Thursday, March 31, 2011 ~ Have your say...

Why do people believe in the paranormal, pseudoscience, and other weird things?



The short answer, is that people want to believe. According to Brian Cronk, a professor of psychology at Missouri Western State University, "The human brain is always trying to determine why things happen, and when the reason is not clear, we tend to make up some pretty bizarre explanations." 

Why is this the case? "It is an artifact of our brain's desire to find cause and effect. That ability to predict the future is what makes humans 'smart', but it also has side effects like superstitions [and] belief in the paranormal." 

According to the Livescience, today, media coverage of the paranormal on the Internet, television, and radio, help to perpetuate myths and folklore. Fiction and belief often masquerade as fact and news.  And according to a 2005 Gallup poll, three-quarters of those surveyed believe in at least one paranormal phenomenon, including 41 per cent who are convinced of ESP, 32 per cent of ghosts, 31 per cent of mind reading, 26 per cent of clairvoyance and 25 per cent of astrology.

Spend some time online and you can find many other highly questionable beliefs like the idea that space aliens landed at Roswell, New Mexico, that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago, that the Holocaust never occurred, and that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government to incite America into war.  The list is very long.

Why do so many people believe such weird things?

Michal Shermer, founder of Skeptic Magazine, tells us that, "All humans seek patterns. That's our nature. We are also storytellers because it helps us find meaning in a chaotic world. In order to survive, we have evolved to find cause-and-effect relationships in nature, and then weave a plausible story to explain them. Our ancestors who identified the pattern linking the seasons to animal migrations ate better and left behind more offspring. But because believing that the rain gods can be appeased through rituals isn't fatal, we also have inherited magical thinking. Add to this the fact that many of these beliefs make us feel better, meet some emotional need, promise miracle cures or instant wealth, and in general appeal to our emotional brains and bypass our rational brains.” 

When someone is firmly set in their belief, then, even when presented with scientific evidence, it is very difficult to get them to let go of their beliefs. To true-believers, shady and unsupported explanations which sometimes suggest somewhat causal connections between events are more appealing than well-supported, scientific explanations which do not provide comfort to the individual.

Scientists and critical thinkers are then left with an impossible task: proving something does not exist. You can prove an object like rock is there. You can't prove that the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs, or a ghost is not there. 

So then, what are we, as pattern-seeking, cognitively biased humans, supposed to do? How do we filter out fact from fiction? Shermer gives his own version of a Baloney Detection Kit.  Use the list below to help yourself figure out if there is merit behind a claim, belief, or seemingly weird idea:

·         Is the person making this claim a qualified expert in the field, or a quack? People who are not trained in a subject can make contributions, but it is rare.
·         Does the source often make similar claims? Paranormalists and members of fringe groups have a habit of going well beyond the facts.
·         Have the claims been verified by another source? Typically pseudoscientists will make statements that are unverified, or verified by a source within their own circle. Who is checking the claim, and who is checking the checkers?
·         How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works? When considered in this manner, get-rich quick schemes and stock-market secrets never sound so good.
·         Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or have they only sound evidence to confirm it? This is known as confirmation bias, or the tendency to ignore negative evidence. This is why we need the methods of science, which include the attempt to prove yourself wrong.
·         Does the preponderance of evidence converge to the claimant's conclusion? The theory of evolution, for example, is proven through a convergence of evidence from a number of independent lines of inquiry. No one fossil proves anything.
·         Is the claimant employing accepted rules of reason and tools of research? UFOlogists suffer this fallacy in their continued focus on a handful of unexplained atmospheric anomalies and visual misperceptions while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of sightings are easily explained.
·         Has the claimant provided a different explanation for the observed phenomena, or is it strictly a process of denying the existing explanation? This is a classic debate strategy - criticize your opponent and never affirm what you believe in order to avoid criticism. Creationists do this to great effect. But to be legitimate, positive evidence in favor of your idea must also be presented.
·         If the claimant has offered a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation? For example, skeptics who argue that lifestyle, not HIV, causes AIDS do not explain nearly as much of the data as the HIV theory does, such as the rise in AIDS among hemophiliacs shortly after HIV was inadvertently introduced into the blood supply.
·         Is there extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim? Evidence is key. Normal claims need normal evidence, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

What Michael Shermer below, as he speaks to the same points at TED.





Oh Yeah? Science isn't perfect either!
 
Browsing the JREF’s FAQ while researching the Million Dollar Challenge (proving you have parapsychological powers for a million dollars), I found a great answer to the following question:  Scientific papers have been written supporting paranormal events and talents. Therefore, how can you deny them?

Randi and his team answer the challenge with the following:  “Scientists can be wrong — sometimes, very wrong. The history of science is replete with serious errors of judgment, bad research, faked results, and simple mistakes, made by scientists in every field. The beauty of science is that it corrects itself by its own nature and design. By this means, science provides us with increasingly clearer views of how the world works. Unfortunately, though science itself is self-correcting, sometimes the scientists involved do not correct themselves. And there is not a single example of a scientific discovery in the field of parapsychology that has been independently replicated. That makes parapsychology absolutely unique in the world of science.”

Prove Yourself

For those who are so entrenched in their beliefs that they themselves believe they have special powers or abilities, it's not necessary to have the argument here. James Randi offers any believers, or purveyors of belief, to prove themselves – and he'll cut you a cheque for a million dollars.

Here are the terms:

"At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant.""

So far, no one has passed the preliminary tests, even though Randii has invited some of the "premier" personalities, like Sylvia Browne, to take the test. 

Seems like a quick and easy million bucks if you’ve got “the power” – but why has nobody succeeded yet? You be the judge.

The Unfortunate Conclusion

Humans tend to believe weird things without scientific merit because we seek patterns, we seek to explain things, we are uncomfortable not understanding the world around us, and because we are stubborn.  It’s hard to change someone’s mind – try it.  It’s no easy task.  And so, it falls on our teachers and mentors to train future generations to think critically and use “baloney detection kits” when necessary.


References:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/22/2342385.htm

Saturday, March 19, 2011 ~ Have your say...

Science and Skepticism and Blogging - oh my!

What this blog's about...


I'm often asked how I got interested in skepticism and why I started this blog.  So, finally, I'm going dedicate a post to answer these questions.  This post will also be added to the About page.

Formally, the purpose of this blog is to promote science, skepticism, critical thought, and the beauty of the natural world.  I created that mission with four "pillars" in mind.  They are:


Science: 

Science is a powerful tool that allows us to discover truths about the natural world.  The scientific method seeks to explain what happens in nature and then makes useful predictions.  It allows us to solve problems while minimizing the effects of subjective bias.  Science is empirical and subject to falsification, which allows theories to “evolve” over time as scientists gather new information.   Science does not claim certainty; it aims to come as close to truth as possible.

Skepticism:

Skepticism can be somewhat controversial because it forces people to question beliefs that are often taken for granted by the general population.  A skeptic is not someone who simply “questions everything”, but rather, someone who tests the probability and reliability of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation:  the scientific method.  “De-bunking” claims is a subset of skepticism, and although important (and fun), it is only a part of the definition. 

Critical Thought:

When we are presented with information (especially from the media), we can choose to ignore it, believe it, disbelieve it, or think about it and then make a decision.  We live in an extremely fast paced world, and often there simply isn’t enough time to sit back and digest information.  And this is a problem:  critical thought is not part of our daily lives, and it needs to be.  We need to assess information and make educated decisions based on the assessment. 

The Beauty of the Natural World:

It’s important to realize that our natural world is incredible, awe-inspiring, and downright unbelievable at times.  For this reason, it’s not necessary to invoke the paranormal, cryptids, myths, legends, UFOs, Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster (among many).  You only have to look in your backyard to be amazed by nature’s complexities.  Look at the composition of matter at or below the microscopic scale; or look at the enormous, incomprehensible size of our universe; or the dynamic array of species and life on Earth.


About This Blog, and How It Came To Be

The Early Years
I was very fortunate to have parents that encouraged me to read at an early age.  My father would read me Tarzan stories before bed, and my mother would sit with me as I read my first book, “Big Machines”.  Based on my Big Machine learnings, my mother frequently took me to a nearby construction site, where I quietly observed the steam shovels, loaders, and dump trucks do their thing.  I was amazed by their power, and could not imagine how machines so large could operated by people so small, and that, eventually, a field turned into a hole, a hole turned into a foundation, and a foundation into a building.  I was a curious and inquisitive little boy, and thankfully my parent’s encouraged me to forever ask “why?”.


Dinosaurs, Badlands, and Paleontology

At around 6 years old, I was introduced to my first book about dinosaurs.  I decided shortly thereafter that I would move to Alberta to work the Badlands as a paleontologist.  I of course didn’t, and instead stayed in my home town of Montreal and collected dozens of books about dinosaurs, and could rhyme off many of them, including whether or not they lived during the Triassic, Jurassic, or Cretaceous periods.  I couldn’t get enough of them.  I loved the idea that these creatures roamed the Earth millions of years ago.  Paleontology forced me to learn a bit about geology, which then led me to learn about weathering and erosion, climate, eco systems, biodiversity, extinction, evolution… and more. 


I Then Looked to the Skies

In my high school chemistry class, I had to do a large project and decided it would be interesting to study the life cycle of stars.  Dinosaurs and paleontology took a backseat while I soaked up astronomy – and this became my new fascination and obsession.
 

Astronomy, for me, tied the world of physics and chemistry.  After the project’s completion, I got my first telescope - a 4.5 inch Newtonian Reflector.  I hastily set it up and pointed it at the moon.  I could not believe what I saw.  Craters, shadows, ridges, valleys – the whole moon was magnified so much that it couldn’t even fit in my field of view.  I remember calling my father over and showing him – he thought I had placed a card in front of the telescope.   It was literally that unbelievable.
On clear nights, I would set the telescope up outside (we lived in the country, so I was fortunately not affected by light pollution), and point it to Saturn, Venus, and Jupiter – they were easy to find, and would blow people’s minds when they saw them.  Especially Saturn – seeing the rings by yourself (not in a picture, or on TV) is, to me, a life changing experience.  To sit and really think that you are looking at something so large and so far away is mind boggling.

Astronomy also introduced me to Carl Sagan, one of the “fathers” of skepticism.  I watched Cosmos on TV and VHS, and read the book twice.  He spoke with such passion and clarity, and in a way that non-scientists could understand.  He helped bring science to the mainstream.  When he died in 1996, I was extremely sad, and deeply touched.  I had only known of his work for a short time, but was deeply affected by his passing because I felt it was a huge loss for both the scientific community and the general public.

High school passed, and I moved on to university to study computer engineering – hoping to leverage off the .com bubble (which, with my luck, burst just before I graduated).  During that time, I read the works of Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking, more Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker and host of others.  I got deeper and deeper into astronomy and cosmology.  I started to question life; how it arose amongst the vast emptiness of space.  I questioned religion, and the need for a god (non-specific to any religion).  I questioned psychology, the mind, consciousness, and what that all meant. 

 
A Brave New World (With Disposable Income)

After graduation, I got a job and became a full-blown consumer with a bit of a disposable income.  It was really only at that point - when forced to make decisions about how to spend my money on things that were not school related -  that I began to question “products” and the media.  Did taking vitamins work for an average guy like me?  Would ginko-biloba improve my memory?  Should I take mega doses of Vitamin C and Echinacea when I have a cold?  Are UFO’s even plausible?  What about the Loch Ness monster (my childhood favorite)?  Is it the end of the world as we know it?  Is there any truth to Astrology?  What about the stuff I hear on television, the Internet, magazines, and radio?  Armed with Google’s search engine, I started researching


A Discovery

Browsing the magazines in Chapters – looking for the latest copy of Discover or Scientific American – I stumbled upon a magazine called “Skeptic”.  I flipped through it, and realized, “There’s a whole group of people out there just like me!”.  I devoured the magazine’s content, and then moved on to the Skeptical Enquirer.  These magazines led me to more books – Demon Haunted World and Flim-Flam, among others.  I discovered the podcast “Skepticality”, “The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe”, Skeptoid, and devoured their content too.  I read the works of Michael Shermer, StevenNovella, Phil Plait, James Randi.  I learned about logical fallacies, how to argue and debate, and to be culturally sensitive when discussing controversial topics, and how to dissect information into understandable parts so that it can be used to make educated decisions.  I’m still learning all those things today.  I asked myself – am I a “skeptic”?  Yes, I was.  But what exactly was a skeptic?


“Skeptic” :  My Favorite Definition

I like to use Steven Novella’s definition, which is as follows:

“A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.”

And Now, The Point (of the Story, and of This Blog)

What’s the point of this long winded story? 
 

Had it not been for the exposure I was so luckily given – the books, the media, the telescope, the projects, the classes, the podcasts, the blogs, and the people – I would not have taken an interest in any of these fascinating areas of thought.   I would not have dived so deep into science and discovered so many awe-inspiring things.  For that reason, I created this blog – so that others may experience and enjoy what I have.  To the best of my ability, I present information related to the four pillars in the mission:  science, skepticism, critical thought, and the world’s natural beauty.  I hope to encourage others to think rationally, critically, and enjoy what science and this incredible world has to offer.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 ~ Have your say...

Earthquakes and Tsunamies Explained

The recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan provide us with a stark reminder of nature's raw power.  Earthquakes, while geologically fascinating, are one of the Earth's most destructive forces.  Livescience.com and Graphic.Is have provided several infographics which illustrate how earthquakes and tsunamies work.


The magnitude 8.9 quake that hit 80km off the coast of Sendai, Japan,  was caused by one plate slipping under (subducting) another.  As one plate moves beneath the other, the upper plate undergoes compression, causing a bulge.  Over time, this stress increases until eventually, the bulge collapes, releasing huge amounts of energy.  If this happens under the ocean, a huge amount of water is displaced, creating waves that travel very fast (around 500miles per hour).  Still, whether or not a tsunami occurs depends on the strength of the earthquake,  the direction of the tremblor's motion, and the seafloor topography.  At sea, the wave may appear small, but as it approaches land and the water becomes more shallow, the same volume of water tries to move forward - so the wave grows in size (vertically) and eventually crashes in on the land.

For a detailed explanation, please view the infographics below (click them to see the large versions).

Graphic 1:  How Tsunamies Occur (image credit: Graphic.Is)

Graphic 2:  Anatomy of An Earthquake
(image credit: Graphic.Is)
So, can we predict earthquakes?  Not really.  According to Keith Sverdrup, a professor of geophysics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, "Earthquake prediction is something we haven't really been able to master yet.  With earthquakes, the best we can say is these are areas where earthquakes are likely to occur and this is our best estimate of the statistical probability of an earthquake of a certain size happening within a certain period of time."  We're just not there yet.  Hopefully, the science and technology will improve so that an early warning can be provided to people before a disaster of this magnitude hits.

With respect to the Japan quake, you can help by providing information about someone who may have been involved with the disaster using Google's Person Finder.  Also, you can donate online or with your mobile phone by visiting the Red Cross website.

Monday, March 7, 2011 ~ Have your say...

The Arecibo Message: Communicating With Alien Civilizations


In 1974, the Arecibo Radio Telescope beamed a powerful broadcast targeting the globular star cluster M13. Containing roughly 330,000 stars, and at a distance of 21,000 light years from Earth, the blast would be strong enough to be detected by an alien M13 civilization’s own version of SETI.

Dubbed “The Arecibo Message”, it was sent pictorially as a set of 1,679 bits, arranged into 73 rows with 23 characters per row, which are both deliberately prime numbers (the intent being that aliens could use these prime numbers to help decode the message).  The bits were transmitted by frequency-shifting at the rate of 10 bits per second, and the total broadcast was just under 3 minutes.

The message contained:
  • The numbers one through ten;
  • The atomic numbers of the elements hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and phosphorus (which collectively make up DNA)
  • The formulas for the sugars and bases in the nucleotides of DNA
  • The number of nucleotides in DNA, and graphic of the double helix structure of DNA
  • A graphic figure of a human, along with the average height, and the population of Earth
  • A graphic of the Solar System
  • A graphic of the Arecibo radio telescope, along with its dimensions

The message will take approximately 21,000 years to be received, and then 21,000 years to be returned back to Earth – so the probability of “contact” or “communication” is extremely low.  However, as a thought experiment, it is interesting to think how an alien civilization may attempt to decode Earth’s message.  On the Arecibo Wikipedia article, an explanation is given for each section in the pictorial.

For the message to be decoded, a number of assumptions must be made:
  • The alien civilization will need to understand binary format of counting, or Base-2.
  • “Chemistry”, as a whole, will be the same across the Universe.  However, the building blocks of life might not.  In the message, we assume 1) that the aliens will be able to decode the elements and formulae for the makings of DNA and its nucleotides, and 2) that life elsewhere in the Universe is made from the same organic building blocks
  • The depiction of Humanity, while immediately obvious to humans, may be completely foreign to an alien civilization.  What if it’s normal for them to have 8 arms and 4 legs?  
  • Without the use of language, it is incredibly difficult to assume that our solar system could be interpreted as a “solar system”.  Especially now, with the declassification of Pluto as a planet – who knows how others might define celestial bodies?
  • The orientation of the message is critical for its understanding… if an attempt is made to interpret it as 23 rows by 73 columns, then the intended meaning is lost...
There’s no easy way to send a message into space that guarantees a high probability that it will be decoded correctly.  Of course, having Wikipedia explain each row and column helps, but the aliens will certainly not have that luxury.  Any form of media sent into space will degrade over time, and the aliens will probably not have VCRs, CD drives, DVD, BluRay, or Flash drives…

So, a radio message makes the most sense… however, I fear that, even if the Arecibo Message is received, it will remain encoded, hiding its mystery, must like many of the ancient texts from civilizations that are no longer here on Earth.


You Might Also Like To Read:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...