Gateway Skepticism

Uncertainty Principle: Intrinsic Property or Measurement Effect?

2010-01-09T11:58:00.000-06:00

At last night's Saint Louis Skeptics in the Pub, the conversation came---as it always must---to physics. Saint Gasoline and unBeguiled wanted to know whether the position-momentum uncertainty principle is a real property of a quantum particle, or simply a limitation of our ability to measure both the position and momentum of quantum particles. I guess, even more strongly than "they wanted to know," they were arguing for the latter, more intuitive answer.

As an example of the kind of thinking they argued for, take this quote from the Wikipedia article on the uncertainty principle:

Heisenberg's microscope
One way in which Heisenberg originally argued for the uncertainty principle is by using an imaginary microscope as a measuring device. He imagines an experimenter trying to measure the position and momentum of an electron by shooting a photon at it.
If the photon has a short wavelength, and therefore a large momentum, the position can be measured accurately. But the photon scatters in a random direction, transferring a large and uncertain amount of momentum to the electron. If the photon has a long wavelength and low momentum, the collision doesn't disturb the electron's momentum very much, but the scattering will reveal its position only vaguely.
If a large aperture is used for the microscope, the electron's location can be well resolved (see Rayleigh criterion); but by the principle of conservation of momentum, the transverse momentum of the incoming photon and hence the new momentum of the electron resolves poorly. If a small aperture is used, the accuracy of the two resolutions is the other way around.
The trade-offs imply that no matter what photon wavelength and aperture size are used, the product of the uncertainty in measured position and measured momentum is greater than or equal to a lower bound, which is up to a small numerical factor equal to Planck's constant.

Now, I don't think this thinking is exactly wrong. I mean, if one constructed this experiment I don't doubt that it would validate the results predicted by the uncertainty principle. However, I think the model behind it is flawed. What we imagine in this gedankenexperiment is a little ball that is the electron being hit by a little ball that is the photon and the two bouncing off each other.

What this sort of explanation ignores is the fact that matter behaves as a wave.

I may need to do some argumentation to convince you (specifically Dustin) that matter waves aren't just a mathematical convenience for calculations but are, in fact, the actual nature of matter. If I need to do that, I'll do it later. Today is not the day to explain matter waves. Here, though, is a very quick argument: we know ordinary waves (water, sound, etc.) do certain things like reflection and refraction and interference and whatever. Some of those things are done only by waves and nothing else. We see quantum particles doing those same things. Here's a handy chart.

So let's simply accept for now that electrons are, in almost all circumstances, wavelike. I think we all have heard many times that quantum particles are both particulate and wavelike at times, and might take it for granted. We sort of skip over the fact that electrons are waves without really understanding what that implies, so let's investigate. This will involve a little math, but stick with me. It shouldn't be that bad.

Let us assume the electron has as its wavefunction pretty much the simplest wave you can get, a sine wave. This is a periodic function, which means that if you are at any point and you move some special distance away, everything about the function will look the same. This distance is called the wavelength, denoted by lambda. There is a relationship between wavelength and momentum called the de Broglie relation, which says momentum is equal to Planck's constant divided by wavelength.

p = \frac{h}{\lambda}

So for an electron with a sine wavefunction, we know it has a definite momentum.

What about position? To find the position of the electron, we need to square the wavefunction and integrate it over all space. (Don't worry, I won't make you sit through that.) When we do that with a sine, the result we get is meaningless. It says there is a smeared out probability to find the electron everywhere, and no place is more probable than any other. Thus there is no helpful position information we can get out of this wavefunction.

This is all summarized nicely in this picture I stole.

To make some kind of meaningful statement about position, then, the electron can't be in a state with a wavefunction that is just a sine wave. What we can do is make a "wave packet" by adding together a few different sine waves. If we pick the wavelengths and amplitudes properly, we should be able to get a decently localized position. However, by adding together different sine waves we have introduced more than one wavelength. With more than one wavelength we don't know exactly what the momentum is. Again, I stole a picture.

Now, looking over this example I gave, is this a measurement effect? Most emphatically NO. If you know the momentum exactly, it is not the case that you just can't measure the position, but the idea of position doesn't even make sense. Look back at that youtube video I posted. That is a wave with a well-defined wavelength, and therefore a well-defined momentum. I ask you: where is that wave? Is that wave in a particular place? At a particular position? No it is not. The wave is spread out over all space. If the wave had a less-precise momentum, as in perhaps there are several waves of different wavelength added together, we would see waves only in some constrained area and there would be no waves outside that area. In that case, it is meaningful to say that the wave is in a particular place, because it is localized to an area.

If we accept that matter actually has wave properties (and this is well-established both theoretically and experimentally, but perhaps that's a topic for another day), the uncertainly between position and momentum comes as an immediate consequence. By virtue of how position and momentum are defined, they are not completely compatible. This incompatibility has nothing to do with what you can measure. It has to do, as I outlined here, with what the concepts of position and momentum mean when applied to waves.

Jury Duty

2009-07-09T10:15:00.005-05:00

I just had a fun jury duty experience that you might like to know about, one in which my skeptical outlook on life prevented me from being able to fairly and impartially administer justice. I was part of a jury panel, but was not selected to be a juror for the trial. Would you like to know why?

For those who have never been involved in jury duty, a brief view of the selection process from my not-well-informed perspective: a large group of potential jurors are asked broad questions by both sides in the case, who wish to bring out information about each person that would make him or her not a good juror. This is called voir dire. Once all that information is gathered, the selection is made---everyone goes home and only selected few become the jury and come back to hear the trial.

As I already said, I was not selected, because of how I answered two of the questions. First, some background. The first questions were of a type like, "Do you know anyone else on the jury panel?" or, "Do you know the judge/attorneys/defendent/etc.?" Other questions involved specific aspects of the evidence we would hear. In order to answer them accurately, we were told generalities about the case: a man was arrested in January 2008 and charged with possession of crack. So they asked, "Does anyone think that crack is not illegal?" No one raised a hand. "Does anyone think that crack should not be illegal, and for that reason could no be fair and impartial?" One guy did raise his hand, and said he agreed crack should not be illegal. They asked some followup questions, in response to which he clarified that he wouldn't convict someone for drug possession under any circumstances. So we were pretty sure he was off the list. Later questions included, "You will hear testimony from police officers. Is there anyone who would, before hearing the testimony, trust a police officer less or more than any other person?" To which several people answered, in various words, "I would never trust anything that a cop said." So they were off the list.

This went on for hours. For each question, they'd go through all the people to whom it applied, getting them to clearly say on record that whatever particular issue might be a problem for them. The "clearly" part was a problem for most, as some of the questions dealt with beliefs or opinions, which aren't always one-to-one with the legal terms they steered us towards saying. That was certainly true of the questions I had to answer.

There were two I put my hand up for, very related but not exactly the same, involving testimony. They gave some background first on the types of evidence---testimonial, circumstantial, and physical---and stressed that under the law all three are to be weighed equally. They asked, "Would you need some type of physical evidence, like a fingerprint or a videotape, to consider the state to have met its burden of evidence?" From this question I inferred that, not only would the state bring a police officer as a witness and he or she would testify that the defendant possessed drugs, but also that this would probably be the only evidence that they'd have. From what they'd told us, under the law this would be fine, and a credible witness testifying that a crime had occurred would be enough evidence to establish that element of the case. I did not agree.

So I raised my hand and responded, "If any of the elements of the case were supported only by testimony, I would not consider that element sufficiently proved." To put it into more skeptical terms, I would not accept anecdotal evidence, without any other support, as proving a claim. I could not convict one person of a crime based on another person's word. An anecdote is not enough evidence to establish that an event took place, whoever the witness or defendant is, whatever the circumstances are, and whether or not I found the witness "credible." That brings us to the second question I answered.

"Is there anyone who thinks they would not be able to determine a witness's credibility?" My interpretation of this question is, "Can you tell if a person is lying or not?" I quickly raised my hand, and I was surprised more people didn't raise theirs. If they had been honest with themselves I think they would have. When called on, I answered, "Given two people making contradictory statements [which there obviously would be, since there wouldn't be a trial if the defendant agreed that he had possessed crack] I would not be able to determine who was correct without any outside information." In the followup questions, they asked if I was unable or just unwilling, and couldn't I use body language or tone or details of the testimony to judge someone's credibility? My thought was, "Hell to the fucking no I can't! I'd just be using my biases and prejudices to come to a decision in that case. I'm not willing to send a man to prison based on my interpretation of a cop's 'body language!'" What I said was, "No."

So that's how I didn't get on the jury. A person who considers facts to be of paramount importance in all aspects of life was not considered able to fairly and impartially find facts according to the law. And I'm glad I wasn't selected. If the courts say that anecdotes have to be considered on the same level as other forms of evidence, I believe the courts are wrong, and I would have a hard time following the instruction to weigh the evidence equally. Of course, this decision came about without an investigation on my part of the history of testimony as a form of evidence, why and how it is used, how juries make their decisions and on what basis, and many other bits of information I now find I wish I had had at the time. But I was not armed with this information, only a firm---but for me empirically groundless---belief that I could not imprison a person on another person's word.

I hope I did the right thing.

Google Chrome

2008-09-01T18:02:00.000-05:00

Gee, Google, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night, Flavin. Try to take over the Internet!

On tonight's episode, Google releases a browser. Will they succeed in their plan of network domination? Watch and see!

(... I'm going to try it.)

Madden Curse

2008-08-14T08:58:00.003-05:00

I just read a great article on the "Madden Curse." For those who don't know, every year a new edition of the football video game Madden NFL is realeased, and for ten or so years it has featured an NFL star on the cover. Over the years, some of the players appearing on the cover have gone on to be injured or have bad seasons. A rumor has grown that the cover brings a curse to any player on it, plaguing them with injuries, bad seasons, or other maladies.

Luke Plunkett writing on Kotaku has written a great breakdown of who's been on the cover every year and exactly what did or did not happen to them during that season. My favorite paragraph is this one:

...[the curse is] all based on hearsay, selective statistic cherry-picking and misinformation. When you look at two key factors - the NFL's injury rate and the actual performance of all twelve cover stars in the year they appeared on the box - you'll see the curse is nothing but a load of baloney.

That some good skeptical thinking there, something I don't normally see crossed over from my video game sites. But, then, he's an Aussie. What else would one expect?

10 Most Scientifically Inaccurate Movies

2008-07-24T19:55:00.002-05:00

I found this entertaining: Top 10 Scientifically Inaccurate Movies

My personal favorite is the Matrix: "Much in the way of physics in the Matrix -- like dodging bullets and running up walls -- gets a pass because it's all within a massive virtual world. But in reality, our supposed robot overlords are a bit dim. Humans are a remarkably inefficient energy source. Instead of turning the human race into Duracells, the machines would probably get more energy just setting those goopy people pods on fire."

I also think Alien should at least get a dishonorable mention.

In Support of PZ

2008-07-12T12:10:00.002-05:00

I'm emerging from my intermittent blogtirement to ask for a bit of advice.

You probably know of PZ Myers' recent run-in with Catholic hysteria. I'll give a brief run down anyway, more for me than for you. An undergrad in Florida went to a Catholic mass and took the Eucharist home with him rather than eating it. Catholics believe that this Eucharist becomes Jesus, so they got very upset. PZ wrote about it and tried to burst the Catholic bubble on this issue. (Note: His post is entitled "It's a Frackin' Cracker!" but you can tell he tempered his words. The URL is .../its_a_goddamned_cracker.php)

PZ's post stirred up a lot of shit. The Catholic League called for his job and organized a letter writing campaign to the UMM President Robert Bruininks to demand reprimands at the least.

PZ has asked for help in a counter-campaign to write his university President in support of his job. I'd like to write something, and I have several thoughts on what it should be about, but I'd like to have a nice, clean thesis. Any thoughts? Should I stick to the First Amendment and his rights to ridicule? Obviously I don't want to respond to the comments of the rabble, but what about Catholic League president Bill Donahue? Should I reference his arguments?

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Do you think PZ was right? Do you think he was within his rights? How do you think he should handle this situation?

This just in: Fools. Money. Parted.

2008-07-09T11:13:00.001-05:00

I wish there were some details as to what people think she has done. Read here.

Ewww...

2008-06-29T23:59:00.003-05:00

In general, I think these guys have the occasional funny comic, but this one just kind of grossed me out.

Nothing even remotely kinky should be associated with that troll.

Kudos to Robert Lancaster for handling himself perfectly when confronted by that wicked woman.

George Carlin Dies at 71

2008-06-23T00:08:00.005-05:00

He will be missed. There is a little story here. My favorite Carlin joke was about those psychos at Waco. It's goes something like "The government and religious people shooting at each other? I'm OK with that."

Here's a classic Carlin clip for you.

Feel free to leave your favorite Carlin moment below.

Guess where I'll be tomorrow?

2008-06-19T23:09:00.003-05:00

That's right! The 999 Eyes Freakshow at Cicero's. It starts at 8:30PM. Come on down! There is a tarot card reader. We all know how fun those are!

Faith Healing Kills Another Kid

2008-06-19T19:45:00.001-05:00

How many more times does this need to happen before they get the hint?

For Science!

2008-06-17T20:56:00.003-05:00

Ken Miller on The Report

2008-06-17T09:22:00.003-05:00

It's been a while since I've done this new-fangled weblogging technology, but I caught an episode of The Colbert Report last night featuring popular evolution spokesperson Ken Miller. My favorite quote not in the embedded section: "My guest Kenneth Miller is here to debunk Intelligent Design. I think he'll be surprised by my stockpiles of bunk."

Now the interview.

Teen goes to court for slandering Scientology

2008-05-20T17:21:00.004-05:00

In London, some kid was caught protesting in one of those Anonymous protests on May 10 with a sign that just said "Cult" on it. Since England has some strict slander and libel laws, the kid is going to court. I say, of course, it is ridiculous, not so much because it's a free speech issue but because Scientology is obviously a cult. You can read about it here on Dawkin's site.

I didn't know birds could be funny.

2008-05-12T17:55:00.001-05:00

This might be the funniest headline ever written.

Huh?

2008-04-27T11:37:00.003-05:00

Descendants of John Wilkes Boothe claim he was not shot after assassinating Lincoln. All I can say is, "Huh?" Read here. Also, tell me what a "matinée idol" is in the comments.

Robotic Jellyfish

2008-04-25T11:24:00.005-05:00

They can be found here, and here, and here! Thanks Skepchicks!

Youngest Full-time Professor is 19 Years Old

2008-04-24T01:30:00.002-05:00

I don't have time to type a lot about this, but I find it fascinating. I recommend reading here. Not only is she a professor, but she teaches math and physics, notoriously hard to teach. I am sure we will not get any follow-up to the story, but I would like to know how she ends up as a teacher. I always thought child-prodigies grew up to be fairly normal, but I base that on idle speculation.

Science as Art

2008-04-16T11:30:00.002-05:00

Click here for one of the most interestingly arranged site I have come by in a while. It is an online gallery of an art exhibit called "Design and the Elastic Mind." Here is a synopsis from their site:

Over the past twenty-five years, people have weathered dramatic changes in their experience of time, space, matter, and identity. Individuals cope daily with a multitude of changes in scale and pace—working across several time zones, traveling with relative ease between satellite maps and nanoscale images, and being inundated with information. Adaptability is an ancestral distinction of intelligence, but today’s instant variations in rhythm call for something stronger: elasticity, the product of adaptability plus acceleration. Design and the Elastic Mind explores the reciprocal relationship between science and design in the contemporary world by bringing together design objects and concepts that marry the most advanced scientific research with attentive consideration of human limitations, habits, and aspirations. The exhibition highlights designers’ ability to grasp momentous changes in technology, science, and history—changes that demand or reflect major adjustments in human behavior—and translate them into objects that people can actually understand and use. This Web site presents over three hundred of these works, including fifty projects that are not featured in the gallery exhibition.

Click around and see what's there. Some works are more interesting than others. Here is one I like (mostly for its social implications). Here is one that is just goofy. Also STEAK ZOMBIES EXQUISITE CORPSE! Oh and here is one I think is the most strange/gorss (Warning: strange nudity).

Why did they have to put all the sad music behind it?

2008-04-16T11:25:00.003-05:00

Here is a time-lapsed video of a man stuck in an elevator for 41 hours. I found it interesting to watch. I think I would have acted approximately the same way. Thanks to PZ for sharing.

John Wheeler

2008-04-15T07:35:00.003-05:00

I'm sure by now, most of you know the famous physicist John Wheeler died two days ago. He is most famous for co-writing the "Bible" of gravitation. He is also known for coining many modern physics terms such as blackhole and wormhole. On top of all that, he was the thesis adviser of Richard Feynman and Kip Thorne. If you haven't already found it through Phil's blog, as I did, there is a wonderful story from one of Wheeler's students over on the Cosmic Variance blog. I suggest reading it if you don't mind some tugging on your heart strings.

Black Hole Sun Won't You Come...

2008-04-13T13:31:00.003-05:00

Welcome to day two of my attendance at the APS meeting in St. Louis. This time, I remembered to bring my laptop with me. I am currently sitting in on a session entitled "Neutron Stars, Pulsars, and Black Holes. Earlier today, I stumbled into a wonderful story-telling session about the Manhattan Project which included some wonderful little anecdotes about life at Los Alamos. One of the speakers was a British physicist who had worked there at the time. I would repeat some here but I would get the details wrong. Looks like the first talk is starting. I'd better listen up.

First up is Dr. J. R. Stone of Oxford discussing the equation of state for high density matter. The main question discussed is whether or not observational or experimental data can be used to place constraints on the equation of state of neutron star matter. One of the major pieces of data necessary for these constraints is a good measurement of gravitational mass v. radius for neutron stars. According to to Dr. Stone, "That would do it for me." Sadly, technical problems have cut this talk sort of it's ten minute allowed time. My estimate is that Dr. Jones was able to present about a third of her planned talk. I think I might have had a chance of understanding her neutron-neutron scattering data if she were given a few more minutes. If is the neutron-neutron interaction that must be fully understood in order to come up with the desired equation of state.

Talk number two is also on the equation of state for neutron starts. Dr. John Friedman is talking on astronomical constraints to the equation of state. Dr. Friedman tout that neutron stars might be strange quark stars. I'll have to look into that later. So the required astronomical include mass, moment of inertia, and spin frequency. From this talk, I have learned that if you know little about the field, the 10 minute talk format is probably not to go. Yesterday, while I was in the dark matter talks, I loved the 10 minute format because I absorbed a lot of information in little time. Knowing little about determining the equation of state of neutron stars, this talk is hard to follow, but I will talk about it anyway. Overall, I have learned that determining either the mass and moment of inertial or the mass and the gravitational wave characteristics both place good constraints on the shape of the equation of state.

On to the third talk! Guess what it is about. Come on, guess. That's right, it's another talk on the parameterization of the equation of state for a neutron star. This speaker is giving the second half of the second talk. Turns out they are testing 31 different equations of state some including all kinds of exotic matter including hyperons, mesons and quarks. One of the parameters most often used to parameterize these equations of state is the maximum allowed mass of the neutron star. Also used it causality which considers the speed of sound in the star. Redshift and rotation rate are also used in this manner. Currently, measuring the mass and radius of neutron stars is quite difficult. The four parameters mentioned above can be used to determine bulk properties of nuclear matter through the determination of the equation of state and therefore would have application beyond neutron stars. As you might be able to tell, this talk cleared up the previous one a little.

I'm going to sign off now to save some battery power for the dark matter talks.
Edit: I've decided to take pen and paper notes for the Dark Matter talks. I'll tell y'all about them later.

Laptops and Bad Hair

2008-04-12T19:59:00.005-05:00

Since I just spent a full day at the APS meeting in St. Louis, I thought I would share my impressions. I spent all day listening to talks on dark matter detectors and liquid argon purification. Amazing right? Actually, I really enjoyed it. I learned about a dark matter detector called LUX (site is still under construction)that I had not heard of before. Though it is not new in the techniques that it employs (it is a large liquid Xenon time projection chamber), it does have quite the measurement range. There are some exciting times ahead for those looking for dark matter.

(Dark Matter in a Box)

One the things that really blew my mind was the number of people with open laptops, working on their presentations during someone else's presentation. I can honestly that that number if approximately 1/3 of the total audience. If I had known there was free wireless, I would have brought my laptop and done some live blogging. There is always tomorrow (or Monday or Tuesday).

The highlight of the conference was, by far, the hair of the physicists. I saw long gray scraggly ponytails, frizzy scientist puffros, and foot-long beards. It was great. I can only hope there was a correlation between beard length and academic prominence.

Tomorrow, I will listen to more talks on dark matter. This time, it looks like it will be more theoretical. Joy! Sadly, I will be missing the morning talks because of a previous engagement. I will be missing the one talk I think will be crazy. I'll link to the abstract here. It is only a 10 minute talk but I think it would be a wonderfully strange 10 minutes. I should be able to make it in time to hear a few on gravitational wave detectors or x-ray bursts as well.

Tune in tomorrow for a live blogging on dark matter, if I remember to take my laptop.

Never Gonna Give This Joke Up

2008-04-07T18:52:00.006-05:00

Since no one likes posts with too many videos, here's a post with merely one.

You all know who the Westboro Baptist Church is, right? Fred Phelps, "God Hates Fags", the whole bit. You also know, I'm sure, of Rickrolling.

What happens when we put the two together?

Not much, it turns out.

I feel bad for the kid with the "God hates the USA" sign. How can any group, cult or no, consider that moral? Oh, and "Mourn for your sins"? I mourned for mine when they died years ago, after I realized I was creating them myself. I'm glad to be rid of them.

-Thanks to my sweetie.

One Last Meeting Reminder

2008-04-04T12:54:00.005-05:00

Just because there has been the slightest bit of confusion in our ranks about tonight's gathering, I though I would reiterate.

The St. Louis Skeptical Society will be having a gathering in St. Louis (go figure) at Cicero's on the Loop. This will occur TONIGHT Friday, April 4. It will begin at 7:30 pm and will most likely go on until the place closes (1 am). EVERYONE who is interested is welcome to stop by and hang out with us.

Hope to see you there.

Perhaps some of fellow local bloggers will stop by? Hint, hint.

The previous meeting announcement is here.

Notes

2008-04-02T14:38:00.000-05:00

Here are a few things I've found in my readings that I either thought you might like or I want to comment on.

For those who are coming to the upcoming meeting (ahem ahem cough), I would like to discuss Crime and Punishment in Scientific Research. I haven't read it yet, but I think it looks interesting and could span some lively discussion. To entice you, I present the abstract:
Arguments against scientific misconduct one finds in the literature generally fail to support current policies on research fraud: they may not prove wrong what is typically considered research misconduct and they tend to make wrong things that are not usually seen as scientific fraud, in particular honest errors. I argue that society cannot set a rule enjoining scientists to be honest, so any such rule can only be internal to science. Therefore society cannot legitimately enforce it. Moreover, until an argument is provided to prove that lack of honesty is far worse than lack of technical competence, intentional deceit should not be punished much more harshly than technical errors.

Speaking of research, here's something that looks vaguely like it: a creationist research paper! Analysis brought to you by PZ Myers. Choice quote:
It has the difficult title. It has a list of keywords. It has an abstract. There's an introduction: it contains a brief summary of the complex life history of these trematode parasites, which are small invertebrates that live in the internal organs of fish, and it promises something. ...

Then the paper has a materials and methods section, just like the big boys — the author extracted parasites from fish and used light and scanning electron microscopy to look at them. Finally, there's a discussion and conclusion.

Notice anything missing? Right, no results. That's a metaphor for the whole creationist movement right there.

Inspired by Blake among many others, I do my part to link Google searches for "Expelled" to the site Expelled Exposed. Those who want to learn information about the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (also possibly searched for as Expelled, Expelled movie, or Expelled Ben Stein) should be able to find it, methinks. Information, that is.

The picture of the notes, by the way, is from a collection of Pauling's lecture notes on quantum mechanics from the 30s. It's an intro to Hamilton's equation of motion, and I'm pretty sure I learned it the exact same way about 70 years after he delivered that lecture.

Meeting Details

2008-04-02T11:19:00.003-05:00

As stated earlier, we're having a very social meeting this week. After much deliberation, we haven't come up with anywhere better than Cicero's as a place where you can hear your neighbor talk AND had good beer. So here are the details:

When: Friday, April 4. 7:30 PM
Where: Cicero's on the Loop

Remember, all are invited. We hope this is a good opportunity to meet some like-minded people in the area. Look here for some of the people to look for (Randi will not be there. Sorry.). If you would like to go but cannot make it this week, drop us a line and we'll make sure you hear about the next one. Hope to see you there.

I Didn't Know He Had it in Him

2008-04-01T09:05:00.005-05:00

For a webcomic usually about people and their relationships, today's Questionable Content is... unusual. But I welcome this change.

Comic below the fold. Click to see in its native habitat.

New Gmail Feature

2008-03-31T23:59:00.000-05:00

Hey, all you Gmail users. A new feature has just been released that you need to check out. It's called Custom Time, and allows you to change the time an email shows up in the recipient's inbox! It even lets you mark the message as read. The possibilities are endless.

Go check it out for testimonials from beta users and a description of how it works.

He Wasn't Very Skeptical of Nixon

2008-03-26T22:37:00.000-05:00

The new Skeptics' Circle has been posted at Mike's Weekly Skeptic Rant. Normally, only Big Heathen Mike blogs there, but for this post he brought in a special guest blogger. I think you'll enjoy.

I've been a regular reader of Mike's for months now. I haven't linked to him nearly enough, so hopefully I can send enough traffic his way with this post to mean something.

Skeptics + Bar = Fun!

2008-03-26T11:30:00.006-05:00

So we have received a few e-mail from skeptics in the area asking to be informed of our next meeting. Well...it's soon! Probably next Friday(April 4). Before we finalize the details, I was wondering how many people would interested in having a get together at a local drinking establishment in lieu of a formal meeting. I am specifically interested in those who I do not know personally but who would like to hang out with a bunch of graduate student skeptics. Anyone who could get here would be welcome. It would be in St. Louis, probably in the University City area. Leave a comment if you are interested. I would like to get a very tentative headcount. Remember, all skeptics are welcome. We'll even take non-skeptics if they're fun.

Adorable Little Sniper Girl

2008-03-25T10:43:00.000-05:00

I want to say up front that this isn't a political post. It does, however, contain content regarding one of our Presidential candidates here in America who was apparently caught in a lie, or at least an embellishment. Full disclosure.

Mrs. Clinton gave a speech a few days ago in which she recalled a trip to Bosnia in the '90s. She said,

I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

Others remember the story slightly differently. You can read about it at Ed Brayton's blog or The Washington Post, or you can just watch this funny video.

Woo in India

2008-03-24T09:58:00.002-05:00

I'm sure I don't need to point people to Pharyngula, but this post is particularly funny. It's about a Tantrik Magician trying to kill an atheist with voodoo dolls and magic chants on Indian TV. I think I would watch this if it were a reality show.

Remeber Ms. Cleo?

2008-03-22T22:59:00.002-05:00

I sure had forgotten about her. A friend pointed me to this video. Like most things on YouTube, it's obnoxious. However, it is also pretty funny.

Steven Fishman

2008-03-22T16:07:00.002-05:00

After the infamous Tom Cruise video of a few months ago, the 'tubes were abuzz with this and other Scientology videos. However, these videos had in common that they were only for humor, making Cruise or other Scientologists look crazy. Not all videos must be this way, however.

Courtesy of Penny Arcade I came across the Steven Fishman Deposition. As part of a lawsuit with the Church, former member Fishman recorded on video his experiences in and about Scientology. To get a peek into the mind of what Scientologists actually think, this video is an invaluable tool. Words can only do so much, so I post the videos here. They're long, and there are a lot of them, but if you've got some spare time this isn't a bad way to spend it.

Comments on video 1
16ish minutes: The jargon is maddening! When the lawyer asks about some words, Fishman laughs and starts throwing extra jargon at him, apparently on purpose.
23:30: Scientologists are like Q. They got bored being infinitely powerful and removed their own powers for fun. Also, Fishman mentions the tone scale here; boredom is 2.5.
26ish - PDCs (Philadelphia Doctorate Courses) teach you how to create your own universe. I'll have to read those.

Whether you've watched none, all, or any number in between, post thoughts in the comments below.

science on tap

2008-03-22T13:09:00.001-05:00

Join Washington University professors the last Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. at Schlafly Bottleworks and explore the latest ideas in science and technology. Enjoy 20 minutes of presentation, followed by a break for introductions and then an hour of discussion.

Some More Humor

2008-03-21T02:01:00.004-05:00

Here's another good one from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.

This is great.

2008-03-20T21:25:00.001-05:00

I can't stop laughing. Read!

Any Ideas on Where to Start?

2008-03-20T10:05:00.001-05:00

In our meetings so far, we've discussed once or twice where we want to go as a group. We came to a consensus that we'd all like to move in a direction towards making our conversations more useful, towards using our skeptical talents to analyze issues that aren't so easy. We don't want to be shooting fish in a barrel forever. What's the point in putting up articles that just tear down articles written by other people? Is anything accomplished?

Well, I was reading a post on denialism blog about how science defenders can empower the anti-science people by writing about them and their activities. The final paragraph of that article seemed to address some of the problem we at the SLSS have been having with the direction of the group and the blog.

While debunking silly nonsense is fun, and I've certainly indulged, it's not as helpful as demonstrating the fundamental dishonesty of organized anti-science. Ultimately our goal is educating people what real science is and, importantly, what real science is not and how to tell the difference. Merely showing how a given argument is silly or incorrect doesn't help a great deal. However, showing people how to tell the difference between these lies and the real deal is a far more valuable skill to impart, and I think that's what a majority of us are doing when we confront nonsense from denialists everywhere.

I've nothing to add to that.

Arthur C. Clarke Dies at Age 90

2008-03-18T18:23:00.005-05:00

As the title said, Sir Arthur C. Clarke passed away today. I remember him most from his show Mysterious Universe and from 2001: A Space Odyssey. I also remember listening to Rendezvous with Rama on audio book and enjoying it very much. While his TV series was not the most skeptical of shows, it was very entertaining. My favorite was the one on Haitian voodoo zombies. I found a few on Netflix a few months ago and enjoyed them almost as much as I did while watching it as a kid.

Feel free to leaving some comments about what you remember most about Arthur C. Clarke.

WWZFD

2008-03-17T00:27:00.006-05:00

What WOULD Zombie Feynman do?

Pro-science, Mythbusters, zombies, Feynman, and a shot at string theorists...I think this one just became a personal favorite.

More Scientology Protests Today

2008-03-15T12:04:00.003-05:00

Looks like Anonymous is at it again. This this time, there were about 50 people across the street from the Scientology Center holding signs and wearing V masks. I honked a cheery tune as I drove past and got a cheer in response. I was in Qdoba earlier and found a stack of anti-Scientology fliers on the table. Keep up the good work guys.

Here are some links to last month's protests. (1, 2)

Mensa's 10 smartest TV shows of all time

2008-03-13T12:47:00.007-05:00

A few weeks ago, i ran across an article that listed ten television shows that Mensa claims are the smartest of all time. I was surprised not only by how poorly the article was written, but also with some of the shows they chose.

Apparently putting a lot of science in a show makes it smart by default, regardless of how accurate or correct it might be (or how good the show is otherwise). I spent a summer in Waco, Texas with 3 seasons of CSI on my computer. Waco can be a dull place, and boredom can be great motivation to watch bad television, but i couldn't bring myself to continue watching past the episode where the lead investigator calculates the time it took a man to fall from a construction site based on the fact that his terminal velocity was 9.8 meters per second squared.

I've only seen about five of the shows on Mensa's list and disagree with about four of them. It's ok to like bad TV, but don't try to justify it to everybody else by writing an article claiming that your ten favorite shows are the smartest "of all time".

On a related note, the Freakonomics blog had a post back in January about the smart and dumb books in which they discussed the findings of a Cal Tech student who correlated popular books (from facebook) with S.A.T scores (from the averages at a particular school). The top 5 include Lolita, 100 Years of Solitude, Crime and Punishment, Atlas Shrugged, and Freakonomics (surprised?). The two things I like most about this list are 1)it's objectiveness and 2)Fahrenheit 451 is among the dumbest books. I think it'd be interesting to do something similar with television.

Skeptics' Biblical Circle

2008-03-13T12:12:00.000-05:00

This fortnight's Skeptics' Circle has been posted at Happy Jihad's House of Pancakes. It's chock full of goodness.

Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer [who is actually a good astronomer], has put up a list of "Ten things you don’t know about the Milky Way Galaxy." I don't want to ruin the list for you, but one fact caught my eye. The consensus is that at the center of our galaxy is a supermassive black hole. However, new research suggests the galactic center is actually full of creamy nougat. Interesting stuff.

Skepticism in Art

2008-03-12T22:03:00.000-05:00

A recent trip to the St. Louis Art Museum, combined with a recent read-though of Neil Gaiman's American Gods (available on the web for free for the rest of March), have gotten me thinking about art, mostly of the visual sort. I won't say much about what I've been pondering, because if I start talking about art I'll show exactly how little I know about it. But I do want to broadcast a few thoughts.

I want to see more art about skepticism or skeptical ideas. I'm not sure how much currently exists, and in what form, but wherever it is I want to see it. If it doesn't exist, I hope people will start making it. If no one does, I can try it myself, but I don't think anyone will like the result. That includes me.

Take, for instance, my photoshopped picture at the top of the page. It's something I did in about twenty minutes after seeing a perfect picture for the joke. It's not art, it's a gag. But that's what we can expect from me. Don't leave this in my hands.

Send me some links to skeptically-themed art and I'll be grateful. You will be too, if James Randi, Ace Attorney has anything to say about it.

-Thanks to the Skepchick for her picture of Randi on flickr, which I shamelessly stole.

We met Randi!

2008-03-11T19:16:00.009-05:00

As posted earlier, James Randi spoke at UIUC. Four of us Gateway Skeptics were able to make the 3 hour (each way) road trip and were rewarded with the chance to meet Randi and ask him a few question. He was even kind enough to pose for a photo (contrary to his expression). Afterwards, we went out for some great deep dish pizza with a few fellow bloggers. Click below for a synopsis of the evening.

The lecture was sponsored by the Atheists, Agnostics and Freethinkers organization from UIUC. Apparently, the president of the club was inspired by The Amaz!ng Meeting to start the organization on his campus and was dedicated to getting Randi on campus. It seems like he succeeded. Unbeknownst to us, they also invited Nobel laureate Dr. Richard J. Roberts to speak about atheism.

The introduction to Dr. Roberts lecture was strange to say the least. The student in charge knew (and admitted to knowing) very little about Dr. Roberts research and it did not seem like he was going to take the time to lern about it. Also, the student's cell phone went off no fewer than three times while he was at the podium. It was funny yet sad.

Dr. Roberts talk on atheism focused mostly on the lack of scientific questioning in religion. He also touched on contradictions in religious teachings, the uselessness of prayer, why there is evil and several other topics that would be typical in a Richard Dawkins lecture. This included claiming that indoctrinating children into a particular religion is a form of child abuse. Unlike Dawkins, however, Dr. Roberts did not seem to be an authority on the topic. When asked in the Q & A session after lectures, Dr. Roberts admitting to only studying comparative religions for a handful of semesters while in school. I think it showed.

On of the most curious aspects of his talk was his discussion on schizophrenia. Dr. Roberts claims that many personal religious experiences can be attributed to schizophrenia. Since I have heard similar claims elsewhere, that did not strike me as a strange claim. What did was when he claimed that those who are intelligent and schizophrenic are most often diagnosed as having bipolar disorder while those of lesser intelligence are deemed schizophrenic and crazy. He claimed that the intelligent individuals are able to separate their hallucination from reality while others cannot. It was a strange tangent that I'm not sure is factually correct.

Before I leave Dr. Roberts for The Amazing Randi, I would like to share one of his quotes from the Q&A session. Dr. Roberts was discussing why he became a scientist. He attributed his curiosity to being able make fireworks as a child. He then made the following comment:

I know why terrorists like explosions. Everyone likes a good explosion.

Call me strange, but I don't think that's the reason terrorists blow things up.

Overall I think Dr. Roberts did a mediocre job selling atheism. However, he was talking to a audience who was mostly non-religious so little harm was done.

After Dr. Roberts talk, the president of Atheists, Agnostics and Freethinkers got up to introduce Randi. While he was better than the student who introduced Dr. Roberts, he wasn't much better. I won't go into details but I will say that it is a good thing Randi needs no introduction.

Randi's talk opened with a video montage chronicling some of his achievements as a skeptic and debunker. After the video, Randi came on stage to a healthy applause from the few hundred in the audience.

Randi focused the beginning of his talk on how people are fooled by others and how they fool themselves. This was accomplished by a few anecdotes and a few magic tricks. Randi then went on to explain the Million Dollar Challenge. This of course led to the story of Sylvia Browne accepting the challenge and never following through with the testing. This discussion included some impersonations of Sylvia by Randi and his looking for the proper name to call her regarding her insatiable money lust [Flavin reminds me this was regarding Montel William's money lust indicated by his having Slyvia on so often]:

What do they call that in the media business? Oh yeah, a whore.

Randi then moved on to discussing how smart people are fooled while making a few despairing comments regard those with PhDs. There were in jest of course. The talk then turned to homeopathy and how ridiculous the dilutions are. This led to a discussion of faith healers, and we were treated to two video clips of Randi on the Tonight Show with Carson where Randi exposed Peter Popov (this clip is similar but not the same) and psychic surgery. This pretty much concluded Randi's lecture. It was quite wonderful as the crowd's standing ovation implied.

The Q & A session, however, was not as great. Sans one or two questions, those asked were neither insightful nor new. They ranged from simple questions about religion to asking Randi if he believes in ghosts. One question, however, stood out among the others as ridiculous. I'll try to tell it slow so you can enjoy it.

An Asian student stepped up to the microphone and told a story about a car accident he was in. Apparently, he was involved in a hit and run where he did the running. He claimed he was scared and did not know what to do so he left the scene of the crime. When the cops later came to his door, he denied having anything to do with the collision so he was promptly cuffed and hauled off and rightfully so. The kid was eventually let off the hook by the judge and what the kid described as "the grace of Jesus". Why Jesus would bother with this kid and his traffic violations, I do not know. Anyway, this story went on for a good two minutes before some in the audience started shouting "Get to the question!" The kid stuttered and then asked is science can explain love. There was an awkward silence as the audience dealt with the non sequitur. Randi and Dr. Roberts responded with a curt "No." This was not good enough for the kid at the mic as he continued by rambling about the saying of Jesus which Randi promptly questioned the validity of. Eventually the kids mic was turned off after being booed by the audience. The kid proceeded to stand behind the dead microphone for approximately 10 minutes, waiting to speak again. Eventually, he must have realized where he was and sat back down. Again, funny yet sad.

After the lecture, we were able to get a picture with Randi and ask him a few questions one-on-one. We then met up with the Action Skeptics, Tom, and two of his friends. (1, 2, 3). We grabbed some pizza and talked religion, blogs, comics and video games, as young skeptics often do. As the picture illustrates, it was an enjoyable end to the night.

Here's suggesting we invite Randi to speak in St. Louis.

And My Wife

2008-03-10T08:57:00.003-05:00

I saw this very funny video today on Swift. How have I not heard of this guy, Tim Minchin, before?

More info on the Randi Lecture

2008-03-06T10:10:00.005-06:00

Since I'm sure that many of you don't go searching through the comments, I'll repost Akusai's comment here.

Just up on Randi's site:

Monday, March 10 2008, 7:00pm - 8:00pm

Randi will be speaking at the Lincoln Hall Theater located in Lincoln Hall in the main quad at the University of Illinois at 7pm in a lecture entitled, "Science, Magic, and Belief."

And convenient directions from all points on the compass.

I kindly requested in an e-mail to Randi that he might consider a meet-up after the lecture if time permits, but no word either way on that. Michael Shermer said yes a couple of years ago to the same question (and that was a lot of fun) so maybe Randi will, too...

Let's hope Randi comes through on the meet-up. Also, let me know if you want to go so we can car pool. It looks like we can leave at about 3:30 and make it in time (it's about a 3 hr 10 min drive).

It May Be 8 PM, But I Think I Need More Coffee

2008-03-03T20:20:00.000-06:00

I'm too bogged down with homework to make this post anything like what it should be, so I apologize ferociously. In fact, I can't even spare the time to read the paper I found. I'm lobbing it to you, dear reader.

So can someone please tell me what The Nonequilibrium Nature of Culinary Evolution is about, and why it's on the physics arXiv?

Natural Male Imprisonment

2008-02-28T18:51:00.006-06:00

Steve Warshak, owner of the company that produces Enzyte has been found "guilty of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, bank fraud and money laundering," according to the AP.

On this day, I urge everyone to remember the reason anyone knows about Enzyte at all: their commercials. A discussion of the epistemological status of Enzyte and other "natural enhancement" pills commences below, but first let us watch some funny videos.

According to the manufacturer's website, Enzyte "includes Korean red ginseng, ginkgo biloba, zinc, and octacosanol." According to Enzyte's Wikipedia entry, no clinical effect has been proved.

I'm feeling a lot of guilt right now for putting off my homework, so rather than take the time to thoroughly go through the ingredients and claims and so forth, I'll refer you to sage advice given by the Federal Trade Commission in 1998.

If the product is advertised as effective for treating impotence-and no physician's prescription is necessary-forget it. It won't cure the condition.

If the product is advertised as a "breakthrough" in treating impotence, check with your doctor to see if it is legitimate.

If the product is promoted by a "medical organization," call your physician to check the credentials. Phony "clinics" and sham "institutes" are touting bogus cures for impotence.

# If the product says "scientifically proven" to reverse impotence in a high percentage of patients, check it out with your doctor. Some claims that "clinical studies" prove a product works are false; generally, high success rates should raise suspicions.

If the product being pitched to cure impotence is "herbal" or "all natural," dismiss it. To date, no "herbal" or "all natural" substance has been shown to be an effective treatment for impotence.

Thanks to Ed Brayton.

New Skeptics' Circle is up.

2008-02-28T18:05:00.002-06:00

Go read it at the Conspiracy Factory.

Road Trip!

2008-02-24T11:42:00.003-06:00

The Amazing James Randi will be lecturing at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign on ~~Sunday~~ Monday, March 10. It is about 2 1/2 hours from St. Louis. I think we should go if it is open to the public. Who's with me? Perhaps we'll see one of the Action Skeptics there.

Further Proof Science is Sexy

2008-02-19T17:21:00.005-06:00

Dr. T. Stuart Meloy has developed spinal implant to treat bladder and pain problems that has the sexy side effect of causing orgasms in most women. According to an LA Times article:

Women who have used the device say they feel as if their clitoris and vagina are actually being stimulated, to quite realistic effect. ("One woman asked me, 'Would it be considered adultery if I gave the remote control to someone other than my husband?' " Meloy says.)

Some volunteers also report fleeting episodes of clenched foot muscles, Meloy says, probably a result of electrical pulses leaving the spine and stimulating nearby motor nerves. (He wonders if the phenomenon might somehow be related to a common orgasm description: "My toes curled.")

And when the device's pulse intensity is cranked up to maximum, Meloy says, some women find their vaginal and rectal muscles squeezing rhythmically in time with the pulses, even before the orgasmic finale.

Dr. Meloy is now looking for FDA approval to use the device to treat female orgasm dysfunction.

But that's not all!

Meloy says he has also implanted two impotent men with the device. Both volunteers were able to achieve an erection, he says, and reportedly had powerful ejaculations.

As soon as the good Doctor finds a way to bring the price down from a steep $12,000, perhaps we'll see a slightly less frustrated America. And some say science is boring...

Read more here and over at Skepchick. Here is the LA Times article.

Graduate Students are Good for Something

2008-02-19T10:22:00.003-06:00

Put this in your "Cool Gadgets" notebook. I know you all keep one. Clay Moulton, a student from Virginia Tech, has invented a gravity lamp, as in a lamp powered by gravity. You can read the full article here. The lamp is powered by a slowly falling weight which spins a rotor to light an LED, and as a result, a weight must be lifted to the top of the lamp every four hours. The lamp puts out 600-800 lumens (enough to light the den), and the machinery of the lamp is estimated to last upwards of 200 years. Way to go Clay.

Pentagon + Lasers = Scary

2008-02-18T18:17:00.003-06:00

"A recently unclassified report from the Pentagon from 1998 has revealed an investigation into using laser beams for a few intriguing potential methods of non-lethal torture. Some of the applications the report investigated include putting voices in people's heads, using lasers to trigger uncontrolled neuron firing, and slowly heating the human body to a point of feverish confusion - all from hundreds of meters away."

Read the full article here.

On a lighter note, I think that transmitting music directly to your head would be pretty cool. Imagine an ipod without those damned headphones. I wonder how good the bass is.

Kotaku on JT's NIU Claims

2008-02-17T17:40:00.000-06:00

School shootings are horrible tragedies. I want to be clear right from the start that no one should be made to endure a loved one's murder or suicide, particularly in such a painful and public manner.

In the aftermath of such an event, we all want to know why it happened. But speculating about motives before we have concrete information is foolish in the least and can be harmfully misleading. Mere speculation, though, can be forgiven. Using a tragedy to advance a wholly unrelated agenda cannot.

It is with this in mind that we watch a video of one infamous Florida attorney, whom we followers of video game culture sometimes call He Who Must Not Be Named. Inexplicably, this man is allowed on Fox News to throw out his claims that major tragedies are caused by video games. The shooting at NIU on the 14th was no exception.

An analysis of the claims in this clip has been made by Brian Crecente of Kotaku, which I will reproduce for you here.

We find from brain scan studies out of Harvard that if you get started playing, for example, violent video games you can more likely copy-cat the behaviors in the games.
Verdict: False
Evidence: While the study of adolescents by Harvard and Indiana university researchers found that video games can spur "emotional arousal" and lower self-control it never made that final leap. In fact David S. Bickham, a research scientist at the Center on Media and Child Health at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, told the Washington Post that the study, while interesting, wasn't conclusive.

The disturbing thing that keeps popping up in many of these as in Va Tech, Columbine, Paducah, where I represented the six parents of the three girls shot and killed, is that you can rehearse these types of massacres on simulators which are called video games. And you can therefore made more proficient in doing this.
Verdict: False
Evidence: Va Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho only had a passing interest in gaming years before the shoot[ing]. A lawyer tried to draw a connection between the game Doom and Columbine shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, but that was tossed out by a federal judge. Paducah shooter Michael Carneal also played Doom, but that was found to not be connected to the shooting. Video game as murder simulator and training tool just doesn't hold any water.

The worst school shooting in history until Va Tech, was by Robert Steinhauser in Erfurt, Germany who trained on Counter-Strike Half Life. That's the game that Cho at Va Tech trained on in High School.
Verdict: Not exactly true
Evidence: While it is true that Steinhauser and Cho both played Counter-Strike at some point in their lives, with more than a million copies sold, that could probably be said of a lot of college students. Saying that Cho "trained on" the game is a bit of a stretch.

And um the effect, the affects the psychological affect of the shooter, plus his attire is suggestive of a couple of the games in which the "hero" wears this type of attire.
Verdict: Likely false
Evidence: The description by those present don't make it sound like he had a flat affect. One person said "It looked like a theatrical thing the way he walked onto the stage." Others described his behavior leading up to the shooting as erratic. Not surprising of a man who had recently been dumped by his girlfriend and had stopped taking his medication, possibly anti-depressants. Simply wearing black doesn't mean he was dressing up like the "hero" from Counter-Strike.

I lost my train of thought. I wrote a book...
Verdict: True
Evidence: Jack did indeed write a book, and I think he lost his train of thought about two decades ago.

Wonderful skeptical analysis of an opportunist. Kudos to Crecente, and I wish I had wrote it myself.

Python v. Alligator: Draw

2008-02-15T16:49:00.005-06:00

Those of you stuck in our lovely office know that there has been talk about which animals would defeat others in a fair fight. I think you wold all agree that this result is a little surprising...

In Florida, a 13-ft Burmese python took on a 6-ft alligator. The results were disastrous. It looks like the python was able to swallow the entirety of the alligator but then burst. Perhaps the alligator decided to claw its way out. Both animals died in the process. The picture above shows the alligator's tail bursting through the side of the python. The head of the python is missing. In retrospect, I think it might be fair to give the python a point for effort.

Now if only nature will provide us with a gorilla v. bear war. Until then, we'll just have to go with what we have on film.

Tip of the hat to PZ for pointing out something that I should have learned about 3 years ago when it happened.

We're #1! We're #1!

2008-02-14T10:34:00.003-06:00

Skeptic's Circle número ochenta is up at Bug Girl's Blog. Our very own Flavin was crowned with first mention.

Valentine's Day Special: Scientific Lovers

2008-02-13T15:12:00.012-06:00

Those of you in the Boston/Providence area can avail yourselves of a service that will match you with a partner based on your own DNA! It's science! Yes, on ScientificMatch.com you can find a mate who is genetically compatible with you. Based on what criteria, you ask? What genes are examined? These questions and more will be answered in this Gateway Skepticism Valentine's Day Special: Scientific Lovers.

The site is actually very forthcoming with information. They've got a long page detailing their claims and the evidence for them. The first question they tackle is about the genes. What kind of analysis can they perform on genes to match you with a potential relationship?

Physical chemistry is based on the immune system. When we analyze your DNA, we look exclusively at your immune system genes. So, quite literally, when we say that two people have “chemistry”, we’re saying that their immune system genes are perfectly matched with each other.

By perfectly matched, we mean different.

After we analyze your DNA, we match you with other people who have different immune system genes from yourself.

The theory is that nature wants us to breed with other people who have different immune systems because it creates babies with a wider variety of immune system genes, and therefore, more robust immune systems—in other words, healthier babies.

That's what they do: look at genes in the major histocompatibility complex, MHC, and see how many you share with a potential mate. The fewer you have in common, the better matched you are with each other. It seems a rather simple metric considering the... well, rather sexy claims being made for the service.

When you share chemistry with someone, you significantly increase your chances of realizing these amazing benefits:
You'll love their natural body fragrance--they'll smell “sexier” than other people.

You'll have a more satisfying sex life.

If you’re a woman, you'll have a higher rate of orgasms.

There will be less cheating in your exclusive relationship.

As a couple, you'll be more fertile.

Your children will be healthier.

To me, these claims appear outlandish. However, my opinion counts for naught when references are provided for each claim. Yes, you read that correctly: it's a dating site that relies on published scientific research. Some of you might be pulling your credit cards out already, but let's examine in more detail first.

1. Chances are, you’ll love the natural body fragrance of your partner--they’ll smell sexier than other people

To back up this assertion, they cite an experiment in which women were asked to smell sweaty t-shirts worn by men. The relative rating by the women of pleasure of the smells was correlated with the difference in MHC genes between smeller and smelly smellee. A handy overview is given at the Wikipedia article for the author, Claus Wedekind.

This claim is actually pretty well established. It's a little weird, but could be true. If someone is matched to you by this service, you might like the smell of their sweat better than someone more similar to you in MHC genes—unless you're on the pill, in which case it's opposite. I wouldn't say it's enough to base a relationship on, so what about the other claims?

2. You’ll probably have a more satisfying sex life

3. If you’re a woman, chances are you’ll have a higher rate of orgasms

4. There’s a lower chance of cheating in your exclusive relationships when your DNA is matched properly

You may have noticed I presented three claims together—and what amazing claims they are!—and were wondering why. Well, as their primary support, these three wonderful sexy claims cite one and the same paper. That's right, on the same page that cites over 40 primary research papers and books, fully half of the amazing benefits of this DNA-matching service are resting on one published report. Let's read, shall we?

The paper (full reference below) can be found here. It approaches this question from a psychology perspective, administering a questionnaire about sexual satisfaction, cheating, etc. Honestly, I don't know enough about psychology research or statistics to know if there are any weaknesses in the study, save a few things.

First, the study involved only 48 couples. For such broad results, I would like to see something larger. Second, the participants were taken from a college campus and had mean ages 20.5 and 21.3 years for men and women, respectively. Hardly a representative group, especially for satisfaction in relationships and sexual behavior. Are 20-year-olds likely to be using a dating website? Third, I haven't seen any replication. Only three papers have cited this one (it is from 2006, after all) and none have checked the results.

None of these perceived-by-me weaknesses are deal-breakers for the accuracy of the study. It could be true that all three benefits of MHC-matching based on this paper and advertised by scientificmatch.com will come to you with a properly matched partner. But I wouldn't start a business around it, myself.

5. As a couple, you're probably more fertile

This is based on a few studies demonstrating that couples with dissimilar MHC genes have a lower rate of "spontaneous, unprovoked abortion." The studies appear pretty legit, but is having a lower rate of "spontaneous, unprovoked abortion" really the same thing as being "more fertile" as was claimed? The site is a little shifty about this point.

To be clear, they don’t show a correlation between chemistry and the ability to get pregnant. That wasn’t investigated in these studies, so they don’t disprove the correlation, either.

Riiiight. They don't say it'll happen, but they don't say it won't happen, do they?

6. Your children have a better chance of being healthy

This claim is extensively documented in humans and in other species. It seems obvious to me as a non-biologist who has scanned these papers that having many different haplotypes of the MHC genes will help prevent against some diseases and will possibly make the immune system better in general. This hypothesis has been tested and seems to be correct, again from a non-biologist's perspective.

I don't know about you, but I wasn't too convinced. The evidence for the good, fun stuff was a little shaky. Sure, having a slightly higher chance of healthy babies is great, but I'd really like to know more about the "more orgasm" thing. Can we get another study on that?

For those of you who have used or do use dating websites, maybe this one tickles your fancy. It certainly can't be any less scientific than some popular dating sites out there. I don't think it could hurt to give it a shot.

There's my Valentine's Day special skeptical gift: scientific analysis, tentative conclusions, and weak recommendations. It isn't romantic, it isn't a cure-all for your love problems, and it probably doesn't make blood flow to your naughty bits.

But it is the best thing I can give you: reality.

Full reference: Garver-Apgar, Christine E, Steven W Gangestad, Randy Thornhill, Robert D Miller, & Jon J Olp (2006) “Major Histocompatibility Complex Alleles, Sexual Responsivity, and Unfaithfulness in Romantic Couples,” Psychological Science, vol 17, no 10, pp 830-835.

What's the harm?

2008-02-13T00:00:00.003-06:00

Here is a site keeping track of those harmed by pseudoscience and dangerous beliefs. Categories include Scientology, exorcisms, homeopathy, vaccine denial, acupuncture, UFOs and many others. I recommend taking a look.

Thanks to the Bad Astronomer for sharing.

Nutating?

2008-02-11T12:04:00.000-06:00

I love to see scientists, particularly physicists, interacting with the broader culture. And vice versa, of course. That's why I was tickled to flip on Conan last Friday and see MIT physics professor Peter Fisher entertaining the crowd with science and wit.

No, I'm not joking; he was actually funny. See for yourself.

[EDIT: See bottom]

From this we can conclude:

Physics is hilarious. And useful for everyday things. Seriously, I hope people have their curiosity aroused by this kind of demonstration and think, "Hey, these random questions I ask and then immediately forget about, I can actually find answers to them by using science!"

The writer's strike is wreaking havok on the regular flow of programing. For the better.

Oh, and nutating is a cool word.

UPDATE: Well, NBC has asserted its right to not have its videos hosted on YouTube. That's fine: they do hold the copyright to these recordings and if they decide their property should not be hosted on a popular website then the videos should be removed. I just wish they would do a little better about allowing an approved legal way to embed videos.

If you're so inclined, you can go the the Conan video site, choose Friday, February 8, and watch the second chapter of the episode. I know it's cumbersome, but for now that's the way it has to be. I knew these videos would be removed eventually (and verification that I predicted this is borne in this page's url), but I didn't think it would happen within a few hours of me posting them. Perhaps if someone hadn't put them on his wildly more popular site, they'd still be enjoyable by us all (but probably not).

Thanks to commenter PJ.

UPDATE 2: Thanks, Blake, for pointing the way to new videos. Those didn't exist when I looked, but the shifting sands of the interweb have tricked and confused many men before me so it's no shame I missed them. That's what I'll keep telling myself.

Scientology Protest Update

2008-02-10T23:52:00.001-06:00

I have scavenged the internet for more information on the protests. Here is news of protests in Australia (a video, and more); Los Angeles (more); Boston; Clearwater, Florida (Scientology Headquarters: more); Detroit; and Hollywood. I will keep my eyes peeled for more. Feel free to either e-mail me (slss.ben at gmail dot com) more news stories from other areas if you come across them or leave links in the comments. I am finding this way too interesting.

Update: Chris Hoofnagle of the Denialism Blog protested in San Francisco.

Here is some info on London's protests (more); Buffalo, NY; Arizona; the CNN building (LA again, with video), ST. LOUIS; Canada; more on Clearwater, Florida; and Pittsburgh.

More Updates:
USA Today article; Washington D.C.; Austin; Seattle; Portland, OR; Dallas, Houston; Scotland ( quite a great article); Chicago; Dublin (video); here is another good summary.

Scientology Protest in St. Louis

2008-02-10T11:53:00.000-06:00

I don't have much information on the specifics, but I drove by the Scientology center today to see approximately 50 protesters across the street holding signs that said things like "Cult of Scientology". There were police on the Scientology center's side of the street, but it seemed a fairly innocuous protest. The protesters seemed to be in good spirits and waved as I drove by. It was quite a wonderful sight. Kudos to those braving to cold to tell it like it is!

This protest is part of the recent announcement by the hacker group Anonymous of their intention to bring down Scientology. Here are some more links. (1, 2). Here, I found the itinerary of today's protest. The overall organization of the protests seems non-violent and quite amazing. I hope the protests around the globe go well today.

Hail Xenu!

New University in Saudi Arabia

2008-02-07T10:27:00.000-06:00

I have been meaning to write about this for several days, but with classes settling into a clipping pace and with research/TA duties, posts may be a little more spaced out than usual. Anyway, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has donated $10 billion (that's right, billion with a b) of his own pocket change to create the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology or KAUST for short. (I won't make the obvious pun about the kaust of the university. Oops, I just did.) This endowment is one of the 10 largest ever. It's funding will be similar to that of top schools like Harvard and MIT.

What is amazing about this university is exactly how much effort is being put into making it a great center of learning. Instead of being divided into departments in the traditional way (Chemistry, Math, Biology, English, Drama, etc.), KAUST is divided into interdisciplinary institutes which focus on working with industry and solving important global problems. So far, there are four institutes listed: Resources, Energy and Environment; Biosciences and Bioengineering; Materials Science and Engineering; and Applied Mathematics and Computational Science.

To increase the amount and efficiency of research at the new university, the science faculty will be provided with grants totaling $1 billion over ten years (that's total, not per scientist). This will help the scientists focus on their research instead of continuously digging up money to support their projects.

There is a similar incentive for students. Besides the several scholarships available to undergraduate students, all juniors, seniors, and graduate students will be provided free tuition for the next ten years.

You can seen the layout of the new university here. Hopefully the real campus will be as amazing as the 3D models.

This is an exciting time to be a student in Saudi Arabia. Education is the solution to so many of the world's social problems. Here's hoping it turns out as amazing as it sounds on paper.

You can read some more about his through Scientific American or from Bob Novella at The Rogues Gallery.

More on Plastic Bags

2008-02-04T12:44:00.000-06:00

Ireland has joined China and others on the banning of the free distribution of plastic bags. You can read a short article here. You can also read my and Adam's previous thoughts on the banning of plastic bags from last month. Check out the comments for most of the discussion.

Update: There is a much better article about the situation in Ireland here. Turns out, it is more socially unacceptable than banned.

Noise and Fluctuation

2008-02-03T22:53:00.000-06:00

Remember The Inner Life of a Cell? I've mentioned it before. Every time I see it, I think that the molecules seem a bit too anthropomorphic for my taste; they're all running around very purposefully and directly. Does anything about that strike you as being strange? It does me.

It strikes PZ Myers as being strange, too. He recently wrote a criticism of this video that captures very well the essence of its nonphysicality.

The feature that's missing from the video is noise. Every molecule in this video should be moving randomly at each moment, but with an average motion in some particular direction. I think PZ gets it right when he says,

For purposes of drama and minimizing complexity and confusion, though, the animators of that video have stripped out one of the most essential properties of systems at that scale: noise, variability, and the stochastic nature of chemical interactions.

Not only can thermal or chemical fluctuations not be ignored, there is evidence that for some systems noise can be important (PDF) to their functions.

The reason I wanted to link this was to put up a cool animation of single-molecule-imaging of a protein binding to DNA and exhibiting stochastic motion. Sadly, I couldn't find it online—here's the reference, though. Instead I'll show an also-cool animation of a simulated actin fiber pushing an obstacle. Actin generates cellular motion, basically by converting thermal fluctuations into mechanical work. Each monomer is small and can sneak in under the fluctuating obstacle to make the actin fiber longer. Slowly, eventually, gradually things move in more or less the needed direction. It's awesome but overlooked by the Inner Life video. So enjoy this low-tech animation, pilfered from Anders Carlsson.

Funny. Very Funny.

2008-01-31T10:05:00.000-06:00

Mark Crislip over on the Science-Based Medicine blog is calling for alternative aviation since medicine has had such luck supporting alternative medicine. I highly recommend it.

Here is one of my favorite passages:

Quantum mechanics demonstrates that an electron takes many simultaneous paths to go from point a to point b. Only when the wave function is collapsed does the electron reach its destination. We have a prototype quantum airplane what will be able to simultaneously transport a passenger to all their destinations and with a simple collapse of the wave function the passenger will be at their destination of choice. With quantum aviation one can take the path less traveled and make a difference. In the quantum realm, our mind makes both our reality and our travel destination.

Aviation based on principals of homeopathy is especially promising. Airplanes, once they have flown their route, remember the route due to the principals of quantum complementarity. Then by making the planes smaller and slower by repeated factors of 10, planes can carry more passengers, go faster and farther with each aeronautic dilution.

Enjoy! (By the way, this is post #100. Woohoo!)

Prime Time

2008-01-31T09:16:00.000-06:00

New Skeptics' Circle, the 2⁴*5 - 1 edition.

I guess we submitted a little over the wire. Ah, well, next time will be our time. Interpret that as you will.

Are fractions obsolete?

2008-01-30T20:39:00.000-06:00

In a USA Today article titled, Professor: Fractions should be scrapped, Dennis DeTurck argues that, "Fractions have had their day, being useful for by-hand calculation, but in this digital age, they're as obsolete as Roman numerals are."

i couldn't disagree more.

According to DeTurk, after he publicly made his "Down with Fractions" proclamation, "There were blogs and rants, and there were some critical e-mails, they'd always boil down to: 'What would we do in cooking and carpentry?' "

It turns out fractions are pretty important for things like ratios and rates (to name a few). What i think the proposition actually boils down to is something more along the lines of: 'What would we do in science and engineering?' If your idea of math is to put some numbers in and get a number out, then DeTurk may be right...as long as you have a calculator (try doing 9.33*.429 in your head...now try (28/3)*(3/7)). But you can't even do simple algebra without a fairly good understanding of fractions...much less trigonometry or calculus!

DeTurk goes on to attack long division, the calculation of square roots and by-hand multiplication of long numbers. It looks like 90% of what i learned in math after 3rd grade isn't really that important after all.

Just Wow

2008-01-30T11:44:00.000-06:00

There is an article, complete with photos, on ABC News about a man with a 50 lb tumor on his face. He is currently undergoing surgical procedures in order to remove as much of the tumor as possible. It is cases like these that make me thankful for science-based medicine.

There is also a gallery of deformities on the ABC page. I will warn you that the page is not for the squeamish.

Jesus Found in a Potato

2008-01-30T09:41:00.000-06:00

Can we say pareidolia? There are two quite funny quotes in the article.

Pastor Brewster froze the heart of that potato bearing Jesus. The rest was used to make the potato salad served during their weekly rescue mission.

How was that potato salad? “It was good. It was the best you ever made...it was almost as good as Sister Frankie's,” said Bishop Brewster.

I wonder what deity was in Sister Frankie's potato salad.

“I just want people to know God is still as real today as he was back then and he can show up anytime he gets ready,”

...in ~~bed~~ a potato.

I'm Honestly Just Curious

2008-01-29T22:49:00.000-06:00

At our recent meeting, one of the Society members suggested writing an article investigating whether or not foods or other substances actually affect the flavor of semen. We joked about conducting a large blinded experiment, but jokes aside I wanted to know the real information. With that in mind, I hit the Internet.

Sadly, I didn't find much. Well, that's a lie: I found a lot. I just didn't find much that was useful.

First off, Snopes doesn't have an article on this. They do have several other articles involving semen, but none regarding flavor.

My next step was Google. I found a boatload of articles on what to eat or not eat to improve semen flavor, but most of them are uncited. In fact, many just seem to be using the argument from sex-columnist authority.

However, a few pages in my search stood out.

This one cites its source—in a way. The page displays an image captured from a book (click for a larger image on the native page), and that book is cited at the bottom of the page. However, the image itself contains a citation to a different source, and it's only a parenthetical reference. I could not track down the full reference, so as of now this chart remains anecdotal.

A BBC program conducted an experiment (with video, if you're interested). I think it might have been a little... poorly controlled.

There's a product on the market that claims to sweeten a man's semen. They present no scientific research, but the patent application (apparently for the same product) says the 27-couple market research was "highly positive." I bet.

Two sites referred to scientific tests (or the dearth thereof) on semen flavor. This WikiAnswers page mentions the lack of research before diving into the anecdotes. Dr. Drew calls the semen-flavor claim a "myth" and makes reference to people who have studied this. However, he provides no names or references, so this has to be chalked up to anecdote as well.

As of now, everything I've found has been anecdotal (with the exception of the BBC experiment). Since I'm not a person knowledgeable in medicine, Google's pretty much as far as I go. Well, I did do a Google Scholar search, but nothing interesting came up. So I ask you the reader, do you know of any evidence on this subject? Has anyone scientifically studied semen flavor?

Pediatricians Against TV Show

2008-01-29T10:39:00.000-06:00

Check CNN for the full story. Also, you can click here for the press release from the American Academy of Pediatricians. You can also click here to read the letter sent to ABC.

The largest group of pediatricians in the nation is upset over an upcoming ABC show called "Eli Stone" because

It features British actor Jonny Lee Miller as a prophet-like lawyer who in the opening episode argues in court that a flu vaccine made a child autistic. When it is revealed in court that an executive at the fictional vaccine maker didn't allow his own child to get the shot, jurors side with the family, giving them a huge award.

The writers of the show claim they would be "deeply upset" if parents were not vaccinating their children because of their show. I would ask, then why make let the nonsense triumph in your show?

I say kudos to the American Academy of Pediatrics for fighting the reason and for reminding me why I don't watch television.

Quote of the Week

2008-01-28T01:13:00.001-06:00

I have added a new regular feature to our blog. If you look to the right, you will see the first "Quote of the Week".

Chapter 2: The Reactive Mind

2008-01-26T01:18:00.000-06:00

"Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more..."--Henry V

After a lengthy hiatus, here is the next installment of my critique of L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics. This chapter discusses the reactive mind, the source of all our psychological problems. In this section, Hubbard provides a better definition of engrams and discusses some scientific "tests" that have been done confirming his theory of the reactive mind.

After a short description of cells, including the curious assertion

In the finite realms and for any of our purposes, man could be considered to be a colonial aggregation of cells and it could be assumed that his purpose was identical with the purpose of his building blocks.

It appears that Hubbard believe man's cell obey the same drive that man obey. Does that mean that when there is a time when man is more driven by sex than personal survival that his cells have the same motivation? We're already off to a strange start. You might have noticed that there is talk of "finite realms". Hubbard elaborates,

It was understood perfectly that this was a study in the finite universe only and that the spheres and realms of thought and action might very well exist above this finite sphere.

This is Hubbard saying that the results of his Dianetics studies only consider the known universe, and there may be unknown and unknowable factors which could affect our minds. This is a fair claim to make and a similar one to that which science makes. Scientists only claim to deal with the rational, material world.

Hubbard then considers the reactive mind, which

managed to bury itself from view so thoroughly that only inductive philosophy, traveling from effect back to cause, served to uncover it.

After this philosophizing was over, Hubbard could then test subjects for presence of the reactive mind. He states

Two hundred and seventy-three individuals have been examined and treated, representing all the various types of inorganic mental illness and the many varieties of psychosomatic ills. In each one this reactive mind was found operating, its principles unvaried.

This is the first time Hubbard tries to provide us with evidence for his claims. Never mind telling us HOW he experimentally determines the presence of the reactive mind, he found it in 273 people. It must be true!

By now, you must be writhing with anticipation. What is the reactive mind? Well, the reactive mind, present in ALL people, is just another name for our "engram bank", the repository for all the engrams we acquire. What's so bad about having an engram bank?

It can give a man arthritis, bursitis, asthma, allergies, sinusitis, coronary trouble, high blood pressure and so on, down the whole catalogue of psychosomatic ills, adding a few more which were never specifically classified as psychosomatic, such as the common cold.

That's right. The common cold is all in your head, caused by engrams. I guess that explains why it is so hard to treat. All of us who do not practice Scientology have no way of exorcising our engrams and curing our colds. Hubbard reiterates,

And it is the only thing in the human being which can reproduce these effects.

I cannot emphasize enough how radical this claim is. The cold, proven to be caused by rhinoviruses, among other things, is claimed to be caused by the infestation of engrams and ONLY the infestation of engrams.

After repeating at least twice that " If there ever was a devil, he designed the reactive mind", Hubbard assures us that cleaning out our engram bank will alleviate all those ills listed above. Hubbard insists

These are scientific facts. They copare invariably with observed experience.

At this point, I would like to remind my audience that there is no such thing a proof by assertion.

Even though he does not state how he came upon these facts in any meaningful way, Hubbard gives us some enumerated scientific facts which he claims are clinically proven.

1. The mind records on some level continuously during the entirely life of the organism.
2. All recordings of the lifetime are available.
3. "Unconsciousness," in which the mind is oblivious to its surroundings, is possible only in death and does not exist as total amnesia in life.
4. All mental and physical derangements of a psychic nature come about from moments of "unconsciousness."
5. Such moments can be reached and drained of charge with the result of returning the mind to optimum operating condition. [Hubbard defines charge as "harmful energy or force accumulated and store in the reactive mind, resulting from the conflicts and unpleasant experiences that a person as had." I think this is the same as an engram.]

I would like to point out that "facts" number 3 and 4 seem to be in direct contradiction as written.

Hubbard proceeds to describe the "experiments" to test whether "unconsciousness" is the single source of aberration.

If you care to make the experiment you can take a man, render him "unconscious," hurt him and give him information. By Dianetic technique, no matter what information you give him, it can be recovered. This experiment should not be carelessly conducted because you might also render him insane [emphasis Hubbard].

While Hubbard is telling us that we should not double-check his experiments because they are dangerous, there is a more interesting question hidden in this statement (even more interesting than why Hubbard just suggested we hurt people). How many people did Hubbard render insane by perfecting this process? Also, does this explain Tom Cruise? If only it were that simple.

Hubbard then proceeds to express his distrust of hypnotism. He calls is a "laboratory tool" which "serves as a means of examining minds and getting their reaction". A "wild variable", hypnotism is inconsistent and often leads to undesirable results. However, Hubbard compares many of the maladies from the reactive mind to things that can be experienced while hypnotized. While interesting to read though, this would make this post many pages longer, so I will refrain from going into detail about the comparison. Hubbard asserts that hypnotism can be used to make the subject mimic the maladies of repressions, compulsions, neuroses, psychoses, schizophrenic insanities, paranoid-schizophrenic insanities, manic-type insanities, depressive-type insanity, and hypochondria, admitting there are more.

After the discussion on hypnotism, there is a curious note on the bottom of the page.

An injunction here. These are tests. They have been made on people who could be hypnotized and people who could not be but who were drugged. They brought forth valuable data for Dianetics. They can be duplicated only when you know Dianetics, unless you want to actually drive somebody insane by accident. For these suggestions do not always vanish. Hypnotism is a wild variable. It is dangerous [emphasis Hubbard] and belongs in the parlor in the same way you would want an atom bomb there.

Ignoring the strange reference to the atomic bomb, it is very telling that Hubbard warns us against reproducing his experiments yet again. This time he says that only those trained in Dianetics can successfully carry out his experiments. This is a great tactic for someone trying to make his claims unfalsifiable.

Hubbard now turns to discussing the reactive mind in detail. If you remember the discussion of the analytical mind from my last post, you will recall that the analytical mind stores all memory. What the reactive mind does is replace the analytical mind during times of unconsciousness. The problem is, the reactive mind is not as good as the analytical mind in doing the job of remembering.

The reactive mind is very rugged. It would have to be in order to stand up to the pain waves which knock out other sentience in the body. It is not very refined. But it is most awesomely accurate. It possesses a low order of computing ability, and order which is submoron, but one would expect a low order of ability from a mind which stays in the circuit when the body is being crush on or fried.

Even though the reactive mind is "most awesomely accurate", it stores engrams instead of memories. It is here where Hubbard finally supplies up with a workable definition of engram, 82 pages into his book.

The word engram [emphasis Hubbard], in Dianetics is used in it severely accurate sense as a "definite and permanent trace left by a stimulus on the protoplasm of a tissue." If is considered as a unit group of stimuli impinged solely on the cellular being.

If the trace is definite and permanent, why can this not be seen by a microscope (and since when did "severely accurate" mean slightly less vague than before?)? For example, why can a doctor not compare the cells of a patient before and after being anesthetized for surgery? Hubbard must explain how we could detect these engrams.

Instead of delving into how engrams are detected, Hubbard makes more assertions about their nature.

In all laboratory tests on the engrams they were found to possess "inexhaustible" sources of power to command the body.

How would you even test such a thing? There is much need for detail. Also, what does it mean to "command the body" regarding an engram. Does an engram use a source of energy different from adenosine triphosphate?

Instead of providing us with the detailed explanation of the methods needed to understand his experiments, Hubbard explains the three types of engrams.

First is the contrasurvival engram [emphasis Hubbard]. This contains physical pain, painful emotion, all other perceptions and menace to the organism.

The second type of engram is called the prosurvival engram. It is

the most aberrative since it is reinforced by the law of affinity which is always more powerful than fear.

This is the engram which hypnotism preys on. The third type of engram is the painful emotion engram.

It is caused by the shock of sudden loss, such as the death of a loved one.

Hubbard in no way discusses how these engrams differently affect the protoplasm of a cell which would be necessary for us to truly understand the difference between these engrams. Hubbard needs to take us to the cellular and chemical levels, something I do not believe he is qualified to do.

While there are many pages left in this chapter, little of it is new or sensible. I will hit the highlights.

The most interesting claim that Hubbard makes at the end of this chapter is his assertion of how the reactive mind works. In a normal memory, our mind is able to distinguish relationships between objects. This is how we make associations. We learn to associate stoves with hot and water near outlets as bad this way.

But not the reactive mind! That's so beautifully, wonderfully simple that it can be stated, in operation, to have just one equation: A=A=A=A=A.

That is, in a memory from the reactive mind, everything is equivalent. For example, if you were unconscious and someone played a video about a birthday in the background, you might remember the cake is the candles is the song is the child is the presents is the guests. Don't worry. It doesn't make any sense to me either, but I am fairly certain this is Hubbard's assertion. Also note, this is the second equation Hubbard was written. This one was slightly more meaningful albeit odd.

As the chapter concludes, Hubbard asserts

If man had not invented language, or, as will be demonstrated, if his languages were a little less homodynamic [containing homonyms] and more specific with their personal pronouns, engrams would still be survival data and the mechanism [the primal reason for engrams, simple-minded association] would work.

That is, Hubbard asserts that engrams started harming mankind because they learned to talk. "The proof of any assertion lies in its applicability," Hubbard say. While I do not agree with this statement at all, I would at least like to see him try to fulfill it.

Words Defined: pillory, inductive, engram bank, arthritis, bursitis, sinusitis, coronary, Caligula, Gauls, myopia, schizophrenic, manic-depressive, neurotic, dipsomaniac, fuse, charge, hypochondriac, engram, memory, Alfred Korzybski, key-in, restimulation, predisposition, restimulator, loose, cohabit, dramatization, lock, mange

I often wonder what you think when reading through the words defined. You must wonder in what context some of them appear.

Next: Chapter 3: The Cell and the Organism

Note: All quotes are from
Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics. Los Angeles, CA: Bridge Publications, Inc, 1986, unless noted otherwise.

1/25/08 Minutes

2008-01-25T21:47:00.000-06:00

This was the fourth official meeting of the St. Louis Skeptical Society. The minutes are posted below.

January, 25 2008: 7:30-9:30 pm
Location: Thai Country Cafe
Members in attendence: 7 (AH, DM, CM, ST, BB, MD, JF)
News Items

Dowsing Sheriff

End of the Million Dollar Challenge
Answers in Genesis Peer-Reviewed Journal (not very scientific and poorly written so far)

Blog

Try to include more physics-related items
More investigative pieces
Expand blog to include topics outside science if looked at critically
Call for more comments from others
Create a link repository as a resource for this wishing to learn about a topic

will require a domain and more webspace

Ben's Dianetics diatribe
Blog Carnivals/Skeptic's Circle

work on producing more material worthy of submission to increase site visibility

Ideas and comments on the SLSS

Lectures

Biology professor at Wash U
Wake Forest professor with skepticism course
Funding and space for lectures

Investigations

Local Scientology center
Ghosts
Paranormal
Psychics
Astrologers
Misc. claims

Social Events

Museums
Lectures
Meetings with other organizations

Recruiting students from other departments

Scientists Create Synthetic DNA

2008-01-25T14:10:00.001-06:00

As the title says, "US scientists have taken a major step toward creating the first ever artificial life form by synthetically reproducing the DNA of a bacteria." You can read about it here. There article in Science can be found here. Biologists are having a good week.

Meeting Friday Jan 25, 7:30 PM

2008-01-22T16:12:00.000-06:00

We will be having our January meeting at the Thai Gai Yang Cafe (on the same side of the street as Thai Pizza on the Loop).

I would like you all to come with some thoughts on where you would like the organization to go and how you would like to achieve it. Please give this some thought so we can get on top of things this semester. Flavin and I will also be discussing some new ideas we have for the blog as well as some recent skepticism-related news. If there is anything else you would like to talk about, let me know.

UPDATE: I might have the name of the Thai place wrong. It might be Thai Country Cafe. Either way, we are going to be at the one on the NORTH SIDE OF DELMAR. Sorry for any confusion.

Scientist Becomes First Man to Clone Himself

2008-01-22T10:49:00.000-06:00

Read the article from Richard Dawkins' site here. This is being condemned by the Vatican and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. I will not weigh in on the moral issue here. The scientific article can be found in the the journal Stem Cells. It has graciously been made open-access.

Half-life Prank on Coast-to-Coast

2008-01-22T10:28:00.000-06:00

Being a fan of the Half-life games, I find this hilarious. For those of you who have played the games, you'll get a chuckle. If you don't know what I'm talking about, this caller is describing a reoccurring situation in the video game but passing it off as fact on a famous radio show about the paranormal. It's only a few minutes long so give it a listen. You won't be disappointed.

You can read a little more about it on Skepchick.

Intelligent Design Predictions

2008-01-21T17:57:00.000-06:00

Denyse O'Leary presents her predictions from Intelligent Design. This was in response to a question which asked for ID predictions that have already shown to be true. While O'Leary presents none which have been shown to be true already, she does give 10 (as of this posting) predictions which she believes will be true in the future. Let's look at these one at a time.

1. No good theory will be found for a random origin of the universe, either by the Large Hadron Collider or anything else. The universe will consistently behave more like a great idea than a great machine.

This is not testable as worded. Perhaps with a timetable, this would make some sense. Also, what would it mean for the universe to behave like a "great idea"? It seems like the universe works very much like a well-oiled machine based on our ability to make scientific (testable) predictions. Also, the universe could very well be a great idea and a great machine. There is no reason to believe those are mutually exclusive concepts. There is, however, no evidence (because there is no conceivable test) for the universe being an "idea".

2. No good theory will be found for a random origin of life, though there will be plenty of huffing and puffing in favour of bad ideas. All theories that exclude purpose and design fail because they leave out the key driver - the purpose that life should come into existence.

Again, I have a problem with the word "good". This leaves wiggle room for backing out of acceptance of a theory that may be scientifically acceptable but is not "good enough" for the ID proponent (This is also known as God of the Gaps.)

3. Complete series of transitional fossils will not usually be found because most proposed series have never existed. Eventually, researchers will give up on ideologically driven nonsense and address the history that IS there. They will focus on discovering the mechanisms that drive sudden bursts of creativity.

Of course the complete series of transitional fossil will never be found. Animals do not easily fossilize, and we have surely destroyed millions of fossils stomping around the globe creating cities. We have, however found many transitional fossils. Tiktaalik is my favorite. Also, what does the phrase "discovering the mechanisms that drive sudden bursts of creativity" mean regarding fossils. Are we to presume that ID will lead us to an understanding of some god's reasons behind design? The mechanism that drives "sudden bursts in creativity" is evolution.

4. The environment will prove far more resilient than eco-doomsayers believe. People forget that the Permian extinction wiped out 90% of the marine life forms on this planet. Life seems to want to exist on this planet, even at the South Pole (cf March of the Penguins). Note: I have no time for environment destruction, and personally gave up keeping a car, as the simplest and most economical way to reduce my environment footprint. But I am NOT waiting for enviro-apocalypse!! - I don't believe it will happen. There will be changes. That's all. Not the end of the world or anything like it.

How is this related to Intelligent Design?

5. No account of human evolution will show a long slow emergence from unconsciousness to semi-consciousness to consciousness, let alone that consciousness is merely the random firing of neurons in the brain. However consciousness got started, it appeared rather suddenly and it permanently separates humans from our genetic kin, however you want to do the gene numbers and however much time researchers spend coaxing monkeys to stop relieving themselves on the keyboard and type something meaningful.

I do not understand the example about the monkeys, but I believe that neurologists are working very hard on this problem. If I were a neurologist, I am sure I could come up with some fascinating studies. (If anyone knows any good papers on this, leave them in the comments.) Anyway, this is a prediction that is not possible to test. Negatives cannot be proven. (I should not here that O'Leary has "Positive predictions" after each numbered prediction, but they make little to no sense as predictions. I believe she intends them to be positive outcomes from her "predictions.")

6. Claims that the human brain is full of "anachronistic junk" will be falsified, just as century old claims that there are hundreds of vestigial organs in the human body were falsified. The human body will be recognized as suitable for the purposes for which we exist. (Not in all cases perfect, to be sure, but in general suitable.)

I would guess we would needed to know the purpose of our existence to address this claim. However, the first part of this prediction is testable but not very meaningful. Scientific theories change all the time as new evidence is found to support this or that idea. It's just how science works. Chances are we'll improve on every scientific theory given enough time.

7. No useful theory of consciousness will demonstrate that consciousness is merely the outcome of the random firing of neurons in the brain. All useful theories will accept that the mind and the brain exist in a relationship. Research will focus on delineating the relationship more clearly. That will greatly benefit medical research, especially research on difficult mental disorders such as phobias, depression, etc.

This is very similar to prediction 5. I'm not sure many people believe that the neurons in the brain fire completely at random, even if only the ones that produce consciousness. I do agree, however, that learning more about the brain and consciousness is medically useful.

8. No useful theory of free will (human volition) will demonstrate that it does not really exist. Free will (which includes using the mind to help heal bodily injuries) will become an important tool of medicine, especially for helping aging people toward a better quality of life. For example, the fact that a drug only need perform 5% better than a placebo to be licensed for use will encourage the development of mind-based treatments for people who would otherwise be forced to take antagonistic drugs.

I don't know how free will is related to psychic healing, but I am quite sure psychic healing does not exist. In fact, prayer has little to no effect on healing other people. Personal meditation does often helps due to its calming nature.

9. No useful theory of human psychology will be founded on claims about what happened in the caves of our ancestors (= evolutionary psychology). That is because there are no genes that simply "cause" behaviour in a clinically normal human being. The mind is real and humans create their social environment by mental effort. Information is passed on from mind to mind, not through genes or physiology.

This is just wrong. Almost every sentence. Evolutionary psychology is a new field. As it grows, I am sure we will see many new ideas emerge. However, saying that all behavior is caused mental effort (I'm pretty sure she implies this.) is crazy. There are chemicals in the brain which have been proven to produce all kinds of emotions and behaviors. There are even chemicals that produce a profound religious feeling.

10. I have decided to add a tenth prediction (but I am not changing the hedder for tech reasons). The ID guys will win because they are more interesting. I just got done rejecting a whack of comments by people I take to be boring young fogies with plenty of time on their hands (a problem I certainly don't have).

I guess there are no need to include this one except out of a need for completeness. Its ridiculousness is palpable.

As you can see, these predictions are absolutely meaningless and none of them prove anything about ID one way or the other. It's almost as if O'Leary asked an astrologer for ID predictions. They are that vague and untestable. Also, I find it interesting that as a Roman Catholic, O'Leary does no side with the Vatican which have an official stance in support of evolution. That was on of the things I appreciated, being raised Roman Catholic and going to a Catholic grade school. I was still taught science and not fundamentalist fairy tales.

I would also like to quote a comment from the blog. I think it speaks for itself but I will provide some context as a way of being fair. O'Leary is responding mostly to this paragraph of the comment by someone named Corn:

When a med student is learning a procedure (for example, a second trimester D&E) they don't learn about religious objections to the practice, they learn how to perform the practice safely (relative to the mother of course), to minimize risk (to the mother's life), and to look out for the various (medical) complications that may ensue. It is in their philosophy class that they learn about Medical Ethics and what controversies, both religious and non-religious, surround the procedure (at my school ME was a required course, I suspect the same at other schools). It is in their psychology classes that they learn about the psychological trauma that may be experienced by those who've undergone the procedure.

Here is her response.

Corn, your choice of D and E abortions (as "science?") speaks volumes, actually. "Science" is about killing kids and "philosophy" is about the oddd views of people who are upset by the fact that one does it?

As for my predictions, I am simply waiting to see if they pan out. I only argue about such things with publishers.

Then why post about it and accept comments?

Thanks to Blake Stacey and Jason Rosenhouse for leading me to this bit of nonsense.

Midwifery

2008-01-21T14:21:00.000-06:00

An article was published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about midwives, which are illegal in Missouri. Well, in a way.

After almost 20 years of legislative debate, midwifery was legalized in Missouri last summer, when Sen. John Loudon, R-Chesterfield, inserted a vague clause into a larger bill. A circuit county judge, however, ruled that legislative procedures were not followed and struck down the law, which has been sent to the Missouri Supreme Court on appeal.

Whatever the outcome, midwife advocates and doctors promise another showdown this legislative session over a more comprehensive bill that would license and regulate midwives.

What form would this licensure take? This article is pushing midwifery as a "health freedom" and "female empowerment" issue, but by using a midwife rather than a doctor you're essentially allowing someone with no medical training to perform medicine. No license can fix that.

Midwifery is a tradition that goes back centuries, whereby women support each other through pregnancy, birth and early infancy. Much of that tradition was born out of necessity, when there were few doctors and even fewer hospitals.

Now that the necessity has lifted, when everyone can have access to a trained doctor in a hospital, why does this practice continue?

A few statistics on the sidebar of the article provide a bit of evidence about the safety of midwife births relative to hospital births. For instance, "Infant death rate was 1.7 per 1,000, consistent with low-risk births at hospitals." Is this the low-risk death rate or the overall death rate? And how does a midwife assess risk, given that they monitored the fetal heart rate in less than ten percent of cases?

Medical intervention rates for planned home births with midwives were consistently less than those of low-risk births in hospital.

I should hope so! Again, midwives have no formal medical training. Yet despite this fact, they perform episiotomies and C-sections in 2.1 and 3.7 percent of cases, respectively. That's surgery!

And why is it a virtue to minimize intervention? I would much rather have a professional intervene in the birth of my child if it was recommended to me than to refuse that intervention or, worse yet, never have it recommended in the first place.

While 99 percent of all births in the U.S. occur in hospitals, states need to recognize that some parents are going to choose home birth, said Katie Prown, a midwife advocate who helped draft legislation that legalized midwifery in Wisconsin and Virginia. "So what can we do to make it safe?"

Either train the midwives in actual medicine or incentivize real doctors to perform home births.

In fact...

Doctors say a system already exists for women to have a home birth in Missouri and Illinois: Midwives with a nursing degrees. But non-nurse midwives say they only want training in pregnancy and home birth, not nursing degrees with hospital training.

Tough. You've got to walk before you can run, and basic medicine will, hopefully, give you the skills you need to keep patients alive.

My favorite quote comes from a doctor, who doesn't buy the "freedome of choice" argument.

While there are few other options for non-hospital births, direct-entry [aka untrained, non-nursing-or-medical degreed] midwives shouldn't be allowed to practice just so that a mother can have a child at home, said Goldman, an obstetrician for the past 33 years.

"So what should we do? Dumb down the process so you have a choice?" he said. "What about the fetus' choice?"

I guess sometimes empowerment and the myth of "natural births" trump the safety of a newborn child.

- Thanks to Bing at Happy Jihad's House of Pancakes for the link. He's got a lot more there about this story and others related to it.

Nothing to Add...

2008-01-21T13:42:00.000-06:00

...to this wonderful XKCD.

Isn't it great when someone really gets it?

What's Wrong About Physics Today? All of It!

2008-01-20T23:16:00.000-06:00

Via my new favorite website, crank.net, I've found a treasure trove of physics denial. Typically we'll see relativity denial or abuse of quantum mechanics to serve whatever ideology you choose. But unless one is going for Neal Adams level crankery, one keeps the denial to a few topics.

Not this guy.

For pretty much any physics concept a layperson would know, and a lot they wouldn't, this guy has a refutation. He covers all the common ones, of course. Relativity, quantum mechanics, the big bang, etc.

But we also see a few surprises. For instance, the author attempts to explain away Maxwell's equations, lasers, the Boltzmann distribution, even energy conservation. How does he do? Well, since the site is too long for an exhaustive analysis, I'll pick apart a few examples.

Curved Space: The concept of a 'curved space', which is essential for present cosmological models, is logically flawed because space can only be defined by the distance between two objects, which is however by definition always given by a straight line.

Ah, circular reasoning at its best. Why can't curved space exist? Because distances between objects are straight lines. Why are distances between objects straight lines? Because space is flat, not curved.

The shortest distances between objects—geodesics—are straight lines only in Euclidean geometry. Since we can measure that the shortest path for light is not a straight line when passing a massive object, we know that matter curves space.

Gravitation: Modern theories of gravitation assume that the gravitational force between two masses is not an instantaneous interaction but is communicated by field quanta (gravitons) moving with the speed of light. However, this model can be shown to result in different forces in different inertial systems and contradicts therefore the definition of a force. [Emphasis mine]

Sorry, guy. You need to show your work.

Schrödinger Equation: Present day Quantum Theory has been developed from the original observation that radiation emitted by an atom appears in the form of discrete spectral lines. The Schrodinger Equation could reproduce this theoretically by postulating a wave equation for the atom which yields only certain energy values as a solution. The associated wave functions are continuous functions in space and therewith do not allow to exactly specify the location of atomic electrons. This has led to the interpretation that electrons as such do not exist as localized particles within the atom but only as some diffuse 'cloud' or even only as mathematical objects. This assumption however is an unallowed generalization of the Schrodinger Equation which strictly makes sense only if applied to radiative transitions. The actual (classical) location of the electron is completely unrelated to the wave functions of the radiative states (apart from a statistical connection) and any non-radiative physical effects (e.g. elastic atomic collisions) can therefore be calculated by the principles of classical physics without any logical contradictions.

Many of the wider applications of the Schrödinger Equation are therefore completely unfounded and inadequate.

Never mind that quantum mechanics as formulated by the Schrödinger equation accurately predicts the results of experiments. Never mind that the classical picture of the electron doesn't, and in fact quantum mechanics solved outstanding problems in the classical model. Never you mind those things, because they're not allowed.

In fact, while the Schrödinger equation was written to reproduce the spectral emissions of hydrogen, it can be applied to innumerable systems. And why shouldn't it? It's a differential equation that describes how a quantum system evolves in time and space. One supplies a few parameters of the problem at hand and—ideally—solves for the behavior at all future times. It would be really strange if a completely different differential equation were required for every different situation. It's not inconceivable, though. Know how we tell? Experiments, that's how. And quantum mechanics, through the Schrödinger equation, is great at predicting the outcome of experiments.

How well did he do? I'm not impressed. Obviously he fails as a scientist because he substitutes (crappy) argument for evidence. But he does pretty well as a crank; he's very ambitious to say the least.

However, I've given you merely a slice of what's contained within. I encourage you to go to the site. Perhaps you'll find something I missed that makes all his arguments hang together.

Defending Spacetime

2008-01-18T09:22:00.000-06:00

Mark Chu-Carroll has posted on Good Math, Bad Math another post responding to a relativity denier. I respect Mark a lot and appreciate all the writing he does, but in this case I think his argument is weak. If you'll allow, I'd like to give my own thoughts on both the original article—entitled Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics— and Mark's response.

In short, the author claims that relativity predicts motion is impossible, thus relativity is wrong, or at least not a valid representation of reality. Why is motion impossible in relativity? I'll get there in a bit.

I will say that I totally agree with Mark's characterization of the author—who might be named Louis Savain, but since I'm not sure I'll just say "the author." Primarily, he throws out a lot of insults and ad hominem attacks on physicists and mathematicians without discussing a single claim these people have made. He seems to be deeply offended by their ideas but never explains why.

The heart of the matter is the claim that movement through spacetime is impossible, thus spacetime must not exist. I couldn't possibly type this argument myself without my fingers breaking themselves in protest, so I'll just copy and paste for you.

Why is motion in spacetime impossible? It has to do with the definitions of space and time and the equation of velocity v = dx/dt. What the equation is saying is that, if an object moves over any distance x, there is an elapsed time t. Since time is defined in physics as a parameter for denoting change (evolution), the equation for velocity along the time axis must be given as v = dt/dt which is self-referential. The self-reference comes from having to divide dt by itself. dt/dt always equals 1 because the units cancel out. This is of course meaningless as far as velocity is concerned.

That's basically the whole thing. Because velocity through the time dimension must be defined in such a way, the notion of velocity through a time dimension is silly!

Wait, wait, wait. Do I spy a circular argument? It's so rare to see those in the wild, let us pause and admire its terrible yet majestic beauty!

...

Okay, we're done. Of course, velocity is not defined that way. The conclusion that velocity through a time dimension is meaningless is embedded in the author's definition of "velocity." He's really close to being correct, but missing some important points. To explain, we need a few basic facts about relativity, which I will present in a whirlwind tour.

Distances in spacetime are given by the spacetime interval,
ds² = dx² + dy² + dz² - (ct)²Where x, y, and z are the ordinary 3 spatial dimensions, t is time, and c is the speed of light in vacuum. Note that ct has units of distance. See Introduction to special relativity

An important consequence of special relativity is time dialation. For a stationary observer, the time of a moving object runs slower. The stationary time, or "proper time," t₀ is related to the moving time, t, by a factor γ, equal to 1/√(1-v²/c²). Speaking in math rather than words, time dialation says
t₀ = t/γSee Introduction to special relativity and Fox's cogent derivation.

Velocities in spacetime are derivatives of the spactime interval ds taken with respect to proper time dt₀.

Now that we know those things, what can we say? Well, let's ignore the space velocities like dx/dt₀ and focus on the time. The velocity in that dimension is given by d(ct)/dt₀. Differentiating the time dialation equation, given in 2., we see
dt/dt₀ = γAnd so the velocity in the time dimension,
d(ct)/dt₀ = cγ This is a perfectly sensible result. The author says velocity in the time dimension is a unitless constant. It is neither. It is in units of meters per second, as a velocity should be, and since γ is dependent on (relative) velocity it is not constant.

You can say some really interesting things at this point. Since your relative velocity with yourself is zero—if not, you've got problems—you are always moving through time at speed c. You are literally hurtling into the future at the speed of light. For outside observers who are moving relative to you, your time slows down as you move faster. I won't get much deeper, but if you're interested, there are loads of interesting things to read about relativity. Google "special relativity" or go to any library; under Library of Congress it should be QC 1-75 or QC 170-197, under Dewey I think it's 560.

Now that we've broken this argument on the wheel of sense-making, I think we should look at Mark CC's response to it. Honestly, I can't tell what he's trying to say. I'll reproduce his argument for you.

Think of simple line drawn on graph paper: y=3x+2. Can we ask how fast y changes relative to x? According to the argument of our crackpot, the answer is no. Because how can we define motion in x? The line is already drawn on the page. x doesn't move. Any motion in x must be defined in one of three ways. It could be motion in x relative to something outside of the system that we're measuring, but that doesn't make sense: we're talking about measurement inside the system - we can't define that in terms of something that has nothing to do with the system we're looking at. We could define motion in x in terms of motion in y - but since motion in y is defined in terms of motion in x, that's circular - and that's clearly no good. And finally, we could define motion in x in terms of motion in x. But that's circular. So you can't look at the rate of change along that line, because "change" is meaningless on the line - any definition of it is nonsensical.

He seems to be approaching this argument from a purely formal math perspective, which I don't think is a fruitful avenue. It's not the math this guy is getting wrong; indeed, given his incorrect definitions, his math was completely correct. No, he got the physics wrong.

What can we say from the article about the author's motiviations? We know he's vigorously attacking the notion of spacetime, but why? From my perspective, what he's really fighting against is wormholes and time travel, those pop physics buzzwords par excellence. He really seems to hate those concepts, and the people who popularize them. Let me give you an example or two.

It is important that people see relativity for what it is, a mathematical trick for the prediction of macroscopic phenomena involving the motion of bodies in a spatial coordinate system. Spacetime is an abstract mathematical construct, that is all. The other stuff (motion in spacetime, time travel, advanced and retarded waves, wormholes, etc...), is pure hogwash. It is so trivially proven wrong in fact, that it is insulting to the lay public, the same public that funds most scientific projects.

The nasty and shocking little truth is that time does not change, a million wormhole and time travel fanatics wearing their little Klingon and Ferengi outfits notwithstanding.

I think the author misunderstands "velocity in the time dimension" as meaning "one is free to move about in time just like one is in space" and thus spacetime arises the ire the author directs at time travel. However, that's just not true. As discussed above, you do have a little control over your time-velocity: as you go faster it slows down. Some more enthusiastic physicists have come up with novel, possibly unfalsifiable ways of adjusting one's time-velocity to be faster forward or even negative, allowing travel to the distant future or the past. Is it true? Eh, maybe. We need the evidence to see, and there isn't going to be any for a long time for many time travel ideas.

However, just because our author hates time travel so much doesn't make it wrong. And just because he confuses spacetime with time travel doesn't make it wrong either.

To close, I'd like to blast you with several quotes from the article. Most show the blinding arrogance of the author, but the first is funny for a special reason. The author has obviously read enough about relativity to know that a four-dimensional spacetime makes sense and solves real-world problems. However, he has what he believes is a silver bullet against a time dimension, so he has this to say.

There are very good reasons to suppose that there is a fourth dimension in which matter is moving at c in one direction. This fourth dimension, if it exists, is certainly not time since a temporal dimension is illogical as I have shown above. It would have to be a spatial dimension. I will have more to say about this in a future addition to the site.

Sadly that addition never came. I really wanted to know what he would say, but alas.

Also, in the author's bizzaro-physics where spacetime doesn't exist, gravity—which is the warping of spacetime by matter—needs a cause...

By now the reader should realize that there is no such thing as spacetime and that gravity does not have anything to do with the curvature of a physical spacetime. There is something else out there that causes bodies to fall, without a doubt, something physical, something material. Over the last century or so, relativists have steadfastly and sometimes deviously rejected any suggestion that space is not empty and that there is a need to invoke some sort of material substance or aether to explain phenomena like gravity. Given that spacetime is a fictitious math construct, it is obvious that it cannot possibly account for gravity. [Emphasis mine]

I'll quote the late Perry DeAngelis when I say, "The ether?" We'll not even go there today.

The last is a section called "Isn't it Amazing?" in which the author really needs to apply Occam's Razor. Either every professional physicist is wrong, or he is.

Isn't it amazing that Dr. Kip "Wormhole" Thorne and his time travel colleagues at Caltech and elsewhere can claim that the mathematics of general relativity does not forbid time travel even though it does exactly that?

Is it not also amazing that physicist Julian Barbour felt it necessary to write an entire book to demonstrate "The End of Time" when it can be shown in a single sentence? Why should it take an entire book to convince the old school that there is no time dimension? It is not as if one is trying to deprogram a cult. Or is it?

Isn't it strange that Dr. Thorne, Dr. Wheeler, Dr. Deutsch, Sir Stephen and company were not aware that nothing can move in spacetime? Being the celebrated mathematicians that they are, one would suppose it would be their business to know and understand something so trivial that it can be explained to high school kids. After all, it is not as if there is not a single physicist in the world who knows about this. I know of many who do. Could not just one of them write a line to Dr. Thorne or Sir Stephen and alert them of their error? How did they get their time travel papers past peer review? How did they get so darn famous? Did I hear someone say fraud? Or is it just plain incompetence and crackpottery?

And isn't it interesting that Sir Stephen was present at a recent symposium at the famous Caltech Institute in Pasadena, California, honoring the scientific achievements of Dr. Thorne? Birds of a feather? You bet!

UPDATE: Via a comment on Mark CC's article, we can see that the author—who is named Louis Savain—has been pushing exactly the same argument for at least twelve years. For sooth, what I just linked was posted to our fair intertubes in 1996. Something tells me I won't get through to him with this little blog post.

New Circle

2008-01-17T09:00:00.000-06:00

Skeptics' Circle the 78th has been posted. Once again, no submissions from us.

I will use this opportunity, however, to link to Happy Jihad's House of Pancakes, where Sokalesque submissions are being solicited for a new creationism journal.

New Book on my To-Read List

2008-01-13T10:33:00.000-06:00

A new unauthorized biography of Tom Cruise called Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography—catchy title—is set to be released on Tuesday by author Andrew Morton. From Amazon:

1992: Andrew Morton showed a Princess in a light we had never seen before--Diana: Her True Story became a #1 New York Times bestseller.1999: Andrew Morton revealed the young woman behind the blue dress--Monica's Story was a #1 New York Times bestseller.

Well, guess what? This new book is going to be number one, too. Want to know why I predict that? Scientology is suing to block the release of the book.

The book is seen by the powerful Church of Scientology, which has Cruise as of its most high profile and loyal members, as an attack on its teachings.

The extremely litigious religious group has already threatened legal action against Morton in the US under the country's celebrity defamation laws because Morton has shown a "reckless disregard" for the truth.

Under UK libel laws the book, expected to be a bestseller, will not be published and now it appears Australian readers will not get a chance to read it either.

And you know what we have to do to counteract this sort of action, right? Yes, of course you do. We must thwart their efforts by buying this book.

In fact, buy several copies and give them to friends in the UK or Australia. Eventually people will get the message that protesting books, TV shows, or movies—*ahem* Dogma—only makes them more popular. By protesting or censoring, you're putting a big flaming arrow in the sky letting people know where the good, juicy, titillating, interesting stuff is.

- Thanks to writerdd at Skepchick and John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts. Also, thanks to Scientology for trying.

We Have Our Problems, But Today I am Proud

2008-01-12T21:38:00.000-06:00

Chalk one up to rationality in Missouri. A Federal court in this state recently ruled on an Establishment Clause case.

A school in Iron County allowed Gideons to distribute Bibles to the fifth graders during class time. Other groups were occasionally allowed to distribute materials, but only the Gideons had a long-standing arrangement to use the class time of children for distribution of reading material.

The superintendent went to the school board and told them this practice was unconstitutional. From the decision,

He further stated that if the Board wanted to allow the distribution of Bibles at school, it should adopt an “open forum” policy that would not allow discrimination against any organization. The Board made no decision or comment on the suggestion of an open forum policy, but instead voted to “pretend this meeting never happened, and to continue to allow the Gideons to distribute Bibles as we have done in the past.”

Once they got sued for it, the district changed their practice, allowing Gideons and other groups to distribute to students, but not during classtime. Well, the court didn't buy it.

From the decision,

The School Board defendants may have voted to pass the new policy, but there is absolutely no indication that they did so because they realized that their old practice was flawed and possibly unconstitutional. To the contrary, they continue to argue that their past practice was proper, and statements from their depositions show that many of them do not view the new policy as either a necessary or a positive change.

The ruling rendered an injunction on the board's old policy, but didn't affect the new policy. Well, they're appealing the decision, which shows how much they cared about the new policy. It's possible this will end up appealed to the Supreme Court. We'll see if they take it.

-Hat tip to Ed Brayton. Also, read about it on The Washington Post.

Book 2: Chapter 1: The Analytical Mind and the Standard Memory Bank

2008-01-10T23:46:00.000-06:00

In this chapter, Hubbard discusses one of the three divisions of the human mind. The reactive and somatic minds are put off until later so Hubbard can focus on the analytical mind. He also discusses the nature of human memory.

Hubbard defines the analytical mind as the "computational mind" or the "egsusheyftef". Yes, Hubbard invented that word. I think it might be Ewok. Anyway, the analytical mind is the part of the brain that does the calculating. Hubbard compares it to a computer. In fact, "it can and does all the tricks of a computer," whatever that means. Surely he does not mean my mind can connect to others wirelessly (telepathically) and share thoughts on the lolcats Bible translation (I had to find a way to work this into the post. Sorry.). Hubbard must mean the brain is good as sorting and interpreting data.

The analytical mind is not just a good computer, it is a perfect computer.

Ok, so it's GREAT at sorting and interpreting data. I have already addressed the issue of the analytical brain being perfect back in Chapter 2 of Book 1. It is silly to assume anything with moving parts is incapable of making a mistake even under optimal conditions. Wear and tear over time tends to break anything down.

What is new in this chapter is Hubbard's explanation of human memory. I should point out at this time that I am not a neurologist so I really do not have a good understanding of how the brain works regarding how it stores memories. I will lay out Hubbard's claims and leave some interpretation to those who are more knowledgeable. I will point out that Hubbard offers no evidence for any of these claims.

Since the analytical mind is perfect, any error in logic comes from improper data. Therefor, it is important to know where this data comes from. According to Hubbard, there are three types of data: percepts, memory, and imagination. The most important of these is percepts (which I suppose is short for perceptions). These are the data which the brain receives from our senses.

When our body senses something, it is stored in its entirety in "memory banks". These memory banks have "an infinite capacity" (I have heard the actual capacity of the mind to be several terabytes. I would put a link something about it if I could find something reptuable.) and similar to the analytical mind itself "the standard memory banks are perfect, recording faithfully and reliably[emphasis Hubbard]". Hubbard notes, however, that there are times when data is not collected. This is during "moments of 'unconsciousness'". Hubbard gives us a definition of unconsciousness.

Unconsciousness throughout this work means a greater or lesser reduction of awareness on part of the "I"--an attenuation of working power of the analytical mind.

In other words, the mind collects data except when it doesn't [sometimes I wonder why he bothers to define words when leaving them muddled would be more beneficial to his cause.]

You might be wondering where errors in logic and memory come from if our brain computer operates flawlessly and data is always stored perfectly for all individuals. Well "aberration" is attributed to insufficient and erroneous data. Since a well-formed brain is incapable of making a mistake, bad input is the only option.

After this discussion of memory, Hubbard directs his efforts again to the analytical mind, claiming

the analytical mind can influence the heartbeat, the endocrines (such things as calcium and sugar in the blood, adrenaline, etc.)[Goodbye diabetes!], selective blood flow (stopping it in the limbs and starting it as will) [No more viagra!], urine, excreta [Goodbye incontinence?], etc. All glandular, rhythm and fluid functions of the body can [emphasis Hubbard] be at the command of the analytical mind.

This might sound terribly outlandish, that the conscious mind can take control of these functions, but Hubbard assures us,

This is a matter of laboratory proof, very easy to do.

It sounds as if Hubbard is implying that laboratory experiments are always simple. Ridiculous.

Hubbard also claims muscles can be controlled by the analytical mind. He insists this is true for ALL muscles including the heart and sphincters on all organs. Why would any healthy individual even want that control?

Hubbard closes be talking about how the analytical mind cannot be the cause of psychological errors since it works perfectly for everyone, all the time. He asks, "Where is the error?" I would refer him, and you, to pages 1-614 of his book.

I hope you all enjoy this shorter post.

Words Defined: prefrontal lobes, unconsciousness, concourse

Next: Chapter 2: The Reactive Mind

Note: All quotes are from
Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics. Los Angeles, CA: Bridge Publications, Inc, 1986, unless noted otherwise.

For those of you following my Dianetics summary

2008-01-10T19:07:00.000-06:00

I found an online copy of Dianetics here. It is slightly different from my edition in that there is a summary in the front. I thought I'd share this exciting find. Look for my take on Book 2: Chapter 1 in the near future.

Not Skepticism but Damn Cool

2008-01-10T14:04:00.000-06:00

I was cruising Snopes when I came across this page. An Australian artist, Ron Mueck has put together some amazing life sculptures. I just thought I would share. You can see more of these here. here, here, and here. And some say us science-minded folk don't appreciate the artsy stuff.

Quacks and Their Nostrums

2008-01-10T12:08:00.000-06:00

Via NeuroLogica I found a video from the 1950s about products with bogus health claims. It's a must-watch. The description from the video's poster captures its essence:

We're used to laughing at videos from the 1950's which show overly-conservative social values, stereotypes and primitive science. However this video shows how we may have taken a few steps backward.

Although it may contain some 1950's sexism and idealism, it illustrates how medical education and regulations seem to have gone in the wrong direction in recent times.

Questionable medicine and quackery is a bigger problem now then ever.

Listen to this. It may be old. It's more relevant than ever

This video is great in that it's exactly what people need to know about these "cures:" they aren't typically dangerous themselves, but prevent or delay real treatment; testimonials are less than worthless; the process of cracking down on violations is laborious and twisted, but it can be done.

The video is horrible, however, in that America hasn't learned a thing in fifty years! In fact, this situation has gotten worse. From Steve Novella:

A couple of things have changed since the making of this film. The most obvious is the shameless and direct fashion that the actors talk about “quacks.” There is no bowing to misguided political correctness or false open-mindedness. That was a time when quacks were quacks, before con artists and health frauds became savvy enough to hide behind conspiracy theories, cries for health care freedom, and appeals to post-modernist anti-scientific jargon.

Not to mention that "medicine" of this nature is funded by the government through NCCAM, and is given a legal double standard through DSHEA.

How can we progress in bringing medical skepticism to the public when we seem to have been losing ground for decades?

Recruiting

2008-01-10T11:06:00.000-06:00

As we are a Society, we're always looking for new members. New people coming to meetings means we can hopefully break the "club" dynamic that's been present so far; new people also means new viewpoints and new conversations we've not had before.

I found out today that Saint Gasoline, whom I've linked before, is apparently from St. Louis (see also the about page). This is wonderful news. Hopefully we can bring him to the next meeting along with some of his friends. But we probably wouldn't be able to have said meeting at my apartment like the last one.

Speaking of that last meeting, it will have been one month ago as of Saturday. Since we haven't even set a date for it, let alone an itinerary, I hereby formally announce that the January meeting of the St. Louis Skeptical Society will be held late.

The Story of stuff

2008-01-10T01:54:00.000-06:00

I was originally going to leave a comment on Ben's post about China's plastic bags, but it ended being so long i thought i would just make a brand new post.

For anyone who didn't read the article i should mention that China actually banned FREE plastic bags (not plastic bags in general). The Chinese government is ordering customers to be charged for any plastic bags they use in order to deter a littering problem.

First, i'm skeptical about whether public education would fix the problem. in China's case the issue is one of littering. maybe the government could run more commercials about how to put garbage in a trash can, but i think the deeper issue (and i believe the one san francisco was responding to) is that even the plastic bags that are thrown away usually end up in a landfill (which some might consider concentrated littering). and then even if we educate people on recycling, some people argue that the cost of recycling the cheap plastic used in grocery bags isn't worth the effort.

So maybe our education would include a suggestion for consumers to use reusable bags. Not a bad idea, but then have threats of global warming and instability in the middle east resulted in consumers purchasing more fuel efficient cars? Nope.

it's an issue i'm a little torn over. on the one hand i think plastic grocery bags are ridiculously wasteful and on the other i'm opposed to the government interfering in our lives more than is necessary. However i think the distinction between "banning plastic bags" and "banning free plastic bags" is an important one. If i want to put my groceries in a plastic bag, i think i should be able to, but i also think that the cost of that bag should reflect the environmental impact of it's production and disposal. China's ban on free plastic bags is similar to Irelands "plastax", which i think is a great idea.

regardless of what you think the best solution is, consumer waste a broad issue that needs to dealt with. Even if China's ban isn't the best action i for one think it's better than inaction.

China Bans Plastic Bags

2008-01-09T15:16:00.000-06:00

Look here for the full story from CNN. Honestly, I don't know what to think about this. Surely these bags can be reused or recycled in some way. I'm not sure a ban is a rational solution.

I guess this is not atypical as Uganda, South Africa, and San Francisco have similar bans. I get worried when governments decide to ban things instead of concentrating on educating the public to make environmentally friendly decisions.

[Update: As adam mentioned, China is only banning free plastic bags. Stores must now charge for any bags the costumers use a means to encourage them to use cloth bags. Sorry for the omitted word. It was an important one]

Chapter 5: Summary

2008-01-08T14:29:00.000-06:00

Hubbard presents a condensed version of the last four chapters complete with a mathematical equation for the potential value of an individual.

The summary with a description of the four dynamics for survival: sex, self, mankind, and group. As I have just written about them here, I will not go over them again.

Hubbard then lists the "fundamental axioms of Dianetics". It would be worth reproducing these in full, but they cover 4 pages. I will instead quote the important ones and briefly address most the others, reminding you of my previous interpretations in brackets.

The Fundamental Axioms of Dianetics

Man's "dynamical principle of existence is survival." [This was an unsupported assertion.]

There are four dynamics to survival: sex, self, mankind, and the group. [These were said to fit some "equation" that was never presented. It is my belief that Hubbard mostly likely found these to be a solution to a thought experiment (I use experiment very loosely here.) and not scientific equations.]

The absolute goal of survival is immortality or infinite survival.

[This again is just an assertion.]

...the purpose of perceptions, retention, concluding and resolving problems is to direct its own organism and symbiotes and other organisms and symbiotes along the four dynamics toward survival.
...
The dynamics ["the tenacity of life and vigor and persistence in survival"] are inhibited by engrams, which lie across them and disperse life force.

Intelligence is inhibited by engrams which feel false or improperly graded data into the analyzer ["the analytical mind"]

[The definition of engram was very muddled and the existence of engrams was asserted, not proven.]

The analytical mind thinking is terms of comparisons; the reactive mind "things only in identities"; and the somatic mind "places solutions into effect on the physical level. [arbitrary definitions]

Engrams cause aberrations.

Psychosomatic ills are caused by engragms [which are the only source of aberrations].

[Proof is needed.]

Engrams are only received when unconscious.

The engram is a moment of "unconsciousness" containing physical pain or the painful emotion and all perceptions, and is not available to the analytical mind as experience.

[See above brackets.]

And most interestingly,

The potential value of an individual or a group may be expressed by the equation
PV=ID^x
where I is Intelligence and D is Dynamic.

The worth of an individual is computed in
terms of the alignment, on any dynamic, of his potential value with optimum survival along that dynamic. A high PV may, by reversed vector [Vector is defines as "a physical quantity with both magnitude and direction, such as a force of velocity". The phrase "by reversed vector" is meaningless.], result in a negative worth as in some severely aberrated persons. A high PV on and dynamic assures a high worth only in the unaberrated persons.

This equation is what I would like to focus on for the remainder of this post as there are a number of points to address. First of all, there are no units mentioned in which to measure any of the variables. What are potential value, intelligence and dyamic measured in? Engrams? More importantly, what is x? It is an entirely undefined variable. Is x the worth a man or species? If it is, why does worth only increase dynamic and not intelligence, or are there missing parentheses? Also, how does high PV make worth both negative and positive according the this equation? Which variable accounts for aberrations? This equation is beyond meaningless. It's only purpose on the page is so Hubbard can point to it and say how he's scientific because there is a mathematical equation in his book. It's pathetic, scientifically pathetic.

Words defined: analyzer, attenuate, vector

Next: Book 2: Chapter 1: The Analytical Mind and the Standard Memory Banks

Note: All quotes are from
Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics. Los Angeles, CA: Bridge Publications, Inc, 1986, unless noted otherwise.

Question for the Reader: I would like to take this moment to ask if you, the reader would like to see anything different from these posts. The next chapters are much longer than these of the introductory book, and with the next semester starting soon, I will not be able to keep up the pace and detail of these previous posts. Also, I believe Dianetics has amply demonstrated it's absurdity. The following chapters are much more detailed, and it seems it will take me some research into neurology and psychology to be able to fully address Hubbard's claims. I guess what I am asking is, are you enjoying these summaries, and do you think it's worth my time to continue? There is still a long way to go. Thanks for sticking with me!

Chapter 4: The Four Dynamics

2008-01-08T03:35:00.000-06:00

Hubbard discusses the four motivations for mankind's survival: "self, sex, group, and mankind". He explores the history of the search for these factors, expounds their details, and tries to defend his assertions with talk of the "equations" governing these dynamics.

Hubbard begins this chapter with a reference to the "original equations of Dianetics" which sought to explain man's survival in terms of only a man's consideration of himself. However, this theory was found to be unable to account for all of man's actions towards survival, and since "a theory is only as good as it works" [This is arguably the smartest sentence Hubbard has ever written. It's a shame he did not apply it more rigorously.], Hubbard decided to revise his hypothesis. This next quote gives insight into Hubbard's reasoning.

Survival in personal terms was computed until the whole activity of man could be theoretically explained in terms of self alone. The logic looked fairly valid. But then it was applied to the world. Something was wrong: it did not solve problems. In fact, the theory of survival in personal terms alone was so unworkable that it left a majority of behavior phenomena unexplained. But it could be computed and it still looked good.

What is Hubbard actually computing? From what he says, I gather that what he is doing is more of a thought experiment. For example, if man's instinct is only for his personal survival, then why would he help someone who is homeless? This is not a computation but it might be the kind of example Hubbard is talking about. Also, what does it mean to saw that "the logic looked valid" in the case of Dianetics. We, as the ones being sold Dianetics, need to know to see what the logical steps were in leading to these claims. Without being able to follow Hubbard's steps, the reader can only trust that Hubbard is neither lying nor deluded, a bad position in which to be.

Hubbard then looked a survival in terms of man's desire to preserve the group (tribe, family, etc.). Again, "it looked good but it left a majority of observed phenomena unexplained". And again, Hubbard provides no examples of these phenomena. Then Hubbard considered the species where he found

it could be computed that man lived alone for the survival of mankind. But when addressed to the laboratory--the world--it did not work.

Needless to say, there are again no examples. Note the increase in the amount of scientific sounding language as Hubbard provides less and less evidence. We should not worry about the lack of evidence because it was all "computed" with "equations" and then "tested" in a "laboratory", but we are not allowed to see the results or the methods of testing.

The fourth dynamic Hubbard tested on its own was sex which was also found to be inadequate to explain all of human behavior. However, when combined with the other three dynamics, all of man's actions could be explained.

A new computation was made on the survival dynamic. Exactly for what was man surviving? All four of these factors--self, sex, group and mankind--were entered into a new equation. And now it was found, a theory was in hand which worked. It explained all observed phenomena and it predicted new phenomena which were discovered to exist. It was a scientific equation, therefore!

Hubbard seems to have an astute understanding of what a scientific equation should do. It much explain all observed phenomena to which it pertains and should be able to make predictions. However, these equations also need to be demonstrated to do that, not just asserted. Supposedly, Hubbard has a mathematical equation which depends on only four parameters which explains all human activity as well as makes predictions about it. If we put aside the questions about how to quantify self, sex, group and mankind, there is still the question of what the equation would actually output. As amazing as this claim is, it is still baseless and therefore meaningless.

After repeating the four dynamics (not for the last time), Hubbard asserts "that these four dynamics are actually a spectrum without sharp division lines." That is sex, self, group and mankind are all the same thing like x-rays, gamma-rays, infrared, ultraviolet and microwaves are all parts of the optical spectrum. In that case, Hubbard's equation from above really old depends on one variable. So which is it? Are they four distinct variables or one variable with arbitrary designations along a spectrum? It really cannot be both. Also, if these four dynamics are on a spectrum, how do they bleed into each other. Examples are desperately needed in this case.

Even though the dynamics are all part of the same spectrum, Hubbard assets they are in competition with one another. It is the balance between these dynamics that is important in individuals.

The equation of the optimum solution would be that a problem has been well resolved which portends the maximum good for the maximum number of dynamics...[Hubbard repeats this sentence in different words three times.]...The survival conduct pattern is built upon this equation of optimum solution. It is the basic equation of all rational behavior and is the equation on which a clear functions. In is inherent in man.

Apparently we, the aberrated, are not working with "the equation of optimum solution" (a phrase I will now use instead of the phrase firing on all cylinders). Honestly, I don't know what the phrase "equation of optimum solution means". Shouldn't we be solving the equation to find the optimum solution instead of guessing the optimum solution and building an equation around it? It seems to me that Hubbard is doing the equivalent of fitting a polynomial function to a curve he sketched. A high enough order polynomial will fit any equation to any desired accuracy. In the same way, adding more dynamics would allow more freedom to fit whatever "equation" he has. However, I think this is giving Hubbard too much credit. By this point, I believe there are no "equations". Hubbard is merely pondering how he things the world works and his jotting it down on papers. Afterwards, he is adding his "proof". Also, I think Hubbard states that the "equation", which is inherent in man, is different between the aberrated and the clear which contracts it being inherent in man. This is the kind sentence that will break a robot's brain.

The last page and a half of this chapter is little more than gibberish insisting that these dynamics are in some sort of balance and that the aberrated individual has irrationalities which muddle the "equations". I will quote a representative passage in closing:

This is entirely a matter of: does it work? Even on an unaberrated basis there are times when one or another of these dynamics have to be dropped from the computation of some activity or other and indeed, few problems are so entirely intense that they must take into account all the dynamics. But when a problem achieves such intensity, and time is not an important factor [I don't know what time has to do with anything here.], serious errors can follow the omission of one or another of the dynamics from the factors considered.

In other words, sometimes we include all four dynamics. Sometimes we don't. Sometimes when we don't, we really wish we had done so. Also, clears function on the equation of optimum solution unless some dynamics are dropped. Then they don't, but when they don't, we wish they hadn't dropped them.

I hope I was able to unmuddle (I can invent words too!) this chapter. Underneath the chapter title, I have the word infuriating written to remind me of how confusing this chapter was to decipher. The more I read of this book, the more claims Hubbard makes with less and less reasoning. It's enough to fry a neuron.

Words Defined: gregarious, altruistic, sylvan, Jean Jacques Rousseau [I would like to point out that when Hubbard cites a person, he does not tell the reader anything that would enlighten them as to the point of the reference. For example, Rousseau is merely defined to be a "French political philosopher and author".] , The Dianetic meaning of symbiote ["any or all life or energy forms which are mutually dependent for survival. The atom depends on the universe, the universe on the atom."], portend,

Next: Chapter 5: Summary [Don't get too excited. this is only the summary of book 1 of 3. I'm only about 1/9 of the way through Dianetics by number of pages, 1/5 by chapter, 1/3 by book number, but 8/11 by patience/interest.]

Note: All quotes are from
Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics. Los Angeles, CA: Bridge Publications, Inc, 1986, unless noted otherwise.

Chapter 3: The Goal of Man

2008-01-08T01:02:00.000-06:00

The goal of man is to survive. This is the goal of both the individual and the species. Man derives pleasure from his survival and in pursuing his survival, avoids pain. In this chapter, Hubbard expounds these ideas as well as graphs man's potential as a function of time.

Hubbard begins by discussing what the answer to the question What is the goal of man? (Hubbard also calls this man's dynamic principle.) must explain. In his words, man's dynamic principle of existence

would explain all phenomena of behavior; it would lead toward a solution of man's major problems; and, most of all, it should be workable.

Hubbard confuses me from the start (not a good sign) with this requirement. First of all, why should we believe that man or mankind has an ultimate goal? Also, if man does have a goal, why does it have to be singular. Can he not have several goals? And why should we assume it would explain "all phenomena of behavior"? Can man not behave in ways that either ignore or work against these goals? I do agree that that if man did have a goal and we knew what it was, it would aid us in solving some of mankind's problems or at least aid in explaining some of them. As to the goal of man being workable, I'm not sure I know what that means. Perhaps he means, like a solution to an equation in physics, it needs to have some basis in reality. I agree if that is the case.

In order to motivate his solution to this problem, Hubbard tells us a little about the universe. In doing so, he makes some rather odd assertions. The first,

All things in the finite universe, whether known or as yet unknown, can be sensed, experienced or measured.

is quite a claim. First Hubbard asserts that the universe in finite (to be fair, he could just be restricting his claims to the known/material universe) which is still a matter of scientific debate. This is nothing compared to the insistence that all things in the universe "can be sensed, experienced or measured". There is no way to prove this claim either true or false. If something is not able to be experienced, we'd never know about it. Pretty obvious. However, there may be things (such as dark matter) which we are able to infer but not experience directly.

Hubbard then turns to defining the elements of the universe.

The finite universe contains time, space, energy and life [emphasis Hubbard]. No other factors were found necessary in the equation.

First of all, what equation? I don't see any equations in this chapter, and Hubbard sure doesn't describe any. I'll agree that the universe does seem to contain what Hubbard insists. However, I cannot say that is all the universe contains, and I'm not sure why Hubbard can.

Continuing with his trend to assert his "truths", Hubbard insists the four element mentioned above all "obey a single order", to survive. That is,

The Dynamic Principle of Existence is Survival [formatting Hubbard].

Now that we have defined the purpose of all that exists in the universe, we can turn to the purpose of lowly man. His purpose is (as you might suspect) to survive. In fact, "the goal of life can be considered to be infinite survival", and what is remarkable is that man's only motivation is to survive.

In order to accomplish this survival thing, man (or any organism, or even life itself) must be able to adapt to new environments. Hubbard does not use the word, but he is, in essence, talking about evolution. Organisms need to evolve in order to survive. Why he chooses to avoid the term, I do not know. Supporting my claim, Hubbard states

The naturalist and biologist are continually resolving the characteristics of this or that life form by discovering that need rather than whim governs such developments.

It seems that this time Hubbard brings out the scientists as poof of his point. I'm sure he will put them away again until his thoughts happen to sync up with real research again.

Now that survival has been established as the mechanism for explaining all of man's actions, Hubbard breaks down survival into is composite parts, pain and pleasure. To Hubbard, pain and pleasure are forces with pain being a repelling force and pleasure being an attracting force. Pain comes from times when man is reduced in his potential. Now, this potential is not purely abstract. Hubbard has provided us with a representative graph of man's potential over time. Let's take a look.

As you can see, this graph plots survival potential as a function of time. This plot is representative of a species which is having moderate success at either increasing survival rate or life span. The graph works for many different scenarios. It's a trend for individuals, species, and life in general. It also applies to both the mental and physical potentials with the mental curve predicting the physics curve.

The time axis is just that, time. The potential axis, however, is a measurement of the mortality of the subject of the graph. It is shown on a "geometric progression" because it is infinitely difficult to obtain immortality (I suppose by the same reasoning, it should be infinitely easy to obtain death or extinction, but death being a repulsive force might negate some of that?). I suppose that Hubbard just does not realize that the choice of scaling says nothing about the data contained within, and as there are no units on the potential axis, the choice of scaling is just confusing.

The "zones" on the plot arbitrarily point out places along the continuum of potential. Hubbard admits they are "very unprecise, but nevertheless descriptive" [I know, it's imprecise].

Zone 3 is one of general happiness and well-being. Zone 2 is a level of bearable existence. Zone 1 is one of anger. Zone 0 is the zone of apathy. These zones can be can be used as a tone scale.

The zones also can be represented with decimals. A person can be in zone 3.8, some sort of euphoric state. I think when Hubbard says the zones are a "tone scale" that he means they increase in some sort of regular fashion, but I'm not positive that's what he means. Also, how does one quantify happiness or apathy? Where do these numbers come from?

Dianetically (If Hubbard can use the word, I can too.), we can measure our day-to-day metal state by these tones/zones and "in the course of a single day an aberree may run from 0.5 to 3.5, up and down, as a mental being". I believe Hubbard is simply stating that people's emotions changed during the course of a day and sometimes, like during either a tragic or euphoric event, that change can be very large. The difference between what he said and what I think he means is that he made up some numbers to go with the sentiment.

The mental state is not the only characteristic which gets quantified. Zones apply to

the mental state on an acute basis and the mental state on a general, average basis, and the physical being on an acute basis and the physical being on a general basis.

Dianetics, however, focuses on the mental tone scale and ignores the physics. Why? Hubbard doesn't say.

Now that we have learned how Hubbard measures people, you might be wonder what the difference between a clear and an aberree are in this tone scale. Well there is quite an enlightening quote to answer that question:

A clear is usually found varying around tone 4, plus or minus, in an average day. He is a general tone 4, which is one of the inherent conditions of being clear. A norm in current society, at a wild guess [emphasis mine], is probably around a general tone 2.8.

WHAT? At a WILD GUESS? I thought Hubbard had been RESEARCHING this Dianetics thing. If he does not know what the average person is, the CONTROL, he does not know ANYTHING about his precious tone scale. Honestly, I think I would be justified in throwing the book away at this point. You, reader, would also be justified in stopping here if all you wanted was a good reason to ignore Dianetics. If however, you want to see just how much Hubbard abuses both science and the English language stay with me. It gets better (or worse).

Ok, after a few deep breaths, it's time to continue. After illustrating that his levels are both meaningless and arbitrary, Hubbard proceeds to tell us more about the survival dynamic. In another example, he writes

The survival dynamic [emphasis Hubbard] actually resides within the organism as inherited from the species. The organism is part of the species as a railroad tie might be said to be part of a railroad as seen by an observed on a train, the observer being always in now--although this analogy is not perhaps the best.

Then why include it? If the analogy is inadequate, choose a new one. Don't confuse the reader by creating crappy examples.

Hubbard now turns the discussion to the driving forces behind survival: pleasure (shredding this book) and pain (reading this book). To avoid turning this post into a novella, I will just briefly summarize this portion of the chapter. Pleasure is good. Pain is bad. Most of mankind's suffering has come from a suppression of pleasurable things. In fact, is was responsible for the Dark Ages.

Apparently, the above graph also provided evidence for the theory of survival suppressors. These are things which, you guessed it, suppress survival. This includes other organisms, time, the sun, and whatever else might try to kill you or your species. Hubbard notes that there are times when an organism's own actions will either indirectly or directly lead to its own demise. This may not be suicide but the result of depleting resources or some similar action. Hubbard states,

Such things are not intended by the suicide to be suicide; the life form has run up against an equation which has an unknown variable, and the unknown variable unfortunately contained enough value to overload the suppressor. That is the "didn't know the gun was loaded" equation.

As I have asked before, WHAT? There is a didn't-know-the-gun-was-loaded equation? Why not show us? And apparently there are unknown variables inside said equation that "overload the suppressor". I cannot tell if Hubbard is suggesting a mathematical relationship between survival and knowledge of the environment (which would be sensible but most likely impossible to define well) or if he is just trying to sound scientific (my money is on the latter).

After a short reminder of the importance of symbiosis, Hubbard launches into a nonsensical definition of necessity ending in

Driven [emphasis Hubbard]: that is the key to the error [I do not know to what this error refers.]. Driven, things are driven. Necessity drives. Pain drives. Necessity and pain, pain and necessity.

I don't know what to say to that so I will let you interpret that as you see fit (We're getting close to the end of the chapter. I promise).

Hubbard then proceeds to make a scientific claim.

It chances to be a scientific fact that man is a self-determined organism to the outermost limit that any form of life can be, for he still depends upon other forms of life and his general environment.

Well scientific facts require scientific proof. Let's what what's there. Well it looks like Hubbard puts this proof off until later (yet again) but he assures

This is only a scientific fact because it can easily be proven.

Again, nonsense. The difficulty of a proof has nothing to do with its veracity. Look at the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. It's quite difficult but still a mathematic (or scientific) fact.

The close of this chapter again considers pleasure and pain, noting that an abberrated man can "be made to perform like a marionette" which Hubbard equates with being more animal-like.

I would like to end this chapter with Hubbard's words, again asking for proof of their veracity.

If some of these basics of Dianetics were only poetry about the idyllic state of man, they might be justified in that, but it happens that out in the laboratory of the world, they work.

Words Defined: metaphysics, mysticism, militate, procreate, dynamic (here Hubbard admits to making up words, stating, "In order to establish nomenclature in Dianetics which would not be too complex for the purpose, words normally considered as adjectives or verbs have occasionally been pressed into service as nouns."), zygote, tone scale (a scale which shows the emotional tones of a person), debauchery, odor (as in repute; esteem), stigma, pagan, bacillus, Pasturella pestis, symbiotic, specious, affinity, Leucippus, stoic, Bund (a street in Shanghai), idyllic

Next: Chapter 4: The Four Dynamics

Note: All quotes are from
Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics. Los Angeles, CA: Bridge Publications, Inc, 1986. The above figure is located on p. 32 of this edition.

The Big Bang Theory (Not the One You Think)

2008-01-07T21:35:00.000-06:00

I just finished watching an episode of the television sitcom The Big Bang Theory. The show centers around two male physicist roommates and the attempts of one of the two to woo their physically attractive but vapid female neighbor.

I want to say first off that sitcoms are not my genre. Truth be told, I don't watch a lot of TV anymore, and when I do I really can't stand sitcoms. Something about the sets and the type of camera they use combined with the actors' standard delivery just prevents me from suspending my disbelief for even a moment. Aside from those stumbling blocks, I'll review as best I can.

This show is truly a strange chimera. It operates on several levels, all mutually disappointing. Since this is a show a. about scientists, and b. intended for the general public, what can we say? From a. we would expect the characters to be scientist stereotypes, and from b. we would expect these stereotypes to butt up against the audience's understanding of real science and scientists.

Properties stemming from a.
The characters are: socially awkward, especially around women; physically weak; overanalytic, especially with regards to mundane details; oblivious to outside stimuli when involved in a conversation or project; prone to drop jargon and obscure references. One character possibly has Asperger's and OCD, another is Indian. Some conversations could be straight from Kakalios or Smith, but not as detailed as the former, as vulgar as the latter, or as clever as either.

From b.
Introductory physics concepts are explained, and poorly; this from characters who have physics PhDs from Cal Tech. Language is used by the characters that may sound natural to the lay public, but is never used by actual scientists. Nonsense equations are written on whiteboards. Mixed in with the references intended to be obscure and confusing are references to common concepts; nothing would be wrong with that if the characters didn't treat the two exactly the same.

So, yes, the show is crappy. But among sitcoms I'd say it's pretty good. Ignoring the huge fundamental flaws, what's left is okay. I did laugh once or twice at intentional jokes. It's obvious that the writers know something about science, because the references that are supposed to fly over everyone's head do make sense in context and can be funny.

Since I've only seen one episode of the show, I reserve judgment. Do I scorn the show for displaying hackneyed writing and flat characters, or do I appreciate it for being the world's ~~tallest midget~~ funniest sitcom? Either way, I'm pretty sure I'll watch more; my significant other found it very funny. I think the well-written features of the characters are close enough to being me that she can appreciate their reality, but from my perspective they're sitting right in the middle of the uncanny valley.

Chapter 2: The Clear

2008-01-06T22:36:00.000-06:00

L. Ron Hubbard discusses the goal of Dianetic therapy, to become clear, and how it relates to our senses. Hubbard also discusses the activities of the mind in both clear and aberrant (unclear) individuals.

This chapter begins explaining what it means to be clear.

A clear can be tested for any and all psychoses, neuroses, compulsions and repressions (all aberrations) and can be examined for any autogenetic (self-generated) diseases referred to as psychosomatic ills. These tests confirm the clear to be entirely without such ill or aberrations. Additional tests of his intelligence indicate it to be high above the current norm. Observation of his activity demonstrates that he pursues existence with vigor and satisfaction.

To reiterate, Dianetics will cure all my mental ills (except those excluded in Chapter 1),make me smarter (Tom Cruise?), and make me happier. Sounds like a good deal.

Hubbard then proceeds, assuring us that these claims are testable and will work for all individuals with a fully-functional nervous system. Nearly the entirety of the rest of the chapter is devoted to the attributes (or as I see them, superpowers) of the clear individual and how they differ from us aberrants.

The first is our perception. Perception and our senses vary in quality from one individual to another. This, according to Hubbard, is due to aberration.

I will stop now to give you Hubbard's definition of aberration as it is an essential word in this chapter. It was briefly defined in the How To Read This Book section. I will include the full definition from the glossary as it is much more enlightening.

aberration: a departure from rational though or behavior. From the Latin, aberrare, to wander from; Latin, ab,away, errare, to wander. It means basically to err, to make mistakes, or more specifically to have fixed ideas which are not true. the word is also used in its scientific sense. It means departure from a straight line. If a line should go from A to B, then if it is "aberrated" it would go from A to some other point, to some other point, to some other point and finally arrive at B. Taken in its scientific sense, it would also mean the lack of straightness or to see crookedly as, in example, a man sees a horse but thinks he sees an elephant. Aberrated conduct would be wrong conduct, or conduct not supported by reason. When a person has engrams, these tend to deflect what would be his normal ability of perceive truth and bring about an aberrated view of situations which then would cause an aberrated reaction to them. Aberration is opposed to sanity, which would be its opposite. This the most fundamental level of aberration: "If the food smells good, go away from it!" This is directly against the survival intention of the organism.

With this very broad definition in mind, we can now consider what is means to have the attributes of a clear, wanting to stay near all that good-smelling food.

While a person may be afflicted by a "wild quality and quantity of perception" as the result of his or her abberations, the "clear gets a maximum response compatible with his own desire for the response." That is, the perceptions (and senses) obey the clear's will. As an example Hubbard cites musical taste.

Violins play melodies, not monotones, bring no pain and are enjoyed to a fine, full limit if the clear likes violins as a matter of taste-if he doesn't, he likes kettledrums, saxophones, or, indeed, suiting his mood, no music at all.

If I understand this correctly, Hubbard is implying that the instruments that clears like sound better to them than the ones they do not. Is that not the same for all people with normal hearing, regardless of engram infestation? I know that I enjoy the sounds of guitars more than the sounds of flutes. It is of no fault of either the flute or the flautist. It is a matter of taste. As a result, I also listen more closely to the guitar, concentrating on the subtleties of what is being played. From that, I derive enjoyment. How is that different from what Hubbard is suggesting? He says that clears will find that the instruments they enjoy sound better to them. Perhaps that is why they enjoy it in the first place.

While Dianetics supposedly improves all senses, Hubbard focuses on vision and hearing. He says,

One of the incidental things which happens to a clear is that his eyesight, if it had been bad as a aberree, generally improves markedly, and with some slight attention will recover optimum perception in time.

In face, eyesight supposedly improves so quickly that those treated with Dianetics often have to rapidly change their prescription to keep up (some sort of super healing). I would like to see some research/data confirming this. Of course Hubbard says Diantetics will not cure the physically injured eye, but will correction vision which is lost due to the "psychosomatic principle". I believe this is supposed to include generic nearsightedness and farsightedness. However, I would not be surprised if the psychosomatic principle did not cover such a common malady.

Regarding hearing, Hubbard claims that Dianetics can make calcium deposits disappear. While he does not blame calcium deposits for all hearing loss, he does not state how else Dianetics improves hearing.

From here, the chapter becomes a little muddled as Hubbard turns to memory and imagination. Memory, which Hubbard calls returning, can be improved so well in a clear that that every sense is involved. Say, when you were a child, you had a wonderful birthday party. According to Hubbard, you could remember the colors, textures, smells, sounds, and even the tastes of the birthday cake as soon as you get rid of those pesky engrams. In his words, a person "can reexperience incidents which have taken place in his past in the same fashion and with the same sensations as before." I do not know what it means to reexperience something "in the same fashion". Perhaps when you are remembering that birthday, you will become a child again in you mind. You will think like a child and act like a child throughout the entirety of the returning experience unable to analyze the situation from an outside perspective. I think that might qualify as reexperiencing a memory in the same fashion as before.

Hubbard takes an opportunity at this point to point out his dislike for hypnosis even making sure to distinguish his vocabulary from that of the hypnotists. It is returning, not regression and reliving, not revivification. Hubbard claims that hypnotism is entirely explainable under the tenants of Dianetics. Therefore it is not used in Dianetics as a mechanism for returning. Hubbard promises to explain later.

This return, Hubbard insists, is a new phenomenon, different from "the more usual recalls". The difference again being that when most people remember something from their past, it is done imperfectly with a limited number of senses. A person either remembers the smell of the cake or what it looks like. If the person remembers both the smell and the sight, he or she might not recall how it tasted. Dianetics claims to be able to restore all these senses and even provides a way to test this claim.

It is quite simple to test recalls according to Hubbard. If one will ask his fellows what their abilities, he will gain a remarkable idea of how widely varied this ability is from individual.

So to test recalls, we take a survey. I don't know how this survey tests anything. I imagine the answers range from "I think I'm more of a visual person" to "Oh yeah, I remember EVERYTHING! Where's my car key?" Hubbard seems to spend a lot of effort trying to convince the reader that people remember things differently from person to person. An informal survey tells us next to nothing about the mechanisms of memory no matter how many different ways it is stated.

After reciting the types of recall Dianetics offers ("visio, sonic, tactile, olfactory, rhythmic kinesthetic, somatic, thermal organic, and...emotion"), Hubbard considers imagination, "the mind's method of envisioning desirable goals and forecasting futures". Apparently, "a clear mind uses imagination in its entirety". This is presented as being very similar to recall in that "entirely" means that all senses are involved to the fullest extent. Thus, through Dianetics, picturing yourself on the moon could be complete with the pain the near absolute zero temperature as well as your blood boiling away from the lack of air pressure (if you forgot to imagine a spacesuit). This type of imagination is different from what Hubbard calls "creative imaginition", "the possession by which works of art are done". This kind of imagination is present in all people, in varying degrees, regardless of abberations.

As the chapter closes, Hubbard considers man's rationality, the "most important activity of the mind" because it is "the primary, high-echelon function of that part of the mind which makes him a man, not just another animal". I think most would agree with Hubbard's emphatic assertion of the importance of man's rationality. However, according to Hubbard, all unclear individuals are, to varying degrees, irrational. Therefore, rationality "can be studied in a clear person only". From this, Hubbard insinuates that a clear person would be perfectly rational, making no errors in judgment as long as they were give all correct data to consider. Hubbard insists, "the sentient portion of the mind, which computes the answer to problems and which makes man man, is utterly incapable of error [emphasis Hubbard]." That is, the computing part of the brain NEVER makes a mistake, EVER, for ANYONE. To support this claim, Hubbard compares the brain to a calculator stating that it will produce the correct answers time and again as long as it is presented the right information to consider. Does Hubbard not realize that sometimes parts break in both the calculator and the brain?

As crazy as this notion is, that the brain NEVER makes a mistake, Hubbard tops it by asserting "the basic purposes of that mind and the basic nature of man, as discoverable in the clear, are constructive and good...", and then concludes, "Man is good." According to Hubbard, abberations also contain little bits of evil in, so a clear is good. For a man who is obsessed with defining his words, it is surprising that he left "good" undefined, rendering his assertion meaningless. Are clear more likely to help the poor? Are they proactive about being good? Do they just not do bad things? Do they feel like they are "good"?

Hubbard insists that "later there are experiments and proofs for the these things and they can be measured with the precision so dear to the heart of the physics scientist." An experiment showing that clear people are better? How would good be quantified? A proof that results in "clear=good" right before the Q.E.D.? I hope that's in this book. And why single out the scientist for requiring proof? Everyone who reads this book should be thinking, "Oh yeah? Prove it" after every single claim. Hubbard has a lot of work to do in the proof department.

Words Defined: tactile, psychic, brace and bit, stimuli, pallid, cordite, ocular, olfactory, thalamus, present time ("the time that is new and becomes the past as rapidly as it is observed"), in kind, coach-and-four, encyst, signal, self-determinism

Next: Chapter 3: The Goal of Man (Hint: It's to survive.)

Note: All quotes are from
Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics. Los Angeles, CA: Bridge Publications, Inc, 1986. The above figure is located on p. 32 of this edition.