Skeptico

Seeing is fooling yourself

On Thursday, ABC aired a two hour UFO special presented by Peter Jennings, called Seeing Is Believing.

Usually when subjects like this are covered, only the “believer” side is presented, presumably because this results in higher ratings. If the skeptical side is included at all, it is often in a token out-of-context way, so that they can claim “balance”, while in reality promoting the believer viewpoint. An example would be the way ABC abused James Randi on their recent disgraceful “John of God” segment. ABC did no credit to itself on that item.

However, Jennings has in the past shown himself to be a journalist of integrity. In particular, I remember his special a year or so ago, where he debunked the more hysterical claims about the club drug Ecstasy. After this program, Jennings was accused by the Republican politician Mark Souder, of lacking moral compass. (Funny, I thought a moral compass would point you to telling the truth. Perhaps that’s why I’m not a Republican.) Anyway, with Jennings in charge, I had high hopes for this program, and in the main I wasn't disappointed. The program made an honest attempt to express the skeptical viewpoint. The UFO eyewitnesses and “alien abductees” were allowed to tell their stories with dignity and without any attempt to ridicule them, which is how it should be. But in virtually all cases an alternative natural explanation was offered.

It wasn’t prefect. The “Project Blue Book” segment gave a little too much credibility to the one scientist on the team who ended up believing in ET. Some of the “gee wiz” eyewitness accounts were allowed to stand without a direct counterpoint.  But the general weaknesses of eyewitness accounts were explored. Neil deGrasse Tysen, Director of the Hayden Planetarium, explained that although most people in a court of law would view eyewitness evidence as strong, in the “court of science” eyewitness evidence is the lowest form of evidence. Michael Shermer was also there to explain that eyewitness accounts are unreliable.

Is it a bird, is it a plane?

In line with the program’s title, there were numerous examples of people who had seen strange objects in the sky they believed were alien craft. A lot of time was spent on people who had seen the Phoenix lights – a string of lights in the sky that many believe was one huge UFO. An amateur astronomer was interviewed saying that these lights were almost certainly flares, and that the eyewitnesses had literally “connected the dots” to make a huge alien spacecraft. Other investigators have shown that the lights were really aircraft flying in formation. Whatever they really were, believers in ET are committing the same error in reasoning as creationists who cite irreducible complexity: they say that if we don’t know what it is then it must be..... (and here they insert their own preferred explanation. Creationists insert “designer” or “God”; ET enthusiasts insert “alien spacecraft”). They are using a lack of knowledge to arrive at a conclusion, but you can’t draw any conclusions from a lack of knowledge. Most ET “evidence” is of this kind.

During this segment, I couldn’t help noticing inconsistencies. Why were some ETs invisible to radar (due no doubt to cloaking technology), while some were seen on radar? Why were some ETs silent while another had rocket flames propelling them? Why were some saucer shaped, some cigar shaped and yet others triangular? And why were so few seen in broad daylight? Most were seem as extremely bright lights at night. What gives – if the aliens want to remain undetected why do they keep their high intensity landing lights on at night? Of course, none of this disproves the ET hypothesis, but these phenomena are consistent with unidentified objects of a non-ET kind.

Do aliens still use balloons for inter-stellar travel?

The Roswell “mystery” was explored pretty well. It is now known that what crashed in 1947 was a top-secret spy balloon, and Jennings unambiguously called the Roswell crashed ET story a “myth”. Especially compelling was the photo of a radar reflector on the balloon, animated to show how it would break up to fit the shape of the wreckage in the newspaper photo.

Jennings could perhaps have spent more time explaining Roswell. I was a little disappointed that he did not state that the “alien autopsy” film is known to be a fake (although it’s hard to see how anyone could think otherwise, watching the obviously faked dummies being worked on). But it is also true that some people will never accept that Roswell wasn’t an alien crash, no matter what the evidence to the contrary. As one of the scientists pointed out, Roswell is an item of faith among the ET believers: “it happened, don’t bother me with the facts”. A myth, indeed.

“They extracted my sperm”

Several “alien abductees” were featured. Almost all of these can be explained without resorting to ET abductions: Susan Clancy and others showed that  sleep paralysis is a better explanation.  Sleep paralysis is the condition that occurs just before dropping off to sleep or just before fully awakening from sleep.  The victim typically awakes from a period of REM sleep with the body still paralyzed and incapable of movement (a feature of REM sleep that prevents us from acting out our dreams, running around in our sleep, and so on). The person can be very scared by this, and often feels there is some sort of presence in the room. Of course, this is real to those who experience them, although they are actually the product of fantasy or imagination. It was also stated that sleep paralysis is probably responsible for stories of succubi, incubi and other demons throughout the ages. These same experiences today are viewed through the filter of popular culture and stories of aliens, and so these days are reported as alien abductions.

It was notable that by my count, five of the six “abductees” described their experience starting “I awoke”, or “I was lying in bed” or “in the middle of the night”, or similar. (The sixth interview was very short – it was not possible to tell if the “abductee” was in bed or not.) One person said the aliens were “three feet eleven inches high”, which seemed a pretty precise estimation, more consistent with imagination than an actual event. Another feature of these “abductions” – remembering the beginning and the end of the experience, but being hazy about the middle – is also entirely consistent with the experience of dreaming.

Unfortunately, these stories are often strengthened by the introduction of hypnosis to supposedly recover lost memories. One person was shown saying that through hypnosis he “realized that (he) was in a spaceship”. It is known that hypnosis if a very unreliable method for recovering what actually happened: the person being hypnotized is highly susceptible to suggestion, and will unconsciously manufacture “memories” to please the hypnotist, especially if these “memories” fit the preconceived belief of alien abduction. The memories “recovered” under hypnosis become even more real than the previous memories, thus strengthening the false belief further. The program did a pretty good job of explaining this, although it is perhaps a pity that Elizabeth Loftus, an acknowledged expert in false memories, was not interviewed.

Still no signal

The comparison was made with the real scientists at SETI, who have been searching for extra-terrestrial signals from distant stars for the last 45 years, without success. Unlike UFO enthusiasts, the scientists are not claiming that they have actually made contact, but when and if they do, they will say exactly where they found it and exactly what to look for. In other words there will be data, and they will actively encourage other scientists and anyone else with the equipment, to check the data for themselves. The difference between real science and UFO pseudoscience could not have been any clearer.

The program concluded by saying that only contact will resolve the mystery. Well, of course. Nearly 60 years since Roswell and not one piece of hard evidence – not one piece of crashed spacecraft, not one piece of unknown material, not one piece of alien technology has been recovered, just blurry photos and lights in the sky. Of course, to the conspiracy theorists that’s just proof of a cover up. (Conspiracy theory: the only type of theory where a lack of evidence is considered to be the strongest evidence for the theory.) But to realists it means we have no reason to suppose we have been visited by aliens.

Of course, not all sightings have been explained and some can never be explained. That always leaves the door open to the possibility that aliens might have visited Earth. All in all, however, I find it hard to see how a genuine open-minded person, interested in the truth, could come away from this program thinking UFOs must be extra-terrestrial.

Google me

I love checking the Google search strings people use to find this site. It tells me exactly what people are searching for, which articles they find in their searches and Skeptico’s ranking for that search. I click on a link and am taken to the actual Google results page they will have seen – a virtual window into their world, for a second.

Until two days ago, astrology was the most popular subject - more so than all the other subjects put together. Search strings have included: what do astrological signs mean, what does astrology mean, Geoffrey dean astrology 2005, against astrology, astrology science "born in", what do cpi mean in psychology, astrology is a load of crap (OK I made the last one up).  (For anyone finding this page who wanted to know about astrology, click here for the astrology tests.)

Today it has changed. Women’s breasts are now the number one subject. Strings include: ananova breast reveal personality, Lorenzoni shape breast, Lorenzoni breasts, Piero Lorenzoni breast theory, Piero Lorenzoni pictures breasts (several times). The world is obsessed with breasts, it would seem, and wants to see pictures of them if possible. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

And I am now number one on some Google searches. For example, you are now reading the number one site in the world for people who want to know about ananova breast size determine personality.

I’ve just had a thought. Listing all those search strings will probably raise my Google ranking even more. I didn’t mean it guys.

A nice pear

An Italian sex researcher claims he can tell a woman's personality from the size and shape of her breasts, reports Ananova:

According to German newspaper Bild sexologist Piero Lorenzoni said: "A woman's breasts denote a woman's character, just like her star sign."

He has categorised breast types according to fruits and says men can draw up their own horoscope-type chart that indicates what a woman's chest size says about her.

(My bold.)

It’s as accurate as astrology? Wow! It’s completely useless then. Still, in the spirit of keeping an open mind, I’m willing to assist in any additional research. I don’t claim to be an expert but I’m willing to learn on the job.

Here’s an idea. Perhaps Lorenzoni could team up with Jackie Stallone – she can tell your fortune by looking at your other end. Sounds like an interesting scam. I think I’ll get into this business.  Sign up for Skeptico’s T&A readings – “I’m not a psychic but I’ll have a look”. Hey, at least I’m honest.

I’ve just realized Stallone doesn’t practice astrology she practices asstrology. If she only looks at one cheek, is that half-asstrology? Oh wait, all astrology's like that.

"I love love in all its variations, but can be very religious, and am known to have affairs."

Gullibility virus

(I don’t know who wrote this – I wish I could claim I did, but I can’t. Anyway, it’s pretty funny and you can find it all over the internet.)

Do you get those annoying emails, forwarded by some idiot who never checks anything, telling you something you know is nonsense and that you don’t have time to read? Next time, copy and paste the following into your reply to them. For bonus points, hit “reply all”. You might not win any friends, but they’ll get the message.

Subject: Warning! Warning! Danger! Watch OUT!

***********************************************
WARNING, CAUTION, DANGER, AND BEWARE!
Gullibility Virus Spreading over the Internet!
***********************************************

WASHINGTON D.C.  -- The Institute for the Investigation of Irregular Internet Phenomena announced today that many Internet users are becoming infected by a new virus that causes them to believe without question every groundless story, legend, and dire warning that shows up in their inbox or on their browser. The Gullibility Virus, as it is called, apparently makes people believe and forward copies of silly hoaxes relating to underarm deodorant, terrorist attacks, computer viruses, taxes on email, and get-rich-quick schemes.

"These are not just readers of tabloids or people who buy lottery tickets based on fortune cookie numbers," a spokesman said. "Most are otherwise normal people, who would laugh at the same stories if told to them by a stranger on a street corner." However, once these same people become infected with the Gullibility Virus, they believe anything they read on the Internet.

"My immunity to tall tales and bizarre claims is all gone," reported one weeping victim. "I believe every warning message and sick child story my friends forward to me, even though most of the messages are anonymous."

Another victim, now in remission, added, "When I first heard about Good Times, I just accepted it without question. After all, there were dozens of other recipients on the mail header, so I thought the virus must be true." It was a long time, the victim said, before she could stand up at a Hoaxees Anonymous meeting and state, "My name is Jane, and I've been hoaxed." Now, however, she is spreading the word. "Challenge and check whatever you read," she says.

Internet users are urged to examine themselves for symptoms of the virus, which include the following:

The willingness to believe improbable stories without thinking. The urge to forward multiple copies of such stories to others. A lack of desire to take three minutes to check to see if a story is true.

T.C. is an example of someone recently infected. He told one reporter, "I read on the Net that the major ingredient in almost all shampoos makes your hair fall out, so I've stopped using shampoo." When told about the Gullibility Virus, T.C. said he would stop reading email, so that he would not become infected.

Anyone with symptoms like these is urged to seek help immediately. Experts recommend that at the first feelings of gullibility, Internet users rush to their favorite search engine and look up the item tempting them to thoughtless credence. Most hoaxes, legends, and tall tales have been widely discussed and exposed by the Internet community. Google is your friend.

Hoaxbusters
http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org/

Symantec Anti Virus Research Center http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/index.html

McAfee Associates Virus Hoax List at
http://us.mcafee.com/virusInfo/default.asp?id=hoaxes

Urban Legends Reference Pages at
http://www.snopes.com

Stop Spam
http://www.stop-spam.org/On-Line_Spam/antispam_fraud.php

Those people who are still symptom free can help inoculate themselves against the Gullibility Virus by reading some good material on evaluating sources, such as

Evaluation of Information Sources at
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~agsmith/evaln/evaln.htm

James Randi Education Foundation
www.randi.org

Lastly, as a public service, Internet users can help stamp out the Gullibility Virus by sending copies of this message to anyone who forwards them a hoax.

*************************************************************
This message is so important, we're sending it anonymously! Forward it to all your friends right away! Don't think about it! This is not a chain letter! This story is true! Don't check it out! This story is so timely, there is no date on it! This story is so important, we're using lots of exclamation points! Lots!! AND LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS. Because stories written in ALL CAPITALS MUST BE TRUE. For every message you forward to some unsuspecting person, the Home for the Hopelessly Gullible will donate ten cents to itself. (If you wonder how the Home will know you are forwarding these messages all over the world, you're obviously thinking too much.)
*************************************************************
ACT NOW! DON'T DELAY

! LIMITED TIME ONLY! NOT SOLD IN ANY STORE!

Unintelligent design

Following the New York Times’ anti-evolution op ed piece by Michael Behe two weeks ago, (debunked here and here), today’s magazine editorial by Jim Holt sets the record straight, to an extent. Holt asks the question, if there was a designer, was he any good at his job? The answer clearly is no, and he gives a couple of examples:

In mammals, for instance, the recurrent laryngeal nerve does not go directly from the cranium to the larynx, the way any competent engineer would have arranged it. Instead, it extends down the neck to the chest, loops around a lung ligament and then runs back up the neck to the larynx. In a giraffe, that means a 20-foot length of nerve where 1 foot would have done.

(Snip)

Perhaps 99 percent of the species that have existed have died out. Darwinism has no problem with this, because random variation will inevitably produce both fit and unfit individuals. But what sort of designer would have fashioned creatures so out of sync with their environments that they were doomed to extinction?

(Snip)

Fewer than one-third of (human) conceptions culminate in live births. The rest end prematurely, either in early gestation or by miscarriage. Nature appears to be an avid abortionist, which ought to trouble Christians who believe in both original sin and the doctrine that a human being equipped with a soul comes into existence at conception.

Of course, there are numerous examples of what looks like really bad design in nature. This is a major problem for proponents of intelligent design that no amount of waffling about irreducible complexity will make go away.

I see dead people (or not)

Ghost hunting is a strange business. How can people hunt for something that, if it even exists, no one knows what it’s made of? Aren’t they just making up a characteristic that they think a ghost has and then looking for that characteristic? If they find what they are looking for, how can they say they found a ghost? They made up the characteristic to start with.

One of the standard ghost hunting techniques is to take photos at a haunted site, and when the photo is developed, look for images of the spirits. You quite often have to use your imagination (it helps if you squint), and sometimes even then you don’t even get a recognizable image, which is why you’ll see references to orbs, as though these are somehow ghostly spirits too.

I could never understand the theory behind all this. How is it that a camera can capture something that is there, but we can’t see with the naked eye? Surely the opposite is true? Cameras are inclined to show less than we see with the eye, as you will know if you ever took a photo indoors and the flash didn’t go off. Or if you took a picture in bright sunlight and found the shadows were too dark to see any detail at all. I once had an argument with a woman on a ghost hunters’ message board (I have no life), where I asked her to explain the magic property of a camera that allowed it to take pictures of something no one in the room could see. She told me to go and research it myself – it wasn’t her job to “do your homework for you” (see five apples, number 5). This person’s hobby was taking pictures of ghosts and posting them on a website, but she had no idea why the camera would be able to see a ghost that wasn’t visible with the naked eye, and had no curiosity to find out.

Most of the pictures that aren’t outright frauds, can be explained by distorted reflections or by plain bad photography. For example, the famous orbs are usually caused by small particles of dust, very close to the camera lens (and therefore out of focus), lit up by the flash. Many other plausible explanations have been offered. Do the ghost hunters want to hear this? Of course not. Take a look at this post by Paul, from his Aurora Walking Vacation blog; he seems to know a thing or two about how spirit photos are done:

The other day on a message board I was accused of ridiculing somebody for my reply to their post offering spirit photography lessons. I wrote a fairly long and detailed reply offering up my expertise on the subject right there on the board, without people having to resort to taking some kind of formal lessons. Apparently, I stepped on somebody's toes, because my post was taken down by the powers that be in short order.

Right there, the thinking of the closed-minded believer is laid out for all to see. Paul merely wanted to explain what was really going on, but the believers were too scared and closed-minded to allow his post even to stay up. And skeptics are accused of being closed minded.

Take a look at Paul’s photos. See if you can figure out how he did them. And if you can’t figure them out, that doesn’t mean they are pictures of ghosts.

Unintelligent argument

Surfing, I came across this blog by Rusty, whose “Evangelical Christian Blog (is) based on clear thinking and sound philosophy”. Okey dokey, what does it say? Well, in a section on how science plans to bar code the DNA of all life on Earth, there is this unintelligent design argument:

Let’s see, coding is applied to identifying items in a database. It’s quite interesting that a randomly generated, purposeless entity such as DNA could be utilized in such a manner.

Of course!  Bar-coding was designed, it applies to DNA and so DNA was designed. Or put it another way, goddidit.

Why can these people not learn the basics of what they wish to debunk? DNA did not develop “randomly”. The mutations may have been random, but the ones that survived did so by natural selection.

Glad to see there were several replies to Rusty’s post, pointing out his errors. Wasting their time with Rusty though, I would guess.

Woo woo economics

It’s not just psychics and Alt. Med that’s woo woo.

The Economist reports (subscription may be needed), of a forthcoming article in the American Economic Review, entitled “Why Have Housing Prices Gone Up?” A conclusion is that a large portion of the increase in property prices is due to government restrictions on building new property. It’s basic economics: restrict supply and, all other things being equal, prices go up. The article states that by the year 2000, the value of what they call “permission to build” was more than 40% of the price of property in 27 US cities.

As they point out, this is significant because:

Since housing is by far the biggest expense for most people, any source of house-price inflation matters. Although zoning restrictions are often welcomed on the grounds of preserving the benefits of rural charm or urban character, their cost tends to fall disproportionately on poorer people.... By raising property values, planning laws act as a windfall for existing owners and a burden on those who rent or seek to buy. Since renters typically have lower incomes and wealth, zoning is often a highly regressive form of taxation

(My bold.)

This is especially significant for residents of San Francisco where I live. Property prices are high here. But at least the lower income renters in SF are protected by rent control laws, so their rents are held down, right? No wait, rent control increases rents. Guess they’re screwed then.

The city government in SF restricts new building on the principle that if less property is built, fewer people will want to move here. Then they restrict the rents landlords can charge and assume this will result in low rental property becoming available. Yes, the city government thinks it can repeal the laws of supply and demand. Good job I bought my property in 1998.

Unforeseen circumstances?

I don’t know if you watch the British TV program “Big Brother”.  Apparently they get a load of B-list celebrities and put them in a house together,  It’s a reality show. A bit like survivor but without the inconvenience of having to actually rough-it in the open. Anyway, they get to vote people out of the house. A new series just started, and the first person to be kicked out was Sylvester Stallone’s supposed “psychic” mother, Jackie Stallone. The eviction apparently came as a complete surprise to Stallone, who reportedly considered writing to the Queen to complain. But then, according to The Sun:

Jackie decided against bothering the royal family after discovering the Queen has enough to worry about.

She told Closer magazine: "The show has destroyed my reputation. I have a multi-million dollar astrology business and I get over 5,000 Brits a month writing to me about their problems.

"Now they're going to be asking for refunds.”

Well damn right they should get a refund! She’s clearly not much of a psychic or she would have seen this coming, wouldn't she? And what psychic ability told her the Queen has something to do with running the TV?  I wouldn't trust this old fraud to give me advice but apparently a lot of people do, if she really does have a multi-million dollar astrology business as she claims.

Still, it’s not surprising she didn’t predict this ending. Because as we know from yesterday, astrology doesn’t work.  Either psychic astrology or the regular kind.

Some psychic!

What do you mean, “test” astrology?

That was the actual question someone asked me recently. I had said that whenever astrology is tested, it fails the test. Her reply was, what do you mean, “test” astrology? I said, well, compare the predictions made by astrology, to what actually transpires. (i.e., see if it works.) It seemed a pretty obvious reply. It seemed to confuse her, though.

Astrologers don’t like testing astrology to see if it works. Can’t say I blame them, because it doesn’t work. Think of this. An expert astrologer draws up your detailed chart based on your accurate natal data. You are given this horoscope, and two others of different people. Would you be able to tell which one is yours? Because if not, what does it mean to say that astrology works? Whenever this test is done, people are not able to do this with any greater probability than pure chance. (i.e. one in three would get it right.)

Possibly the most detailed test of astrology using this type of method, was performed by Shawn Carlson. His paper, “A Double-blind Test of Astrology”, was published in the peer reviewed scientific journal Nature, in 1985. The interesting thing is that the San Francisco chapter of the National Council for Geocosmic Research recommended the 28 professional astrologers who took part, and (with Carlson), designed the tests. They also predicted, in advance, what they would consider to be a successful test.

Two tests were performed:

Test #1: Astrological charts were prepared for 83 subjects, based on natal data (date, time and place of birth), provided by the subjects. Each subject was given three charts: one chart based on their own natal data, and two charts derived from natal data of other people. Each subject was asked to identify the chart that most correctly described them. In only 28 of the 83 cases, the subject chose their own chart.  This is the exact success rate expected for random chance. The astrologers predicted that the subjects would select their own chart more that 50% of the time.

Test #2: 116 subjects completed California Personality Index surveys and provided natal data (date, time and place of birth). One set of natal data and the results of three personality surveys (one of which was for the same person as the natal data) were given to an astrologer who was to interpret the natal data and determine which of the three CPI results belonged to the same subject as the natal data. In only 40 of the 116 cases, the astrologers chose the correct CPI. As with test #1, this is the exact success rate expected for random chance. The astrologers predicted that they would select the correct CPI profiles in more that 50 per cent of the trials.

Conclusion by Carlson:

"We are now in a position to argue a surprisingly strong case against natal astrology as practiced by reputable astrologers. Great pains were taken to insure that the experiment was unbiased and to make sure that astrology was given every reasonable chance to succeed. It failed. Despite the fact that we worked with some of the best astrologers in the country, recommended by the advising astrologers for their expertise in astrology and in their ability to use the CPI, despite the fact that every reasonable suggestion made by advising astrologers was worked into the experiment, despite the fact that the astrologers approved the design and predicted 50% as the "minimum" effect they would expect to see, astrology failed to perform at a level better than chance.

"I have not yet received a serious scientific challenge to the paper. The newsletter of the American Federation of Astrologers Network published a response in January (1986). I was very disappointed to see that it largely consists of personal attacks. Its few substantive criticisms are attributable to ignorance of the experiment, of the CPI, and of basic scientific methodology."

(My bold.)

So the astrologers failed their own test. Does this mean they gave up astrology as being useless? Of course not: they are totally closed minded to the possibility that astrology doesn’t work.

Of course, in science one test alone doesn’t decide things. That’s why I have summarized below an additional 36 similar types of tests that astrology failed.

36 Other Tests Astrology Failed

Gauquelin, M.
Zodiac and Personality: An Empirical Study
Skeptical Inquirer, 6:3, 57
1982

Compiled personality profiles from biographies of 2000 sports figures, actors, scientists, and writers.  Compared these profiles with personality traits associated with the sign of the sun, moon, and ascendant according to eight astrology texts.  No correlation was found using either the sidereal or tropical zodiac.

Press, N., Michelsen, N.F., Russel, L., Shannon, J., Stark, M.
The New York Suicide Study
Journal of Geocosmic Research, 2, 23-47
1978

Examined records of suicides in NYC from 1969 to 1973. Selected all suicides who were born in NYC and for which birth data was available. This resulted in 311 suicide cases. 

For each of these, a control subject was randomly chosen who was born in the same borough and year.  The suicides and matching controls were divided into three groups according to year of suicide.

A computer program was used to test 100,000 different astrological factors in each of the 622 birth charts for significance between suicide and control groups.  None of the factors consistently correlated with the suicide cases.

Culver, R.
Sun Sign Sunset
Pachert
1979

Van Deusen, E.
Astrogenetics
Doubleday
1976

Culver, R., Ianna, P.
Astronomy Quarterly, 1, 147
1977

The above three references examined the correlation between sun sign and over 60 occupations.  The results of all three were negative -- no correlation was found between occupation and sun sign.

Dean G., Mather, A.
Recent Advances in Natal Astrology
p113
The Astrological Association
1977

Silverman, B., Witmer, M.
Astrological Indicators of Personality
Journal of Psychology, 87, 89
1974

Per Dalen,
Season of Birth
American Elsevier Publishing
1975

Pellegrini, R.,
The Astrological Theory of Personality
Journal of Psychology, 85, 21
1973

The above 4 references all found no correlation between sun sign and personality traits as measured by standardized psychological tests, mostly the California Personality Inventory (CPI). However, Pellegrini found a slight correlation between the CPI femininity index and season of birth.

Illingworth, D., Syme, G.
Birthday and Femininity
Journal of Social Psychology, 103, 153
1977

Tyson, G.
Astrology or Season of Birth: A 'Split-Sphere' Test
Journal of Psychology, 95, 285
1977

These two studies found no correlation between sun sign and personality traits measured by the CPI, including the femininity index.

Mayes, B.,  Klugh, H.
Birthdate Psychology: A Look at Some New Data
Journal of Psychology 99, 27
1978

Compiled natal charts and results of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the Leary Interpersonal Check List for 196 subjects. Compared 13 personality traits with sun signs, signs and houses of the moon and 8 planets, and with five planetary aspects.  No correlations were found.

Mayo, J., White, O., Eysenck, H.
An Empirical Study of the Relation between Astrology Factors and
Personality
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 105, 229
1979

Jackson M.
Extroversion, Neuroticism, and Date of Birth: A Southern Hemisphere
Study
Journal of Psychology, 101, 197
1979

These two studies found correlations between astrological factors and the Introversion/Extroversion index of the Eysenck Personality Inventory.

Veno, A., Pammunt, P.
Astrological Factors and Personality: a Southern Hemisphere
Replication
Journal of Psychology, 101, 73
1979

Failed to duplicate the correlation found above.

Pawlik, K.,  Buse, L.,
Self-attribution as a Differential Psychological Moderating Variable
Zeitschrift fur Sozilpsychologie, 10, 54
1979

Showed that the correlation above could be explained by the fact that some of the subjects knew what the expected results would be for their astrological signs.

Eysenck, H.,
Astrology: Science or Superstition?
Encounter, Dec 1979, p85

Jackson, M., Fiebert, M. S.
Introversion-Extroversion and Astrology
Journal of Psychology, 105, 155
1980

Saklofske, D., Kelly,McKerracher, D.
An Empirical Study of Personality and Astrological Factors
Journal of Psychology, 110, 275
1982

These three studies found no correlation between astrological factors (sun and planetary) and personality, including the introversion/extroversion index of the Eysenck Personality Inventory.

Culver, R., Ianna, P.
Astrology: True or False, p215
Prometheus
1988

A double blind test of astrologer John McCall was organized at the University of Virginia by Charles Tolvert and Philip Ianna.  McCall claimed an 80 percent success rate in choosing the correct natal horoscope for a subject from three false ones.  Twenty-eight subjects were chosen according to McCalls requirements (naturally born caucasians).  McCall had 7 successes out of 28 trials, exactly the number predicted by chance.

Silverman, Bernie I.,
Contemporary Astronomy by J. Pasachoff, cf p437
W. B. Saunders

Kop, P., Heuts, B.
Journal of Interdisciplenary Cycle Research 5, 19
1974

The above 2 studies found no correlation between marriage/divorce rate and sun sign combinations in the state of Michigan and the city of Amsterdam respectively. John McGervey Physicist Western Reserve University Found that the sun signs of 6,000 politicians and 10,000 scientists were randomly distributed.

Dean, Geoffrey
(don’t have reference)

Astrological readings were done for a groups of subjects.  The content of some of the readings were reversed (changed phrases describing the subject to their opposites).

Subjects reported that both the reversed and normal readings applied 95 per cent of the time

Gauquelin, M.
L'Influence des Astres, Etude Critique et Experimentale
Dauphin Press
1955

Found no correlation between occupation and the zodiac signs containing Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the Moon at the time of birth.

Gauquelin, M.
The Cosmic Clocks, p84
Henry Regnery Co.
1967

Found random distribution of the house containing Saturn for successful individuals, and the house containing Mars for murderers.

Barth, J., Bennet, J.
Leonardo 7, 235
1974

Found no correlation between occupation, medical problems, height, longevity, and the zodiac signs containing Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter at the time of birth.

Culver, R., Ianna, P.
Astronomy Quarterly, 1, 85
1977

Pretty much the same study and results as the previous reference. Additionally, no correlation was found between occupation, medical problems, etc. and angular separation (along the ecliptic) of planet pairs at time of birth.

Dean, G.
Does Astrology Need to be True?  Part 1: A Look at the Real Thing
Skeptical Inquirer, 11, 166
1987

Astrologers prepared horoscopes for subjects correct natal data. Reversed charts were then constructed from the correct charts by retaining the sun sign, but reversing all of the planetary aspects. Half of the subjects were given correct charts, the other half were given reversed charts.  There was no correlation between the perceived accuracy of the charts and whether the subject was given a correct or reversed chart.

Dwyer T.
Unpublished word described in Dean, 1987.

Horoscopes were prepared for correct natal data and for a birth date 5 years and 6 months before the correct date, with the correct sun sign retained.  Thirty subjects were given the correct and incorrect charts.  Half of the subjects picked the correct chart, half chose the incorrect chart.

McGrew, John H., McFall, Richard M.
A Scientific Inquiry Into the Validity of Astrology
Journal of Scientific Exploration, 4, 75-83 1990

Six expert astrologers independently attempted to match 23 astrological birth charts to the corresponding case files of 4 male and 19 female volunteers. Case files contained information on the volunteers' life histories, full-face and profile photographs, and test profiles from the Strong-Campbell Vocational Interest Blank and the Cattell 16-P.F. Personality Inventory. Astrologers did no better than chance or than a nonastrologer control subject at matching the birth charts to the personal data; this result was independent of astrologers' confidence ratings for their predicted matches. Astrologers also failed to agree with one another's predictions.

Geoffrey Dean

Journal of Consciousness Studies, August 2003 (Newspaper  article)

A study of 2,000 people, most born within minutes of one another, tracked over several decades. The study looked at more than 100 different characteristics, ranging from IQ to ability in art and sport, from anxiety levels to sociability and occupation - all of which astrologers claim are influenced by heavenly bodies. He found no evidence of the similarities that astrologers would have predicted.

The experimenters found no evidence of similarities between the "time twins". "The test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success... but the results are uniformly negative," the research report said.

Dean said that the consistency of the findings weighed heavily against astrology: "It has no acceptable mechanism, its principles are invalid and it has failed hundreds of tests. But no hint of these problems will be found in astrology books which, in effect, are exercises in deception," he said.

Dean is ready for a torrent of criticism: "I'm probably the most hated person in astrology because I'm regarded as a turncoat."  The research undermined the claims of astrologers, who typically work with birth data far less precise than that used in the study.  Dean said: "They sometimes argue that times of birth just a minute apart can make all the difference by altering what they call the 'house cusps'," he said. "But in their work, they are happy to take whatever time they can get from a client."

In 1971 the Survey Research Centre of the University of California Berkeley sampled 1000 adults in the bay area getting information on natal signs and lots of attributes claimed by astrology to correspond. For instance, Leos are supposed to have good leadership qualities. An analysis by Ralph Bastedo found no correlation for leadership, political stand, intelligence, belief in astrology, musical ability, artistic ability, confidence, creativity, occupation, religion, ability to make friends, to organize or to feel deeply. This showed that these tendencies do not differ between signs, so natal signs cannot be used to predict personality traits.

In 1979 Michel Gauquelin put an advertisement in Ici-Paris offering a free horoscope. Recipients were asked to reply saying how accurate they and their friends found the horoscope. Of the first 150 replies, 94% percent said it was accurate as did 90% of their friends and family. Unfortunately, they all got the same horoscope, that of Dr. Petiot, a notorious mass murderer.

In 1985, Harry Edwards checked all the predictions from Old Moore's Almanack for 1984. These were written by a couple of top astrologers. Of the 200 predictions it was possible to check, less than 5% materialized and practically all of those could have been based solely on probability, prior knowledge or astute speculation. Astrologers are no better than pastry cooks, taxi drivers or any of us at predicting.

On June 7, 1989 on American television, James Randi offered $100,000 to any psychic or Astrologer who could prove the truth of their claims. An astrologer who took up the challenge was given the birth information of twelve people and had cast their charts. He interviewed the twelve without knowing who was who and was to identify them by matching them with horoscopes. He got none right. (Note: Randi now offers a $1 Million prize.)

Finally, Michel Gauquelin created a long running affair, starting in the late 60s, called the Mars effect with some research that looked very promising for astrology.

He collected enormous amounts of data from catalogues of famous people ending up with data for thousands of sporting champions, scientists, actors and writers. He found statistically significant correlations between the birth of sports champions and the position of Mars, between actors and Jupiter, between scientists and Saturn and between journalists and Moon. This shouldn't have been too much encouragement because it was only four planets, only four professions, and only for the top couple of percent of those professions. He found no correlations at all for any planet with random samples.

Because of the enormous amount of data it was difficult to reproduce and one attempt at refuting it boiled into a scandal where doubt was cast on the credibility of the refuters. Eventually, a French group, with Gauquelin's cooperation, set up another test of over a thousand sports champions and found a negative result. Gauquelin then argued that some of the champions weren't champions at all and that several other champions had been missed and should have been included. Needless to say these changes produced a positive result but are clearly post-hoc data manipulation introducing bias.

Since none of these tests are positive for a random sample of people it depended exclusively on how you define champion. Gauquelin wasn't cheating or insincere but he was giving himself permission to select his data by focusing on champions and it was just too much work to find nothing.

Edited to add:

Fichten, Catherine S. Sunerton, Betty.

Journal of Psychology. Vol 114(1), 123-134

May 1983

Investigated (1) individual differences associated with horoscope reading habits, (2) the reliability and validity of daily and monthly horoscope forecasts and astrologically based personality descriptions, and (3) the effects of knowing the zodiac sign on the perception of the usefulness of horoscope forecasts and on the accuracy of astrologically based personality descriptions. 366 undergraduates were administered the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) and Rotter's Internal-External Locus of Control Scale. Results indicate that females were more likely to read their horoscopes. Although locus of control was unrelated to horoscope reading habits, Neuroticism on the EPI was closely related. Daily and monthly forecasts were unreliable and invalid. Astrologically based personality descriptions had some reliability, and knowledge of zodiac sign affected ratings of horoscope usefulness and accuracy of astrologically based personality descriptions. (23 ref) ((c) 1997 APA/PsycINFO, all rights reserved)

Peter Hartmanna, Martin Reuterb and Helmuth Nyborga

Individual Differences Research Unit (IDRU), University of Aarhus, Department of Psychology

1 November 2005.

We investigated the relationship between date of birth and individual differences in personality and intelligence in two large samples. The first sample consisted of 4000+ middle-aged male subjects from the Vietnam Experience Study; personality was measured by the MMPI items converted to EPQ (scales) and a large battery of cognitive tests were factored to derive general intelligence, g. The second sample consisted of 11,000+ young adults from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth from 1979. g was extracted from the ten subtests of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery.

In no cases did date of birth relate to individual differences in personality or general intelligence.

A further goal was to test Eysenck’s notion of possible relationships between date of birth and the popular Sun Signs in astrology. No support could be found for such associations.
We conclude that the present large-scale study provides no evidence for the existence of relevant relationships between date of birth and individual differences in personality and general intelligence.
(Hat tip to Hokum-Balderdash Assay.)

Irreducible Complexity proven to evolve

One of the claims of the so-called intelligent design (ID) movement is that some aspects of life are “irreducibly complex”, and so could not have evolved. An example often given is the eye, because it contains many parts (lens, iris, retina, optic nerve), and it will not work if even one is missing. The claim is that the eye could not have evolved one step at a time, since all components have to exist for the eye to work. Since it is highly unlikely that all these different components evolved together in one step, ID proponents claim a designer must have been at work.

Of course, this argument has been debunked many times. For example, there are simpler versions of the eye on such animals as the flatworm. Clearly a primitive eye that could just tell the animal if it was in light or shadow, would be of benefit. This hasn’t stopped ID proponents and their “irreducibly complex” argument, though. And the argument, although flawed, was difficult to prove wrong. Until now.

An article in February’s Discover Magazine describes how Scientists at Michigan State University have been running an experiment where digital organisms have evolved into irreducibly complex forms. (You’ll need a subscription to read the whole article.) This is what they did. They set up bits of computer code, similar to computer viruses, as kinds of digital organisms. Each digital organism was set up so it could produce tens of thousands of copies of itself within minutes. But this is what makes it interesting: their instructions were set up so they could mutate in a similar way to how DNA mutates.  A software program called Avida allowed the scientists to record the complete lifecycle of generations of the mutated digital organisms – the complete history of their actual evolution.

Physicist Chris Adami of Caltech, set out to manipulate the environment to see if the organisms could evolve the ability to do addition. He took the basic digital organisms and:

at regular intervals presented numbers to them. At first they could do nothing. But each time a digital organism replicated, there was a small chance that one of its command lines might mutate. On a rare occasion, these mutations allowed an organism to process one of the numbers in a simple way. An organism might acquire the ability simply to read a number, for example, and then produce an identical output.

Adami rewarded the digital organisms by speeding up the time it took them to reproduce. If an organism could read two numbers at once, he would speed up its reproduction even more. And if they could add the numbers, he would give them an even bigger reward. Within six months, Adami’s organisms were addition whizzes. “We were able to get them to evolve without fail,” he says. But when he stopped to look at exactly how the organisms were adding numbers, he was more surprised. “Some of the ways were obvious, but with others I’d say, ‘What the hell is happening?’ It seemed completely insane.”

Not only had they evolved the ability to do addition, they had evolved to be irreducibly complex. For example, for a digital organism to add two numbers together, it would have to read the numbers, hold them in memory, add them, and hold the sum in memory or read it out. If any of these steps was removed, addition wouldn’t happen. This is what ID proponents say is impossible to evolve.

The scientists then decided to see if they could evolve even more complex operations. They set up an experiment to evolve the operation known as “equals”, which:

consists of comparing pairs of binary numbers, bit by bit, and recording whether each pair of digits is the same. It’s a standard operation found in software, but it’s not a simple one. The shortest equals program Ofria could write is 19 lines long. The chances that random mutations alone could produce it are about one in a thousand trillion trillion.

The scientists set up the experiment so that the organisms would replicate for 16,000 generations, and then performed this experiment 50 times.  Startlingly, the “equals” function, which has at least 19 irreducibly complex steps, evolved in 23 of the 50 experiments. And, in line with evolutionary theory, all 23 successful evolutions were done in completely different ways.

The researchers made their software freely available on the Internet, and allowed creationists to download it to test it for flaws.  Despite this army of highly motivated bug testers, no major flaws have been found.  So, now that these creationists have proved for themselves that irreducible complexity can evolve, do you think they will drop this silly objection to evolution? OK, rhetorical question.

I really recommend anyone to get hold of the magazine and read the full article. (Take out a subscription – it’s not that expensive.) It's fascinating: I’ve only scratched the surface of the story here.

Featured DVD – Penn & Teller

This is the first of a series of occasional posts explaining why I recommend various books and DVDs. Today I feature the DVDs of Penn & Teller’s Showtime TV series, “Bullshit”. The first set consists of three DVDs containing the initial 13 episodes, plus some bonus items not shown on TV, such as an interview with James Randi.

The purpose of the series was to reveal the truth behind talking to the dead, Nostradamus, remote viewing, feng shui, alien abductees, creationists, extreme environmentalists, bottled water, alternative medicine and more. Undercover operatives were used to film the stories, and these location shots are interspersed with Penn’s comments (Teller remains mute), in the studio. The programs are fast paced, use a lot of humor, and pull no punches, as you might guess from the provocative series title.

They certainly get their message across. For example, in the segment on feng shui, they call in three feng shui experts to rearrange furniture in the same Californian house. No one who sees this program will forget how each of the three feng shui experts comes up with completely different arrangements of furniture - each expert supposedly using the same feng shui “science”. Especially telling was how the first feng shui expert said that the red sofa was bad for the family – she mentioned several health problems that would result. Then the second one said the red color was “absolutely perfect”. What a hoot. Does this prove that feng shui is bullshit? Well no, of course not. To do that you would need a much bigger experiment. But it’s not the job of Penn & Teller or anyone else to prove that feng shui is nonsense; if feng shui experts want us to believe in it, it is up to them to provide evidence that it does work. What P&T do is demonstrate the general idea of how things should be tested. And they make it pretty clear that they think feng shui failed the test.

Mind you, I don’t necessarily agree with everything they say. For example, in the “environmental hysteria” section, they seem to give too much credence to the global warming doubters. I know there are differing views on this, but it seems to me that the majority of peer reviewed literature today supports the anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis. But P&T also demonstrate that many environmentalists don’t know what they’re talking about either, and support causes they don’t understand. For example, at an environmental rally, they get everybody they ask, to sign a petition to ban di-hydrogen monoxide. Of course, di-hydrogen monoxide is H2O.

I may not agree with P&T 100%, but I’ll settle for 90% and a lot of fun. This is a great DVD for promoting critical thinking to non-skeptics. It’s much easier to get people to watch a 30 minute DVD than (say) read a book by Michael Shermer (good though they are). The DVD succeeds because it is entertaining, and at times hilariously funny. I have shown these DVDs to several people, including some who I thought would not like the hard-core skepticism. I found they enjoyed them tremendously and got the message.

Bear in mind, since these were originally on Showtime, they contain a lot of profanity: some people might be offended. Apart from that, the DVD makes an excellent gift for the person in your life who you feel needs to be exposed to a more skeptical way of thinking.

Or anyone who just likes a good laugh.

The first series

The second series

Five apples

This is what my life is like. I have four apples. At least I’m pretty sure there are only four, I only bought four, I can only see four and there is no reason to suppose I have any more. There could be five I suppose, but I see no reason to think so. The trouble is, everyone else thinks there are five. I ask people for evidence that there are five apples. I ask them what reason they have to suppose there are five, or to show me how they counted five, and these are the replies I get:

1. What do you mean, “count the apples”?
2. Have you studied agriculture? If not, how do you know there aren’t five apples?
3. The majority of people in the world know there are five apples.  Are you saying they are all wrong?
4. It’s closed-minded to think there aren't five apples.
5. There is plenty of evidence to prove that there are five apples, go and look for it, I’m not counting them for you.
6. Apples can’t be “counted” by science, so there are five apples.
7. Can you prove there isn’t a fifth apple somewhere?
8. Scientists counted only three apples in the past and now they admit there are four, so there are five now.
9. The ancient Chinese knew there were five apples; modern science still has not yet caught up.
10. They laughed at Galileo when he said there were five bananas, and he was right, so there are five apples.
11. Science can’t yet see all the apples. You can’t see radio waves, but they existed before we developed ways to measure them, so why can’t there be a fifth invisible apple now that we just haven’t developed the technology to see?
12. Quantum mechanics proves there are five apples.
13. I just know the fifth apple is there.
14. It’s a government conspiracy to cover up the existence of the fifth apple.
15. You’re not keeping up with the latest research. It has now been proven that there are five apples (although I can’t actually remember where this research is written up).

Here’s the thing: I actually have four apples and an orange. These people are so busy making up stories about a fifth apple, they’ll never realize the orange even exists.

Popeye was a rollin’ stoner

According to The Alternet, Popeye was a pot head:

During the 1920s and '30s, the era when Popeye was created, "spinach" was a very common code word for marijuana. One classic example is "The Spinach Song," recorded in 1938 by the popular jazz band Julia Lee and Her Boyfriends. Performed for years in clubs thick with cannabis smoke, along with other Julia Lee hits like "Sweet Marijuana," the popular song used spinach as an obvious metaphor for pot.

In addition, anti-marijuana propaganda of the time claimed that marijuana use induced super-strength. Overblown media reports proclaimed that pot smokers became extraordinarily strong, and even immune to bullets. So tying in Popeye's mighty strength with his sucking back some spinach would have seemed like an obvious cannabis connection at the time.

Furthermore:

…in many of the animated Popeye cartoons from the 1960s, Popeye is explicitly shown sucking the power-giving spinach through his pipe.

Of course, even I remember Popeye getting his “spinach” through his pipe. I’m sure I even remember him lighting it up afterwards. And who can forget the famous breakthrough episode from the late 60s, where Popeye, Olive Oyl and Bluto sat around the house all day watching bad TV and eating cookie dough and ice cream:

Bluto: “Duuude, pass the spinach”

Popeye: “I haven’t got it. Olive?

Olive Oyl: “Cough cough cough…”

You do remember that episode, right? I do. I think I do anyway.

All this reminds me of another cartoon I used to watch when I was growing up in England in the 19… er never mind. Anyway, there were only two channels on the TV and both were in black & white. The program was “Captain Pugwash”. A cartoon about some jolly pirates. Here’s the thing. The creators played a little joke on the BBC. You see, in those innocent times, the creators of Captain  Pugwash included characters with double entendres in their names. Seriously. There was Master Bates, Seaman Staines, and Roger the Cabin Boy. (In English slang, “to roger” someone means to have sex with them. As in, “I gave her a good rogering”.) And no one knew. No one realized. Until many years later, when it all became a great joke. I told this story to many of my American friends to much laughter.

There was only one problem with this story: it wasn’t true. The story about the hoax played on the BBC was, itself, a hoax. The actual crew names were Master Mate, Tom the Cabin Boy, and Pirates Barnabas and Willy. (OK, so perhaps there was one dick joke.) But I remembered the double entendre names. Somehow I had heard the hoaxed story, and created a false memory of it.

False memories are a controversial subject.  The forensic psychologist Elizabeth Loftus is an expert in the field, and has published many studies on the subject. In one of her experiments, she exposed volunteers to a fake print advertisement describing a visit to Disneyland, where they would meet Bugs Bunny.  Later, 33% of these volunteers claimed they remembered this meeting. The only problem was, Bugs Bunny is a Warner Brothers cartoon – 33% of the volunteers created a false memory based on what Loftus told them to expect.

False memories can have more serious consequences:

"We can easily distort memories for the details of an event that you did experience," says Loftus. "And we can also go so far as to plant entirely false memories - we call them rich false memories because they are so detailed and so big."

She has persuaded people to adopt false but plausible memories - for instance, that at the age of five or six they had the distressing experience of being lost in a shopping mall.

This has obvious consequences for when someone “recovers” memories of childhood sexual abuse, and the supposed abuser is prosecuted because of these memories. Undoubtedly some innocent people have gone to jail based on recovered memory testimony.

Less serious, but almost as hotly disputed, is that false memories are likely the reason so many people believe they were abducted by aliens. They also help explain how “psychics” and other tricksters get away what with they do. One thing is for sure: memories are not like a tape you can replay and be sure they are exactly correct. So when someone tells you a psychic did or said something that can only have a paranormal explanation, you can bet they’re not remembering it right.

What does all this mean for Popeye? As I recall, he used to consume a whole tin of that “spinach” in every ten minute cartoon skit. That’s a serious quantity. If these rumors about him are true, I doubt if he has memories, false or otherwise, of very much at all.

What’s really in that pipe?

Michael Behe at it again

You almost feel sorry for Michael Behe. All he can do is repeat the same tired old anti-evolution “Intelligent Design” (ID) arguments that have already been debunked, nothing new. He’s at it again, this time in The New York Times Op Ed last weekend. Since the NYT gave him a pulpit, I guess he should be debunked once more. Try not to fall asleep reading Behe’s lame excuses for an argument. Keep a sharp pin handy – stick it in your arm if you feel yourself falling asleep. Here goes…

In the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution, there has been a rush to debate the merits of the rival theory of intelligent design. As one of the scientists who have proposed design as an explanation for biological systems, I have found widespread confusion about what intelligent design is and what it is not.

Then let me clear up the confusion. This is what ID is not: ID is not a scientific theory. Got that? Good. Next.

Want more? OK, a scientific theory is an explanation for some observable fact; ID is just a series of criticisms of the theory of evolution. See the difference?  A scientific theory does not consist of a series of criticisms of another theory, even if those criticisms are valid (which they are not). For ID to be a theory, it would have to explain something about the designer. For example, who or what is the designer? Where are his (her?) designs and how did he produce them? How did he implement these designs? And most importantly, what does all the foregoing tell us about how the designer will behave in the future: what predictions can we make; what use can we make of the theory? ID tells us nothing, it’s an admission of defeat. That is not science. Even if Behe is a scientist as he claims, he is not doing science.

First, what it isn't: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments.

Slightly disingenuous. It’s certainly religiously inspired. But it is true that the IDiots have tried hard to conceal its religious roots. Anyway, it makes no difference. It’s still not a theory and it’s still wrong whether it is religiously based or not.

Rather, the contemporary argument for intelligent design is based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic. The argument for it consists of four linked claims. The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature. For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains.  Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore.

Of course, we know who is responsible for Mount Rushmore, but even someone who had never heard of the monument could recognize it as designed. Which leads to the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. This is uncontroversial, too. The 18th-century clergyman William Paley likened living things to a watch, arguing that the workings of both point to intelligent design. Modern Darwinists disagree with Paley that the perceived design is real, but they do agree that life overwhelms us with the appearance of design.

Rather strangely he uses both the Mt.Rushmore analogy and the watch analogy and thinks these are two separate arguments. Surely they are the same argument: we know Mt Rushmore and the watch were designed (I presume he means the faces carved on Mt Rushmore, not the mountain itself), and so (by analogy), life was designed too. Both arguments suffer the same fatal flaw.

Here’s the problem. These are both examples of reasoning by analogy. Reasoning by analogy can seem compelling, since humans tend to look for patterns and similarities (analogs), in things, and give less credence to dissimilarities. To determine how good this argument it is, though, you need to look at the dissimilarities: where the analogy breaks down. And this analogy sure breaks down – it’s a false analogy.

Let’s analyze it. We know that Mt Rushmore/watch were designed because they have a purpose - Mt Rushmore’s purpose is to model the faces of the four presidents carved there; the watch’s purpose is to tell the time. If they have a purpose, they must have a designer, yes? But here’s where the analogy falls apart: life on Earth has no purpose. So it’s a false analogy and so you can’t draw the conclusion that life on Earth and Mt Rushmore/watch are analogous in any way. Thank you. Don’t mention it.

What’s that at the back? How do I know that life on Earth has no purpose? Aha, good question. Strictly speaking I don’t know. But here’s the thing. If life on Earth does have a purpose (as the analogy requires, to be valid), then it must have a designer. So for the analogy to be valid you must start from the premise that that life on Earth has a designer. The analogy is now valid. But “life on Earth has a designer” is also the conclusion of the analogy. And when the premise of the argument is the same as the conclusion, you have the definition of circular reasoning. It’s a logical fallacy for the good reason that if you allow the premise of your argument to assume your conclusion you can prove pretty much anything. Either way the argument is fatally flawed. False analogy or circular reasoning – pick your fallacy.

Reasoning by analogy is rarely a good argument. Better, is reasoning with facts and evidence. Unfortunately for Behe he doesn’t have any of these, so he has to use this flawed option again and again.

For example, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, once wrote that biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed but evolved. (Imagine a scientist repeating through clenched teeth: "It wasn't really designed. Not really.")

I just love how creationists or woo woos in general will quote a scientist (out of context), if they think the quote supports their position, and yet deride all the science that doesn’t fit their beliefs. Standard pseudoscience.

The resemblance of parts of life to engineered mechanisms like a watch is enormously stronger than what Reverend Paley imagined. In the past 50 years modern science has shown that the cell, the very foundation of life, is run by machines made of molecules. There are little molecular trucks in the cell to ferry supplies, little outboard motors to push a cell through liquid.

In 1998 an issue of the journal Cell was devoted to molecular machines, with articles like "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines" and "Mechanical Devices of the Spliceosome: Motors, Clocks, Springs and Things." Referring to his student days in the 1960's, Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote that "the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered." In fact, Dr. Alberts remarked, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. He emphasized that the term machine was not some fuzzy analogy; it was meant literally.

This only demonstrates that science progresses, learns new things, and discards the old when it is found to be false. Of course, if Behe did this with his material, he would have nothing left. This is really just another flawed argument by analogy.

The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence.

Here Behe appears to confuse Evolution with Abiogenesis. The former explains how life evolved from simple forms to the complexity we see today.  The latter seeks to explain how the first life was formed. Evolution says nothing about how the first life was formed, although progress is being made in this area.

Here is where thoughtful people part company. Darwinists assert that their theory can explain the appearance of design in life as the result of random mutation and natural selection acting over immense stretches of time. Some scientists, however, think the Darwinists' confidence is unjustified. They note that although natural selection can explain some aspects of biology, there are no research studies indicating that Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the complexity we find in the cell.

Nonsense, of course there are. Anyway, who are these “some scientists”? Here are some named Steve who disagree.

Scientists skeptical of Darwinian claims include many who have no truck with ideas of intelligent design, like those who advocate an idea called complexity theory, which envisions life self-organizing in roughly the same way that a hurricane does, and ones who think organisms in some sense can design themselves.

Here is another attempt to claim that many scientists disagree with evolution, with a red herring about complexity theory.

The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation,

Except of course, there is no absence of such an explanation. Still, let’s pretend for now that there is such an absence. Just for fun…

we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life.

BZTTT, wrong answer. Thanks for playing. Here we have a fundamental error in thinking. Behe states that we have no explanation for the complexity of life we observe. In other words, we lack information of how it happened. He draws the conclusion that there must be a designer. Here is the problem with this: you can’t draw any conclusions from a lack of information. Isn’t that obvious? Richard Dawkins called it Argument From Personal Incredulity – “I don’t see how it happened so it couldn’t have happened that way”. It’s more formally known as Argument From Ignorance – “I am ignorant of how it happened so it was caused by _______” (and here you insert your preferred explanation: God, a designer, aliens, whatever). Whatever you call it, it’s a logical fallacy – you don’t reach the conclusion from the arguments presented.

To evaluate this claim, it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.

No, just Behe, not “everyone”, is attempting to explain the "appearance" of design. This is Behe’s attempt to frame the argument to his liking. Actually, what evolution explains is how the observed complexity of life came about. And it does explain that, very well. The “appearance of design” is just Behe’s flawed analogy again.

The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious.

Except that we do have compelling evidence to the contrary. Quack quack.

Still, some critics claim that science by definition can't accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can't settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore. Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don't bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed. And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design.

A paragraph of drivel closing with an Appeal To Popularity – lots of people believe in it so it must be true. What a lame argument from a supposed scientist.

No new arguments, no new evidence. After all these years and this is the best ID has to offer? What more proof do we need that ID is bankrupt?

God flakes on Owens

So God didn’t come through for Terrell Owens then. Oh I know… works in mysterious ways etc etc. Perhaps the other side just prayed harder. Reminds me of the joke about the two nuns off on a car journey. The first nun says to the second nun, “you drive and I’ll pray”. The second nun says, “what’s the matter, don’t you trust my praying?”

Here’s a thought. Perhaps there is no such thing as a God who intervenes in our lives based on who prays for what. I’m not saying this proves it. It’s just that this explanation fits all the observed facts perfectly, and we don’t have to postulate a supernatural being who can't make his mind up which team he supports.

Bottled sea water

Some of my friends have apparently been taking this Liquid Mineral Complex™, which is a:

unique and rich water-soluble blend of 84 ionically charged ocean minerals and trace elements derived from purified pristine sea water.

Apparently it gives you energy – “a life transfusion in a bottle”. Well, of course. Have you ever seen a group of dolphins? They’re an advertisement for drinking sea water if I ever saw one. And don’t forget, sharks drink it and they don’t get cancer or anything. (Oh wait, yes they do.)

OK, a couple of quick points. First, if it’s “purified” how come it has 84 minerals left in it?

Secondly, what is all this fuss about being “ionically charged”? All that means is that the minerals are in salt form so they dissolve in water. That is necessary for digestion but is nothing special per se. All salts are ionically charged when dissolved in water. Hey wait a minute - salts, dissolved in water, derived from purified sea water – they’re selling sea water. For $26 a pint!

Finally I have a get rich quick scheme that works. I can buy:

Instant Ocean^® sea salt contains every necessary major, minor, and trace element…

Note, every.  And it’s only $27 for 50 gallons. I can undercut Vitasalus™ Inc. (“we bring wellness back to life”) and sell my version (Skeptico’s™ Amazing Complex – we sell crap but use scientific jargon to make it sound special – OK I agree it needs a little work), for only $10 a half pint - that's $3 off. It’s still $8,000 though – a mark-up of over 29,500%. All I need now is a website.

Hey, wait a minute...

Drink this and grow an extra pair of arms and legs!

Reiki and cancer

The BBC reports that a third of cancer patients are using complementary and alternative medicines.  They describe the practice of Reiki, whose practitioners claim to manipulate the supposed “ki” or “life force” (that no scientific instrument can even detect), by an unexplained magic process. Shame on the BBC for giving credence to this dross, but at least the article does end with the disclaimer:

Dr Terry Cullen, chairman of the British Complementary Medicine Association emphasised that complementary treatments were not a cure for cancer.

Agreed. But that begs the question, what is Reiki good for? And how do they know? Because the problem with Reiki is that it’s un-falsifiable – you can’t test it in such a way that, if it was false, it would fail the test. If you feel better then it’s the Reiki that did it. If you don’t feel better then you’re “resisting” the Reiki. It’s never that Reiki doesn’t work. So how do they know it does anything?

Making fun of creationists

Read this funny and clever parable about plumbing.

Kudos to Don Banks

I was pleasantly surprised and happy to see an item in the news this week.

It seems pro footballer Terrell Owens, who broke his leg in December, will be OK to play in the Super Bowl this Sunday. That isn’t what made me happy though.

Owens says his recovery is part of God’s plan to give him an even bigger platform during Super Bowl week than he otherwise would have had, thus proving God's greatness, a minor miracle. But that isn’t what made me happy either.

What gave me reason to hope the world hasn't gone entirely insane, was how this “miracle” was reported by SI's Don Banks:

…let's keep things in perspective. The normal recovery time for Owens' ankle injury was put at eight to 10 weeks. If he returns Sunday, it'll be seven weeks since Owens last played, and about 6½ weeks since his surgery. Impressive, and perhaps courageous? You bet. But miraculous? Even if you're willing to stretch, it's not really going to give the whole turning water into wine thing a run for its money.

(Snip)

… it really hits me as the height of self-absorption for a professional athlete to claim that his speedy recovery from an ankle injury -- in time to make the Super Bowl -- would be God's chosen way to manifest his miraculous powers.

Can I get a reality check from someone? Anyone? It's a football game. Owens is a football player. Sometimes football players get hurt, and sometimes, if the game is meaningful enough, they return to the field earlier than what is advisable. And that's never going to change. If Owens had played two weeks after his surgery, that would be miracle territory. But almost seven weeks? That's a fast healer who has a considerable threshold for pain and the utmost motivation.

Yes, finally, a rational angle from the media on a paranormal claim. Of course, you need to compare Owens’ recovery time with the normal recovery period for this type of injury on a fit, motivated, professional athlete. If the recovery time is not significantly quicker than expected, there is no need to propose a supernatural explanation.

I’m sure God will his hands full this Sunday, trying to decide which side’s prayers he is going to listen to when fixing the Super Bowl, without concentrating on Owens. Running the universe must be a confusing business.

Chiro-Quacktic school killed

Staff at Florida State University strongly opposed plans to open a school for the largely pseudo-scientific practice of chiropractic.  The level of opposition to this idea can be gauged by the following spoof proposed map of the facility, to include similar evidence-challenged subjects:

Anyway, looks like it won’t happen:

The state Board of Governors killed a proposed chiropractic school at Florida State University on Thursday, saying the program was pushed by the Legislature instead of the university's faculty and administration.

The 10-3 vote ended a contentious debate and dashed the chiropractic world's hopes of seeing the first chiropractic school open at an American public university.

(Snip)

"We've had a difficult time discussing the merits of the proposal at a number of different stops. It's been frustrating, very frustrating," Wetherell said.

Translation of that last paragraph – chiropractors avoid scientific testing of their therapies. 

Until there is scientific evidence for the claims of chirpopractic, this proposed school made about as much sense as the “Creation Foundation” in the above map.

Drivel from Chopra

A friend sent me an email with what she considered were the “profound” comments of Deepak Chopra. It was part of an interview with another creduloid, Larry King.  I’ll spare you the majority of it (full transcript) but get this:

And you know, there's lots of evidence, even scientific, that the earth is a living organism. The gaia (ph) hypothesis. Is it possible that our consciousness and the turbulence in our consciousness has anything to do with the turbulence in nature? Michael Lerner just referred to that. One of the very interesting things that happened with the tsunami was, no animal died. The elephants. The monkeys. The rabbits. The birds. They were so tuned in to the forces of nature that they escaped. They ran. Some of the elephants broke their chains and ran to the high level mountainous area where the tidal waves could not reach. We have lost that connection. Is there a way that we can collectively transcend to a level of consciousness where we see that the turbulence in our collective mind, possibly, is inseparable from the turbulence in nature? Because we are part of nature.

(snip)

…the idea here is that if we quiet the turbulence in our collective mind and heal the rift in our collective soul, could that have an effect on nature's mind, if nature has a mind? The gaia hypothesis says nature does have a mind, that the globe is conscious. So a critical mass of people praying or a critical mass of people collectively engaging in meditation could conceivably, even from a modern physics point of view, through non-local interactions, actually simmer down the turbulence in nature. And there are precedents for this in all the religions.

(My Bold)

No elephants died? Earth to Chopra: perhaps that is because there were no elephants on the tourist beaches. Or maybe because elephants are, you know, kinda BIG. Big enough not to get washed away by a wave, maybe? You think? I wonder why no birds got killed. Hum, tricky one that. Let’s see, what characteristic do birds possess that might have saved them from being killed by a tsunami? I dunno, you got me there.

Even ignoring those blunders, no animals died in the Tsunami? Hardly:

HIS Asia reports: “Among the ruble (sic) are also thousand (sic) of dead animals.  The smell is overwhelming.”

In The Telegraph, Jan Egeland, the UN disaster relief co-ordinator, is reported saying: "There are thousands of dead people, and there are tens of thousands of dead animals.”

The Times Online reports marine colonel Buyung Lelana, head of an evacuation team in Aceh province saying: "It smells so bad, fishy. The human bodies are mixed in with dead animals like dogs, fish, cats and goats."

(My Bold.)

What we have here is the anatomy of an urban legend being made. This is how it works. As far as I can tell, this story started with just a couple of people not seeing any dead animals.  The media like paranormal stories, and so numerous media outlets repeated it without doing any fact checking of the source. Big surprise. Eventually the story mutates to “animals are psychic”, and this is picked up and repeated as fact by new age nitwits like Chopra. It’s not true though, and so Chopra’s conclusions are also not true (or profound).

If you want to read something about the Tsunami that is both true and relevant, I’d recommend this from Richard Dawkins' letter to The Guardian:

...Dan Rickman says "science provides an explanation of the mechanism of the tsunami but it cannot say why this occurred any more than religion can". There, in one sentence, we have the religious mind displayed before us in all its absurdity. In what sense of the word "why", does plate tectonics not provide the answer?

Not only does science know why the tsunami happened, it can give precious hours of warning. If a small fraction of the tax breaks handed out to churches, mosques and synagogues had been diverted into an early warning system, tens of thousands of people, now dead, would have been moved to safety.

Let's get up off our knees, stop cringing before bogeymen and virtual fathers, face reality, and help science to do something constructive about human suffering.

So there you have it. Pontificating about “lost connections”, “collective minds” or the “gaia hypothesis” will not help one bit. Nor will Chopra’s standard misuse of Quantum Mechanics (that was the “non-local interactions” bit, for those unfamiliar with Chopra’s drivel). Science can already give us advance warning of tsunamis and one day may be able to predict earthquakes. The truth really is out there but don’t expect to hear it on Larry King.