We've moved to a better place...

You will be automatically redirected to the new address. If that does not occur, visit
http://www.relativelytinteresting.com
and update your bookmarks.

Showing posts with label paranormal. Show all posts

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

A Sobering Fact: Popular Articles Usually Have Something to do with Sex or the Paranormal

I like to keep track of popular science web sites and which articles collect the most traffic, which are most popular, and which are shared on social networks.  


I couldn't help but notice that on LiveScience.com, the Popular Posts widget shows five stories, and none of them are based on hard science.  Their top stories are often related to sex or the  paranormal.  As of November 14th, 2011, the top articles were, in order:


1:  11/11/11 How Friday is tied to the Mayan Apocalypse 
2:  Sex With Animals Linked to Penile Cancer
3:  Asian Ancestors Had Sex With Mysterious Human Cousins
4:  Lair of Ancient 'Kraken' Sea Monster Possibly Uncovered
5: Do Einstein's Laws Prove Ghosts Exist?


Now, to be fair, the content of these articles are ultimately based on hard science.  The titles are chosen to provide link bait for users - so I don't fault the creators of the site.  In fact, LiveScience.com is one of the sites I will occasionally use as a reference for content.  What I am surprised at, is how popular the paranormal and sex are, even on a science-based website.

Which begs the question: are people looking to find the truth (science-based evidence), or are they looking to further support their own beliefs?  

Thursday, September 22, 2011 ~ Have your say...

James Randi to speak in Toronto

Noted skeptic and magician James "The Amazing" Randi will be giving a talk on September 27th in Toronto.  I will be attending and blogging about the event.
 
James Randi exposes popularly accepted fakery by discussing with his audience everything from UFOs to the Bermuda Triangle, from the Von Däniken “Chariots of the Gods” fraud to the notion of a lost continent named Atlantis. Randi reveals what really took place in the last three decades in the labs of various prestigious “think tanks” that verified a series of simple magicians tricks as genuine miracles, thus launching a world-wide plague of misinformation, the repercussions of which can still be felt today.

This unique and provocative lecture is not only educational but also highly entertaining. It attracts persons of all educational and social backgrounds and provides a rational perspective on the seemingly paranormal and otherwise unexplained happenings in our day-to-day life.

Mr. Randi illustrates how a “politically-correct” attitude has blinded scientists — who should know better — to the fact that they are not proficient at detecting fraud, often managing to fool themselves, when the prize is sufficiently attractive. Randi offers a million-dollar award to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal "powers".

The Million Dollar Challenge

The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

From the JREF website:  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."

To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests, and major psychics like Syvia Browne have declined to take the challenge.

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 ~ Have your say...

Mothman: The Bad Omen Bringer?

It's an Owl!  It's a Crane!  No, it’s... Mothman!??

It’s been 45 years since the first reported sighting of the famed Mothman. No, not the character "Killer Moth" from Batman, but the creature who stands 6 to 7 feet tall with huge, dark wings and piercing red eyes that terrified the local folks at Point Pleasant, West Virginia on the night of November 12, 1966.

On that day, two young couples and their cousin were driving past an old World War II TNT factory when they noticed a glowing red light at one of the generator plants.  Upon closer inspection, they were terrified to find out that the 'glowing red lights' belonged to a huge creature with the body of a man with massive wings on its back, hovering over the plant. 

They drove off in a hurry, but the Mothman chased them to Route 62 where it eventually disappeared. The local authorities took the couples seriously as they were credible, and never the ones to cause trouble.  According to the good ol' Deputy, knowing them all his life, he knew the story was real because they were so genuinely terrified.

West Virginia 'Terrorized'

Shortly after the incident, many people came forward reporting sightings of the Mothman.   Five grave workers from Clendenin, West Virginia, reported that they had a similar creature hovering over them while preparing for a grave three days earlier on the 9th of November 1966.  However, they remained quiet, afraid that the local folks would question their sanity.

Another man from Salem, West Virginia, claimed that he went out to check on a loud, generator-starting-like whiny sound right outside of his home. His dog was barking towards the sky, and when he looked up, he saw two red lights. His dog went after the lights, and disappeared. The man went back to get his gun, but was too afraid to go back out. His dog was never found. It was the same night of the incident in Pleasant Point.  

The search group led by the Deputy at Point Pleasant saw the body of a dog, near the generator plant, but it disappeared when they came back for it after the search.  During that night, they spotted the Mothman again rising from the place where they parked their vehicles.

The sightings continued until December, 1967, when tragedy struck.

The Silver Bridge Tragedy

Silver Bridge
On January 11th, 1967, people began to spot the Mothman hovering over the Silver Bridge.   On December 15th, 1967, the Silver Bridge collapsed, killing 46 people.  An investigation showed that it collapsed due to a manufacturing flaw. 

The Mothman was never to be seen again in Point Pleasant.



The Bad Omen Bringer?

Now who would've known that the terrifying creature actually wants to be friends and to warn the local folks?  Legend has it that the Mothman appeared to warn the people of Point Pleasant about the faulty single eye-bar of the suspension chain of the Silver Bridge. 

Guten Abend, Moth Mann

There were several other incidents of the Mothman appearing before a tragedy occured, all of which occurred outside of West Virginia. For instance, on September 10th, 1978, miners from Freiburg, Germany could have sworn they saw a creature with red glowing eyes on its chest, with huge dark wings on its back, with the body of a man blocking the entrance of the mine. It scared away 21 who were supposed to work on that day.

Later, the mine collapsed.  However, those who had survived soon started to face psychiatric problems, including the two who told the story of the Mothman. The named it the "Freiburg Shrieker" as it was said by the group of man, that when it unfurled its wings, it terrorized everyone with a shrieking sound which sounded like 50 people screaming at once. 

The Chernobyl Incident

Scientists that worked in the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl, Ukraine also claimed to encounter a huge creature with red glowing eyes on its chest, without a head, with huge wings and the body of a man. The sightings started in April, 1985. Many who encountered the creature stopped working and reported nightmares. A year later, in April 1986, the Chernobyl incident occurred.

Mothman, My Friend

Kinda looks like Mothman...
Could it be that the Mothman was a sign of bad omen? Was it a friend in disguise trying to warn people about bad things to come?  Whatever the case may be, the sightings of the Mothman have tapered off.

Some theorists claims that the Mothman could be an oversized barn owl, a sand hill crane, or even an oversized Malayan bat. Some extremist thinks that it is an alien from outer space, while most tend to think that the Mothman is more paranormal than it is a cryptic creature.  Others believe it is nothing more than a figment of someone’s imagination, and a story gone viral.

Should you be on the lookout? 

Whatever the claims, there is one clear fact:  other than unreliable anecdotal evidence, there is nothing to support the existence of a half man, half moth creature.   Like Bigfoot and UFOs, there’s nothing more than stories, blurry or Photoshopped photos, and shaky videos.


But, if you're still interested, there's a movie called The Mothman Prophecies which you might enjoy... 






References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothman
http://www.skepdic.com/mothman.html
http://www.prairieghosts.com/moth.html

http://usersites.horrorfind.com/home/horror/darkfire/may06_article.html
http://www.unknownexplorers.com/blackbirdofchernobyl.php
http://www.unknownexplorers.com/mothman.php

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

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 ~ Have your say...

Celebrity Ghost Stories: Television Has Reached A New Low


Recently, I was watching the Biography Channel and saw an ad for a show called Celebrity Ghost Stories.  This is a show, where Class A celebrities, like the bald guy who was Carrie's friend in the show Sex and The City (his actual name is Willie Garson), relieve their terrifying experiences. 


More specifically, the show's tagline describes it succingtly: "Featuring personal, first-person accounts by notable actors, musicians and models, Celebrity Ghost Stories delivers a compelling, surprising and downright chilling look into the world of the paranormal by those who believe they have experienced the other side."

Putting aside the whole "ghosts" thing for a moment, I take reservation with the statement that there are "notable" actors on the show.  I think the show's writers have the same raised eyebrow.  Look at the description for some of the celebrities (I did not make this up):

Marissa J Winokur:  best known as TV actress and voiceover talent
Billy Baldwin:  best known as Actor, one of the Baldwin brothers
Donna D'Erricco:  best known as Playboy playmate and starring in Baywatch
Tracey Gold:  best known as Carol Seaver on Growing Pains
Haylie Duff:  best known as Singer, actress, sister of Hilary
Eric Balfour:  best known for appearances in 24 and Six Feet Under

Back in 2003, I was an extra in the movie, Resident Evil 2.  In fact, I had a full second of screen time (I was the Umbrella Corporation trooper scanning people as they tried to leave the city).  One time, when I was just a child, I was really scared when I was left alone in my parent's farm house... OVER NIGHT.  Thankfully, I survived, unscathed - pellet gun under my bed, dog lying next to me.  He woke up and barked a few times during the night.  It was probably a ghost, because it was also a bit chilly that night, which was weird, because it was summer.  I should be on Celebrity Ghost Stories.

Sound ridiculous? Well, if you had a budget to edit the story with freaky animations and a killer soundtrack, you could probably make that story pretty scary.

The fact of the matter is, none of the "ghost" shows on television ever find ghosts.  Haunted History, Ghostly Encounters, Ghost Hunters, and Paranormal State, included.


The fact that celebrities are now telling their stories (an obvious appeal to the argument of authority) is even worse.  In the voice of Will Ferrell on Saturday Night Live as Alex Trebek, "... and we've reached a new low.".  


Benjamin Radford, at the Centre for Inquiry, says it best in his blog entry (reprinted with permission) below:



"Having dealt with (and read the reports of "ghost investigations" by) amateur ghost hunting groups from across the country, I have noticed an interesting logical sleight of hand that allows them to frame their investigations as successful even when they fail. Many, of course, take their cues from TV shows like Ghost Hunters and Paranormal State , featuring ordinary folks (plumbers, college students, musicians, housewives, etc.) who have little or no training in science, investigation, logic, or critical thinking. Thus it's not surprising that their "investigations" invariably fail to find any real proof of ghosts, and have little to do with science or skepticism-- no matter how often they refer to themselves as "skeptics."


Ghost hunters will wander around a reputedly haunted location with cameras, voice recorders, and other gadgets, looking for any "anomaly." There are three possible outcomes of this sort of pseudoinvestigation: 1) The ghost hunters will effectively debunk a particular phenomenon or claim (such as finding that a "mysterious" cold spot in a room is due to an unseen air conditioning vent); 2) The ghost hunters will not find any evidence of anything unusual at all (no "orbs" in photos, no "cold spots," no "anomalous" readings or faint ghost voices, etc.); or 3) The ghost hunters will find one or more phenomena that they cannot explain or understand (such as a strange sound, an EVP "voice," an orb or blur in a photograph, etc.). On the surface, there doesn't seem to be any problem with this methodology--- except that it's logically and scientifically unsound, and leads to false-positive "evidence" for ghosts.

One of the hallmarks of good scientific methodology is that a claim, proposition, or hypothesis must be falsifiable; that is, there must be some way to determine whether an event occurred or it didn't, a phenomenon exists or it doesn't. If I claim that an invisible, undetectable polar bear is living in my garage, that may be true but is not a testable, falsifiable claim, because if an investigator searches for evidence and finds none at all, I can just say, "Of course you couldn't find evidence for it, the polar bear is undetectable." Thus it is an untestable, scientifically worthless claim.

Many ghost hunters have managed to frame their "investigations" in exactly the same unscientific, untestable way. In the curious world of ghost hunting, the fact that the teams of ghost hunters cannot explain phenomenon is taken as a sign of their expertise. That is, they will confidently proclaim a location haunted if they could not find an explanation for some (apparently) strange phenomenon or other; they couldn’t figure it out, couldn’t solve the mystery.

The ghost hunters set up an interesting no-lose situation for themselves. If they are able to debunk or find ordinary explanations for ghostly phenomenon, then that shows what excellent investigators they are because they cleverly figured it out. On the other hand, if they can’t figure out an explanation for some phenomenon, then that also demonstrates what fantastic investigators they are, because they claim it is evidence of ghosts! And if they don't find any evidence of ghosts, that of course does not prove that ghosts don't exist, it can just be interpreted to mean that there were no ghosts active there at the time the ghost hunters were there; the door is left wide open for later investigations. Follow-up investigations are likely to find some "anomaly" or other (especially given the lax standards of evidence, since all that is needed to create evidence for ghosts is for one person to say, "I don't really understand this"), thus virtually guaranteeing that many "haunted locations" will be deemed to have some "unexplained" activity, whether ghosts reside there or not.

Imagine if other investigative professions operated the same way, claiming success when they were unable to solve a problem: Police detectives unable to solve crimes would be promoted; doctors unable to correctly diagnose diseases would be congratulated and receive awards; mechanics who couldn't explain and fix automotive problems would be successful. Usually, inability to accomplish a goal (such as explaining a mystery) is seen as an obvious failure; for ghost hunters, it's a proud badge of success! If the purpose of investigation is to collect good scientific evidence for ghosts, the ghost hunter groups have completely failed." []  




At least I can take solace in the fact that there's only 32 people who "Like" Celebrity Ghost Stories.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...