed under those categories include eyelids heavy; anemic headache of schoolgirls; constipation; diarrhea; sensation of coldness of heart; palms hot and perspiring; hangnails; dreams of robbers; oily skin; warts on palms of hands; chill between 9 and 11 am, and so on for many pages. What is natrum muriaticum? Common table salt.

The initial consultation with a home­opath typically lasts an hour. He inquires about every conceivable aspect of the patient’s life; keep in mind that for an accurate homeopathic diagnosis he must know about matters such as whether your eyelids are heavy or whether you have dreamed about robbers.

bottle and herbs

They pick the remedy that they deem to be the best match for you. If you get worse, they may tell you aggravations are a good sign. They will reevaluate you at every visit and change remedies as needed until one finally seems to do the trick or your illness runs its course and your symptoms have had time to go away on their own. If the treatment fails, they are never at a loss for excuses; they may tell you it’s your fault because you inactivated the remedy by drinking coffee, not getting enough sleep, using a cellphone, or eating spicy foods.

In his book Homeopathy: How It Really Works, Jay Shelton examines all the evidence and concludes that homeopathy often “works,” but not because of the remedies. The response to treatment is due to non-remedy factors such as unassisted natural healing, attention, suggestion, placebo effects, regression to the mean, the cessation of harmful or unpleasant treatments, lifestyle-assisted healing, or a difference in the patient’s perception of internal versus external reality.

Homeopaths have made numerous attempts to justify their remedies in light of science. They have compared the remedies to vaccines, but vaccines are very different from homeopathic remedies because they contain measurable numbers of antigen molecules, they act by well-understood scientific mechanisms, and their results can be quantified by measuring antibody titers. Homeopaths have appealed to hormesis, a phenomenon whereby a low dose of a chemical may trigger the opposite response to a high dose. But hormesis is questionable, and if it exists in some cases, it’s not a universal phenomenon by any means; it also describes a response to a low dose, not to no dose. Defenders of homeopathy have also invoked “water clusters” as a way water might store information; clusters of water molecules do form, but they only last for trillionths of a second, and there’s no way they could register or transmit information. They have tried to attribute homeopathy’s effects to quantum entanglement, with ill-informed Chopra-like speculations that would leave a quantum physicist rolling on the floor with laughter. They have done fatally flawed experiments trying to prove that water can remember, as if that alone would somehow validate clinical treatments. The most famous was Jacques Benveniste’s study, published in Nature (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste), demonstrating that he could detect the biological effect of antibodies after they had been diluted out of a solution. A subsequent Nature investigation showed that the positive results were all from one technician and were best explained by poor controls and inadequate blinding procedures; attempts to replicate his findings failed (Maddox et al. 1988).

Homeopaths sometimes argue that because homeopathy is individualized, it can’t be tested in randomized controlled trials or judged by the same standards as conventional medicines. They are wrong: it can. Homeopaths could individualize their prescriptions as usual, the remedies could be randomized and coded by a second party, and they could be dispensed by a blinded third party who didn’t know whether what he was handing out was what the homeopath ordered or a substitute. Homeopaths involved in designing homeopathy studies have conspicuously chosen not to design them this way.

The implausibility of homeopathy wouldn’t matter if it could be shown to work. When penicillin was first used, no one understood how it worked; however, it was immediately obvious that it did work, so doctors started using it right away, and only much later figured out that it kills bacteria by interfering with their ability to manufacture cell wall components. If the evidence for homeopathy’s effectiveness were as strong as the evidence for penicillin, it would have readily been adopted into mainstream medicine.

person and medicines at a homeopathy pharmacy in IndiaMedicines at a homeopathy pharmacy in Varanasi, India

There have been a number of positive clinical studies of homeopathy, but the effects have been inconsistent and small in magnitude. We know that there are many reasons an ineffective treatment may appear to work in a study. The better the design of a homeopathy study, the more likely it is to have negative results, and the best-designed studies have been consistently negative. Systematic reviews fail to support homeopathy. A 1997 meta-analysis published in the Lancet concluded that homeopathy worked better than placebo but was not effective for any single clinical condition (online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310601). That’s like saying that broccoli is good for everyone—but not men, women, or children! In 2002 Edzard Ernst did a systematic review of systematic reviews (Ernst 2002) that showed homeopathy was no better than placebo.

Homeopaths love to cite statistics from nineteenth-century cholera and typhoid epidemics where patients treated with homeopathy were more likely to survive than patients treated with conventional medicine. Those historical successes are easily explained. Doctors of the time were using remedies that often actively caused harm, but homeopathic remedies did nothing so of course the results were better. Homeopathy was just a way of avoiding iatrogenic harm. Conventional medicine has made a lot of progress since then. The “What’s the Harm?” website offers numerous modern examples of patients who died because they chose homeopathy over conventional treatment that could have saved their lives.

One real danger of homeopathy is in the area of vaccines. Unlike real vaccines, homeopathic vaccines contain no antigen molecules, so they can’t possibly produce immunity. People are deluded into believing they are protected from vaccine-preventable diseases when they are actually putting themselves at risk and putting others in their community at risk by decreasing the herd immunity. In a United Kingdom study, experimenters posed as patients planning a trip to Africa and asked homeopaths what they should do to prevent malaria. Ten out of ten homeopaths advised homeopathic “protection” instead of conventional malaria prophylaxis. One said, “They make it so your energy—your living energy—doesn’t have a kind of malaria-shaped hole in it. The malarial mosquitoes won’t come along and fill that in. The remedies sort it out.” (See http://www.badscience.net/2006/09/newsnightsense-about-science-malaria-homeopathy-sting-the-transcripts/.)

There are other risks. Sometimes a homeopathic remedy is not dilute enough and has actual harmful physiological effects. A homeopathic teething remedy was recalled in 2010 because it contained varying amounts of belladonna and children taking it had suffered seizures consistent with belladonna poisoning. In 2014 several homeopathic products were recalled because they contained actual drugs: measurable amounts of penicillin. (See http://www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch/safetyinformation/safetyalertsforhumanmedicalproducts/ucm390002.htm.)

Homeopathy is big business. The homeopathic flu remedy Oscillococcinum is one of the ten top-selling drugs in France, and it brings in $15 million a year in the United States. This one is particularly illogical, since the original substance never actually existed. A French doctor looked through a microscope at blood samples from victims of the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic and observed the phenomenon known as Brownian motion, where visible particles are jostled by collisions with water molecules. He didn’t recognize it as Brownian motion but imagined he had discovered a hitherto-unknown oscillating bacterium. He christened it Oscillococcus; then he imagined he saw the same bacteria in a sample of duck liver. The Oscillococcinum sold today is a 200C dilution of a smidgen of a Muscovy duck’s heart and liver. The liver is long gone but the quack is still evident.

Too many people assume that anything on the shelves of a store must have been approved as safe and effective by the government and that false or misleading advertising claims are strictly prohibited and promptly punished. Unfortunately, this is not true. In the United States, prescription drugs must be proved safe and effective before the FDA will approve them for marketing, but homeopathic remedies are not required to undergo any kind of testing. The whole homeopathic pharmacopoeia was grandfathered in without question. Homeopathic remedies were exempted from federal regulations governing other medications by legislation passed in 1938 at the instigation of senator and homeopath Royal Copeland.

As early as 1842, it was obvious to thinking people like Oliver Wendell Holmes that homeopathy was pseudoscientific nonsense. He exposed its silliness in his classic essay “Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions,” which is available on the Internet and is still well worth reading. Homeopathy has also been referred to as “Delusions About Dilutions.” James Randi has a standing offer of $1 million to anyone who can distinguish a highly dilute homeopathic remedy from plain water, and he’s in little danger of losing his money.

So, why is it still being used? There are several reasons. Many consumers have no understanding of what homeopathy actually is and even many medical professionals have only a vague impression that a homeopathic remedy is some kind of mild natural herbal remedy. The remedies are harmless, whereas real medicines have real side effects. The remedies are much less expensive than prescription drugs. Patients love the long appointments and individual attention that they don’t get from their medical doctors. Or they enjoy the independence of choosing their own homeopathic remedy and treating themselves. Or they trust the testimonials of friends who believe it cured them. Or they have tried it and have become convinced that it works. Unfortunately, when people rely on personal experience, they are just not very good at determining whether a remedy works: that’s why we need science.


For Further Reading

Ernst, E. 2002. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 54: 577–582. Online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12492603.

Homeopathy: How It Really Works, by Jay Shelton, Prometheus Books, 2004. The best book on the subject. Also available on Kindle.

“Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions” by Oliver Wendell Holmes. A classic of critical thinking about medicine. Full text available online at http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holmes.html.

Maddox, J., J. Randi, and W.W. Stewart. 1988. “High-dilution” experiments a delusion. Nature 334(6181)(August 4):368.

The Homeowatch website (http://www.homeowatch.org/).

The homeopathy reference page on Science-Based Medicine: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/homeopathy/.

The Rhetoric of Extraordinary Claim

$
0
0

Although unfamiliar to many skeptics, rhetorical analysis can provide a useful complement to the traditional critical thinking approaches that comprise the “skeptic’s toolbox.”

Certainly, the place to begin is to clarify what I mean by the term rhetoric. The term has several different meanings, of course—some of them pejorative—but here I use the term in its most traditional sense: the persuasive aspect of discourse. Aristotle, for example, provides what is still the most fundamental definition of rhetoric as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion” (Aristotle 1954, 24). The most important contemporary definitions barely stray from this central meaning: “the use of language as symbolic means of inducing cooperation” (Burke 1953, 43), “the discursive means of obtaining the adherence of minds” (Perelman 1969, 8), “the literary technology of persuasion” (Quine 1989, 183), and so on.

stone bust of Aristotle

Given this conception of rhetoric, it is easy to distinguish rhetorical analysis from the types of analysis typically associated with critical thinking. Traditional critical thinking approaches emphasize the strength of arguments, focusing almost exclusively on the soundness of the reasoning and the reliability of the evidence. Rhetorical analysis, on the other hand, emphasizes the appeal of arguments—what makes the argument persuasive to an audience. Now, although these approaches are different in emphasis, they are not mutually exclusive, as the strength of an argument can (and surely should) be an important basis for the appeal of an argument. Still, there are many other features of arguments that contribute to their appeal but are not systematically considered in traditional critical thinking approaches—the use of particular types of language and commonplaces, the temporal progression of the argument, and the tone of voice or expression, among others. Undoubtedly, some of these features of arguments may be sophistic—misleading or beguiling—and, in fact, make an argument weaker rather than stronger, but in either case, understanding the rhetorical appeal of discourse advancing extraordinary claims can improve our ability to evaluate and disarm such discourse.

Now, if the reader of this article is expecting a dedicated and comprehensive theory of the rhetoric of extraordinary claims, I will no doubt disappoint, as no such theory will be presented. Indeed, I would argue that no such theory is necessary, as the existing body of rhetorical theory is more than sufficient to do the job. From the ground-laying works of Plato and Aristotle to the contemporary theories of writers such as Kenneth Burke and Jean Baudrillard, the materials of rhetorical analysis are already established and merely await the attention and application of skeptical writers and critics.

Specifically, I seek to address two central questions:

1. What constitutes a rhetorical analysis of discourse advancing extraordinary claims?

2. What advantages might emerge from using rhetorical analysis to complement the traditional critical thinking approaches that comprise the “skeptic’s toolbox”?

The Rhetorical Analysis of Discourse Advancing Extraordinary Claims

The classical—and still most influential—survey of the scope and varieties of rhetorical appeals appears in Aristotle’s treatise, the Rhetoric. In this work, Aristotle posits four categories of rhetorical appeals: [1] those deriving from the materials or content of the discourse (these he terms “proofs”), [2] those deriving from the organization or placement of these materials, [3] those deriving from the expression of these materials in particular linguistic statements, and [4] those deriving, in oral discourse, from the delivery or performance of the speaker. (These categories would later be codified by Cicero as the “canons” of rhetoric: invention, arrangement, style, and delivery, respectively.1)

The first of Aristotle’s categories, invention, consists of the speaker’s ability to generate or discover the persuasive material that is the content of the discourse. It is the most developed of the canons, both in Aristotle’s Rhetoric and in the considerable body of literature associated with the rhetorical tradition. In conceptualizing rhetorical invention, Aristotle identifies three central types of proofs: logos, ethos, and pathos.

Logos is the logical aspect of proof—what we recognize as the inferential structure of an argument. Logos determines the soundness of an argument and is the main concern of traditional critical thinking approaches, especially through the identification of logical fallacies and other instances of unwarranted inference.

Ethos is the ethical aspect of proof. It is manifest in the values embodied by the discourse. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, for example, is persuasive not primarily because of the quality of the reasoning but because of the quality of the values affirmed: liberty, equality, and commitment to purpose. While ethos is significantly less prominent in the types of critiques found in the Skeptical Inquirer, when skeptics base their analysis in the criteria of scientific adequacy, this is essentially an assessment of ethos, as these criteria are fundamentally held as values rather than deduced as facts.

Pathos is the emotional aspect of proof. Critical thinking approaches tend to consider appeals to emotion only when they appear in well-established fallacies, such as appeals to fear and appeals to pity. However, Aristotle identifies a more general function for pathos in rhetorical discourse. He maintains that the principal function of emotional appeals is to place an audience in a particular emotional state that will prepare them to be receptive to the logical or ethical proofs that follow. For example, Copernicus begins On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies with a dedication to Pope Paul III that is essentially an appeal to humility. It prepares the audience for later arguments that may otherwise have been taken as arrogant or blasphemous (Copernicus 1972, 3–5). Such an emotional appeal does not contribute to the soundness of the later arguments—nor is it properly considered a fallacy as it is not offered as a reason per se—but nonetheless it contributes significantly to the rhetorical appeal of the work.

Now, in discourse advancing extraordinary claims, appeals to emotion are prevalent, and understanding that pathos is by nature preparatory may be useful to those engaged in skeptical critique. For example, a séance is typically front-loaded with appeals to affiliative emotions and sometimes to grief, not to demonstrate the veracity of communication with the dead but to render the audience susceptible to the improbable demonstration to follow. This type of observation results in a more accurate understanding of how a séance works in relation to its audience and also can disarm its persuasive impact by explicitly revealing the rhetorical tactics employed.

The second of Aristotle’s categories, arrangement, is rarely recognized in traditional critical thinking approaches. Still, the sequence of arguments or appeals may be central to the overall effect of discourse advancing extraordinary claims. One instance in which arrangement is sometimes the focus of skeptical critiques is cold reading, in which the sequence of topics and the attendant questions—moving from general and ambiguous to specific and concrete—is seen as key in understanding how psychics seek to establish credence in their claims. Another example of the importance of arrangement is the way in which infomercials for miracle diets or exercise equipment typically place extensive testimonials before any explanation of the product’s function, seeking to produce a favorable attitude toward the product. Again, sequence is central to explaining how the discourse seeks to persuade its audience.

The third of Aristotle’s categories is style—the particular linguistic expression of the various ideas and proofs that constitute the material of rhetorical discourse. Style has been of great importance in rhetorical studies, as language choice is pivotal in communicating ideas persuasively. After all, no one would remember Martin Luther King Jr.’s landmark address if it had been called “I Have an Idea.” Although stylistic concerns are seldom central to skeptical critiques, one area in which language choice is often considered is pseudoscience, in which couching dubious claims in scientific or scientific-sounding language is widely recognized as a primary strategy in advancing pseudoscientific claims.

The fourth and final of Aristotle’s categories is delivery—the ways in which tone of voice, vocal phrasing, gestures, and other aspects of the physical performance of speech can contribute to persuasion. Delivery is not germane, of course, to the analysis of written texts, but much discourse advancing extraordinary claims takes place through speech, as in a séance or the recruiting protocols of Scientology, or through forms of recorded speech, such as infomercials or the many paranormal and cryptozoological programs popular on television.

Although delivery, like most of Aristotle’s latter categories, is rarely mentioned in traditional critical thinking approaches, it is clear that it can be very important in advancing extraordinary claims. The dramatic and sometimes otherworldly intonations of a medium at a séance, the measured pedantry of those presenting themselves as medical experts in infomercials, or the unmeasured enthusiasm of those providing testimonials for alternative treatments probably contribute as much to the persuasive appeal of the discourse as any of Aristotle’s categories.

To be sure, Aristotle’s rhetorical theory provides the broadest and most clearly organized survey of the means of persuasion. Still, there are many other significant theorists in the rhetorical tradition whose works can profitably inform skeptical critique. It is beyond the scope of this article to provide even a cursory survey of this tradition, but I would like to consider briefly two of the most influential contemporary theorists to illustrate the point.

The most significant rhetorical theorist of the twentieth century is literary critic Kenneth Burke. According to Burke (1953), rhetorical effects occur not strictly through the presentation of proofs to a rational audience but more broadly through the use of signs of consubstantiality that create identification between speaker and audience. A sign of consubstantiality is a symbolic behavior that indicates shared substance. So, for example, in 2008, Barack Obama invoked hope and change not as reasons to vote for him so much as tokens of a shared progressive identity.

Much of what occurs in discourse advancing extraordinary claims reflects just this type of identification. New Age discourse, for example, derives its appeal not from its reasoning but from the use of a nomenclature that identifies the proponent and prospective adherents as spiritually enlightened and historically ascendant. Terms in this nomenclature include aura, Aquarian age, astral body, channeling, harmonic convergence, transfiguration, and the like.

Another example can be found in the discourse promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories. When a conspiracy theorist uses a term like truther, what is identified is not so much a relationship to a set of facts or forensic conditions but rather a social relationship—a shared substance—with others who believe “the truth is out there.” This social relationship is maintained through a wide variety of communication practices—from websites, blogs, and conventions to representations in documentary and fictional discourse—all clear examples of what Burke conceptualizes as signs of consubstantiality.

A final theorist I want to mention is Jean Baudrillard, a postmodern critic and philosopher. Baudrillard (1983) maintains that, in postmodern discourse, rhetorical function is produced not through reference to an objective world but through the simulation of prevailing models of meaning. One clear example of this type of simulation is lifestyle advertising. In lifestyle advertising there is often no reference to the product or its intended use; instead you see symbolic models or archetypes of the “good life”—attractive people having fun and enjoying leisure and affluence. This simulation may lead the audience to consume the product in their own simulation of the “good life,” thereby fulfilling the ad’s intended rhetorical function.

This type of simulation is evident in much contemporary discourse advancing extraordinary claims. You can’t read self-reports of encounters with ghosts or the memoir of an alien abductee without realizing that what is being recounted are not events so much as archetypal narratives that serve as our models of such experiences. That movies and television shows provide so much of the content of these models only underscores the subsequent reprisal of these narratives in purportedly authentic and sincere self-reports as largely, if not entirely, simulations. While some such reports may be hoaxes or deceptions, it is likely that many are simulations—suggestible people reproducing prevailing models of meaning.

More typical examples of this type of simulation come from mediated discourse. An infomercial or website touting a new, but dubious, medical or scientific breakthrough (such as those promoting Thought Field Therapy, Power Balance bracelets, or various miracle diets) typically does not report a scientific breakthrough—indeed, there is no breakthrough to report—but rather simulates such a report. The simulation has all the attendant touchstones: talking-head interviews with scientific researchers or medical practitioners, scientific explanations (often accompanied by simple animations illustrating physical, chemical, or cellular processes), and references to published studies (though rarely citations), all often presented by hosts purporting to be science, medical, or fitness journalists. The rhetorical effect produced by these infomercials and websites does not arise from any representation of an objective reality but from our symbolic models of what a “scientific breakthrough” is and how it is reported. This is the hallmark of simulation.

Advantages of Rhetorical Analysis

I hope that this short survey demonstrates clearly the relevance of rhetorical analysis to both understanding and critiquing discourse advancing extraordinary claims. In this final section, I enumerate three general advantages of using rhetorical analysis to complement the traditional critical thinking approaches that are no doubt more familiar to the skeptical community.

First, theoretical frameworks from the rhetorical tradition (such as those outlined above) can integrate and contextualize many of the observations often made in passing or parenthetically in skeptical critiques. Indeed, many of the examples given in the previous section may be familiar to readers of the Skeptical Inquirer, but virtually none have been correctly or explicitly situated in relation to rhetorical function or appeal. Awareness and application of concepts and materials from the rhetorical tradition can move these observations from the periphery and place them properly within the scope of skeptical critique. This alone would strengthen both the substance and the clarity of much skeptical writing.

Second, these same rhetorical theoretical frameworks can promote a more systematic and comprehensive analysis of discourse advancing extraordinary claims. As I have noted, skeptics occasionally offer observations that are really more aligned with rhetorical analysis than with critical thinking per se. These observations are almost always just that—occasional—offered only as they occur to the skeptic. If skeptical writers were more familiar with rhetorical concepts and principles, such observations could be developed systematically and even programmatically, mitigating the possibility that important rhetorical appeals will go unnoticed, eluding explanation and critique.

Third, and perhaps most important, rhetorical analysis may help generate effective responses to discourse advancing extraordinary claims. Without question, investigating and debunking remain the central components of almost any response to paranormal or pseudoscientific discourse, but identifying rhetorical subterfuge can also be very effective. In my own classes, I have found that explaining how front-loaded emotional appeals may charm an audience, how New Age terms are markers of social identification, or how the Power Balance website is a simulation of scientific reporting will quickly diffuse whatever appeal the respective discourse may have had initially. As Gary Cronkhite astutely observes, “The best antidote for a sophistic rhetor is a sophisticated rhetoree and we had best get at the business of producing such an antidote” (Cronkhite 1974, 262).

Near the beginning of this article I presented a very direct definition of rhetoric as the persuasive aspect of discourse. There is, however, a more artful definition that I generally prefer and that I think gets closer to the point here: there is a difference between the way things are and the way we talk about them; rhetoric is the study of that difference. To this end, it should be clear that rhetorical analysis deserves a place alongside the methods of traditional critical thinking in the “skeptic’s toolbox.”


Note

1. Cicero also adds a fifth canon, memory, to describe those rhetorical appeals that derive from a speaker’s ability to master facts and commonplaces in his or her memory.

References

Aristotle (trans. W. Rhy Roberts). 1954. Rhetoric. New York: The Modern Library.

Baudrillard, Jean. 1983. Simulations. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).

Burke, Kenneth. 1953. A Rhetoric of Motives. New York: Prentice Hall.

Copernicus, Nicholas (trans. Edward Rosppen). 1972. On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies. London: Macmillan.

Cronkhite, Gary. 1974. Rhetoric, communication and psycho-epistemology. In Walter Fisher, ed. Rhetoric: A Tradition in Transition. East Lansing, MI: University of Michigan Press. 261–278.

Perelman, Chaïm. 1969. The New Rhetoric. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Quine, W.V. 1989. Quiddities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


Josh Zepps with Ann Druyan: Cosmos, Carl Sagan, and Culture

$
0
0

We present a condensed version of an earlier interview about Ann Druyan’s experience with the first and the new Cosmos series by Josh Zepps for our Center for Inquiry’s Point of Inquiry podcast. (That full interview is online at http://www.pointofinquiry.org/ann_druyan_telling_the_story_of_the_cosmos/.)

We think of you and Carl as having been this unstoppable scientific duo, but I was surprised to find out that you weren’t a scientist. You never studied science. Where did your science passion come from? Was it always there or did it evolve?

Ann DruyanKEVORK DJANSEZIAN/REUTERS/Newscom

No, it wasn’t originally. I had that misfortune which so many of us have. I didn’t really have great science teachers who were willing to work with me, and I think if you asked them, even when I was in college, about my potential as a scientist, they would have said that I was probably ineducable. Not about the history of science, which I was passionate about, fascinated by the history of ideas, but to do even entry-level calculations of physics, for instance. I just couldn’t wrap my head around it, and I think it began with a terrible math trauma, which is immortalized in Carl’s novel, Contact, and it was my first understanding of junior high school. After the trauma of my junior high school math class, I went down another road.

I wish that there’d been a metascience class or a philosophy of science class before you get to the college level, to inspire people with science in a way that doesn’t require petri dishes and memorizing the Periodic Table.

Precisely, I couldn’t agree more. It’s an irony that my career has been a kind of bridge to all the people like myself who had a passion to understand the way the universe is put together, but really needed some kind of aperture into the subject. I was much more attracted to English literature and to film and in my early twenties I became fascinated by materialism, and from a political perspective was really excited to understand who were the first people to demystify human experience and not to resort to God as an explanation. That brought me to the pre-Socratic philosophers, and I fell in love with them.

In fact, I think I imbued Carl with a much greater feeling of appreciation for them, and that was before I met Carl. Once we were together we were able to explore. . . . I mean just imagine having any question of the day or night and being able to turn to the person next to you, and it’s Carl Sagan.

It’s inspiring to think that things are actually explicable, right?

It’s not only inspiring, it’s empowering. Once you start actually looking for the root cause of things. . . . I mean, as I write in the series, the answer “The planets move the way they do because God wants it that way, because God did it” is the closing of a door. There’s no follow-up question to that, and that’s the opposite of science.

When you worked with Carl, did you feel like you were engaged in something. . . . I don’t want to use the word spiritual . . . but, spiritual?

Carl Sagan

I’ve felt that every day of my adult life, and with every single thing I’ve ever worked on. Of course, you know, the romance of life in the universe is a constant back-beat to everything that I’ve ever worked on. It’s that feeling of celebrating, that joy that you can feel when you not only allow yourself to be as tiny and as non-central to the workings of the universe, and just allow yourself to appreciate the little we know about where and when we are.

There’s nothing more exciting than that, for me. Especially as it has that extra layer of satisfaction within, that this is the fruit of the most rigorous testing that we are yet capable of. This is what we’ve distilled from existence, the idea that we’re part of a 13.8 billion year story. I mean, you know, it’s just . . . it’s a bigger story than anyone dreamed.

Can you just inform me, on a behind-the-scenes level, how the cosmic calendar used in both Cosmos series came about?

I should say that Carl and I created the original series with Steven Soter, who was also my collaborator on the first several years of the new Cosmos series, and he was a very important contributor to both. I remember working with Steve and Carl and imagining what this great football field of time would be like.

cosmic calendarImages © 2013 FOX BROADCASTING.

I think one of Carl’s many, many strengths was that he recognized that we are story-driven, that if you could create a narrative that everyone, young and old, could grasp and experience, that the information suddenly becomes a much more natural thing, and so Carl, who I think may have been inspired by “Powers of Ten” earlier and other attempts at figuring out a way to limn the vastness of space, wanted in his own mind to do the same thing for time. It became the most natural thing to take this giant football field and parcel out the months, each month in our calendar, because the universe has become much younger in the intervening thirty-five years and lost a couple of billion years. Each month represents a little more than a billion years, and, of course, each day around 40 million years.

Then, of course, the payoff of the analogy that all of human history is in a fraction of a second at one second to midnight on December 31.

Exactly, and just the idea of how young we are. It’s one thing to realize that the Earth is not the center of the universe, but the next level is to understand that we are so newly arrived; we are so young, and of course we don’t know very much, and there’s a humility of science, which is saying that our ignorance exceeds our understanding on every level. But here we are finding our way, testing the things we think are right, and being willing to find out that they’re wrong. That’s mental health, you know. Really, it works as a good definition of either.

Creatively, when the three of you were coming together... and I’m glad that you mentioned Steven Soter because we don’t want to leave him out . . . how do you even begin to get your heads around it all? We want to express the majesty of all this stuff in a way that tells stories and that relates to people, but where do you start? What do you leave out? How do you decide what to include and how?

Well, there’s a winnowing process of years of discussion, not just among the three of us . . . although I cherish the memories of those fantastic, into the wee, wee hours . . . obviously, as far-ranging as Cosmos itself has been. Also, later on, when we joined together with Adrian Malone, who was our original executive producer, and the extraordinary team of people he assembled to actually implement our ideas for how we wanted to tell the story, it took flight. It was a multi-year process, and sometimes . . . you know, it’s more a case of you have more stories to tell than we had the time to tell them in. Sometimes certain components, certain sequences, get expanded because of the visual possibilities and because of the information, and so it was just as you imagine.

I had certain stories I always wanted to tell; for me the Library of Alexandria was something that I wrote about in my first novel. I was really enchanted by this idea of a government that was so interested in knowledge. Carl, of course, had a lifetime of thinking about the subject of life on other worlds. He was a pioneer in that field, and he had things that he wanted to do, which we together turned into sequences, and Steve was interested in a great many things, but he had a special interest in protecting the planet.

There wasn’t a single episode that we didn’t all three of us have our hands on . . . each script had so many iterations, so many drafts, and we were constantly just cutting and eliminating and adding. It was just a feast of ideas, to be with the two of them and to be able to just spend hours thinking, bringing up fascinating stories about the ancient world, about the future.

Did you have confidence that the audience would get it? Did you have any sense that it would become the iconic show that it has become?

I think everyone knew that we were engaged in something extraordinary from the very beginning. Most of the time we don’t ever get to do something that’s shooting for the stars and trying to make history. The joy of actually doing that is the greatest feeling. I hear this all the time; people are so inspired by Carl Sagan’s life and work, and by the legacy of the original series, Contact, and a bunch of things that we’ve done together. Really, I’m overwhelmed.

I’d love to get your thoughts on the state of American culture and scientific literacy and the religious right. I mean, when you think about the audience that was receiving the original Cosmos and the audience today, do you think America has become more or less reasonable?

Well, I think it’s a pendulum, and it has a tendency to oscillate, swing back and forth. Back when we were doing the first Cosmos, the Apollo missions and the glory of that still had a tail; it was declining, but you could feel it. There was an excitement about the future and space that I think we’ve largely lost. I think we’ve gotten a little bit depressed and dystopic, hung up on a kind of apocalyptic view of the future, but Cosmos just comes at a good moment, because the pendulum swings both ways. I felt like it was swinging back our way; about a year or two ago I really began to feel it, for a number of reasons and I’ve been really excited that we have made several very uncompromising statements on the show on Fox and around the world, largest roll-out of its television series globally in history, and we talked very forthrightly about creationism, about intelligent design, about the much smaller universe that you get from the fundamentalist perspective, and how much darker and smaller that is. I’ve been really excited to see that the reaction has been negligible, you know?

The acceptance, the embrace of the show has been overwhelming. So I just feel like... we just happen to be on a good part of the wave.

Good. Your optimism delights me.

Don’t you feel the same way?

Not really, I have to say, to be honest. Perhaps I spend too much time debating creationists and engaging in that world, and perhaps American culture is sufficiently different from the culture I grew up in that it still strikes me as stark. I hope you’re right. I think you’re right that the pendulum has to swing and that sometime soon it has to swing back. This can’t be an endless descent, but if I’d been alive a half century ago, then I think I would have thought that in 2014 we’d be over this by now.

Well, from my perspective, at my age, I grew up in a very racist, homophobic, sexist world. Even though it’s largely thought of as a time of great enlightenment and opening up, you know. . . . The things that people casually did or took for granted, which we would now find egregious. . . .

I interviewed Joel Osteen, one of the most popular pastors in the world, not long ago, and I read to him a paragraph from Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot, I showed him that iconic photograph from Voyager of Earth suspended there in a sunbeam, and asked him whether or not he thought that it made sense that all of this was just created as a backdrop for God to figure out whether or not we were going to be good or evil or to try to pray to him for—

What did he say?

He dodged the question, as he dodged most of them, but he said something about ours is not to question the purpose of his majesty. All of this. It’s an extraordinary universe and we can only humble ourselves before him and wonder what the point of it all is.

Well, I hope that we have some kind of influence so that the next time they have that thought, they may question it . . . how logical it is. I have no metric for how many minds we’ve changed. I like to think that this will have some effect, and that the availability of Cosmos on so many platforms and the ideas, that we are really trying to articulate the case for the scientific perspective, and its power. That it will have some influence. I hope so.

Trust me. It’s having a big influence.

How do you know that?

It’s such an exciting, sparkling thing in the zeitgeist, at the moment, Cosmos. It’s something that people are talking about. It’s something that people are aware of and excited by. I can’t recall another nonfiction television event that has captivated at least the conversation quite so much in my lifetime.

You’ve made my day, Josh.

Thank you so much for being on Point of Inquiry, Ann.

Oh, it was my pleasure, Josh, and best regards to everyone at the Center for Inquiry.

On Biblical Kinds

$
0
0

There are several alternative hypotheses offered by theists to counter the scientific theory of evolution. These tales of special creation generally posit that all organisms on this planet were placed here, in their current form, by a supernatural entity. Perhaps the most familiar of these is the idea of Intelligent Design (ID), which has been put forward as scientific, and worthy of inclusion in science classrooms. ID is a Christian concept, based largely on literal interpretations of the Bible, though it does not necessarily restrict itself to a young (6000-year-old) Earth.

The basic concept of Bible-based creationism is that the major groups of living organisms on this planet appeared on the fifth and sixth days, as described in the book of Genesis in the Bible. Since then, the mechanisms of Evolution—specifically microevolution—have taken place within these major groups, resulting in the diversity of species within these groups we recognize today.

These major groups of organisms are referred to as “kinds” in the Christian creationist model. “Kinds” are different groups of organisms that seem intuitively distinct from other groups. For example, horses, donkeys, and zebras may belong to a single kind, the horse kind. There is a dog kind, that includes wolves and coyotes, too, and foxes for good measure. There would be kinds of trees, like oaks or maples. The assumption is that from these basic kinds comes all the modern diversity, like pin oaks, live oaks, and scrub oaks. All of life is thus divided into the kinds that originated at Creation.

Advocates of Biblical creationism stress that the “kinds” are unique, and that there are no intermediate forms to be found between them. Further, they believe that kinds can be proven to be real using scientific methods.

So a “kind” is the basic division of organisms according to Creationists, in much the same way that “species” is the fundamental division of organisms to evolutionary biologists. The theory of evolution explains how evolution occurs within species, and over vast amounts of time, results in new species. Over even longer periods of time—millions or billions of years—new larger groups of organisms, similar to kinds, can evolve. The origin of these new, larger groups is a process called macroevolution. Proponents of biblical creation claim that macroevolution is impossible because the kinds are distinct and always have been. No new kinds have ever arisen since they were created.

So, then, what is a kind?

I’ve asked this question more than once, most often to students wishing to explore the Creationism vs Evolution debate. I’ve never gotten a very satisfying definition. In February of 2014, Ken Ham (Creationist and Founder of Answers in Genesis) finally provided a working definition during his debate with Bill Nye. Ham said that kinds are groups of animals at about the same level of scientific classification as “family.”

Family is a scientific term in the field of taxonomy (the science of naming and classifying organisms) that is a group that includes many species, both closely related and more distantly related. For example, the family equidae includes horses, zebras, and donkeys. The family canidae includes dogs, and coyotes, and wolves. It also includes foxes, which are more distantly related and not in the genus canis. There’s the familysuidae, the pigs. Peccaries are pig-like, but wait, they’re in the family tayassuidae. Hm. Well, they’re both in the suborder suina, so maybe that’s what Ham meant when he said ‘about the same level as family.’

At a first pass it seems, at least with commonly known organisms (focusing on mammals), that this idea that a biblical kind could be roughly equivalent to a scientific family.

Let’s back up, because there’s a falsehood here. Just because taxonomic nomenclature is used by scientists, doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t some arbitrariness there. The scheme that includes family was created by Linneaus in 1751. Families in the Linnaean sense were groups of animals that seemed similar enough to each other to be related. But there was no biological basis for this. It was just done that way because it felt right. It is rather subjective, and based, to a large degree on what seems right—just like the concept of kinds.

As science has progressed, it has become clear that many of the groups proposed by Linneaus are arbitrary. In fact, as we’ve come to understand biological evolution, scientists are using Linnaean nomenclature less and less for discussion of evolution. Instead, scientists opt to use more rigorous methods, like cladistic analysis, to explore evolutionary relationships. Linnaean taxonomy merely hangs on as a convenient way to name and categorize organisms, but it is no longer used to support actual relationships between organisms.

The only place where Linnaean taxonomy retains a strong foothold (and for how much longer one cannot be sure) is in the naming of species. Species is the only Linnaean rank with a specific and clear definition. In biology, it is required for a species to be able to reproduce with other members of its species and produce viable fertile offspring. Every other grouping is made for convenience, and the ranking (genus, family, etc.) is determined based on the researchers subjective determination of how similar or different groups are from one another.

Higher ranks (genus, family, order, etc. all but species) are subject to change. The definition of such a group may be revised. Its rank may change. The members of the group may be changed. Most often, such things happen with either the discovery of new species, or due to new methods for determining relationships

Take, for example, the mustelidae—the weasel family. Traditionally skunks, minks, weasels, badgers, otters, and wolverines are in this family. They do look a lot alike, low to the ground, long in body, carnivorous, smelly. But genetically, skunks are distinct. In fact, they are more different genetically from the other members of the mustelidae than are seals and raccoons, which clearly are not mustelids.

Or take, for another example, the matter of the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). There has been a lot of discussion in the biological community about whether or not the giant panda is a true bear, and should be assigned to the family ursidae with all the other bears. It certainly looks bear-like, hence the colloquial name of ‘panda bear,’ but it also is fully herbivorous which is notably not-bear-like. That might be just fine, given that although the family ursidae is within the order carnivora, the carnivorous mammals, the only fully carnivorous member of the ursidae is the polar bear.

Giant pandas share much in common with both bears (family ursidae) and raccoons (family procyonidae). Based only upon physical characteristics alone (not all of which are obvious to an untrained observer), we couldn’t really be certain to which group giant pandas belong. These are two very different groups of mammals that are clearly distinct (as ‘kinds’ are supposed to be), and the giant panda could go either place. For what it’s worth, we’ve learned that pandas are properly bears, based on DNA analysis (see O’Brian et al., 1985).

Red pandas (ailurus fulgens) have suffered similarly. They are definitely not bears, but may or may not be related to raccoons. Again, genetic evidence provides the solution and places them in their own family separate from raccoons and bears (O’Brian et al., 1985)

We know about the flexibility, arbitrariness, and inaccuracies of taxonomic groups as practicing biologists and paleontologists. But for the general public it's not so clear. Evolution is not well taught in classrooms around the nation. All students are given is Linnaean taxonomy, and the impression that it’s the most scientific thing out there. So of course it sounds really scientific to say kinds are at the same level as family to everyone except those who really understand biology.

To biologists, to say that kinds and families are equivalent is to say that kinds are completely arbitrary and grouped according to whatever feels right. This is no improvement over the definitions I’ve gotten in the past and is still unsatisfying.

But at least it sounds science-y and tastes pretty good, like the bologna that it is.

The point to all of this is that the term “kind” is still poorly defined. Saying it’s at about the level of family seems helpful and valid; however, the concept of a family in the Linnaean sense is amazingly arbitrary. These are defined as groups of animals that seem to be related to each other—which is basically the same as the definition of a kind in the first place.

When tested rigorously using cladistic methods, and even only on modern organisms, the arbitrariness of all the Linnaean ranks becomes clear. They’re not about collecting certain numbers of species into convenient groups. They’re not about separating groups from each other that have a certain amount of genetic differences. It’s a relict system that holds on because it does allow scientists to communicate with each other—provided all understand the pitfalls of using the system. But you need only sit in on one nomenclature session at a paleontology meeting to see how poorly it works for establishing actual relationships between organisms.

And we still lack a satisfactory definition of “kind.”

O’Brian, S.J., Nash, W.G., Wildt, D.E., Bush, M.E., and Benveniste, R.E., 1985, A Molecular Solution to the Riddle of the Giant Panda’s Phylogeny: Nature v. 317, p. 140–144.

The Yukon’s Bigfoot Bears

$
0
0

Canada’s Yukon Territory is a wild, rugged land, its summers having a “midnight sun,” and its winters a day-long dark. Bordered on the west by Alaska, the east by the Northwest Territories, the south by British Columbia, and the north by the Beaufort Sea, the Yukon became famous for the Klondike gold rush of 1897–1898. In addition to gold, its treasures include the breathtaking northern lights and rich flora and fauna. The latter’s mammals include the caribou (the same species as reindeer), moose, mountain goat, Alaskan and timber wolf, red fox, mink, otter, and many others, including the black and grizzly bear. In modern times, some say, it is also home to the legendary Sasquatch, usually known since 1958 as Bigfoot.

Bigfoot Country?

I spent most of two adventure-filled years, 1975–1976, in the Yukon, living in frontier Dawson City and working as a casino dealer, museologist, riverboat manager, and newspaper stringer, among many other activities (Nickell 2008). I have reported elsewhere on my investigations of Yukon gold dowsers (Nickell 1988, 89–102) and Dawson’s “haunted” Palace Grand Theatre (Nickell 2012, 167–170).

I had not yet begun my search for what I now call the Bigfoot Bear—referring to an upright-standing bear’s propensity to be mistaken for Bigfoot in general anatomy and coloration as well as behavior and geographic distribution (Nickell 2013). However, both my work and leisure put me in contact with many Yukon outdoorsmen—like riverboat captain Dick Stevenson, numerous salmon fishermen and gold miners, dog-sled-traveling trappers like Ed Wolfe and “Skipper” Mendelsohn, and many, many more, including old Joe Henry, a nationally famous Native American snowshoe maker and my favorite wintertime bar companion. I never heard mention of Bigfoot from any of these people, but they were all familiar with bears. I was often out in bear country myself, hunting, prospecting, and the like—most often with Captain Stevenson—and I once helped him as he bravely caught (by manually operating the game warden’s defective mobile bear-trapping cage) a large, nuisance brown bear (Nickell 1976).

Despite a lack of convincing evidence for Bigfoot, belief persists, and Bigfoot buffs are active almost everywhere, including the sparsely populated Yukon. Indian legends are often trotted out, like the Kushtaka or “Land Otter Man” of the Tlingits of the Pacific Northwest. Kushtaka, it is said, “moves like the wind and disappears at will only to reappear again elsewhere, all the time keeping its hand before its face and peering out at times through its fingers” And “Whenever Kushtaka catches and breathes on its captive, he loses all sense of reality until the Kushtaka leaves” (Coleman 2011). Clearly Kushtaka is a kind of supernatural bogeyman of the Tlingits—not the supposedly real object of Sasquatch hunters’ quests. Yukon Sasquatcher Red Grossinger, a retired Canadian Army officer, admits he has never seen a Sasquatch/Bigfoot, but he assumes an unidentified smell he experienced in 2003 may have been from one. He says his Canadian Sasquatch Research Organization (CSRO) would like to “prove its existence” (Patrick 2009), a kind of cart-before-the-horse motivation that seems a recipe for bias. In this light, let us look at some published reports of creatures that are supposed to be Bigfoot but may well be familiar creatures instead.

‘Black Giants?’

As one source notes of the interest in Bigfoot:

So intense is this fascination that some Bigfoot enthusiasts seem to have labeled just about every mythological creature ever known in the western hemisphere as another name for Sasquatch. There are amusing collections of “Native American names for Bigfoot” online that include the names of giants, dwarves, ghosts, gods, underwater monsters, four-legged predators, an enormous bird, and a disembodied flying head. (“Native American” 2013)

Dolores Cline Brown, in her book Yukon Trophy Trails (1971, 153), along with another writer (Kristian 2013), tells of one such Yukon “Indian” legend (no further identification given) about one bogeyman known as the Bushman or Black Giant. Authentic native lore or not, this man-beast sounds curiously familiar, resembling a bear standing upright, a common posture with a “human appearance” (Van Wormer, 1966, 30). The creatures were very large and covered in black hair like the typical Ursus americanus, the black bear, or even like the much larger Ursus arctos, the grizzly (brown) bear, which can on occasion be black (Herrero 2002, 37, 133). They were said to live alone in caves or recesses during winter—like bears in their dens—and to have enormous feet (Brown 1971, 153; Kristian 2013). Bears, in fact, leave very “humanlike” hindprints—up to sixteen or more inches for a grizzly—that can appear larger in soft ground or when, at moderate gaits, hind- and forefoot prints may superimpose to appear as a single track (Nickell 2013).

A black-colored bear may well explain reports (relatively modern ones) of the Black Giant looking through cabin windows—the common behavior of bears who stand upright and peer into dwellings looking for food. It may also explain a reported instance of a presumed Black Giant heavily rattling a Yukon cabin door in the middle of the night, attempting to gain entry, which was thwarted by occupants shoving furniture against the door (Brown 1971, 153).

Reportedly, the fearsome Black Giants also occasionally “ate Indians” (Brown 1971, 153). True accounts of grizzlies and black bears eating people are gruesome indeed. One woman, carried off from camp by a grizzly, was heard to cry, “He’s got my arm off,” and “Oh God, I’m dead,” and then was heard no more. Her body was subsequently found, partially devoured. Later, park rangers hunted down and killed the bear, actually an old female, and an autopsy revealed human hair still in her stomach (Herrero 2002, 49–50).

But why would Native Americans not recognize the Black Giant as a bear? Perhaps the putative legends got started (and we do not know how old they are) with the appearance of a rare black grizzly, standing upright (as they do in alert mode), and resembling for all the world a man-beast—indeed a black giant. To a people who believed in many imaginative beings and who were inveterate storytellers, such accounts are not at all surprising—especially if they are of modern vintage and influenced by the Bigfoot myth.

A Bearlike Creature

It pays to backtrack sources. One compendium (Bord and Bord 2006, 231) related a case from the Yukon Territory in the 1940s, in which a witness shot his .30-06 rifle at a ten-foot Bigfoot (no further description given) that reportedly left tracks eighteen to twenty-two inches long. The original source, however, had been a letter from the man, who actually admitted he was “not sure it was not a bear” (Green 1973, 17).

We need be no less skeptical than the witness himself, and the solid evidence for the existence of bears trumps that for Bigfoot, which is zero. As to the tracks, we have only the man’s memory about them—a memory so lacking that he could not even remember the exact year of the event “in the 1940s.” Also, recall our earlier discussion about bear tracks.

‘Bluish’ Bigfoot?

On October 4, 1975, a man named Ben Able reported a strange encounter near Jake’s Corner, Yukon. He passed a bipedal figure on the road at night but, when he backed up to offer a ride, the figure moved away from the road. Covered with fur, it was about five and a half feet tall—generally the appearance and size of a small black bear (a standing one can be up to seven feet tall) (Bord and Bord 2006, 283; Green 1978, 242).

Curiously, however, its fur was “bluish” and it had a gray face—odd coloring for Bigfoot. However, it happens that rare “blue” or “bluish-tinged” or “blue-gray” black bears, known as “glacier” bears, are found in the Southwest Yukon, as well as nearby coastal areas of Alaska and British Columbia (Gloia 2011; Whitaker 1996, 703; Herrero 2002, 132; Van Wormer 1966, 20). This is rather unique evidence in favor of identifying the mystery creature as a regional black bear.

Encounters at Teslin

Another somewhat similar case occurred in June 2004 near Teslin (a village just north of the border with British Columbia). Two men driving a truck on the Alaska Highway after one o’clock in the morning passed a figure standing by the road. Going back to see if it was someone who needed a lift, they saw a hunched-over creature approximately seven-feet-tall, covered with dark hair. In their headlights, however, they thought they saw “flesh tones” beneath the hair. Driving away, they looked back and observed it cross the road “in two or three steps,” according to a source, apparently at third hand or worse (Bord and Bord 2006, 209).

Crossing a highway in just three steps from a standing position seems remarkable even for a seven-foot man-beast. Given that the observation was made under poor conditions (behind them, without benefit of headlights, and having to use mirrors or turn awkwardly), I suspect the witnesses were mistaken. A bear seems the most likely culprit.

Some additional sightings were reported in 2005 in Teslin, culminating in the discovery of some “sasquatch hair.” This was sent to a conservation office in Whitehorse, the Yukon capital (“Sasquatch” 2005). The results were good news and bad news for Bigfooters: The hair was not from a bear! Alas, it was also not from a Bigfoot—no authentic trace of which has ever been found—but from a “buffalo,” that is, an American bison (Kirk 2006).

Conclusions

As the foregoing cases show, much of the evidence for Bigfoot depends on selective reporting of eyewitnesses’ descriptions, the weakest kind of evidence. They may easily be mistaken due to poor viewing conditions, excitement, and even what cryptozoologist Rupert Gould (1976, 112–113) termed “expectant attention.” That is the tendency to see what one expects to see—itself due, in the case of Bigfoot, either to wishful thinking or to what I call “Bigfoot programming.” This refers to the fact that people are often assailed with images of Bigfoot—on TV shows, for instance, far more than they are with, say, those of bears.


Acknowledgments

I was assisted with online research by Lisa Nolan of CFI Libraries.

References

Bord, Janet, and Colin Bord. 2006. Bigfoot Casebook Updated. N.p.: Pine Winds Press.

Brown, Dolores Cline. 1971. Yukon Trophy Trails. Sidney, B.C.: Gray’s Publishing Ltd.

Coleman, Loren. 2011. Wood knocking: More histor­ical background. Online at http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/woodknock-2; accessed De­­cem­­ber 10, 2013.

Gloia, Carol. 2011. Facts about the American Black Bear. Online at http://www.critters360.com/index.php/facts-about-the-american-black-bear-4012/; accessed December 18, 2013.

Gould, Rupert T. 1976. The Loch Ness Monster and Others. Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press.

Green, John. 1973. The Sasquatch File. Agassiz, BC: Cheam Publishing Ltd.

———. 1978. Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us. Saanich­ton, B.C.: Hancock House.

Herrero, Stephen. 2002. Bear Attacks, rev. ed. Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press.

Kirk, John. 2006. Sasquatch in the Yukon. Online at http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot/sasquatch-yukon; accessed December 9, 2013.

Kristian, Ken. 2013. Notes from my database on the Bushmen. Online at http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/blackgiants.htm; accessed December 9, 2013.

Native American Bigfoot figures of myth and legend. 2013. Online at http://www.native-languages.org/legends-bigfoot.htm; accessed December 11, 2013.

Nickell, Joe. 1976. A “grin and bear it” story. White­horse Star (Yukon), June 21.

———. 1988. Secrets of the Supernatural. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

———. 2008. Autobiographical Essay. Contemporary Authors 269: 278–297.

———. 2012. The Science of Ghosts. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

———. 2013. Bigfoot lookalikes, Skeptical Inquirer 37(4) (September/October): 12–15.

Patrick, Tom. 2009. Slow year for sasquatch sightings. Online at http://www.yukon-news.com/sports/slow-year-for-sasquatch-sightings; accessed Decem­ber 10, 2013.

Sasquatch sightings reported in Yukon. 2005. CBC News (July 13). Online at http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14641; ac­cessed December 11, 2013.

Van Wormer, Joe. 1966. The World of the Black Bear. New York: Lippincott.

Whitaker, John O., Jr. 1996. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals, rev. ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Five Myths about Airport Security

$
0
0

On April 20, 2014, a fifteen-year-old boy wandered onto a supposedly secure airport ramp at Mineta San José (California) International Airport, then climbed into the wheel well of a Hawaiian Airlines Boeing 767 and took a free trip to Maui. The incident raised new questions about the efficacy of U.S. airport security—and, predictably, prompted calls for more resources (i.e., taxpayer money) to be expended to prevent yet another such event.

An estimated $57 billion has been spent on airport security since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (Serna et al. 2014). Yet, since its inception in November 2001, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has neither prevented nor failed to prevent a terrorist from hijacking or taking down a passenger plane.

Here I will assess the effectiveness of the TSA’s “risk-based, intelligence-driven, common-sense, layered approach” to aviation security, as TSA chief John S. Pistole likes to depict it (TSA 2014a), and offer my conclusions about the effectiveness of some of those layers and the system as a whole.

Myth 1: New Screening Technology Is Making Us Safer

No. It’s just costing us more and more money.

According to a December 21, 2010, investigative report by The Washington Post’s Dana Hedgpeth (2010): “The massive push to fix airport security in the United States after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, led to a gold rush in technology contracts for an industry that mushroomed almost overnight. Since it was founded in 2001, the TSA has spent roughly $14 billion in more than 20,900 transactions with dozens of contractors.”

Hedgpeth also cites a Government Ac­count­ability Office (GAO) finding that “the TSA has ‘not conducted a risk assessment or cost-benefit analysis, or established quantifiable performance measures’ on its new technologies. ‘As a result, TSA does not have assurance that its efforts are focused on the highest priority security needs.’”

The first case in point is the explosive trace portal machine. In 2004, the TSA purchased 207 of these “puffer” machines, which blast passengers with a puff of air that blows particles off their clothing onto sensors. Only ninety-four of the machines were ever deployed because the TSA gradually figured out that they were impractical on several counts: They broke down often, they were unreliable because of suspect substances common in airports (such as jet-fuel fumes), and the machines blasted particles off a subject’s clothing onto others waiting in the queue, which caused bottlenecks. The last of the machines were quietly removed from airports in 2010. Total cost of this aborted program was $30 million (Stinchfield 2011).

On February 23, 2007, the TSA proudly unveiled the first of its X-ray backscatter full-body scanners at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, where it was employed on an experimental basis as a secondary screening device (TSA 2007). The machines were designed to detect non-metallic objects, such as explosives and items that can be construed by TSA screeners as weapons, and were touted by the TSA as an efficient and acceptable alternative to patting down airline passengers. Eventually, the TSA would own 250 Rapiscan advanced imaging technology machines (AITs) peddled by the lobbying firm The Chertoff Group (as in, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff) (Eggan 2010).

These “porno scanners,” as they came to be called, produced a near-explicit image of passengers’ naked bodies. They spawned the first widespread public outcry over security procedures at airports. The result was a provision in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requiring that the machines be fitted with “automated target recognition” software—that is, privacy software that produces a stylized image of the passenger. There also were concerns about the health effects of the X-ray machines, but they became academic when Rapiscan was unable to produce the privacy software, and the last of the machines was removed from U.S. airports in June 2013 (Jansen 2013). The 250 Rapiscan machines alone, excluding all operating expenses, cost taxpayers $40 million.

Millimeter-wave AITs were deployed alongside the X-ray machines and remain in service today. These machines now have software that produces a stylized image of the passenger. But they have a sufficiently high false-positive rate that negates the very reason they have been touted by the TSA: to reduce pat-downs and speed security lines. ProPublica’s Michael Gabell and Christian Salewski report

In Germany, the false positive rate was 54 percent, meaning that every other person who went through the scanner had to undergo at least a limited pat-down that found nothing. . . . [Results] from other countries, as well as tests conducted in the United States before 9/11, show false alarms occurred between about a quarter and half of the time. Moreover, dozens of U.S. travelers told ProPublica they had to get a pat-down despite passing through the body scanners. (Grabell and Salewski 2011)

As of April 26, 2014, there were 740 millimeter-wave AITs at 160 U.S. airports. By the way, if you’re a terrorist who wants to avoid passing through a body scanner, the TSA publishes a list of airports with AITs (TSA 2014c). The goal is to have 1,800–2,000 AITs, at the price of $150,000 each, deployed at all 450 U.S. airports.

Forgetting the costs and the waste, are these machines making us safer? The simple fact is that non-metallic explosives cannot be detected reliably by any of these machines—or even by pat-downs (Wackrow 2012). If formed like a pancake with tapered edges, a plastic explosive such as pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) would be undetectable. Preventing several terrorists from each smuggling small amounts of explosives through security and assembling them in the “safe area” would be impossible.

Myth 2: We Can Spot Terrorists through Identification and Intelligence

Let’s look at the track record of our intelligence and ID operations post-9/11.

Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. Be­cause of suspicions he raised among authorities—such as not having any luggage—Reid was prevented from boarding a flight from Paris to Miami on December 21, 2001. However, after additional screening by the French National Police, who concluded that Reid’s British passport was genuine, he was allowed to board the next day. Passengers and flight crew prevented Reid from lighting the fuse attached to the explosives concealed in his shoe, and the plane landed safely at Logan Inter­national Airport in Boston (CNN 2001).

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the un­derwear bomber. In November 2009, British intelligence officials and Abdulmutallab’s own father warned various U.S. officials, including two CIA officers in Nigeria, that Abdul­mutallab had been consulting with Islamic cleric and rabble rouser Anwar al-Awlaki and that he had murderous intentions. Abdul­mutallab’s name never made it onto a no-fly list managed by the FBI. On Christmas Day 2009, he boarded Northwest Airlines flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit with PETN sewn into his underwear. Like Reid, Abdulmutallab’s suicide-bombing attempt was thwarted by passengers and flight crew (Sullivan 2009).

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, deceased Boston Mara­thon bomber. According to an April 19, 2013, press release issued by the FBI, “at the request of a foreign government,” Tsarnaev was investigated in 2011 (FBI 2013):

[The] FBI checked U.S. government databases and other information to look for such things as derogatory telephone communications, possible use of online sites associated with the promotion of radical activity, associations with other persons of interest, travel history and plans, and education history. The FBI also interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev and family members. The FBI did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign, and those results were provided to the foreign government in the summer of 2011. The FBI requested but did not receive more specific or additional information from the foreign government.

Myth 3: Trained TSA Agents Can Identify Terrorists through Their Behavior

The TSA’s S.P.O.T. (screening passengers by observation techniques) program employs some 3,000 behavior detection officers at about 160 airports and has cost taxpayers nearly $900 million since its inception in 2007 (Jansen 2013). Yet it has failed to nab one single terrorist. According to a November 2013 report by the GAO (2013):

Available evidence does not support whether behavioral indicators . . . can be used to identify persons who may pose a risk to aviation security. GAO reviewed four meta-analyses . . . that included over 400 studies from the past 60 years and found that the human ability to accurately identify deceptive behavior based on behavioral indicators is the same as or slightly better than chance [emphasis added].

Further, a GAO report issued in May 2010 says that at least sixteen known terrorists traveled through U.S. airports in the S.P.O.T. program on at least twenty-three occasions without being detected (GAO 2010). That’s not all. On November 1, 2013, lone gunman Paul Anthony Ciancia made his way into a TSA checkpoint at Los Angeles International Airport, killing Transportation Security Officer Gerardo Hernandez and wounding two other agents and a civilian (Weikel and Nelson 2013). Hernandez was one of 100 behavior detection officers at LAX (Fox News Latino 2013).

Despite growing criticism, TSA head Pistole continues to steadfastly defend the program as an indispensible “layer” of security (Department of Homeland Security 2013).

Myth 4: TSA PreCheck Is Revolutionizing Aviation Security

Yes. But in what way?

TSA PreCheck cross-checks information provided by airlines and passengers against intelligence databases in order to assemble a list of trusted travelers who are eligible for expedited screening. As of April 29, 2014, there were ten participating airlines and 115 airports in the system. Participants in other DHS trusted-traveler programs, such as Global Entry, are also eligible for PreCheck. Program participants pass through metal-detector portals rather than full-body scanners. They are not required to remove their shoes, take laptops out of their cases, or suffer other such inconveniences in exchange for $85, being fingerprinted, and submitting sensitive personal information to the government (TSA 2014d).

While lauded as a boon to post-9/11 air travel by some—for example, by The New York Times’ Joe Sharkey (2014)—the program has several downsides: personal information might be stolen or misused (remember that the credit-card information of some forty million Target customers was hacked during the 2013 holiday shopping season), there is no guarantee of expedited screening every time, and PreCheck creates two classes of airline passengers.

That’s not all. Having heard stories from friends of how they were waved to the PreCheck line even though they were not paying participants, I contacted the TSA’s Office of Security Capabilities Communi­cations Team to find out how these passengers were being vetted. The answer:

[Travelers] who are not members of a DHS trusted traveler program may be identified as eligible for TSA Pre-Check through an intelligence-driven, risk-based analysis of passenger data. Using the same data that passengers have provided for years, TSA’s Secure Flight performs risk-based analysis to permit eligible individuals into the TSA Pre-Check Lane.

This bypass procedure is called “managed inclusion”: “a real-time threat assessment of passengers at select airports” (TSA 2013). In other words, they vet airline passengers on the fly using sniffer dogs and behavior detection officers. (I am waiting for an answer to my follow-up question requesting more information about the specific sources of passenger data.)

Further, members of the military may also participate in PreCheck without further vetting simply by supplying their Department of Defense numbers (TSA 2014b). On November 5, 2009, Nidal Malik Hasan—a major in the U.S. Army—fatally shot thirteen people and injured thirty others at Fort Hood, Texas. And on April 19, 1995, Army veteran Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people.

It seems the flying public, while inclined to overestimate the danger of terrorism in the skies, does have a good handle on how PreCheck compromises the TSA’s “risk-based, intelligence-driven, common-sense, layered approach” to airport security. In a July 2012 Gallup poll, 54 percent of respondents said that TSA screening procedures were very or somewhat effective in preventing terrorism (Gallup 2012). But in a Harris poll in 2014, following the Hawaiian Airlines incident, that number dropped to 50 percent. A majority of people surveyed in all categories of flying frequency agreed that PreCheck’s relaxed screening procedures were compromising security (71 percent among those who took no airline trips in the past year; 65 percent among those who took one to five trips in the last year; 54 percent among frequent flyers) (Reuters 2014).

This brings us back to our 740—and counting—millimeter-wave body scanners. While the more credulous air travelers, travel writers, and security mavens seem to be beguiled by the TSA’s AITs, the PreCheck program, and its “managed inclusion” exception to full screening, others of us are not. Although the secrecy inherent in security procedures makes this impossible to prove, I have concluded that the TSA’s push to sign up PreCheck members and its waving of nonmembers into the PreCheck line is an effort to compensate for the reliably high false-positive rate of the scanners. Whether this is to speed up security-line bottlenecks or to obfuscate the fact that the AITs are junk, the final effect is the same: compromising the airport security measures that we have been told are necessary to protect us from terrorists.

Myth 5: The More Airport Security Measures, the Better

Let’s look again.

The TSA publishes a diagram of its twenty layers of airport security. When we’ve finished rummaging through all these layers, we come to the bottom of the stack—measures that were in place prior to 9/11, or that were instituted immediately after the attacks (TSA 2014a):

• Positive baggage matching (making sure baggage accompanies a passenger on the same plane)

• Federal Air Marshal Service

• Federal flight deck officers

• Law enforcement officers

• Trained flight crew

• Hardened cockpit doors

• The passengers themselves

These are genuine common-sense measures that can and have been effective, that do not involve buying more and more expensive hardware that might or might not work, and that are not costing taxpayers billions.

On September 12, 2001, no cabin of airline passengers was going to allow their airplane to be hijacked. Period. Add reinforced cockpit doors, trained flight crew, maneuvers and other measures that pilots can take to spoil the party, and various armed personnel, such as air marshals. And, as witnessed by the failed shoe bomber and underwear bomber attempts, passengers and flight crews are batting 1,000 in taking care of themselves.

Conclusion

The whole of airport security has become less than the sum of its parts—or layers, as TSA Administrator Pistole would put it. Having convinced the public that we are in imminent danger of more terror in the skies, and that massive government spending and invasion of our privacy are necessary to keep us safe, Pistole has to explain how airport security that is now flying by the seat of its pants—through PreCheck, managed inclusion, and the fanciful S.P.O.T. program—isn’t compromising our security.


References

CNN. 2001. Shoe bomb suspect remains in custody (December 25). Online at http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/12/24/investigation.plane/.

Department of Homeland Security. 2013. Written testimony of TSA Administrator John Pistole for a House Committee on Homeland Security, Sub­committee on Transportation Security hearing titled “TSA’s SPOT Program and Initial Lessons From the LAX Shooting” (November 14). Online at http://www.dhs.gov/news/2013/11/14/written-testimony-tsa-administrator-house-homeland-security-subcommittee.

Eggan, Dan. 2010. Scanner firms rely on Washington insiders. The Washington Post (December 24). Online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/23/AR2010122305468.html?sid=ST2010122400352.

FBI press release. 2013. 2011 Request for Information on Tamerlan Tsarnaev from Foreign Government (April 19). Online at http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/2011-request-for-information-on-tamerlan-tsarnaev-from-foreign-government.

Fox News Latino. 2013. Los Angeles airport shooting victim saw TSA job as a way of serving adopted homeland (November 2). Online at http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/11/04/lax-shooting-victim-saw-tsa-job-as-way-serving-adopted-homeland/.

Gallup. 2012. Americans’ views of TSA more positive than negative (August 8). Online at http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positive-Negative.aspx.

Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2010. Aviation security: Efforts to validate TSA’s passenger screening behavior detection program underway, but opportunities exist to strengthen validation and address operational challenges (May 20). Online (with link to full report) at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-763.

GAO. 2013. Aviation security: TSA should limit future funding for behavior detection activities (November 8). Online (with link to full report) at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-159.

Grabell, Michael, and Christian Salewski. 2011. Sweat­ing bullets: Body scanners can see perspiration as a potential weapon. ProPublica (December 19). On­line at http://www.propublica.org/article/sweating-bullets-body-scanners-can-see-perspiration-as-a-potential-weapon#22900.

Hedgpeth, Dana. 2010. Auditors question TSA’s use of spending and technology. The Washington Post (December 10). Online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122005599.html.

Jansen, Bart. 2013. TSA dumps near-naked Rapi­scan body scanners. USA Today (January 18). Online at http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2013/01/18/naked-airport-scanners/1845851/.

Reuters. 2014. Harris poll press release: Who screens the screeners? (April 24). Online at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/24/ny-theharrispoll-svy-idUSnPn1WDyHs+9a+PRN20140424.

Serna, Joseph, Kate Mather, and James Rainey. 2014. Security experts are troubled by stowaway aboard Hawaii flight. Los Angeles Times (April 21). Online at http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-stowaway-20140422,0,5694526.story#axzz2zcjjZhed.

Sharkey, Joe. 2014. Something to sing about, finally, at airport security. The New York Times (April 28). Online at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/business/tsa-finally-hits-a-high-note-with-passengers.html?emc=edit_tnt_20140428&lid=51095165&tntemail0=y&_r=0.

Stinchfield, Grant. 2011. TSA security puffers pulled from service. NBC-DFW (February 25). Online at http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/TSA-Security-Puffers-Pulled-From-Service-116885608.html.

Sullivan, Eileen. 2009. Napolitano concedes airline security system failed. The Salt Lake City Tribune (December 28). Online at http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_14080461.

Transportation Security Administration (TSA). 2007. TSA announces pilot of multi-view and high-definition x-ray machines at security checkpoints (July 9, press release). Online at http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2007/07/09/tsa-announces-pilot-multi-view-and-high-definition-x-ray-machines-security.

TSA. 2013. What is managed inclusion? (December 4). Online at http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/what-managed-inclusion.

TSA. 2014a. Layers of security (January 14). Online at http://www.tsa.gov/about-tsa/layers-security.

TSA. 2014b. Military personnel, injured service members/veterans and wounded warriors (April 24). Online at http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/military-personnel-injured-service-membersveterans-and-wounded-warriors.

TSA. 2014c. AIT: Frequently asked questions (April 26). Online at http://www.tsa.gov/ait-frequently-asked-questions.

TSA. 2014d. TSA Pre✓™ expands to include Air Canada, first international carrier to join expedited screening program (April 29). Online at http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2014/04/29/tsa-precheck-expands-include-air-canada-first-international-carrier-join.

Wackrow, Richard E. 2012. Can carry-on explosives bring down an airliner? Skeptical Briefs (Summer 2012).

Weikel, Dan, and Laura J. Nelson. 2013. LAX shooting of TSA agent points up gaps in post-9/11 security. The Los Angeles Times (November 3). Online at http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-1103-lax-security-20131103,0,902571,full.story#axzz2jb16EMLp.

The Kaspar Hauser Mystery

$
0
0

On May 26, 1828 (Easter Monday), two men were talking together in the Unschlittplatz near Nuremberg’s New Gate when they were approached by a teenage boy. By all accounts, he was a fresh-complexioned boy of about seventeen years of age dressed like a peasant. Although remarkably short for his age, there was nothing else notable about him besides his dusty clothing and general appearance of having walked a long way. After asking for directions to New Gate Street, he pulled a letter out of his pocket addressed to “The Captain of the Fourth Squadron of the Schmollischer Regiment, Neue Thor Strasse [New Gate Street], Nuremberg.” One of the men, a shoemaker named Weichmann, offered to take the boy there because he was heading in that direction. Along the way, they chatted briefly, and Weichmann assumed he was just a stable boy based on the Low Bavarian dialect that he spoke. After introducing the boy to a regimental corporal, Weichmann went on his way.

After being taken to Captain von Wes­senig’s house, the boy gave his name as “Kaspar Hauser” and the groom allowed him into the house to await the Captain’s return. When asked where he came from, Kaspar replied that he “must not say” and then burst into tears. He claimed that he had been forced to travel day and night. The groom, touched by his story, offered him food and a place to sleep. When the Captain came home, he opened Kaspar’s envelope, which contained two letters, both unsigned. The first letter was by a “poor day-labourer with ten children of my own,” which said that Kaspar Hauser had been brought to him as an infant on October 7, 1812, by a woman who asked him to raise the child. The letter further stated that he had raised the boy as best he could, teaching him reading and writing, and finally sending him off to become a soldier (the woman had said that he was a soldier’s son). The second letter was apparently written by the boy’s mother and simply stated that he had been baptized and given the first name of Kaspar. Except that the boy was the son of a Schmollischer trooper, there was no other information. The Captain couldn’t find out anything more from the boy and, not being particularly interested in his story, sent him to the police as a runaway. The police, without knowing what else to do with him, threw him into a prison cell.

For the next two months, the boy was relatively well treated in prison. Although he could write his name, “Kaspar Hauser,” he had difficulty responding to many of the questions asked of him due to his limited vocabulary. Although his jailors noted that Kaspar was more sharp-witted than he appeared, rumors grew about the “half-wild man” imprisoned in the local castle tower. Along with curiosity seekers who wanted to see the “wild man,” Kaspar received visits from doctors, scholars, and groups of women bringing him toys and other presents. Since Kaspar was assumed to be an idiot (as the term was used in those days), these visitors had no hesitation about discussing his case in his presence, along with all sorts of fanciful theories about his origins. Whether or not hearing these stories inspired Kaspar in his later claims is anybody’s guess.

As Kaspar became more at ease with his imprisonment and frequent visitors, he related an amazing story. He said that he had spent his entire life in a cell that was six or seven feet long, four feet wide, and five feet high. The cell was so small that he wasn’t even able to stand upright, and he lived in almost perpetual darkness since the cell’s two small windows had been boarded up. He had been in the cell as long as he could remember and had only learned to write his name by tracing the letters on paper that had been left in his cell. Eventually, the man who had first left the paper in his cell brought him a prayer book and taught him how to read a few words. He was later released and told that he would be taken to be a soldier like his father. Based on his story, he somehow learned to walk and understand what the man said to him surprisingly quickly despite having little previous exposure to language. The envelope that he later gave the Captain was placed in his hands, and he was eventually sent on his way to Nuremberg.

In November of that same year, Kaspar Hauser repeated his story before a specially appointed commission of magistrates in Nuremberg (not under oath). The fact that he was able to walk and speak despite having been kept in one cell all his life with no exposure to language or physical exercise was hardly questioned. In fairness, some of his defenders explained away the inconsistencies and suggested that Kaspar had been confused in some of the details of his story. During attempts to cross-examine him or get him to expand on his story, Kaspar would often complain of headaches or deny that he had ever said what he had been heard to say.

Kaspar Hauser’s story became widely believed and made him an object of sympathy throughout Germany and across Europe. Although some skeptics questioned the details of the case (and suggested that the two letters in his possession were written by the same person), they were discredited. Doctors who examined him concluded that he was an “animal man” who had been shut away from other people and was only now learning to live as a human being. Although other cases of “feral children” were relatively well-known, Kaspar Hauser’s case seemed to be unique. Not only were his eyes acutely sensitive to light, but loud noises including thunderstorms and regimental bands upset him greatly. He had an amazing sense of smell and was repelled by the scent of any flower. His head and legs were covered with old scars, which were believed to be the marks of early physical abuse. He preferred to drink only water and he never learned to enjoy drinking wine or beer.

In the meantime, police scoured the country trying to find any trace of Kaspar’s origins. Nobody matching his description was ever found, and no missing person’s re­ports that might have established his true identity ever turned up. By July 1828, Kas­par Hauser was formally adopted by the city of Nuremberg, and an annual pension was approved for his maintenance. Kaspar Hauser was formally placed into the care of George Friedrich Daumer, a schoolmaster and philosopher who tried to educate him. Daumer had already begun educating Kaspar in his cell and had noted his amazing progress in learning to read and write. This education didn’t go smoothly, though. Daumer complained about the steady influx of visitors who were interfering with his pupil’s lessons. The visitors were stopped, but Kaspar was still free to go out and socialize, especially since he had become the darling of Nuremberg society.

The rumors of Kaspar’s true identity began to fly. The most persistent story was that he was actually a son of Grand Duchess Stephanie of Baden who had somehow been stolen away as an infant (several people commented on the resemblance). Although Kaspar didn’t actually encourage the stories, he began to act more like a prince in exile and adapted quickly to his new social role. Whatever enjoyment Kaspar had in all the attention he received faded as it became apparent that people were becoming less interested in him. He stopped being such a novelty and then stories that described him as deceitful and manipulative began to spread. This was when the attempts on his life started.

Assassination Attempts

On October 17, 1829, Kaspar was found crouching in the cellar of the house where he lived. He was bleeding from a cut on his forehead that, though slight, kept him bedridden for two days. He later said that he had been attacked by a man with a black handkerchief across his face who struck him with a knife and told him that he was going to be killed. Kaspar said that he recognized the man as being the one who had first held him prisoner. Despite questions over how someone could have entered the house without anyone else noticing, a police investigation found no trace of the mystery attacker. Given the implausible nature of the story and questions about Kaspar’s credibility, skeptics accused him of making up the attack.

Kaspar was placed under police observation and was watched by two officers on a regular basis whenever he left the house. Professor Daumer asked that Kaspar be sent somewhere else to live. Not only was Daumer tired of the scrutiny, he had come to believe that Kaspar was a compulsive liar. In one letter, Daumer stated that “Kaspar Hauser’s nature had lost much of its original purity and that a highly regrettable tendency to untruthfulness and dissimulation had manifested itself.” He added that he and Kaspar had quarreled on the same day of the supposed attack because Kaspar was neglecting his studies. After leaving the Daumers, Kaspar became the official ward of Baron von Tucher and was placed in the home of a Nuremberg trader named Biberbach.

His stay with the Biberbachs didn’t last long, since they became even more disgusted by Kaspar’s lies and laziness than the Daumers were. On April 30, 1830, after a particularly nasty quarrel with the Biberbachs, police guarding the house were startled by the sound of a gunshot. Kaspar was found bleeding from a wound on the right side of his head. Although he passed it off as an accident, the circumstances seemed implausible and the Biberbachs asked for him to be removed from their house. He was returned to the von Tucher household, where he lived for another eighteen months. Increasingly disenchanted with Kaspar, von Tucher accused him of being “morally corrupted” by the attention he had received when he was first discovered.

It was also around this time that Kaspar’s case began attracting international attention. A series of pamphlets about “the remarkable Nuremberg foundling” were published, some skeptical of his claims, while others speculated about his origins. In 1831, an English nobleman, Lord Stanhope, took a formal interest in Kaspar and arranged to meet him. Despite his own skepticism about some of the inconsistencies in Kaspar’s story, Stanhope posted a reward for information on whoever had imprisoned Kaspar; it was never claimed. In 1832, legal scholar Paul Johann Feuerbach published History of a Crime against a Human Soul in which he eloquently described the tragedy of Kaspar Hauser’s story. Feuerbach became a fervent supporter and later, one of Kaspar’s guardians.

Stanhope followed up on every lead and even took Kaspar to Hungary based on his vague memory of a few Hungarian words. Kaspar enjoyed the attention, and von Tucher wrote a letter to Stanhope complaining that his ward was becoming vainer and more conceited than ever. The burghers of Nuremberg cancelled Kaspar’s annual pension and hinted that Stanhope should take charge of him instead. They were certainly delighted when Lord Stanhope agreed to make Kaspar his ward and placed him in the care of a schoolmaster named Meyer. While Kaspar enjoyed this new status, whatever hopes he had of going to England were short-lived when Stanhope returned home alone.

The search for Kaspar’s birth family continued, and he began claiming that he was the son of a Hungarian countess. When Stanhope returned to Nuremberg, he launched a new investigation and sent agents to Hungary but, like before, no proof was found that Kaspar had ever been there. Stanhope also became exasperated by reports from Professor Meyer that Kaspar wasn’t studying properly, as well as new complaints of lying. Stanhope made arrangements to have Kaspar become a clerk, since he didn’t seem capable of any other profession. On December 9, 1833, Kaspar had a terrible argument with Meyer and openly dreaded what Stanhope would say when he arrived home a few days later.

Five days later, Kaspar rushed into the room where Meyer and his wife were sitting. He was out of breath and pointed to a wound in his chest where someone had stabbed him. He dragged Meyer to the nearby public gardens and gasped out, “went Hofgarten man had knife gave bag stabbed ran as hard as could.” Meyer took him back home to be treated. Although doctors initially believed the wound to be shallow, his condition worsened drastically. Police questioned him and he told them that he had been lured to the Hofgarten with a fake message and stabbed. Aside from an odd note found in a silk bag near where Kaspar was found, no other clues to the attack were ever found. Kaspar Hauser died on December 17, 1833.

An autopsy raised questions about Kaspar’s attack and his version of events. The medical experts who examined the evidence were split on whether Kaspar’s wound was self-inflicted or whether he had been killed by an unknown assailant. Although some supporters suggest that Kaspar had been assassinated in order to prevent him from proving his royal origins, skeptics speculated that Kaspar had actually stabbed himself to stir up public interest in his story and misjudged the depth of the knife wound. The knife was never found, but it may have been thrown into a nearby brook. A formal investigation concluded that no murder had taken place and that Kaspar had stabbed himself. Lord Stanhope later wrote that he agreed with the findings, and he stated that “I may be the only man that ever wrote a book to prove himself in the wrong.”

The controversy dragged on, and pamphlets were published denouncing Stanhope and accusing various people in Kaspar’s life of covering up the murder. Years later, Professor Daumer wrote a book in which he insisted that Stanhope had masterminded Kaspar’s assassination himself. Stanhope’s daughter, Catherine Powlett Cleveland, published a book on the case in 1893 that vindicated her father. Long after his death, Kaspar Hauser’s story continues to inspire movies, books, and plays based on his life. Questions about his origins and the strange circumstances of his death are still being raised.

But what can we say about Kaspar Hauser? Even though certain aspects of his story can be dismissed as exaggeration (he learned to talk and walk suspiciously quickly, given his claims of growing up in a cell), there is little question that he suffered from abuse and neglect in his early childhood. The scars on his body and the psychosocial dwarfism he experienced (which is still known as “Kaspar Hauser syndrome”) seems testimony enough for that. DNA studies have since ruled out his being part of the Baden royal family, although questions remain about his true identity. The continuing mystery may be a fitting legacy for a strange foundling who enjoyed attention.


For Further Reading

Candland, Douglas Keith. 1993. Feral Children and Clever Animals, Oxford, New York.

Stanhope, Philip Henry Earl. 1836. Tracts Relating to Caspar Hauser. Hodson.

(Stanhope) Powlett, Catherine Lucy Wilhelmina (Duchess of Cleveland). 1893. The True Story of Kaspar Hauser from Official Documents. Macmillan, London.

In the Media: 2014 Activities of Joe Nickell

$
0
0

In the middle off his fifth decade of investigating the world’s strangest mysteries, CSI’s Senior Research Fellow Joe Nickell continued to address paranormal, historical, and forensic mysteries—both in new investigations and media appearances.

Joe Nickell looks through binoculars

Nickell’s background makes him uniquely suited for such work. He has been a professional stage magician and mentalist (serving as Resident Magician at the Houdini Magical Hall of Fame), a twice-promoted investigator for a world-famous detective agency (including work as an undercover operative), and a literary scholar (his Ph.D. in English Literature emphasizing literary investigation and folklore). Nickell also has considerable training and field experience in both historical research and forensics, and he has spoken at various forensic conferences, including the International Association for Identification, The American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, and the New York State Academy of Fire Science, among others.

Nickell is often sought by the media for his expertise. He has appeared on numerous television shows, including multiple appearances on series like National Geographic’s Is It Real? and the History Channel’s Monster Quest. Nickell has been interviewed by such notables as Oprah, Larry King, Anderson Cooper, Joan Rivers, Bill Maher, and many others. He is author (or co-author or editor) of some forty books, including Crime Science, and The Science of Miracles, the latter chosen by the BBC’s magazine Focus: Science and Technology for its June 2012 book-of-the-month selection. (The magazine’s review by Chris French stated: “There is probably no one in the world better qualified to write a book assessing the evidence relating to alleged miracles than Joe Nickell.”)

As always, in 2014 Nickell was filmed repeatedly for television shows. He recorded portions of several episodes of Miracles Decoded, shown internationally by the History Channel. He was also featured on multiple episodes of America: Facts Versus Fiction (American Heroes Channel), as well as other shows, appearing here and there in reruns, as well as live on shows in Buffalo and Montreal (on CTV). Filmed appearances at symposia included Nickell’s participation on a cryptozoology panel (from England’s QED 2012) and the Trottier Science Symposium in Montreal (about which more presently).

Nickell also appeared as a guest on several radio programs, notably on CBC radio in Toronto for an investigative look at Lily Dale, the spiritualist village, and alleged talking with the dead. He appeared in person in the studio for The Tommy Schumacher Show in Montreal, with call-ins, and on other radio shows, and podcasts. For example, he conducted an annual Houdini Séance for CFI’s Point of Inquiry, with Nora Hurley. (Once again, though, Houdini was a no-show.)

Various print and online sources that sought Nickell’s opinions included USA Today, The New York Times, and the Detroit Free Press, as well as such diverse sources as the Missoula Independent (Montana), McGill Tribune (Montreal), Ocala Star Banner (Florida), Richmond Times-Dispatch (Virginia), and Phoenix magazine (Arizona). CNN.com featured Nickell’s comments in an in-depth article titled “Beyond Goodbye” on so-called “shared death experiences” (not to be confused with reputed near-death experiences).

In addition, he gave many lectures and conference contributions. These included such large venues as the annual Mensa conference (in Boston), where he also had a book signing, and the previously mentioned Loren Trottier Public Science Symposium (October 6–7) at McGill University. The 2014 theme was “Are We Alone?” Speakers included Jim Bell, Planetary Society president; Jill Tarter, SETI Institute; Sara Seeger, MIT professor and planetary scientist; and Nickell, who spoke on “UFO Mythologies.” Nickell’s media duties included—in addition to The McGill Tribune, CJAD Radio, and Canadian television previously mentioned—being interviewed by The McGill Reporter and the podcast Within Reason, as well as participating in a symposium round table that included additional participants like astronaut Julie Payette. There were also luncheons, VIP receptions, dinners, and book signings. . . . The symposium was recorded and posted online.

Also, as he has annually for many years, Nickell participated in Science Exploration Day for high school students held at the University at Buffalo campus. His session—“Investigating ‘Paranormal’ Mysteries” which teaches critical thinking—has often been “the highest ranked” by the students. Nickell also appeared once again at CFI’s popular Camp Inquiry near Holland, New York, where each attendee received a copy of Nickell’s interactive children’s book, The Magic Detectives (thanks to Barry Karr).

In Skeptical Inquirer science magazine, Nickell published the results of several of his investigations. (Editor Kendrick Frazier has called him “the master solver of major popular mysteries. . . . No one does such investigations better than Nickell”). These included: “The ‘Bell Witch’ Poltergeist”; “The Conjuring: Ghosts? Poltergeist” Demons?”; “The ‘200 Demons’ House: A Skeptical Demonologist’s Report”; “The ‘Miracles’ of Father Baker”; “Bigfoot at Mount Rainier”; and “Era of Flying Saucers.” Also he and Major James McGaha (USAF retired), provided a special report on additional flying saucer cases. (The March/April 2014 issue also featured Nickell’s receipt of the Balles Prize in Critical Thinking for his 2012 book, The Science of Ghosts.)

And in Skeptical Briefs (the CFI newsletter) and in Nickell’s blog, Investigative Briefs, he reported on some of his other investigatory work. In the Briefs he investigated the celebrated historical mystery of Maria Monk, the latest claims regarding the Amityville Horror, “Bigfoot Bears” in the Yukon Territory (where Nickell worked 1975–76 as a blackjack dealer, riverboat manager, museum exhibit designer, and newspaper stringer), and the legend of Germany’s siren, Lorelei, an example of historical fakelore. In his blogs, he investigated numerous examples of early quack medicine, miracles, UFOs, Bigfoot, and more, also offering the occasional review, report, cartoon, poem, or satire (including his “RIDDLEculous” series).

Nickell continues work on other important investigations and has several articles and books in progress. In 2015, he will be featured in an anthology of Western New York poets; expect also, in audio book form, his Secrets of the Sideshows, and the appearance of a major new (co-authored) book that is sure to be of interest.

Nickell also continues to operate his online Skeptiseum (or skeptical museum) which is now a member of the Small Museums Association. Two items—a snake-oil bottle and rare spirit trumpet—were featured last year on the Travel Channel’s popular series, Mysteries at the Museum. The Skeptiseum is currently undergoing a makeover. Meanwhile Nickell continues to use his own money to acquire artifacts for the collection which is attracting attention in many quarters.

Feeding the Mind—Challenging the Myths—Science Babe

$
0
0

2014 could very well be called the Year of the Anti-Food Babe Brigade. One of the forerunners when it comes to challenging the pseudoscientific claims of Vrani Hari is her skeptical antithesis: The Science Babe.

Yvette Guinevere has a bachelor’s degree in chemistry and a master’s degree in forensic science. She’s been a chemistry professor, explosives chemist, toxicology chemist, analytical chemist—and has recently taken up running the Science Babe site at http://www.scibabe.com full time.

Yvette Guinevere: I don’t remember not being interested in science. I think when I was six and I got asked what I wanted to be when I grew up, I wanted to either be a singer or a veterinarian. That was only a little thing when I was in the first grade.

When I got to high school and went to see a surgery done on a horse, I remember getting nauseous and thinking, “OK, I can’t be a veterinarian because I would see stuff like that happening all the time!”

Eventually I found chemistry and that was a science that really did well with me. Because no surgeries, just an occasional really bad smell! Then I found analytical chemistry, tiny amounts of things, and organic chemists were the smelly chemists, as we found out when I worked at a pesticide lab.

Then when I went to grad school for forensics; the funny thing with forensics is you get the bodies after they’re dead… I know that’s a horrible thing to say, but there’s no surgery at that point!

Kylie Sturgess: They’re pretty gone by then, you can’t do anything for them!

Guinevere: Yes. There’s no work on them at that point! Even after doing grad school for forensics, my concentration, even with a concentration in biological criminology, the biggest thing you’re learning is evidence analysis. You’re learning to analyze tiny trace bits of things to trace one bit of a crime scene back to another.

We had someone from the Boston Crime Lab come and talk to us when I was in physical chemistry. That was when I was starting to lose interest in chemistry, because P.chem was horrible to me. I hated it.

That was my evolution. I landed at analytical, just because that was where the job market pointed me. It really taught me how precise science had to be, and the level of the onus of proof that you need whenever you’re turning in a report—because I’ve spent three days trying to get my RSD on an instrument from like 2 percent down to 0.3!

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to make that sound too, I have no other way to say this, too science-y depending on the level of science that someone’s operating at. Skeptics are always looking for proof, so that’s what led me to the skeptic movement, being a scientist. That and the Penn and Teller series, Bullshit.”

Sturgess: From evidence and analysis, which is clearly part of your job, how did that end up becoming the site that you currently run, becoming the Science Babe? Was it a direct response to Vrani Hari, the Food Babe?

Guinevere: A bit of column A, a bit of column B. Well, there are a few things that went into it. I had a few coworkers that noticed that, how to phrase this, I’m someone who randomly goes off on tangents, and a little bit of my attempt at having a comedy routine!

I actually did a little bit of stand‑up in college. I had three degrees, a BA in theater, a BS in chemistry, and a master’s in forensic science. Who knows why the hell that happened?

Sturgess: Sometimes it just happens; you get interested in stuff.

Guinevere: Let’s not try to explain it—it just happened! I was bored one night and said, “I guess I’ll get a theater degree.” Something needed to collect dust on my shelves, I guess. I kept saying, “What’s going to happen with this degree?!”

A couple of my coworkers were like, “You’re living in LA now,” and I just moved out here for this job from Boston. I’m like, “Maybe I’ll do some auditions, maybe I’ll see if there’s something out here for this.” My friends were like, “If you find your voice with this, you’re going to be really funny, because you go off on tangents with this all the time!”

I was really getting into the skeptic movement; I’d gone to TAM the previous year. I’d seen this other page, it was Chow Babe, and I loved them. They were satirizing the Food Babe. I was starting to post on there a little bit and people were laughing at the type of stuff I was posting.

I thought that I didn’t see a lot of scientists directly posting on there, so I thought, maybe I can post something? I can put together my voice with this topic; and one night, I saw that Vrani Hari was putting together her next, as she calls them, “investigation.”

It was going to be about the pumpkin spice latte and that was when she went too far! I’m from Boston. You do not mess with the Bostonians’ pumpkin spice anything!

That was when I guess Science Babe was born. It was OK, I’m like, I’m going to put together my skeptic thing with my kind of background in theater with my science thing. Science Babe was born from the fires of: don’t screw with my pumpkin spice lattes.

We were armed and ready for when she came up with her investigation on the pumpkin spice lattes. From there, it grew.

Within my friends, because I was posting on Chow Babe quite a bit, I went and said, “Hey, I started a site. Can you guys, I guess, promote me?” Within forty-eight hours, I had 1,000 followers.

Sturgess: Great! Awesome!

Guinevere: It took off really quickly, so that was where—that was my origin story, I guess.

Sturgess: Pumpkin spice lattes, obviously, a key topic for you. Are there other things that you’re keen in investigating? Have you had bad experiences with pseudoscientific claims personally in the past?

Guinevere: I don’t know if I’d say bad experiences. I have, I guess I’d say “dabbled,” I think is a phrase? I think a lot of us, like, no one’s born with a really skeptical mind. I think that’s why we have and we need the skeptic movement. It’s to tell people to start questioning things.

Because people tell you, “This is true,” and because people are good, we accept what we’re told. “This person told me and why would they lie to me?” It’s not because they’re lying, it’s because they have this information and they just pass it on.

What happened to me, and I’ve mentioned this on my site before, when I was twenty-six, I got really, really sick. I got the worst headache of my life on one side of my head and it never went away. This is our heartwarming story of the night, obviously! Just to make everyone feel better about life and the universe and everything in it!

By the way, the headache is completely under control now, because science is a thing. It’s way better. But the first eight months were horrible.

Think of the longest you might have headache? Whenever I ask people this question, they say somewhere between three days and week, or most people say that. Like you’ve had a really bad flu and were coughing a lot. Generally people say, three days, maybe a week.

Try eight months. Being so completely out of control that I was just miserable. It changes who you are as a human being. You’re at the point where you are desperate and you will try anything. I think that’s why a lot of people end up turning to pseudoscience. Because I did. I started saying, “OK, I’ll go vegan, I’ll try paleo, I’ll try organic.” I tried cutting out GMOs.

I didn’t go with acupuncture, because I looked at studies, and it was a nerve headache on one side of my head and we were trying every different medication combo that we could that worked on that type of headache. Eventually I found the right doctor who knew how to treat these types of headaches.

In the meantime, of course, everyone told me, “You need to get energy sessions.” Everyone was throwing those things at me. Of course, I was trying, and now this is why I always say, don’t blame the victim.

When people fall into this, even intelligent people can fall. Because they’re not dumb, they’re at a point in their life where they’re desperate and a lot of times in pain and they’re willing to say, “I will do anything if you will make it stop hurting.”

Eventually I found a doctor who knew exactly what was wrong with my trigeminal nerve and managed to find a medication combo that worked.

I managed to look through all the research on GMOs and organic and all that good stuff and break free of the woo. Now I look at people and say, “No, no, no—here’s the research. You’ve been given a bad bill of goods. You were probably desperate and vulnerable.” I really hope other people don’t fall into that and don’t give their money to people who are practicing pseudoscience.

Sturgess: Yeah, it’s funny how a small window can sometimes give you a bit of understanding into what people might normally sneer at or scoff at in terms of, “Oh yes, people fall for everything. I won’t; I’m skeptical.”

Guinevere: Oh, yes. One day, my headache might feel a little better and it’s like, “Oh, I cut this out of my diet today.” Well, it’s not necessarily that!

I hope people don’t blame the victims for this, because they‘ve been given a bad bill of goods by someone who’s either trying to make a profit, or in some cases, not necessarily trying to make a profit, but maybe trying to help, and thinks what they’re doing is good.

I really think what we should do as skeptics, because we do know better, is try to educate and really hope that we don’t give a message that we’re blaming the victim. I think that, at least in my experience, that’s the best way to approach it. Keep preaching the truth as we see it. I always say, back up what we do with peer review, at least, as a scientist, that’s how I look at it.

Sturgess: What’s been the overall response to your site? Does the “babe” element ever distract from your message? I see it as a response to Food Babe, so for me, it matches. I was wondering if “staying for the dirty jokes” is a very good descriptor of what happens on your site!

Guinevere: Well, it’s been, I’d say, mixed. Overall, it’s been good, because the day before the four month mark, I hit 20,000 followers. It’s been a very fast growth curve.

I like to joke that it’s “scientist as drinking buddy”; because I am trying to humanize the scientist. Every time, like one of the things that you hear that the people who are promoting the natural, non‑GMO organic, now gluten free stuff - whatever they’re trying to promote that they always say - “Do you want your stuff from a scientist?”

I’m like, “Of course you want your stuff from a scientist. Here I am with my really cute dog. See, I’m wonderful!”

Like you said, the babe part was partly a response to Vrani Hari. I’m also trying to remind people that I’m being a scientist, but I’m also a human being. I’m someone who goes to Disneyland and who wakes up in the morning and says, “I want bacon today,” or “I want to make a juice drink.” I’m a human. I try to remind people that the scientist can be your next door neighbor.

I do make dirty jokes on there quite a bit and I swear, I do curse like a sailor. That’s just, it’s not an attempt to have shock value— - it’s just kind of, that’s me. This is what scientists can be like after work. But it really has been an attempt to humanize the scientist.

I know that I did a video on homeopathy a little while ago and I did pull a bit of a James Randi and downed an entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills to show that they didn’t work! With shock and awe, they did nothing other than down my bank account of like $12.99.

I swore a lot in the video and I know Dr. Joe Schwartz, who I love, he’s wonderful, he’s a great writer, great for the skeptic movement. He was a little miffed that I swore!

I say, “Jerry Seinfeld doesn’t swear in his act; Louis CK does swear in his act. Some of us swear to get our message across. Some of us don’t.” You have to look at it as a little bit of performance art.

The thing that became a hashtag with the video was #nofuckingmedicine. Now, it’s become a big thing with this site, whenever someone shares anything with homeopathy, they’ll always put #nofuckingmedicine. I know it’s really simple and basic, but I learned from that that people like a simple message to go along with something that really needs to get across, will resonate with people.

We have a lot of very complicated things that we want to talk about. Sometimes, just a simple thing like #nofuckingmedicine, dropping that swear in there, which I guess that it’s part of the babe thing, it helps.

I know like some people, occasionally a guy will come in, and I think it’s more the men than the women. Occasionally a guy will come in and say, “Never take someone who’s a self‑declared babe seriously.”

I could get defensive, and drop a whole feminism thing on him. But instead, I’ll go, “Well, this morning, I did work on a new method for the analysis of a double AI pesticide formulation encapsulated in…” and I’ll go through a whole scientific thing that I did that morning and it shuts them right the hell up!

I try to lead without leading and just out-science people instead of going on a whole feminist rant and it works so well. I just am being me and being a good scientist and letting my writing style work for itself. It’s been working wonderfully. There is a little bit of … there have been some detractors, but the growth has been outpacing the detractors. I think that was a really long‑winded explanation for it!

Sturgess: I was about to say, you’re being yourself, and that’s what’s important.

Guinevere: Yeah. Exactly. I know that some other sites, to not shut up about that, I know sometimes I have had to change a little bit as I’ve grown. Like, some swears I’ve backed off on, but I think that’s to protect me legally.

Sturgess: Oh, I see now. That’s good, that’s wise, as well! We’re at the end of 2014. What do you think 2015 will hold for those who are skeptically minded? What do you think we have to look out for? What’s in store for you in your site?

Guinevere: I’m doing Science Babe full time now. I’m working with a literary agent on Science Babe’s Guide to BS Detection. Over the next two months, I’m trying to get my book proposal wrapped up and launched.

For the skeptic universe, I think… One of the wonderful things I think that happened was that we managed to beat down GMO labeling in two states in the U.S. I’m hoping that the message gets out a little bit further that they’re safe. Apparently, an article just came out that vaccines, that the anti‑vax movement, the tide seems to be turning on that.

We do need to see that skepticism is more of a mindset than anything, so get people thinking of a skeptic mindset more than anything. I think we’re going to be set for a very long time.

Because with the book, Science Babe Guide to BS Detection, I’m going to attack a lot of different subjects in the book, like the natural cancer treatment woo, and anti‑vaccine woo. The biggest thing of it is how to make people’s BS detector a little stronger. Because the number of times people email me in the course of a day and say, “Is this bullshit?” and it’s stuff that to me is very blatantly bullshit!

I think getting people trained to know how to detect it before it pops up, and using the scientific method a little bit, would be a wonderful thing for the skeptic movement to have as a goal. That’s something I see happening in the future.

The Science Babe’s site can be found at http://www.scibabe.com.


A szkepticizmus két évtizede Magyarországon - Személyes vélemény

$
0
0

Bár egy évenkénti konferencia 20 éven át való fenntartását önmagában is komoly vívmánynak tekinthetjük bármilyen szervezet vagy csoport esetében, védhető lehet az az álláspont is, hogy az események száma önmagában nem elegendő a dicsőséghez. Erre az alapgondolatra építve hadd osszam meg a tisztelt olvasóval néhány észrevételemet arról, hogyan is áll jelenleg a magyar szkeptikus mozgalom, és miben látom a legnagyobb kihívást.

2014 - A szkeptikus konferenciák éve

Ahhoz képest, hogy mennyire kis ország vagyunk, az évenkénti rendezvények száma igen magas, és a 2014. év különösen sűrűnek bizonyult e téren, összesen három, különböző városban megrendezett szkeptikus konferenciával. Remekül hangzik, nemde? De vajon ez szükségszerűen azt jelenti, hogy jó úton haladunk a siker felé?

Szkeptikusok XX. Országos Konferenciája

Mint 1995 óta minden ősszel, idén is Székesfehérvár, egy Budapesttől alig egyórányira fekvő város adott otthont a magyar szkeptikus közösség egy kicsiny, de elhivatott csoportjának, hogy november közepén az Óbudai Egyetem egyik kis előadójában összegyűljön.

Participants listening to a talk 1. Résztvevők hallgatják a nyelvrokonság kutatásban felbukkanó tudományos és áltudományos nézetekről szóló előadást a Szkeptikusok XX. Országos Konferenciáján (Fotó: Pintér András Gábor)

Ez a jelentős rendezvénysorozat volt minden szkeptikus tevékenység őse Magyarországon, így én magam kimondottan szellemi bölcsőmként tisztelem, hiszen 1996 óta, a második eseménytől kezdve veszek részt rajta minden évben. Még középiskolás voltam akkor, tulajdonképpen gyerek. Amikor a mozgalomhoz csatlakoztam, még nem is illették ezzel a szóval. Valójában nem volt más, mint egy, a Magyar Tudományos Akadémia és a Természet Világa (egy havi rendszerességgel megjelenő tudományos ismeretterjesztő folyóirat) néhány fontos személyiségéből verbuválódott szűk közösség holdudvara. Miután Szentágothai János, a nemzetközi hírű neuroanatómus és Bencze Gyula fizikus kapcsolatba léptek James Randivel 1991-ben, hamarosan létrejött a Tényeket Tisztelők Társasága, egy tudósokból és tudományos ismeretterjesztőkből álló csapat. Hírneve ellenére azonban ez a szervezet hivatalosan soha nem került bejegyzésre. És ha igazán őszinték akarunk lenni, a társaság tevékenysége is nagyjából kimerült néhány becsmérlő kijelentésben, amit egy-egy találkozó alkalmával egymás közt megfogalmaztak a jelen lévő magasan képzett személyek az áltudományokkal szemben.

Ez nem sokkal a vasfüggöny leomlása után történt, ami politikai változásokat hozott a kelet-európai tömb - s köztük természetesen Magyarország - számára. A kor szellemisége még mindig egy erősen tekintélyelvű rendszerben gyökerezett, amelyben a tudósok (és a tudomány is) nagy megbecsülésnek örvendtek, ráadásul az új őrületek (New Age, ezotéria) még éppen csak elkezdtek beszivárogni a nyugati országokból. Így nyilvánvalóan jó ötletnek tűnt, hogy a problémára, amit az áltudomány és az anti-intellektuális beállítottság jelentettek, tudósok egy maroknyi csoportját vessék be.

Randi nem sokkal később Budapestre látogatott, ahol többek között bejelentette egy Szkeptikus Különdíj alapítását a Természet Világa által minden évben meghirdetett diákpályázaton. Mint látható, Randi neve számos más országéhoz hasonlóan a mi szkeptikus kezdeteinknél is felbukkant. Ez a díj egy ideig táplálta azt a hitet, hogy teszünk egy lépést a nagyközönség felé azáltal, hogy viszonylag fiatal korban megpróbálunk új embereket bevonni. Sajnos ez nem lett széles körben sikeres, bár én magam kimondottan ennek köszönhetem, hogy itt vagyok. A sikertelenség oka elsősorban az volt, hogy a Természet Világa nem rendelkezett kellő erőforrásokkal a díjazottak felkarolására.

Amikor 1995-ben, Székesfehérváron A Szabadművelődés Háza magára vállalta egy találkozó megszervezését, ahol a magyar szkeptikusok megoszthatják egymással gondolataikat, tapasztalataikat és segítséget nyújthatnak egymásnak az áltudományok ellenei küzdelemhez, úgy tűnt, valami készül. Ezután minden évben remek előadásokat hallottunk a különféle badarságokról, amelyek a társadalom egészét fertőzik. De ahogy telt az idő, és ezek a rendezvények minden évben megrendezésre kerültek (a mai napig is, mint azt feljebb írtam), sokan elkezdtük úgy érezni, hogy ez nem lesz elég. Az áltudományos állítások és a sarlatánság elburjánzott, így többé nem elegendő évente egyszer összegyűlni és azon keseregni, hogy az idiotizmus átveszi a hatalmat a világban. Ez nem volt elég akkor és ma még annyira sem. Bár a Természet Világa néhány cikkel (és a Randi-díjjal) biztosította, hogy szélesebb közönséghez is eljussanak a szkeptikus gondolatok, ami nagyon fontos dolog volt, nagyjából ebben ki is merült a társadalmi ismertségünk. A konferencia szervezői és a magazin megtették, ami tőlük telt, de egyre inkább szükség volt egy igazi mozgalomra, amely sokkal inkább alulról építkezik.

Mindez oda vezetett, hogy 2006 decemberében néhányan létrehoztuk a Szkeptikus Társaság Egyesületet (igen, túl sokáig vártunk). A korábbi “szkeptikus csapatból” ketten, Hraskó Gábor pályaelhagyó biológus, informatikai tanácsadó (aki most az egyesület és a Szkeptikus Szervezetek Európai Tanácsa elnöki pozícióját egyaránt betölti), valamint Vágó István, aki akkoriban talán a legelismertebb televíziós személyiség volt az országban, úgy gondolták, ideje eggyel tovább lépni. Szövetségre léptek a magyar Szabadgondolkodókkal és néhány lelkes magánszeméllyel (közéjük tartozom én is). Együtt azt a nézetet képviseltük, hogy el kell jutni szélesebb közönséghez, ennek érdekében aktivizmusra van szükség, olyan emberek közötti népszerűsítésre is, akik tudományosan képzetlenek, vagy ha tájékozottak is, nem rendelkeznek tudományos fokozattal, és más karriert futottak be. És ami még fontosabb, arra akartunk kísérletet tenni (és tesszük ezt ma is), hogy elérjük a társadalomban, hogy minél többen gondolkodjanak kritikusan, és ne fogadjanak el semmilyen tekintélyt és állítást megkérdőjelezés nélkül. A cél érdekében azóta is erőfeszítéseket teszünk rendezvények szervezésére, TV- és rádiószereplésekre, cikkek megjelentetésére újságokban és magazinokban, blog írására, és felmerült egy saját konferencia megszervezésének ötlete is - csupa olyan tevékenység, amely manapság a nemzetközi szkeptikus közösség minden tagja számára ismerős.

Azonban ez az irány nem kimondottan vált kedveltté a magyar szkepticizmus “alapító atyái” körében. Voltak, akik szerint ez a populáris megközelítés veszélyt jelent az ügy számára, mondván, hogy ahogy egyre nyitottabbá válik a mozgalom olyanok előtt is, akik nem rendelkeznek tudományos háttérrel, egyre több téves információ fog elterjedni. Bár a két megközelítés - a tudomány elefántcsonttornyából lenéző akadémikus felfogás és az alulról szerveződő aktivizmus - nagyon különböző volt, valójában nem voltak ütközőpontok, mert a Tényeket Tisztelők Társasága, köszönhetően elsősorban annak, hogy egyre idősödő közösséget jelentett, ahol mindenki mással volt elfoglalva, amúgy is lassan teljesen inaktívvá vált, miközben a Szkeptikus Társaság egyre sikeresebbnek bizonyult a fiatalok, tapasztalatlan szkeptikusok körében (bár ezen még mindig sokat kell dolgoznunk).

Az 1995-ben indított évenkénti konferenciák pedig zajlanak tovább azóta is, bár sajnos minden évben egyre kisebb érdeklődés mellett… erről később még szó lesz.

Budapesti Szkeptikus Konferencia

2004-ben a Budapesti Műszaki és Gazdaságtudományi Egyetemen egy új szkeptikus konferencia története indult el, melyet helyi tanárok és egyetemi alkalmazottak szerveztek és szerveznek azóta is minden évben. Ezt a rendezvényt úgy is felfoghatjuk, mint egy folyamatos kísérletet arra, hogy a szervezők megszólítsák az egyetemi hallgatókat, bevezessék őket a kritikai gondolkodás rejtelmeibe, mindezt úgy, hogy elsősorban a fizika tárgykörébe tartozó témákkal foglalkoznak.

Mind a “régi”, székesfehérvári, mind pedig az “új”, budapesti konferencia anyagai elérhetők online (bár meglehetősen eldugott helyen, rengeteg másik ismeretterjesztő program között), és minden eseményt élőben is közvetítenek az interneten. Ezek az anyagok elképesztően gazdag tárházát jelentik a felhasználható médiatartalmaknak, melyek az interneten elérhetők a hazai szkeptikusok számára.

Habár van némi átfedés, és a tagjaink is igyekeznek mindig részt venni ezeken a rendezvényeken így vagy úgy, egyik fent említett konferencia sem tekinthető a Szkeptikus Társaság saját rendezvényének.

Szegedi Szkeptikus Konferencia

Idén szeptemberben azonban elindítottuk az első önálló konferenciánkat Szegeden, abban a jelentős városban, amely egy igen hírneves egyetemnek is otthont ad. Hosszú lett az előadások sora, az eredménnyel pedig elégedettek vagyunk. Rengeteg ismeretlen arcot láttunk a közönség soraiban, legtöbbjük helyi diák, tanár, szimpatizáns. A 250 fős előadótermet nagyjából 1/3 részben töltöttük meg, de ennyi ismeretlen arccal találkozni igazi felüdülés volt. A GalileoWebcast ezúttal is élőben közvetítette az eseményt (ahogy a többi konferenciát is). Az érintett témák között ott volt a homeopátia, a GMO-k, az oltásellenes mozgalom, a kritikai gondolkodás alapjai, a történelem és a nyelvészet területén felmerülő áltudományos nézetek, valamint a kemofóbia. Mind-mind fantasztikus előadók tolmácsolásában, akik többnyire a Szegedi Tudományegyetemről kerültek ki. Közülök is érdemes kiemelni Boldogkői Zsolt molekuláris biológia professzort, aki - bár sokan bírálják tekintélyelvű, kissé lekezelő hozzáállását - az utóbbi egy évben Magyarországon igazi médiasztárrá vált az orvostudományok terén tapasztalható áltudományokkal szemben megfogalmazott, sokszor igen sarkos kritikájával.

Azt tervezzük, hogy ezt a konferenciát minden évben megrendezzük a jövőben, minden alkalommal másik városban. Meglátjuk, hogyan sikerül.

With new recruits after the Skeptics Conference in Szeged 2. Új tagjelöltekkel a Szegedi Szkeptikus Konferencián (Fotó: Pintér András Gábor)

Vissza “A konferenciához”…

Ellentétben a szegedi rendezvénnyel, a székesfehérvári Szkeptikusok XX. Országos Konferenciáján (“a régi”) szinte egyáltalán nem láttunk új arcokat. Azóta is sokat gondolok erre. Feljebb említettem, milyen komoly hatással voltak rám a múltban ezek az események. Éppen ezért, bármennyire is jóleső érzés volt újra találkozni azokkal az ismerősökkel, akikkel az elmúlt két évtizedben mindig összefutottunk itt, legalább akkora csalódás volt látni, hogy az egykor oly jelentős rendezvény egy szűk találkozóvá zsugorodott, amelyet egy 30, max. 50 fős közönség látogat minden évben, ha nem felejt el eljönni. Mindez anélkül, hogy benne lenne a lehetőség jelentősebb számú új hallgatóság elérésére.

Participants of the 20th National Conference of Skeptics in Székesfehérvár 3. Résztvevők a Szkeptikusok XX. Országos Konferenciáján Székesfehérváron (Fotó: Pintér András Gábor)

Habár a délutáni szekció kínálatában szerepelt néhány, a szkeptikus szemlélet által megvilágított téma (pl. placebóvizsgálatok, félrevezető nézetek a nyelvrokonságok terén, valamint az UFO észlelések története), a délelőtti rész szinte semmi másról nem szólt, mint az elmúlt két évtized áttekintéséről. Egy sajnálatos esemény, az egyik legnagyobb magyar tudományos ismeretterjesztő és író pár nappal korábbi halála okán, részletes megemlékezést tartottunk róla. És megérdemelten. Ponori-Thewrewk Aurél, akinek a Magyar Csillagászati Egyesületben végzett munkája és könyvei, melyekben minden idők legnagyobb irodalmi műveinek csillagászati hátterét boncolgatta, indokolnak minden perc szívhez szóló megemlékezést, nem is beszélve csodálatos személyiségéről, amellyel mindenkit elbűvölt. És 1995 óta soha nem hagyott volna ki egyetlen alkalmat sem, hogy szkeptikus társaival találkozzon az évenkénti rendezvényeken. Ez volt az első…

Ezt követően egy nagyjából 20 perces fényképes áttekintés következett az elmúlt 20 évről, majd egy kerekasztal beszélgetéssel ért véget a délelőtti szekció, amelyben a beszélgető társak az alábbi kérdésre keresték a válaszokat: “Mit értünk el a tudomány, a szkepticizmus és a kritikai gondolkodás képviseletében az elmúlt 20 évben?”

Nos, bár kellemes beszélgetés volt, nem nagyon sikerült egy teadélután jellegét meghaladnia. Beck Mihály professzort, aki épp aznap ünnepelte 85. születésnapját, és akinek két könyve a tudomány vs. áltudomány témáról kimagasló munkák, nagyon jó volt ilyen jó egészségben látni. De valami hiányzott…

A kerekasztal-beszélgetés résztvevői mind olyan emberek, akiket mindig is tiszta szívemből csodáltam tudományos munkásságukért és mindazért, amit tanultam tőlük kamaszkorom óta. Almár Iván, a SETI kutatója, valamint Beck Mihály és Bencze Gyula professzorok, akik az asztal körül ültek, vitathatatlanul a magyarországi szkeptikus mozgalom alapítói (a hasonlóan nagytekintélyű néhai Szentágothai János és Ádám György professzorokkal együtt), de minden tiszteletem mellett, amivel korábbi munkásságuk előtt adózom, be kell látnunk, hogy az elmúlt 10 évben finoman szólva is erősen csökkent a szkepticizmus ügyéért való tevékenységük, elsősorban meglett koruk miatt (habár a 82 éves Almár Iván bámulatosan aktív a mai napig is a Magyar Asztronautikai Társaságban, s többek között ezért is csodálom őt).

Mindezeket figyelembe véve, meglehetősen furcsának találtam, hogy a Szkeptikus Társaság Egyesület, az egyetlen hivatalosan is létező szkeptikus szervezet az országban, még meghívót sem kapott a beszélgetésre. Adott egy szervezet, amely immár 8 éves múlttal rendelkezik, körülbelül 100 tagot számlál, számos médiaszereplés (köztük egy havi rendszerességű rádióműsor és egy Szkeptikus Hangtár), saját rendezvények, havi klubestek sokasága, 3 Sziget Fesztiválon való megjelenés és a XIV. Európai Szkeptikus Kongresszus megszervezése köthető a nevéhez, több ezer online követővel bír, és az elnöke egyúttal a Szkeptikus Szervezetek Európai Tanácsa elnöki tisztét is betölti, de nem kapott helyet annál az asztalnál, ahol az elmúlt 20 évet próbálták elemezni. Ne tessék félreérteni! Ez nem irigység. De az igazsághoz mi is hozzá tartozunk. A beszélgetés kellemes volt, bár meglehetősen nosztalgikus hangulatú, és leginkább arról szólt, hogy sztorikat és vicceket hallottunk mindazokkal a butaságokkal kapcsolatban, amelyekkel napi szinten találkozunk. Mintha az elmúlt évtized meg se történt volna. És arról sem nagyon volt szó, mit kellene tenni. Ehelyett felsorolták a problémákat. Egyetlen dolgot említettek, mint fontos teendőt: az oktatásnak kellene tennie valamit a szkepticizmusért.

Panel discussion 4. Kerekasztal beszélgetés a Szkeptikusok XX. Országos Konferenciáján (Fotó: Ponori-Thewrewk Ajtony)

Így amikor a Kérdések, válaszok részhez érkeztünk, nem tudtam megállni, hogy ne éljek egy hosszú és részletes hozzászólás lehetőségével, amelyben először elmondtam, hogy szerintem épp fordítva van: a szkeptikusoknak kellene segítenie az oktatást, hiszen amivel szembe kell néznünk, az éppen a kritikai gondolkodás képességének hiánya. Megemlítettem a tevékenységeinket, különös tekintettel a közelmúltbeli csatlakozásunkat a nemzetközi Gerilla Szkepticizmus a Wikipédián projekthez egy néhány fős magyar csapattal. Ez utóbbi úgy tűnt, komolyabb visszhangot kapott, és lett is belőle pár érdekes személyes beszélgetés a program végén. És ha már itt tartunk, igyekeztem felkészülni a konferencia előtt, és kicsit rendbe tettem a Tényeket Tisztelők Társaságával és a Szkeptikus Társasággal foglalkozó Wikipédia szócikkeket, amik azt megelőzően meglehetősen hiányosak voltak.

Amint épp a Wikipédia világszerte tapasztalható erejéről beszéltem, kiemelve annak a fontosságát, hogy cselekedjünk az ott fellelhető tartalom minőségének javítása érdekében (James Heilman és csoportjának példáját hoztam fel, akik az Ebola-vírusról szóló angol nyelvű szócikket az egyik legmegbízhatóbb forrássá tették), az egyik résztvevő, Härtlein Károly tanszéki mérnők (jól ismert tudományos ismeretterjesztő, gyakori szereplő az egyik televíziós csatornán, ahol a Brutális Fizika című műsort vezeti, valamint a Budapesti Szkeptikus Konferencia egyik főszervezője) egy érezhetően tekintélyelvű megjegyzést tett, amely minden alkalommal meglep, valahányszor tapasztalom a szkeptikus közösségben. Folyamatosan azt igyekezett hangsúlyozni, hogy szükség van a tudományos címekre, fokozatokra a tisztelet és hitelesség megalapozásához. Nem tűnt hajlandónak elfogadni azt a hozzáállást, hogy a Wikipédia szócikkek szerkesztéséhez és a bennük szereplő állítások alátámasztására használt források felleléséhez nem feltétlenül kell PhD szintű előzetes ismeret az adott szakterülethez. Ha kellő kritikával és szkeptikus szemmel közelítjük meg a témát, akkor a megfelelő információkat már fellelhetjük online és offline egyaránt. Próbáltam amellett is érvelni, hogy a szkepticizmusra való nevelés nem feltétlenül tudományos előmenetelre kell hogy épüljön (bár elismerem, hogy egyes esetekben hasznos lehet), hanem sokkal inkább a szkeptikus gondolkodásmódra, a kritikai gondolkodás képességére, a tanítás képességére és lehetőségekre, hogy felszólaljunk, hangot adjunk ezen nézeteinknek. De sajnos közben lejárt az időnk, így nem tudtuk tovább vitatni a dolgot. Én pedig túl jelentéktelen személynek bizonyultam ahhoz, hogy a szünetben szóba álljon velem.

Szóval az összbenyomásom az volt, hogy valamiféle tagadás lengi körül a helyzetet, és úgy éreztem magam, mint valami lázadó, amiért aktivista vagyok és nem tudós. Nehéz elsiklani amellett is, hogy bár ez a rendezvény sajnos az elmúlt években meglehetősen periférikussá vált, ha én nem lettem volna ott (a srác, akit részben a szervezők neveltek és mindig próbálta összevarrni az elszakadt szálakat), akkor senki nem képviselte volna az egyetlen hivatalosan létező magyar szkeptikus szervezetet a legrégebbi folyamatosan fennálló, országosnak titulált szkeptikus rendezvényen. Egy-két évig korábban volt szerencsém részt venni a szervezésben, de 2012-ben volt az utolsó alkalom, hogy nem egyszerű résztvevőként voltam ott. A fent említett különbségek azonban már akkor is nagyon erősen jelen voltak, így végül feladtam a próbálkozást, hogy a főszervezők akarata ellenére megpróbáljak változtatni bármin is. Ilyet nyilván nem lehet tenni.

Reménykedem benne, hogy ez a rendezvény egyszer újra a régi fényében fog ragyogni, mint amikor ezt volt A KONFERENCIA, amely olyan sokat adott az ország minden táján élő szkeptikusoknak. Olyan gazdag történelem, mégis annyi kihagyott lehetőség! Legalábbis én így látom.

author wearing Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia t-shirt 5. A Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia pólómban a Szkeptikusok XX. Országos Konferenciáján (Fotó: Pintér András Gábor)

De a szkeptikus mozgalom tovább él. Minden tőlünk telhetőt megteszünk, hogy felvegyük a kesztyűt a butaságok folyton megújuló támadásaival szemben. Márpedig ez a feladat sokkal többet kíván, mint hogy összegyűljünk és szomorkodjunk. Folytatjuk, amit eddig tettünk (lásd a fenti felsorolást). Növekednünk kell, meg kell tartanunk ezeket a rendezvényeket, mint oázisokat az őrület sivatagában mindazon hasonlóan gondolkodó, szkeptikus emberek, kritikusan gondolkodók számára, akiknek szükségük van mások támogatására a küzdelmeikben. Meg kell találnunk ezeket az embereket, be kell fogadnunk őket és a segítségüket kell kérnünk a törekvéseinkhez. Hálózatokat kell építenünk.

Talán túl kritikusnak hangzott, amit a Szkeptikusok Országok Konferenciájáról írtam, de nagyon is látom, hol a helye ennek a rendezvénynek. Nem csupán a történelmünkben, hanem a jövőnkben is. Ez most már a szervezőktől függ. Rengeteg más rendezvény és teendő is van, amelyben mindenki megtalálhatja azt, ami érdekli. Azt, amihez hozzá tud tenni valamit. Meg kell találnunk a lehetőségeket arra, hogy együtt tegyünk valamit az országunkért, Európáért, a világért. Rengeteg a tennivaló és nagyon végesek az erőforrásaink. Élnünk kell a saját életünket, fejlődnünk kell, biztosítatunk a magunk és családunk megélhetését (egyik sem könnyű ma Magyarországon, talán hallott róla a Tisztelt Olvasó), miközben próbáljuk visszatartani a társadalmunkat attól, hogy nagyon messzire sodródjon az őrültségek irányában (erről biztosan mindenki hallott).

Mi is, ahogyan mások, olyanok ellen küzdünk, akik számára az átverés, a csalások és a butaságok a megélhetést jelentik (nem csak politikusok), mindezt úgy, hogy a saját időnket, energiánkat és sokszor a pénztárcánkat sem kíméljük. Hogy milyen eszközökkel lehet eredményt elérni, az gyakran visszatérő viták tárgyát képezi fórumok százain, szóval ebbe nem mennék bele. Annál is inkább nem, mivel jómagam azok közé tartozom, akik azt mondják, minden lehetséges fronton küzdenünk kell, így mindenki megtalálhatja azt a szerepet és feladatot, amely a legjobban illik hozzá. Nem mindenki látja így. Nem baj. Lépünk tovább. Folytatjuk.

(Ezúton szeretném megköszönni Balogh Juditnak a nyelvi és stilisztikai hibák javításában nyújtott segítségét.)

This article is also available translated into English »

Two decades of skepticism in Hungary: A personal view

$
0
0

Although having held 20 annual conventions in a row could be considered a major success for any organization or group, the number of events in and of itself should not be something to take credit for, one might say. On that note, let me share a few thoughts on how we Hungarians are doing nowadays with our skeptical movement and what I see our greatest challenges to be.

2014 - A year of skeptics’ conventions

For a country as small as ours we have quite a few events annually, the year 2014 having been especially busy with three major conventions in three different cities. Sounds awesome, doesn’t it? But does all this necessarily mean we’re on the right track towards success?

National Conference of Skeptics for the 20th time

Just as every fall since 1995, Székesfehérvár, a small city within less than an hour drive from Budapest, saw a small but devoted group of Hungarian skeptics in the middle of November, this time gathering in a small lecture room at the University of Óbuda.

Participants listening to a talk 1. Participants listening to a talk on 'Science vs pseudoscience in the study of linguistic relations' at the 20th National Conference of Skeptics (photo by András G. Pintér)

The series of these events had been the mother of all skeptic actions in Hungary, one that I even consider my intellectual cradle, as I’ve been attending these since the second occasion in 1996, when I was a high school student, a kid really. When I joined the 'movement', it was not even called that. What it actually was, is a halo around a carefully selected community of a few members of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and Természet Világa (World of Nature), a science-themed monthly periodical. After professor of anatomy János Szentágothai and physicist Gyula Bencze had made contact with James Randi back in 1991, a line of events led to the rise of Tényeket Tisztelők Társasága (Society of the Respecters of Facts, also called 'Hungarian Skeptics'), a league of esteemed scientists and science educators. Despite its reputation, though, the organization itself has never been officially founded. And to be honest, not much had happened either, other than a few scholars making statements among themselves, despising pseudoscience.

This was soon after the fall of the Iron Curtain that led to political changes in countries within the Eastern-European block, including Hungary, of course. The mindset of the era still had its roots in a highly authoritarian system, in which scientists (and science for that matter) happened to enjoy great appreciation, and New Age madness was only on the verge of leaking in from the west. So tackling the problem of pseudoscience and anti-intellectualism with a select few scientists seemed a pretty obvious choice.

Randi later made a visit to Budapest and established a Skeptic Award for a student essay competition run by Természet Világa. So, his name is connected to our beginnings as well as others’ around the world, apparently. And for a while, this award brought hope that a step might be made forward towards the public, by recruiting young individuals at an early age. Unfortunately, it turned out not to be the case, mainly due to the lack of resources on Természet Világa’s part to organize winners. However, I am grateful for the opportunity this award gave me, personally to join the movement.

When in 1995, a small town community centre in Székesfehérvár took on the task of putting together a conference for Hungarian skeptics to exchange ideas and experiences, and provide attendees with the means to take part in the fight, it looked like something was in the making. Every year, there were great talks covering all kinds of nonsense that circulated in our society at large. But as these events went on (and they still do, as I mentioned above), a lot of us soon realized this was not enough. Pseudoscientific claims and quackery were proliferating, so getting together once a year and whining over the idiotism that was taking over the world was not enough effort (then, let alone today). Although outreach was provided in the form of a few articles in Természet Világa (along with Randi’s prize), which was great, that was about it in terms of our social penetration. The organizers and the magazine did their share, but there was need for a real movement. More of a grassroots approach.

All that led to a bunch of us founding the Hungarian Skeptic Society in December 2006 (yes, we waited too long). Two people from the former ‘league of skeptics’, Gábor Hraskó, a young biologist turned IT specialist (now chair of both our organization and ECSO) and István Vágó, probably the most appreciated person on TV at the time, decided it was time to make one step forward. They teamed up with the Hungarian Freethinkers and a few individuals, including myself, all so delighted to join them. We pushed the idea of wider outreach, more open approach to activism and promoting skepticism even among those scientifically illiterate, or despite being well informed, holding no scientific degrees and careers. Moreover, we’ve been aiming at making people think for themselves instead of respecting authority and accepting claims without questioning. The efforts made towards that goal included organizing open events, TV and radio appearances, publishing articles in newspapers and journals, writing a blog, organizing our own conference - things well known these days to all of us within the international community of skeptics.

However, this was not the direction particularly welcome among the 'founding fathers' of Hungarian skepticism. By some, this approach was considered a threat to the cause as they thought letting in people without a scientific background would lead to lots of misinformation crawling in. Although the two approaches - the academic mindset, looking down from the ivory tower of science and the grassroots activism - were so different, we didn’t have much to collide over, as Tényeket Tisztelők Társasága, due primarily to an aging community, slowly became completely inactive anyway, while the Hungarian Skeptic Society was gaining ground and managed to bring along even younger, more inexperienced skeptics (but we still need to work a lot more on that, I’m afraid).

The annual conferences originating from 1995 lived on, if slightly diminishing by the year… more on that later.

Skeptics Conference in Budapest

In 2004 at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics a new kind of convention started its history, organized by a few university teachers and employees. It was and has been ever since a continuous attempt to address university students and bring the idea of critical thinking closer to them, focusing mainly on physics related topics.

Talks from both the 'old one' in Székesfehérvár and the 'new one' in Budapest are available online (though hidden in a website, mixed up with lots of other content) and they’re always broadcast live from the event. So these could be used as incredibly valuable materials for skeptics around the country.

Even though there is some overlap and our members always try to take part in some way or another in both conferences, neither of these conventions can be considered officially to be the work of the Hungarian Skeptic Society.

Skeptics Conference in Szeged

This September, however, we launched our very first own Skeptics Conference in Szeged, a major Hungarian city with a high rated university. We prepared a huge line-up of talks and the result was quite good. There were a number of new faces in the audience, most of them local students, teachers, and supporters. The 250-seat lecture room was filled up to about 1/3, but seeing so many unfamiliar people was a delight. And it was also broadcast online by Galileo Webcast (just as the others before). The topics covered included homeopathy, GMOs, the anti-vaccination movement, principles of critical thinking, pseudoscientific claims in history and linguistics, as well as chemophobia, through talks given by fantastic speakers, mostly from the University of Szeged. Among them, there is one particular person to mention, prof. Zsolt Boldogkői, a molecular biologist who - although, frequently criticized for being authoritarian and slightly arrogant in his rhetoric - has become a media phenomenon in the last year or so with his - sometimes overly polarized - views on pseudoscientific claims in the field of medicine.

We intend to turn this event into an annual convention in the future that travels through the country stepping on every year to the next city. We'll see how that goes.

With new recruits after the Skeptics Conference in Szeged 2. With new recruits after the Skeptics Conference in Szeged (photo by András G. Pintér)

Back to 'The Big One'…

In contrast to that one in Szeged, we saw almost no new faces at the 20th annual conference (the 'old one') in Székesfehérvár. I've been wondering about that ever since. I mentioned above, how much influence those conferences had had on me. This is why, no matter how heartwarming it was to see practically the same set of people, all so familiar from the last two decades, it was equally disappointing to see how much it has shrunk to a minor gathering, remembered and visited by only about a 30 to 50 strong audience annually, all that without the potential to reach a significant number of new people.

Participants of the 20th National Conference of Skeptics in Székesfehérvár 3. Participants of the 20th National Conference of Skeptics in Székesfehérvár (photo by András G. Pintér)

Even though the afternoon session offered a variety of topics in the light of skepticism (e.g. placebo studies, the misleading doctrines regarding linguistic relations, and the history of UFO sightings), the morning session was pretty much about looking back on the last two decades. The unfortunate death of one of the greatest Hungarian science educators and writers, only a few days prior to the convention, lead to him being remembered in great detail. And rightly so. Aurél Ponori-Thewrewk, whose work within the Hungarian Astronomical Society and his books on the astronomical background of the greatest literary works of all times, makes him worth every moment of kind commemorations, not to mention remembering the wonderful personality he possessed. And he would never miss a single occasion to meet with fellow skeptics since 1995. This was the first time…

Then, after about 20 minutes spent with watching photos, overlooking the last 20 years, the program finally moved to a panel discussion at the end of the morning session titled: "What have we achieved in this almost 20 years of representing science, skepticism and critical thinking?”

Well, a nice conversation as it was, it didn't really step outside the realms of an afternoon tea party. Professor Mihály Beck, who had his 85th birthday the very day of the convention, and whose two books on the matter of science vs pseudoscience are brilliant pieces of work, was so nice to see in such a good shape. But something was missing…

People participating in the discussion were those I've truly admired for both their scientific achievements and for what I've learned from them since a much younger age. Iván Almár from SETI and professors Mihály Beck and Gyula Bencze, sitting around the table, had undoubtedly been the ones founding the movement (with equally highly esteemed, late professors János Szentágothai and György Ádám), but with all due respect to their previous works, one has to admit their contributions to the cause of skepticism have largely declined in the last 10 years, mainly due to their age (although, Iván Almár, 82, is amazingly active to this day at the Hungarian Astronautical Society and I admire him for both that and being the nicest person).

Given all this, I found it somewhat strange that the Hungarian Skeptic Society, the only officially existing body of the kind in the country did not even get an invitation to delegate someone to the panel. Here’s this organization with 8 years of history, around a 100 members, recurring media and other public appearances (including a monthly radio show and a podcast channel), a great number of hosted events, monthly talks year after year, attending Sziget Festival 3 times and hosting 14th European Skeptics Congress, along with thousands of online followers, and its president being the chairman of European Council of Skeptical Organizations, and yet we did not get a seat around the table, where the last two decades of Hungarian skepticism was discussed. Don’t get me wrong. It’s not envy. But one has to be fair. The panel was nice, though quite nostalgic in nature and all about anecdotes and jokes about the stupidity we face on an everyday basis. As if the last decade had never happened. And they didn't really talk about the needs, anyway. Instead, it was all about telling what the problems are. One thing they mentioned in terms of necessary actions was how much education could do for skepticism.

Panel discussion 4. Panel discussion at the 20th National Conference of Hungarian Skeptics (photo courtesy of Ajtony Ponori-Thewrewk)

So when the Q&A session kicked in, I couldn’t help making a long and elaborate comment, telling them it was the other way round: skeptics should be helping out the educational system, as what’s to be tackled is the lack of critical thinking skills. I mentioned our activities, with special regard to our most recent action of joining the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project with a handful of Hungarian Wikipedia editors. The latter seemed to generate quite some attention and a few nice private conversations afterwards. By the way, I tried my best to prepare for the conference by having sorted out the Hungarian articles of Tényeket Tisztelők Társasága aka “Hungarian Skeptics” and the Hungarian Skeptic Society before the event.

When I was talking about the power of Wikipedia worldwide and the necessity to act on improving the quality of all the content, bringing up the example of James Heilman and his group working on the Ebola virus page, panellist Károly Härtlein (well known science educator in physics, presenter of a popular show called Brutal Physics and chief organizer of Skeptics Conference in Budapest) reflected with some kind of lingering authoritarianism that still puzzles me when I see it within the skeptical community. He kept emphasizing the need for academic titles in order to gain respect and he appeared reluctant to accept that editing Wikipedia articles and finding the right sources to back them up does not necessarily require a PhD-level prior in-depth knowledge of a certain field, once critical approach and a skeptical eye are in place, with all the information available both on-line and off-line. Also, I tried to argue that educating people towards skepticism is not necessarily dependent on academic achievements (though, I admit those can help in certain cases), but skeptical, critical thinking skills, teaching abilities and opportunities to speak. But we couldn’t debate it any further as time was already up. And I was probably not important enough for him to talk to me during the lunch break.

So, my overall impression of this was that there was some kind of denial in the air and I felt like some kind of rebel for being an activist instead of a scientist. Hard not to mention, though, that unfortunately, this 'national' event has become so peripheral in recent years, if it hadn’t been for me (the guy who was partly 'brought up' by the organizers and has always been trying to re-join the threads), there would have been no one representing the one and only officially existing Hungarian skeptical organization at the longest running annual conference of skeptics in the country. For some years, I had had the chance to be part of the organizing committee, too, but the last time I had anything to do with it, other than being a participant, was in 2012. And the above-mentioned differences were quite obvious even back then, so I ended up giving up on trying to make a change against the organizer’s will. You really can’t do that.

I do hope this conference will rise up again to its former glory, when it was considered to be THE ONE, which gave so much to people across the country. So much history there, yet so many missed opportunities. Or at least that’s my opinion.

author wearing Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia t-shirt 5. In my Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia outfit at the 20th National Conference of Hungarian Skeptics (photo by András G. Pintér)

Conclusion

But the skeptical movement lives on. We are doing our best to tackle the flood of nonsense re-generating by the second. And that requires a lot more than getting together and making sad faces. We’ll keep on doing what we have so far. We have to grow; we have to be able to offer these events as the oases in the desert of madness for like-minded, skeptical people, the critical thinkers, who need others to join them in their fights. We need to find those people out there, bring them in and have them join our efforts. We need to build networks.

So I might have sounded too critical towards the National Conference of Skeptics, but I do see its place. Not only in our history, but also in our future. It all depends on the organizers now. There are lots of other events and projects, so everyone can find something with special interest to them. Something to which they can contribute. What we have to do is seek opportunities to work together for the benefit of our country, Europe and the world. There’s so much to do and we have so limited resources. We are to live our own personal lives, make progress, make ends meet (neither is easy in Hungary these days, you might have heard), while we’re trying to save our society from shifting too far towards madness (that you must have heard about).

We, just as others out there, are fighting against those who are making a living out of woo and nonsense (not only politicians), while doing all this in our free time, paying with our time, energy and all too often with our credit cards to do so. The question of what means to use to make progress has been discussed over and over again on hundreds of forums, so I’m not going to get into that. Especially because I agree with those who say we need to fight on all fronts possible, where everyone finds their place of action that fits them best. Not everyone thinks so. Never mind, step on. We’ll keep doing it.

(I hereby would like to thank Miss Judit Balogh for her suggestions and help in proofreading the text.)

This article is also available in the original Hungarian »

Anti-Science Trends at Mid-Decade

$
0
0

I recently had the opportunity to revise a chapter I contributed to the 2005 book Controversial Therapies for Developmental Disabilities: Fad, Fashion, and Science in Professional Practice.[1] A dizzying array of unsubstantiated treatments has been promoted to parents of children with developmental disabilities, and autism in particular has been described as a “fad magnet.”[2] As a result, Controversial Therapies has become an important volume for parents and professionals, and a second, updated edition of the book is scheduled to appear in 2015.

While revising my chapter and thinking about the turning of the year at mid-decade, I began to think more generally about the current state of science and pseudoscience. What successes and failures have we encountered in the decade since Controversial Therapies first came out? It seems to me that the results have been decidedly mixed. Here are a few example cases:

The Vaccine Wars

Ten years ago, the vaccine wars were just getting underway. Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent paper purporting to show a relationship between childhood vaccination and autism was published in The Lancet in 1998, but it was not until the actress Jenny McCarthy started speaking out against vaccination that the movement really got going.

To examine the current state of this phenomenon, I used Google Trends to plot the popularity of a number of search words. The first phrase “Vaccines Cause Autism” produced a rather troubling curve.[3]

Google Trends curves for Vaccines Cause Autism, Jenny McCarthy Autism Figure 1. Google Trends curves for the indicated search terms.

Google Trends does not provide the absolute numbers of searches in these graphs. Instead, the highest number of searches in the series is given an arbitrary Y-value of 100, and the rest of the results are plotted relative to this point. So all you get is a trend line with rising and falling relative values. In addition, we can’t know why people searched the phrase in question. It is entirely possible that people who were skeptical of the vaccine-autism connection and committed to vaccination as an important public health policy were interested in the controversy and searched “Vaccines Cause Autism” out of curiosity. But chances are many of these people Googled for the reason we all Google something: to find out more about it. Many of these searchers were probably done by parents who felt they needed to know more about how “Vaccines Cause Autism.” How did we get to the point where “Do vaccinations cause autism?” is a question large numbers of people think they need to know more about?

Part of the answer comes from the lower panel of the figure above: the Google Trends line for “Jenny McCarthy Autism.” Note the relationship between the two panels. First, despite Wakefield’s study having been out and in the media for years, searches about vaccines causing autism are all but nonexistent until after Jenny McCarthy entered the fray in 2007. Second—and rather discouragingly—the vaccine-autism curve does not taper off like the lower curve. Indeed, despite several recent pro-science victories on the propaganda front, the “Vaccines Cause Autism” searches continue to accelerate.

A recent editorial in the Los Angeles Times celebrated a slight improvement in the immunization picture in the state of California, where large numbers of parents have exercised the “personal belief exemption”[4] to decline vaccinations of their children. But as recently as last summer, the release of yet another discredited study (later retracted by the journal) purporting to show a relationship between vaccinations and autism in African American males led to false claims of a cover-up at the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Furthermore, several organizations and websites continue to promote the idea that vaccines cause autism and other developmental disabilities. Later this month, a day-long gathering of anti-vaccine authors is scheduled at the University of Minnesota, Humphrey School of Public Affairs. So, despite some victories in the effort to better inform the public about vaccinations, the evidence suggests this extremely important battle is far from over.

Genetically Modified Food Fears

The controversy about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has been simmering since the 1990s, but it seems to have gained steam lately. This is an interesting issue because it is not as clearly one-sided as many others. Without question, we should be concerned about how technological innovations affect the safety of our food supply. In addition, genetic engineering could lead to unwanted effects on biodiversity and the environment. At the moment, the evidence suggests that genetically engineered (GE) foods as they are now marketed are healthy and safe. (See Steven Novella’s recent article in the Skeptical Inquirer.) But views on GMOs are somewhat varied. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)—an organization with a long history of science advocacy—is critical of current genetic engineering practices. UCS makes the following statement on their website:

Policy decisions about the use of GE have too often been driven by biotech industry public relations campaigns, rather than by what science tells us about the most cost-effective ways to produce abundant food and preserve the health of our farmland.

While acknowledging that the risks of GE crops have been exaggerated, the UCS argues that the benefits of GMOs have been oversold. As a result, among other policies, the UCS supports the labeling of GE foods and changes in patent law that would make independent research easier to conduct.

Meanwhile the more militant anti-GMO crowd remains very active and continues to make dramatic and unsupportable claims of health risks. Monsanto Company, Inc., the largest producer of GE seeds, has emerged as a target of the anti-GMO movement, and well-organized anti-Monsanto protests and marches have become seasonal events. So this topic persists and continues to be rife with controversy and misinformation.

There have been a few bright spots in the effort to address the GMO issue more rationally. Last August, Michael Specter’s profile of anti-GMO activist Vandana Shiva in The New Yorker highlighted her unsupported claims about GE crops and her opposition to the use of GE foods specifically aimed at satisfying the nutritional needs of developing countries in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere. Hunger and poor nutrition remain important issues throughout the world, and although GE technologies alone will not solve these problems, they should not be discarded merely on the basis of ideology and misinformed opposition.

Google Trends graph Figure 2. Google Trends graph for the search term “GMOs.”

The continuing popularity of the GMO issue shows up in the Google Trends graph above. Google searches of the phrase “GMOs” decreased from 2004 to 2009 and remained at relatively low levels until 2011. Since then searches have been on a steep incline, which may be an indication of the success of recent anti-GMO campaigns. In any case, it is clear this controversy is far from resolved and, after a slow build, may be ready to reach new heights.

Global Warming

Global warming has been vigorously debated for a long time, and although there is some cause for optimism, this battle is not over. On the positive side, there are indications that the public is coming around to the idea that global warming is real. In September, a Pew Research poll found that 61 percent of Americans believed the Earth is getting warmer, but fewer than half believed global warming to be a serious problem. Furthermore, the Pew data showed that Americans’ views on this issue are sharply divided on party lines. In comparison to Republicans, Democrats were more than twice as likely to believe that the Earth is warming and that global warming is a serious issue.

Google Trends graph for Global Warming Hoax, Global Warming Myth, Global Warming Fake Figure 3. Google Trends graph for the indicated search phrases. The spike in the “Hoax” line in late 2009 and early 2010 coincides with the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, which was seized upon by global warming deniers as evidence of a hoax.

The Google Trends data for these anti-global warming phrases show a tapering off of searches since 2011, which provides some support for the idea that—with the general public, at least—this issue is losing momentum. Unfortunately, global warming is a strongly partisan issue, and the Republican victories last November added even more climate deniers to Congress.[5] At the state level, one of the top agenda items for several newly more conservative state legislatures is weakening the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency. So, even if the reality of global warming is gradually being accepted by the public, conservative victories all but guarantee that government policy will continue to sacrifice the environment in the name of other interests.

The War of Words

These are just a few of the current anti-science issues we face today, but they lead me to some general observations. First, despite the ample evidence for what Chris Moody calls The Republican War on Science, anti-science views straddle both sides of the red-blue divide. As the Pew data show, global warming deniers are clearly more conservative, but both the anti-vaccine and especially the anti-GMO advocates appear to be coming from the political left.

Second, the chosen villain in all these battles is either big business or big government, but it is interesting to see how these two powerful forces are used in each campaign. For the anti-global warming crowd, big government and its (allegedly) anti-business, jobs-killing, economy-strangling regulations are the problem. For the other two causes, the forces of good and evil are reversed. The enemy is (allegedly) the ruthless money-grubbing barons of big business—Big Pharma in the case of the vaccine wars and Monsanto and other biotech firms in the case of the GMO wars. The role of the government in the vaccine and GMO wars is more nuanced. The anti-vaccine crowd argues that the government is in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry, and it opposes the federal government’s CDC vaccination recommendations. Meanwhile some anti-GMO groups have looked to the government for solutions. For example, Vermont recently passed legislation requiring the labeling of GE foods.

Finally, motive can be a clue but it is not evidence. In any conflict it is appealing to portray your adversary as an enormous shadowy monolith. But big things are not all bad. (For that matter, bad things are not all big.) GMOs were born of capitalist profit motive, but so was my beloved iPhone. Pharmaceutical companies make large profits, but they also have provided treatments—the same vaccines that are currently in dispute—that have contributed to humans having the longest average life expectancy in the history of the species. Of course, the profit motive can fuel unsavory acts. In my opinion, global warming is the controversy among these three whose rhetoric is most directly affected by short-term business interests. But the mere presence of a profit motive does not prove anything. Similarly, the United States federal government—while not immune to ill-conceived actions—does much good for its citizens.

More troubling than the motives of the combatants are the language and evidence used in these debates. Within science, disagreements abound, but they are typically settled by evidence obtained by widely accepted methods. Replication and peer review are essential to the process, and rhetoric plays little or no role. In the case of the three controversies above, the science is clear: vaccines do not cause autism; as of this moment, genetically modified foods are safe; and global warming should be a serious concern for current and future generations.

Difficulties emerge when scientific debates extend into the general public. In the public square, the rules of evidence and critical thinking quickly fall away—sometimes because these modes of discussion are unfamiliar and sometimes because the interested parties deliberately reject reasoned debate in favor of the often more effective methods of sophistry. Where logic and evidence are weak, rhetorical methods often get the job done. So, the skeptic’s challenge is the same as it has always been. Teach critical thinking. Insist on evidence. Reject rhetoric. The view from mid-decade suggests these things have not changed.


[1] Jacobson, J., Foxx, R., & Mulick, J. (2005).Controversial Therapies for Developmental Disabilities: Fad, Fashion, and Science in Professional Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[2] Metz, B., Mulick, J. A., & Butter, E. (2004). Autism: A late 20th Century Fad Magnet. In J. Jacobson, R. Foxx & J. Mulick (2005). Controversial Therapies for Developmental Disabilities: Fad, Fashion, and Science in Professional Practice (pp. 237–263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[3] All these graphs were produced on December 29, 2014, and the trend lines and X axes are taken directly from Google Trends. To reproduce trend plots approximating these, go to http://www.google.com/trends/ and enter the indicated search terms.

[4] Los Angeles Times (2014, December 23). Finally, the anti-vaccine movement is losing steam. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-vaccine-20141224-story.html.

[5] McDonnell, T. (2014, November 5). Meet the Senate's New Climate Denial Caucus. Mother Jones. http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/11/meet-new-climate-denier-caucus.

Remembrance of Apocalypse Past: The Psychology of True Believers When Nothing Happens

$
0
0

Research on belief in the 2012 “apocalypse” demonstrates that specific psychological processes contributed directly to the maintenance of paranormal apocalyptic beliefs, even after the apocalypse did not occur.

As is fairly obvious by now, the much-heralded end of the world in 2012 didn’t happen. Quetzalcoatl didn’t return on his raft of snakes. The earth was not torn asunder. Alien overlords did not materialize. It didn’t even rain very much that week.

We were privileged to publish an article in the Skeptical Inquirer last year (Sharps et al. 2013) concerning the psychological factors that made it possible for modern human beings, even with modern access to scientific information, to believe in this type of baseless nonsense. We found that disturbingly high numbers of university students either believed in or entertained the likelihood of the “Mayan end of the world.” We found curious incoherencies in their patterns of belief: for example, many believers in the Maya “prophecies” did not believe in what those prophecies predicted. The idea expressed is completely illogical, but this illogical incoherency was in the minds of a great many people who were attempting to think about the 2012 apocalypse before it didn’t happen. Whether the believers expected world peace and a new age, or world destruction and apocalyptic doom, logical inconsistency was very commonly observed.

Man in gas mask holding sign that reads THE END IS NEAR (Next Time)

This type of incoherency didn’t die with the nonexistent apocalypse; it’s still there, ready and waiting, in the minds of enormous numbers of True Believers.

Dissociation, Imagination, and the Supernatural

Dissociation, at a subclinical level, played a big part in our 2013 results. Those who exhibited dissociative tendencies exhibited a higher level of supernatural credulity in the belief that the Mayan apocalypse would actually occur.

It is important to note what is meant by the term dissociation in this context. We emphatically do not refer to psychiatric concepts of dissociative identity disorder, or to a pathological level of dissociation in which psychotic ideation might occur. We refer to subclinical dissociative tendencies, of the sort probably experienced from time to time by most people. This type of dissociation may lead to a diminished critical assessment of reality. As discussed in earlier Skeptical Inquirer articles (Sharps 2012; Sharps et al. 2013), there may be anomalous perceptions of individual experience. The world may appear to be “not quite real or… diffuse” (Cardena 1997, 400). This is emphatically not “mental illness.” However, the disconnection with immediate physical reality that occurs with subclinical dissociation might incline many normal people to view highly improbable things with enhanced credulity (see DePrince and Freyd 1999).

In previous work (Sharps et al. 2006; Sharps et al. 2010), including previous articles in the Skeptical Inquirer (Sharps 2012; Sharps et al. 2013), we addressed the role of dissociation in paranormal beliefs. We found that dissociation is associated with beliefs in ghosts, aliens, and “cryptids” such as Bigfoot, and that the subclinically dissociated are actually more likely to see these things, to interpret ambiguous stimuli as paranormal in nature. Where others see a hoax, those with dissociative tendencies see a flying saucer or the Loch Ness monster. Such subclinical dissociation is very important in producing and maintaining the credulous viewpoints involved in paranormal thinking.

Seeing the Supernatural

Credulous viewpoints, dissociated or not, are neither new nor rare. Humans have a long history of predicting our own doom, especially when that doom can be linked, however loosely, to the heavens. People see all sorts of things in the night sky, following which they tend to imbue them with supernatural significance. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the year 793 (Ackroyd 2011, 63) records that the beginning of the Viking Age was heralded by immense lightning flashes (maybe so), and by fiery dragons flying in the sky (probably not). Lightning is of course dangerous, but it has a lot more to do with atmospheric electricity than with angry Norwegians storming ashore in Lindisfarne. As to the Chronicle’s dragons, well, people tend to create meaning in the things they seen in the sky, turning atmospheric abstractions into meaningful (and scary) images. For example, in 1528, the surgeon Ambrose Pare saw an aerial blood-colored human arm holding a sword, surrounded by axes, knives, and evil faces (Connell 2001). Obviously a portent, but equally obviously, such a thing could not actually exist in the sky.

What did Pare actually see? With the passage of time, it’s impossible to be sure, but previous research (Sharps et al. 2009) showed that eyewitness errors of the imagination, in which reported features of a given scene have no existence outside the mind of the given witness, are in fact the norm rather than rare anomalies. We suspect that the good surgeon’s imagination got hold of a cloud, or a distant storm, and then went a bit too far.

Or perhaps he saw a comet or a meteor shower; those things really turn on the imagination. In 1095, Bishop Gislebert of Lisieux interpreted a meteor shower as a go-code from God for what would become the First Crusade. In 1664, on beholding a comet, Alphonsus VI of Portugal ran through the night threatening the thing with a pistol; and in 1773, when Halley’s Comet turned up, clergymen sold tickets for seats in Paradise for the date on which the world was supposed to end. Who was supposed to take the tickets was never made clear, but this apocalyptic nonsense goes on and on, from age to age (Connell 2001).

Our current age is no exception. The mass suicide of the Heaven’s Gate movement (e.g., Vick 1997), in which believers planned to depart Earth in a UFO apparently hiding behind Comet Hale-Bopp, and the Y2K phenomenon (e.g., Nolte 2009), in which many people believed that Ragnarok was going to hit because all the computers were going to stop working for no adequately explored reason, provide additional examples. In our modern world, apocalyptic and supernatural thinking are alive and well. One might think that compulsory education would cure this sort of thing, but that is not the case. Research has shown that college students frequently engage in supernatural behaviors in their examinations, especially when the consequences are perceived as particularly important (Rudski and Edwards 2007). In our work on the Mayan apocalypse, mentioned earlier (Sharps et al. 2013) 45.6 percent of these relatively educated people thought that world-changing events might very well occur at that time, and 9.8 percent were fairly sure that cosmic doom was imminent.

So, our research told us that before the Mayan non-event of 2012, a frighteningly large proportion of the population entertained the magical thinking involved in apocalyptic prophecies. We also knew that definable cognitive incoherencies were involved, and we knew that individuals with subclinical dissociative tendencies (SDTs) were more likely to believe the pseudoscientific hype.

But what would happen, psychologically, to the True Believers when Quetzalcoatl et al. failed to turn up and life went on as usual?

After the Ball Is Over

Prior to the 2012 lack of apocalypse we had decided to conduct studies both before and after the relevant date. However, as we began to collect data on this second half of the project, we experienced a kind of collective intellectual doubt. After all, it wasn’t going to be very interesting. We knew what we were going to find: those who originally believed in doomsday would obviously disclaim these beliefs afterward, dissociative tendencies or not. It seemed hardly worth our time to complete the study.

We were absolutely, and amazingly, wrong.

Background to Apocalypse When There Isn’t One

In 1956, Festinger, Riecken, and Schacter published a fascinating study of a splinter group who believed in an earlier version of the ever-recurrent apocalypse. This particular bunch of True Believers, led by a lapsed Scientologist named Keech, gave up their jobs, spouses, and assorted other valuable aspects of life for the opportunity to fly with obliging aliens, in a literal flying saucer, to the entirely fictional planet of Clarion. Boarding was to commence at midnight on December 20, 1954, in time to avoid an enormous flood that was scheduled to destroy the rest of the world. The Believers gathered together.

Nothing happened.

Everybody sat there for about four hours. Keech started to cry.

Forty-five minutes later, Keech got a call (by “automatic writing”) from God, who had decided not to kill everybody for divine reasons, mainly because Keech’s followers had in fact been so amazingly wonderful in, well, sitting around waiting for nonexistent aliens at the boarding gate.

Now, you wouldn’t expect that anybody over the age of six would be fooled by a cobbled-together last-minute desperate mess like this, but apparently Keech’s devotees bought it. They began to proselytize even more than they had before their promised event had failed to materialize.

Festinger and his colleagues used this deplorable incident as the basis for their important research on cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive Dissonance and the End of the World

Cognitive dissonance basically comes down to the following fact: the more you pay, the better you like. In other words, if I make a substantial investment in anything, whether financial or emotional, in a business, an attitude, or an idea, I am more likely to place a high value, and consequently a high resistance to rejection, on that investment. A full discussion of this concept is provided in an earlier Skeptical Inquirer article (Sharps 2014).

This phenomenon was strongly demonstrated in the realm of apocalyptic thinking by Festinger and colleagues (1956), as mentioned. Even though nothing happened on the fateless night of December 20, 1954, Festinger et al. found that many True Believers in Keech’s end of the world not only retained their previous beliefs, but in fact were galvanized in those beliefs by the failure of the apocalypse. Their faith, they believed, had staved off disaster for the present, but the inevitability of the end of the world was actually, and paradoxically, reinforced for these people. Cognitive dissonance provided an enhancement of their deluded beliefs, even in the absence of any real-world evidence that these beliefs might be correct.

The Modern World

In 2012, we were repeatedly told by many media stories that the world would end on December 21 of that year. It was suggested that this was predicted by the Maya, given that this date coincides with the end of a calendrical cycle, a baktun, within their “long count.” This date was also suggested to coincide with a “galactic alignment,” a phenomenon that had less to do with astronomy than it did with vague nomenclature concerning what actually constitutes, in cosmic terms, a line (e.g., Krupp 2009). Even if such an alignment were a scientific reality, it would have no earthly significance; and anyway, there is at least one Maya document that mentions December 21, 2012, without any apocalyptic significance at all (Bower 2012). In 2014, we’re coming up on the sixtieth anniversary of the aborted trip to Clarion in 1954, and on Festinger’s classic study of 1956. Has there been no advance, in over half a century, in appropriate scientific skepticism that would defeat cognitive dissonance and result in a rational acceptance of the facts in the wake of yet another failed apocalypse?

The answer is not reassuring.

The Present Research

One hundred and four college students at a California university completed several surveys in which they were asked to rate the degree of their earlier belief, after the fact, that major world changes were going to happen on December 21, 2012. They were also asked about the sources of this belief, and about their specific beliefs concerning what, precisely, was supposed to happen on that date. Subclinical dissociative tendencies of the given respondents were measured by means of the standard Dissociative Experiences Survey (Carlson and Putnam 1986).

The respondents in this research, college students, continually engage in critical thinking and the scientific evaluation of information. Even so, this population gave evidence of unexpected levels of credulity in the case of the 2012 apocalypse.

In our research prior to the non-apocalypse, 44.6 percent stated that they anticipated no major changes on 12/21/12, or that such changes would be very unlikely. In our present research, 23 percent stated that they had believed in, or at least entertained, the end of the world on this date—in other words, about half of those who had believed before the date were willing to admit these beliefs. Eleven out of the 104 respondents, 10.6 percent, believed that this apocalyptic event was still going to happen. This is very close to the 9.8 percent who were certain, before the fact, of the apocalypse (Sharps et al. 2013).

Festinger et al.’s 1956 cognitive dissonance concept is the most parsimonious explanation of this result; about one in ten people were evidently unable to overcome their psychological investment in the 2012 phenomenon. But what were the cognitive mechanisms underlying this investment, so strongly held that it kept operating in the face of a non-apocalyptic reality?

Dissociative Tendencies

Dissociation continued to play an important role here. There was some good news: dissociation was not statistically important for the continuation of the overall belief in the 2012 end of the world. Nor was there a relationship between dissociation and belief that major physical changes, social changes, extraterrestrial aliens, global warming, or climate change would herald the end. The Christian apocalypse, in which Jesus Christ is expected to return at the end of the world, was also not endorsed by those with dissociative tendencies. These null results were entirely consistent with our previous work before the December 21 date (Sharps et al. 2013).

However, there was a relationship (R2 = .065, F [2,101] = 3.51, p = .034, β = .248) between SDTs and belief in the return of Kukulcan (Quetzalcoatl), the Mayan god anticipated in this particular apocalypse. Belief in the Mayan prophecies, with relation to SDTs, also remained significant, R2 = .101, F (3,101) = 5.68, p = .005, β  = .377. Finally, and oddly, SDTs were significantly associated with belief that “computer simulations” predicted the apocalypse (R2 = .052, F [1,102] = 5.60, p = .020, β = .228), despite the fact that there were no such computer simulations at all.

How can this pattern of results be explained?

Gestalt and Feature-Intensive Processes

Previously (Sharps 2003; Sharps 2010; Sharps et al. 2013; Sharps and Nunes 2002), we presented a continuum in human information processing, in what is called Gestalt/Feature-Intensive (G/FI) Processing theory. This continuum ranges from feature-intensive processing, in which the specific details of a concept are given specific consideration, to gestalt processing, in which a concept is considered without detailed analysis, with relatively uncritical acceptance of the given idea as a whole.

We suggest here a relationship between dissociative tendencies and gestalt, relatively uncritical, processing. In 2012, enormous attention was given to the Maya prophecies. This, according to the availability heuristic of Tversky and Kahneman (1973), made these prophecies relatively salient to the entire population.

However, for most people, there would have been some feature-intensive consideration of these prophecies; ancient societies lacked modern scientific understanding, and so their prophecies might not be right. However, those exhibiting subclinical levels of dissociation, with consequent gestalt processing tendencies, would not engage in such feature-intensive thinking, and thereby would credulously entertain the Mayan “prophecies.”

Now, modern people in the West, in general, have more knowledge of Christian ideas than they do of ancient Mayan beliefs. Therefore, a relatively feature-intensive analysis of the Christian intellectual realm is culturally forced upon us, even upon those with dissociative tendencies. So, the dissociated did not endorse the return of Jesus Christ as associated with the 2012 apocalypse. However, most of us know little of Mayan arcana. Mayan concepts are therefore necessarily less feature-intensive, and consequently more gestalt, for the vast majority of us; but, for most of us, this absence of detail does not result in credulity. For those with SDTs, however, this gestalt processing of an ancient culture’s supposed precognition was sufficient to generate belief.

This hypothesis was further supported by the association of SDTs with belief in “computer predictions” of the end. Most of us, although we use computers extensively, are unfamiliar with their inner workings. Computer operations are ubiquitous (hence cognitively available as gestalts; Tversky and Kahneman 1973), and they seem terribly scientific; thus, in the SDT-related absence of feature-intensive consideration in favor of less-specific gestalt thinking, they might be assumed to be prophetic, accurate in their predictions. The fact that there were no such computer simulations may not have mattered to the subclinically dissociated; after all, to understand this would require the very type of feature-intensive thinking that is reduced in the presence of SDTs.

More specific, feature-intensive concepts such as climate change were not endorsed. This was consistent with the tendency of subclinical dissociation to reduce feature-intensive analysis (e.g., Sharps et al. 2006; Sharps 2010).

In Summary

So, four psychological factors contributed to continued belief in the 2012 apocalypse: cognitive dissonance; dissociative tendencies; gestalt processing; and conceptual availability, as suggested by Tversky and Kahneman (1973).

In the case of the 2012 Mayan apocalypse, an appreciable fraction of the population, about 10 percent, believed that the failed apocalypse was still to occur. The most parsimonious explanation of this rather incredible result lies in cognitive dissonance, the influence of psychological investment.

Who held most strongly to that investment? Those with subclinical dissociative tendencies, which enhanced credulity through the reduction of feature-intensive analysis in favor of gestalt consideration. This, in turn, reduced consideration of the details that might attenuate beliefs in the supernatural. These beliefs were further guided by the availability heuristic of Tversky and Kahneman, by the relative availability of such concepts as Mayan prophecies and computer simulations in media.

This four-point model is our best explanation of the belief in such bizarre concepts as the Mayan end of the world, and probably in other paranormal conceptions (Sharps 2012; Sharps et al., 2006; Sharps et al. 2010). These results provide a scientifically coherent explanation of current beliefs, even after the fact, in the 2012 apocalypse.

How do we counter these influences? The answer is obvious. We need better education in science, in feature-intensive consideration of facts, and in the ability to analyze paranormal claims in terms of their specific details. For human beings, the world consists of a blend of objective reality and of our subjective interpretations of that reality; it is that subjective interpretation that is most subject to the salutary influence of education.

Of course, this is hardly a novel concept. Plato called for essentially the same precision well over two thousand years ago (e.g., Cornford 1957). Socrates was killed by fellow Athenians in large part for insisting on this level of feature-intensive analysis. It is to be hoped that our modern world will be less draconian in the defense of its irrational paranormal beliefs.


References

Ackroyd, P. 2011. Foundation. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Bower, B. 2012. Apocalypse not written in stone. Science News 182(3): 15.

Cardena, E. 1997. Dissociative disorders: Phantoms of the self. In S.M. Turner and Michel Hersen (Eds.) Adult Psychopathology and Diagnosis, third edition, 400. New York: Wiley.

Carlson, E.B., and F.W. Putnam. 1986. Development, reliability, and validity of a dissociation scale. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders 174: 727–735.

Connell, E.S. 2001. The Aztec Treasure House. Washington, DC: Counterpoint.

Cornford, F.M. 1957. Plato’s Theory of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

DePrince, A.P., and J.F. Freyd. 1999. Dissociative tendencies, attention, and memory. Psychological Science 10(5): 449–452.

Festinger, L., H.W. Riecken, and S. Schachter. 1956, reprinted 2011. When Prophecy Fails. Wilder: Blacksburg, VA.

Krupp, E.C. 2009. The great 2012 doomsday scare. NASA.gov. Online at http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-guest.html.

Nolte, C. 2009. False alarm of millennium: Y2K cost counties millions. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A2.

Rudski, J.M., and A. Edwards. 2007. Malinowski goes to college: Factors influencing students’ use of ritual and superstition. Journal of General Psychology 134: 389–403.

Sharps, M.J. 2003. Aging, Representation, and Thought: Gestalt and Feature-Intensive Processing. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.

———. 2010. Processing Under Pressure: Stress, Memory, and Decision-Making in Law Enforcement. Flushing, NY: Looseleaf Law.

———. 2012. Eyewitness to the paranormal: The experimental psychology of the “unexplained.” Skeptical Inquirer 36(4): 39–45.

———. 2014. UFOs and cognitive science: A case study. Skeptical Inquirer. 38(3): 52–55.

Sharps, M.J., J. Janigian, A.B. Hess, et al. 2009. Eyewitness memory in context: Toward a taxonomy of eyewitness error. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 24: 36–44.

Sharps, M.J., S.W. Liao, and M.R. Herrera. 2013. It’s the end of the world, and they don’t feel so fine: The psychology of December 21, 2012. Skeptical Inquirer 37(1): 34–39.

Sharps, M.J., J. Matthews, and J. Asten. 2006. Cognition, affect, and beliefs in paranormal phenomena: Gestalt/feature intensive processing theory and tendencies toward ADHD, depression, and dissociation. Journal of Psychology 140(6): 579–590.

Sharps, M.J., E. Newborg, S. Van Arsdall, et al. 2010. Paranormal encounters as eyewitness phenomena: Psychological determinants of atypical perceptual interpretations. Current Psychology 29(4): 320–327.

Sharps, M.J., and M.A. Nunes. 2002. Gestalt and feature-intensive processing: Toward a unified theory of human information processing. Current Psychology 21(1): 68–84.

Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1973. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology 5(2): 207–232.

Vick, K. 1997. The purgatory behind Heaven’s Gate: Ex-member breaks his silence on cult. The Washington Post (May 2): p. C1.

Some Popular Global Warming Factoids

$
0
0

Norman Mailer coined the word factoids to describe facts that have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper, but once they do appear they are accepted without question. Some global warming deniers are especially fond of them.

Factoids, according to Norman Mailer, are plausible statements made with great authority but no empirical backing. Even those of us who pride ourselves on our critical faculties sometimes accept them unquestioningly on the assumption that the author or reporter who made them has checked them out properly, so it’s okay to believe or repeat them. Mailer might have added radio and television to his list and, today, certainly, the Internet—the medium that seems to have been especially conceived for the promulgation of factoids.

Journalists, politicians, letter writers, and media pundits who deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) seem to be unusually factoid-prone. What follows is my attempt to “de-authoritize” a few of their apparently unsinkable favorites. Factoids being what they are, I do not expect to succeed.

They Can’t Even Get Tomorrow’s Weather Forecast Right

“Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we are asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future” (Crichton 2003).

Like the late Michael Crichton, MD, novelist, film producer, and trusted adviser to President G.W. Bush, many people believe that climate scientists make weather forecasts far into the future. This would mean predicting day by day, and for an extended period (like the 2090s), morning, noon, and nighttime temperatures for New York, Tokyo, Paris, Copenhagen, and a multitude of other places around the world. Besides being a battle lost in advance, such an effort would also be quite pointless, since to understand the global impact of climatic change, we don’t need hour-by-hour weather maps for every locality on the planet. We do need things like the planet-wide average of the surface temperature. Almost all climate scientists now agree that this is rising, and that the main culprit is our loading of the atmosphere with ever more CO2 by the burning of ever-greater quantities of fossil fuels. What this extra warmth will mean for life on Earth in the coming decades depends on factors like the future consumption of these resources.

Volcanoes Are Worse Than Fossil Fuels

“That volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort made by the world’s governments through the Kyoto Treaty. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out CO2 and ash at any one time—EVERY DAY” (Tipp 2011).

The 2010 eruption of Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland was, as such things go, peanuts. It nevertheless disrupted airline services worldwide, giving Derek Tipp, an outspoken conservative AGW dissenter from the United Kingdom, an opportunity to reassert his oft-repeated claim that volcanic CO2 vastly exceeds fossil CO2. This is quite simply not true. As vulcanologist Terry Gerlach explains in a highly readable article published by the American Geophysical Union (Gerlach 2011), anthropogenic CO2 emissions total more than 30 Gt (gigatons) per year; volcanic ones typically measure a mere 0.25 Gt.

Airliners were not endangered by Eyjafjallajökull’s minuscule CO2 emission but by the potential clogging of their engines by ash, which was carried by prevailing winds into busy air corridors. All volcanic eruptions release sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the upper atmosphere as well as ash. Here it reflects some of the sun’s rays, later falling to the ground in the form of raindrops laced with sulfuric acid (acid rain). So not only does volcanic activity not heat the world, it cools it, at least until the SO2 and ashes have both been rained out.

Eyjafjallajökull’s global cooling effect was small. Pinatubo’s, in the Phillippines in 1991, was not: it produced a global temperature drop averaging about 0.3° C, which persisted through 1992 (USGS n.d.). While Tipp claims that Pinatubo “spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth,” he is strangely silent on the 1815 Tambora, Indonesia, eruption (USGS n.d.). This, the most dramatic volcanic event in recorded history, cooled some parts of the globe by more than 3° C and caused Europe and North America to experience in 1816 what came to be known as the year without a summer.

Nothing New Here

“Climate has always been changing and will continue to change forever. This ‘Global Warming’ scam will go down in history as just another example of how easy it is to fool most of the people most of the time.”

This anonymous critic of a January 2014 Cape Breton Post article on global warming apparently doesn’t realize that the very fact that climate is always changing destroys his own argument. Droughts, floods, famines, etc., induced by climate change have been identified as the culprit in the decline, and sometimes the extinction, of many ancient civilizations (Fagan 2004). Those events were usually regional or local, and were not foreseeable by their victims. The present one is different: we can see it coming, it is global, and it is faster and bigger than any that has occurred for many thousands of years.

Far Too Little Fossil Fuel CO2 to Affect Climate

“As a percentage of the atmosphere, CO2 is up a mere 69.59 parts per million since 1959” (Mulshine 2009).

The idea that the change in atmospheric CO2 since preindustrial times is far too small to cause large-scale climatic effects is widely advertised as a killer argument against AGW. Observation and experiment, however, teach us just the opposite. To keep its temperature constant, Earth must radiate into space the same quantity of heat as it receives from the sun each second. Laboratory studies first made about 150 years ago show that the oxygen and nitrogen, which respectively comprise 21 percent and 78 percent of the atmosphere, are almost transparent to this outgoing infrared radiation, but that the CO2 component, even at its 280 ppm preindustrial level, absorbs a sizable fraction of the heat radiated from the surface within the first 10–20 m.1 Without these 280 ppm, the preindustrial world would consequently have been some 10° C colder than it in fact was. In this context, quoting its level as a percentage of the total atmosphere is quite meaningless. Furthermore, the present warming trend did not start in 1959 but at the beginning of the industrial revolution, and since the CO2 component of the atmosphere is now 400 ppm it is up 43 percent, not the Star Ledger journalist’s “mere” 69.59 ppm.

It’s Only a Few Measly Degrees Anyway

“Global Warming? Somebody tell this man why a few degrees of extra warmth are bad!” (Catholic Online 2013).

The man in question is Gov. Paul LePage (R.–Maine). A few degrees may not sound like much when day-to-day, even hour-to-hour temperature fluctuations of a few degrees at a given place go almost unnoticed. Why, then, asks the governor, are we trying—without conspicuous success—to keep global warming below 2° C when that extra warmth sounds like good news?

The weakness of this argument is that short-term changes in local weather are useless for putting long-term, global, climatic ones in context. A much more reliable yardstick is the change, clearly archived in Antarctic and Greenland ice cores, that marked the end of the last ice age. This climatic event literally redrew the map of Europe, North America, and elsewhere by melting millions of square kilometers of ice sheets and raising the global average sea level by something like 100 meters. Yet the ice core record shows that these changes resulted from an average global temperature rise2 of only 5° C.

Nevertheless, we survived. Would we even notice the one meter rise in sea level and the 3° C temperature change predicted by 2100 for the “business as usual” scenario of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? First, only a few million people were around in 10,000 bc to experience the consequences of that change, and those who were could move without much hindrance if they didn’t like the way things were going. Now there are 7 billion of us, many living in populous cities near or below sea level. Still more live in low-lying areas of countries like Bangladesh and the Netherlands and in parts of the United States like Florida and Louisiana. A one-meter sea level rise would oblige many of these people to move. We read stories almost daily about the difficulties associated with present-day population movements. If migration at this level is such a big problem, our tightly interconnected world will face far worse ones by 2100.

Sneaky Activists Changed ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’

“The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement. . . . It’s time for us to start talking about ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming.’ . . . While global warming has catastrophic connotations to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge . . .” (Luntz 2002).

The above comes from a strategy document submitted to the Bush administration in 2002 by Frank Luntz, a prominent Republican strategist. AGW deniers nevertheless insist that it was global warming activists and not the political establishment of the time that replaced the term global warming by climate change, when they realized that their climate projections were all wrong. Since climate change can mean lower as well as higher temperatures, they would then be covering themselves against the possibility of the planet getting cooler instead of warmer. In fact the two terms were used interchangeably until about 1998 when the IPCC settled upon the latter, apparently at the insistence of oil-producing countries and the United States (Poole 2007).

Melting Ice Cannot Raise Sea-Level

“If you have a glass of water with ice cubes in it, as the ice melts, it simply turns to liquid and the water level in the glass remains the same . . . (so that) even if polar ice caps melted, there would be no rise in ocean levels.”

This proclamation, made by Rush Limbaugh on a June 1992 radio talk show, has had a long shelf-life. It is correct for ice cubes already floating in a glass, and for the arctic ice cap, which is also afloat.3 However, adding ice cubes to the glass will clearly change the water level. This is the situation for ice melts in Greenland and Antarctica, where kilometers-thick layers of ice aren’t floating in the sea but are anchored to the underlying land masses. As for the added ice cubes, the ice doesn’t even have to melt: if part of it becomes detached from the main mass and slides into the ocean, it will displace the same amount of water as if it had first melted and then run off.

At the moment global sea level increases by about 3mm per year. Most of this comes from thermal expansion of the oceans as the temperature goes up. The contribution from melting ice is small; it would dominate only if Greenland and Antarctic ice melts took off in a big way.

It’s Just Computer Models . . .

“The greenhouse fearmongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind’s sinful contribution . . .” (Cockburn 2007).

The late Alexander Cockburn was a frequent contributor to The Nation, where he was famous for the “take no prisoners” style of his usually left-leaning writings. Global climate, or General Circulation Models (GCMs) apply the laws of nature (Newton’s laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, etc.) to calculate the time evolution of the atmosphere, the oceans, the polar ice, etc., under the influence of natural phenomena like volcanoes and solar variation, as well as human activities like fossil fuel burning and cement production. GCMs are not perfect, notably in the area of cloud formation, but they are constantly being refined as more and better data, faster computers, and improved computational techniques become available. Rejecting their results out of hand as unverified and oversimplified is a bit like treating the laws of nature as some kind of optional extra that you can ignore if you don’t like the conclusions they lead to.

Calculations need input data. These are not just made up; they come from present and past measurements of temperatures, ocean salinity, fossil fuel consumption, and so on. And of course scientists are well aware of the garbage in-garbage out effect. Several such models developed by different research groups around the world reproduce well the observed pattern of rising temperature since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Furthermore, when they are run with the anthropogenic part taken out, this “good fit” to the observed pattern becomes a very bad one. Assumptions about future fossil fuel consumption can be included in the data, and this is where the predictive value of GCMs comes in, and much of the uncertainty.

Uncertainty ? So You Can’t Trust the Models . . .

“Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. . . . You need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate” (Luntz 2002).

Luntz was here effectively advising George W. Bush to accept nothing short of absolute certainty in projections of future climate. Yet no measurement can be made with infinite precision, and much of the art involved in observation and experiment lies in estimating margins of error and refining techniques to reduce them as far as possible. The fact that the several independent GCMs in existence cross-check within their estimated margins of error is robust evidence that they are basically correct. To most nonscien­tists, however, the words error and mistake are synonymous. So Luntz is arguing that honestly admitting that global warming science can never be absolutely right is admitting it is just plain wrong.

Exhaled CO2 Exceeds Fossil Fuel Emissions

“I exhale carbon dioxide. I don’t want those guys following me around with a meter to see if I’m breathing too hard” (Romney 2011).

We inhale about four liters of CO2 per day but exhale about 350 liters. If we didn’t do this we would die, as this additional CO2 is a waste product of our metabolism. Annual CO2 exhalations from humans and animals amount to a few Gt, so even if it were necessary to include breathing among the global warming culprits, its contribution would be small compared to the 30 Gt anthropogenic total. However, we need not, in fact should not, take exhaled CO2 into account, since the additional 346 litres is just what we absorbed from the grains, fruits, vegetables, etc., in our diet, and was itself absorbed by these foodstuffs from the atmosphere when they were growing. Since anabolic processes in our food animals convert dietary plant material into tissue, meat eating accounts for part of the 346 liter total. CO2 exhaled by both animal and human life simply goes back into the environment as part of a closed cycle.

Conclusion

The individuals quoted above were doubtless expressing honestly held opinions. Belief is, however, no guarantee against being wrong. Most of their factoids are indeed long-dead horses, still being flogged as sure-fire winners in arguments against climate science. While not all AGW critics make such errors, those who do often make the most noise, so their factoids go viral all the more quickly. And they are certainly not alone in falling into the factoid trap—some environmentalists with strong opinions on the topic can and do fall into it too.

One last factoid will be especially annoying to SI readers: the claim that skeptics in the CSI sense are not real skeptics about global warming because they don’t categorically reject claims made by the thousands of scientists worldwide who spend their entire careers doing climate research. This charge has frequently been leveled at the Skepticalscience.com website, http://www.skepticalscience.com/fixednum.php, which addresses many more factoids than space permits in an article such as this one. There is no adequate defense to this allegation except perhaps to remind offenders politely of the wise words of Sir Walter Raleigh: “The Skeptick doth neither affirm nor deny any position, but doubteth of it, and opposeth his Reason against that which is affirmed or denied to justify his non-consenting.”

Or maybe not. He got his head chopped off.


Notes

1. CO2 absorbs heat most efficiently just where the earth radiates it most strongly, at wavelengths around 14–16 micrometers. The absorption length goes up with increasing altitude, down with increasing CO2. The figure quoted is an approximate sea level average.

2. The average temperature rise inferred for the polar regions some 12,000 years ago is about 9° C. Then, as now, this was about twice the global average.

3. Briny seawater is denser than the pure water ice formed in it. Consequently, melting sea ice does raise the level by a small amount.

References

Catholic Online (News Consortium). 2013. Global warming? Somebody tell this man why a few degrees of extra warmth are bad. Online at http://www.catholic.org/news/green/story.php?id=53482.

Cockburn, A. 2007. Is global warming a sin? Online at http://www.creators.com/opinion/alexander-cockburn/is-global-warming-a-sin.html.

Crichton, M. 2003. Aliens cause global warming. Online at https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html.

Fagan, B. 2004. The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization. London: Granta.

Gerlach, T. 2011. Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 92(24): 201–203.

Luntz, F. 2002. The environment, a cleaner, safer healthier America. Online at https://www2.bc.edu/~plater/Newpublicsite06/suppmats/02.6.pdf.

Mulshine, P. 2009. Do the math: What’s wrong with this global warming argument? Online at http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2009/05/do_the_math_whats_wrong_with_t.html.

Poole, S. 2007. Unspeak—Words Are Weapons. London: Abacus, pp. 42–46.

Romney, M. 2011. Mitt Romney: I exhale carbon dioxide. Online at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68709.html.

Tipp, D. 2011. Comment on The Bore Hole. Online at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-bore-hole/comment-page-8/#comment-207905.

USGS. N.d. Volcanoes and the weather. Online at vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/VolcWeather/description_volcanoes_and_weather.html.

Viewing all 856 articles
Browse latest View live