Pseudoscience

by

“Skull hypothesis” (Paracas skulls)

head

A large set of skulls that look like they could have belonged to the Saturday Night Live coneheads was found several decades ago in South America. There are three competing versions for their origin, one each for fans of Cosmos, Ancient Aliens, and Benny Hinn.

The isthmus of common ground between the three camps is that Peruvian archaeologist Julio Tello discovered a few hundred mummies in the Paracas region in 1928. Fascinating as archeology can be, it usually holds little interest among non-practitioners, but these finds attracted more notice because of the greatly elongated skulls of some of the mummies. Anthropologist and geneticist Jennifer Raff explained that “many ancient societies in North and South America practiced cultural modification to the crania of their infants, resulting in distinctive skull shapes in the adult population.”

There is strong historical and archeological evidence for this, but about 80 years after the find, some creative explanations were finagled. One claimed that the skulls did not belong to homo sapiens but rather to alien-human hybrids. An alternate position to this alternate position was that the skulls were instead a confirmation of a few cryptic lines in the Old Testament.

Arguing for the hybrid angle, David Childress and Brien Foerster wrote the cumbersome-titled The Enigma of Cranial Deformation: Elongated Skulls of the Ancients. They suggested the skulls came from a highly-distinctive breed of creatures, a position they based mostly on a statement from 19th Century physician John James von Tschudi. He is quoted as saying he had seen a third-trimester fetus with a head as long as an adult’s.

But archeology blogger Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews investigated this and discovered this to be the result of either confusion or obfuscation on the authors’ part. The quoted doctor was referring to a cranium whose enlargement was much less pronounced than the mummified skulls that Tello unearthed. Tschudi was trying to find evidence for his hypothesis that there was a lost Andean people whose distinctions included slightly elongated skulls. An engraving of the baby showed it not in utero, but wearing a kilt while sitting in a position consistent with Andean mummies.

Foerster somehow managed to convince a museum employee to let him borrow some of the remains, and he claims to have had the human tissue dated through DNA analysis, which Fitzpatrick-Matthews says cannot be done. At any rate, this supposed testing involved no examination by anthropologists, archeologists, or biologists, and no input from natural history museums or university research teams.

Instead of a peer-reviewed journal, his findings were announced in a Facebook post quoting an anonymous geneticist. This secretive scientist said the discovery revealed an entirely new breed of creature, not quite human or ape, nor even related to any known Earthly being. There is no animal that accounts for the totality of a Phylum, yet this is what Foerster’s mystery man (or woman or alien hybrid) was asserting. These creatures were also said to be cursed with the inability to breed with any other animal, with the resultant inbreeding leading to their extinction. Exclusive inbreeding among a small population might doom a species. But saying it took place in this case represents piggybacking on legitimate science by shoehorning in an unsubstantiated ad hoc explanation instead of finding one through sound research.

Skeptic leader Sharon Hill outlined further problems with Foerster’s approach. “Science doesn’t work by social media,” she said. “Peer review is a critical part of science and the Paracas skull proponents have taken a shortcut that completely undermines their credibility. Appealing to the public’s interest in this cultural practice we see as bizarre – skull deformation – instead of publishing the data for peer-review examination is not going to be acceptable to the scientific community. Peer review exists to point out the problems that were missed by investigators.”

Additionally, ancientaliensdebunked.com noted that the scant information offered in the Facebook post revealed nothing about which skull was tested, what method was used to extract the DNA, how contamination was avoided, or how results could be replicated.

Meanwhile, there are those who prefer a supernatural explanation to an extraterrestrial one. The Nephilim are referenced in Genesis as being the offspring of “sons of God” and “daughters of men.” These vague terms lend themselves to many interpretations and these have included Foerster-friendly space aliens, fallen angels, giants, and descendants of Adam and Eve’s third son, Seth.  

The Biblical descriptions seem to suggest the Nephilim were the result of sexual encounters between demigods and young women. This is obviously unattractive to adherents of a religion based on unbending monotheism, so these verses are mostly ignored by evangelicals and Catholics. Even the uber-apologist Answers in Genesis can merely hem and haw its way through a non-explanation before concluding, “No one really knows what it means.”

Well that’s pretty boring. A more exciting deduction is that the Nephilim were about 36 feet tall, with six of those feet in the neck, sporting bony arms and massive torsos that were supported by three thick legs. That’s the interpretation of various sources, including Alex Jones’ infamous InfoWars site, which praised the Foerster announcement as “another example of scientific evidence piling up that the Nephilim actually lived.”

L.A. Marzulli expounded on this idea in his book Nephilim: Hybrids, Chimeras, and Strange Demonic Creatures.

Raff noted a series of blunders Foerster committed but which Marzulli ignored. This included failing “to sequence his own DNA, and that of the archaeologists, biological anthropologists, and anyone else who may have handled the remains, in order to rule out that any results might be inadvertent contamination from them.”

Overlooking such blunders enables Marzulli to announce to his credulous audience that the DNA “is not from an autochthonous Native American maternal lineage” and that it “fits the timeline of the diaspora from the Levant of Promised Land perfectly.” In his tale, the Nephilim traveled from the Middle East to the Mediterranean, then to Barbados, and onto Peru. In short, he extrapolated one unsubstantiated DNA sample into a tribe of giants with funny heads trekking and sailing from the Middle East to the Andes while leaving no trace of their journey.

As to skeptics like myself, Hill, and Raff, Marzulli wrote, “They’ll come up with every excuse imaginable in order to keep the evidence from the public.”

This claim of repression is typical of pseudoscientists and is the opposite of what we are doing. We want to see the results and to determine how they were obtained. We want to ensure the evidence is complete and can be revealed as either accurate or mistaken.

In doing this, Fitzpatrick-Matthews outlined reasons to believe the skulls belonged to neither transient behemoths nor intergalactic sightseers. Some of his main points were: 1. The mummies were wrapped in embroidered wool consistent with South American textiles. 2. They were positioned in a manner associated with Andean mummies who enjoyed exalted status during life. 3. Their resting places were adorned with ceramics specific to the region. 4. The tradition and method of producing the conical-shaped skulls is well documented.

For retorts, Nephilim-believer Michael Snyder pointed to Goliath as proof of giants, while the alien-hybrid enthusiasts at thegreaterpicture.com argued that “the humanoid-reptilian species Anunnaki have long skulls.”

 

by

“Irregular scheduled program” (Neuro-linguistic programming)

ml

Neuro-linguistic Programming claims to combine neurology and linguistics in order to program a person’s brain and impact their mind, body, and actions.

Originators Richard Bandler and John Grinder further assert that NLP copies the abilities of geniuses so as to help patients reproduce them. One advertisement proclaims, “If someone can do something, anyone can learn it.” Yes, a handful of introspective couch sessions are all that’s in the way you being the second coming of da Vinci.

Despite its claims of fusing neurology and linguistics, the field cites no neurologists or neurological breakthroughs as being part of its creation. Furthermore, it is awash in undefined, fabricated terms, indicating its status as a pseudoscience. These terms include “eye-accessing cues,” “created reality,” “sub-modality,” and “micro-modeling.”

Supposed benefits include success in personal finance, romance, and business. Even if NLP delivered on these long-shot promises, it would still fall outside the psychological realm it tries to fit itself into. There are additional claims that NLP can produce vastly increased physical strength, as well as being able to cure phobias, depression, myopia, allergies, psoriasis, cancer, obesity, and dyslexia. This lack of specificity and grand claims are two more pseudoscience giveaways.

Additionally, the field is based on such shaky notions as unlimited potential and accessing the subconscious. There is no way of determining what a person’s potential might be and it is even more ludicrous to suggest that every person has infinite capacity in all areas. Also, there are no known methods for accessing a person’s subconscious. Yet the field is content to gloss over these glaring problems in its approach.

It also leans heavily on inferring messages from the patient’s body language, but there is not a universal non-verbal communication set. Leaning back with arms folded could reveal boredom, aggression, or the posture the person feels most physically comfortable assuming. The patient may be accused of being passive-aggressive by taking this position and when they argue otherwise, they may be told they are in denial since the subconscious mind is revealing their true feelings. There is no way to test these claims and it is erroneous to read much into non-verbal behavior, yet this remains one of the field’s key tenets.

Despite its claims of having psychotherapy roots and uses, it is shunned by psychologists and is employed almost entirely by those hosting motivational seminars or running New Age human potential workshops. Tony Robbins has made use of its ideas, but Joyce Brothers did not.

In fact, psychologists, neurologists, and linguists uniformly say NLP is based on mistaken notions of brain science and language, and there are zero controlled studies propping up this field. Its advertising is full of testimonials, not trials.

The usual technique is for the practitioner to ask a series of leading questions or suggestions to the patient. There are two primary models, the Meta and Milton varieties. Skeptic leader Brian Dunning described the Meta Model as requiring the clinician to be “a condescending jerk in order to exert influence.”

Here is his longer version of how the sessions play out: “It is a confrontational manner of speaking intended to dominate a conversation by nitpicking apart another person’s sentences. I may say, ‘I feel pretty good today.’ The Meta Model response is, ‘What specifically makes you feel good?’ And whatever I do come up with gets attacked the same way. ‘Exactly why does that make you feel good?’ And suddenly I’m on the defensive and am made to feel that I’m in error when the position I’ve taken is revealed by the questioner to be unsupported. It’s not psychotherapy, it’s high-pressure sales.”

Dunning described the Milton Model as the low-pressure sales alternative. In this modality, the practitioner is much more casual and likable, but still has the same ends in mind. For instance, he would handle the above scenario with statements like, “You are free to feel any way you like, but do you know why are leaning toward feeling happy,” or “Is there anything that could make you still happier?”

All this might work for sales, business negotiations, or manipulating relationships, but it is certainly not psychotherapy. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry published results of a comprehensive study of NLP and concluded, “These therapies have offered no scientifically valid theories of action, show only non-specific efficacy, and show no evidence that they offer substantive improvements to psychiatric care.”

So if you want to be the next da Vinci, immerse yourself in aerodynamics, anatomy, architecture, astronomy, biology, botany, geology, literature, mathematics, mechanics, medicine, music, painting, paleontology, and sculpting. Or at least read The da Vinci Code. It will cost $100 less than an NLP session and will be more realistic.

 

 

by

“Deep Blue Nothing” (NASA image)

dbn

Two weeks ago, photos from a NASA spacecraft were released on the administration’s website, with a couple of the images appearing to show a huge blue sphere passing in front of the sun.

How this was handled depended on which group one was in. The UFO enthusiasts, Nibiru believers, and New Age conspiracy theorists made impetuous declarations of vindication, which they accused NASA of trying to cover up. Astronomers and skeptics, meanwhile, considered what we know about how these photos are taken and processed, then solicited input from experts. 

Scott Brando at Doubtful News learned that the blue sphere was nothing more captivating that a computer glitch. It turned out that not everything that makes it onto the images are related to the sun. Some quirks are caused by telescope optics, camera characteristics, or spacecraft operation.

NASA further explained: “On rare occasions, the image processor onboard becomes overloaded and produces corrupted images. Generally, these take the form of images from one telescope processed as if they were from another telescope. Because the images from the Heliospheric Imager (HI) telescopes are built up from a large number of exposures added together, this sometimes results in double exposures, where data from several telescopes appear in the same image.” Put most simply, two images from two different cameras can be combined into one.

As this explanation makes clear, these images did not “mystify scientists” as the ironically-titled Sun newspaper claimed. The publication might have known that if it had bothered reaching out to NASA scientists, mystified or otherwise. That’s what astronomer and Slate columnist Phil Plait did, interviewing those involved with the spacecraft and the images it sends back.

As to why the sun appears blue, which is obviously not its true color, there is a simple answer. Because our eyes are unable to see in the ultraviolet, each wavelength is displayed using a different color to help viewers distinguish them. That means the images in question are of an object that has been artificially colored and are not really of a massive, floating azure sphere.

Plait also noted, “Planets are bright and overload the detectors a bit, bleeding light into neighboring pixels. This happens all the time in digital detectors, including spacecraft that observe the sun. UFO hunters and Planet X conspiracy theorists tend to go bananas over such things.”

Leading this Elongated Yellow Fruit charge is Pamela Johnson, a formerly unknown Facebook user whose post on the blue image went viral. Her lone accuracy was noting that “this huge object was captured on NASA’S SECCHI STEREO HI1 satellite on November 17, 2016. Our sun is casting the light that is coming in from the left side of the frame.”

From there, she made a sharp veer into lala land: “I have added a photo that clearly shows NASA has tried and failed to use images of the sun to hide the sphere. NASA tried to cover it up by overlaying images of the sun on top of it.”

As to what specifically NASA was trying to hide, Johnson suggested it might be the latest Gaia Portal, not explaining what that is, why she would know that, or why NASA would want that kept secret. She did let us know, however, that “Astro-glances compel the masses to action. Whatever it is, it wanted to be seen and the Galactics wanted me to see it and make it go viral.” While she did not contact NASA, she did query one source, noting, “I consulted my divining rods.”

As to the more measured response Plait received from NASA, Johnson considers this proof of the cover-up. That leaves unexplained why the administration would try to keep something hidden by means of a taxpayer-funded source that operates under a mandate that images be made available immediately.

Indeed, one YouTube commenter stated that NASA would never carelessly allow this image to reach the public. He asserts it was done on purpose, by means of a hologram, to mess with our minds for unspecified reasons.

According to the imaginative sky gazers at UFO Sightings Hotspot, the object was either “a giant extraterrestrial or interdimensional spacecraft or an unknown celestial body like Nibiru.” If it was the latter, this object precisely as large as the sun managed to keep its gravitational pull in check when it passed by Earth.

While Nirbiru believers, UFO enthusiasts, and New Agers rejected NASA’s explanation, they could get excited about it if they would let themselves. As Plait put it, we have these images because “a space probe launched on a huge rocket that took it around Earth’s orbit to the other side where it uses a complex and sophisticated suite of powerful scientific instruments to track our sun in wavelengths invisible to the human eye so that we can better understand what it’s like to live in the outer atmosphere of a star.”

That makes it fascinating enough and negates any reason to concoct a tale about spacefaring aliens from a secret planet accessing a Gaia Portal.

by

“Exclamation point of view” (Evidence analysis)

asp

Today we will look at two examples from the past week that demonstrate how scientists and pseudoscientists react when presented with information they take issue with.

One example centers on a Snopes item about the possible dangers of glysophate, a common herbicide that is sold by Monsanto as RoundUp. Last week, Snopes author Alex Kasparak addressed a report being circulated by the Food Babe that warned of these dangers. At issue was whether glysophate residue was on food at unsafe levels, and whether this was being suppressed by Monsanto and federal regulators. Kasparak concluded the report was mix of fact and fiction, with the fact portion being based on a study that he cited in his post.

University of Florida horticulturist Kevin Folta contacted Kasparak and informed him that what Kasparak was calling a study was actually an activist flyer. Folta added that he had contrary information to what Snopes had published. Kasparak asked to see it, Folta obliged, and Kasparak changed him mind after seeing the evidence.

This evidence included showing that the numbers the Food Babe cited came from non-peer reviewed laboratory tests that were performed on various food items at the behest of anti-Monsanto activist groups. The lack of peer review was a substantial problem, but that by itself would not be enough to disprove claims such as this one: “The probable harm to human health begins at really low levels of exposure, at only 0.1 ppb of glyphosate. Many foods were found to have over 1,000 times this amount!”

Not many scientific journal articles contain exclamation points, so that was a good indicator of bias and shoddy research. If there are shouts of alarm associated with scientific announcements, they should come from those hearing them, not giving them. If results are announced with accompanying charges a cover-up or an insistence that the scientific establishment is afraid of this, it is a virtual certainty that the speaker is more interested in an agenda than in accuracy.

As to the level of exposure, the Genetic Literacy Project noted: “The statement about 0.1 ppb being the lower limit for harm to human health is deceptive and contradictory. It is deceptive because only one of the studies listed actually tested for an amount that low, and that test was performed on mice, not humans, and it used the word ‘potential’, not ‘probable.’ It is contradictory because, according to the lab they performed their analyses in, 0.1 ppb is well below the detection limit of their equipment of 5 ppb, meaning pretty much anything, even noise, would show dangerous levels of glyphosate by their definition.”

This is the type of information that Folta forwarded to Kasparak, causing him to change his mind and the Snopes piece.  

For her counterpoint, the Food Babe shrieked that this was “proof of Monsanto and its cronies burying the story in order to appease the industry.” Being unable to fault the science or the journalism, she attacked the scientist and the journalist, a textbook ad hominem. And what the Food Babe labeled a conspiracy involving corporations, government agents, and henchmen was merely an exchange between two persons, Folta and Kasparak, who did everything via public Tweets.

The second example of science vs pseudoscience reactions centered on another slandered chemical, aspartame. This artificial sweetener was approved by the FDA in 1981 and was hit almost immediately with charges of being dangerous. What’s more, this hazard was being hushed up by usual corporate and government suspects. At first this demonization was in the form of chain letters and word of mouth. But then aspartame became the target of the first wide-ranging Internet smear campaign in 1996, when the pseudonymous Nancy Markle sent out a much-forwarded missive about its supposed dangers.

Social media has impacted the handling of these rumors in two ways. It has made it much easier to spread misinformation, but also made it much easier to challenge false claims. However, the latter’s impact can be lessened by hitting the delete button, banning the user, and retreating to an echo chamber.

Those making a claim should never worry about it being challenged. If it is correct, it will survive the challenge and if it is wrong, the claimant will be enlightened.

Dr. Steven Novella questioned the conclusions of anti-aspartame activists, writing, “Multiple independent systematic reviews over decades have found no evidence linking aspartame to cancer or any serious illness. Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives that exists. The American Cancer Society, the European Food Safety Authority, and and other independent medical and scientific organizations have all come to the same conclusion.”

In the interest of balance, I present the counterargument of nutritionist Janet Starr Hull: “I will never accept the news of aspartame safety.”

Her personal incredulity is unrelated to the studies’ legitimacy and is a common logical fallacy. She continued, “Can you imagine the chaos that will occur when the truth of aspartame dangers is confirmed? The FDA has known about the dangers, the corporations have known about the dangers, and the medical community has known about the dangers.”

To her, the lack of articles about aspartame danger is proof not of its safety, but of complicit journalists. The long run of studies indicating its innocuous nature is her evidence of scientific corruption. And its FDA approval is proof of the agency’s corroboration with malevolent corporations.

Hull came to this way of thinking when she became convinced that aspartame poisoning was responsible for her having contracted Grave’s Disease. Her website claims that “what works in nature can surely work in man,” never explaining how that would square with box jellyfish venom, mercury poisoning, and tornadoes. The website sells kits for detoxifying and pH balance, two notions that ironically are automatically taken care of by the nature she otherwise praises.

The latest manufactured controversy over aspartame is to claim that it has been given a stealthy name change to AminoSweet in order to keep the public in the dark.

However, AminoSweet is merely a brand name a Japanese company gave to aspartame. The FDA has no authority to regulate brand names and aspartame is still called aspartame. This was no attempt at a cover up any more than it was when other companies called aspartame NutraSweet or Equal. The patent on Aspartame has expired so different companies can manufacture it under whatever brand name they choose. Brand names are used because N-dimethylethylamine hydrochloride won’t fit on a label as easily as Benadryl will.

For a counterpoint on the brand name issue, I again to defer to Hull, who asked her readers, “Are YOU fooled?”

What the other side lacks in research and studies, they make up for in capital letters and exclamation points.

by

“Tasting the fifth” (MSG hysteria)

msgfear

Before GMO was a term or a thing, before gluten was known to anyone besides dieticians, and when “organic” was a word limited to advanced chemistry classes, MSG reigned supreme in the Field of Food Fears.

While it has given way to other unfounded panics, concern over monosodium glutamate still exists and “No MSG” signs are obligatory adornments to Chinese restaurant storefronts.

Meanwhile, umami is afforded grand status and is considered a staple of the culinary in-crowd. Enterprising chefs have built lucrative careers centered on this fifth taste, which is a darling of the Food Network and similar outlets. When an Umami Burger chain opened in New York City, customers waited three hours for a table.

The fifth taste is treated as the culinary equivalent of finding the Fifth Dimension, while MSG gets kicked out like a fifth Beatle. Yet they are chemically related and umami is detected by the receptors that MSG targets. When the three-hour wait was up, customers began chomping on a burger that contained 2,185 milligrams of glutamate.

The tale began in 1908 when scientist Kikunae Ikeda pondered why a certain Japanese vegetarian soup tasted meaty. In his lab, Ikdea isolated the soup’s seaweed, dried it, and noticed that a crystalline form was developing. Tasting the crystals, he found them to be soup’s mystery flavor. Ikeda deduced that the amino acid glutamate was largely responsible for producing this distinctive flavor. He received a patent for MSG and began producing it. He named this taste umami – essentially Japanese for delicious – and salt, sweet, sour, and bitter welcomed a new member to their fraternity.  

A great flavor revolution had begun, but 60 years later, Dr. Ho Man Kwow wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he had experienced numbness, weakness, and heart palpitations whenever he ate at Chinese restaurants. He suggested MSG was to blame. This post hoc reasoning gave way to mass hysteria, and Chinese Restaurant Syndrome was born. Anti-MSG books were published and Chinese restaurants moved to eliminate MSG foods from their establishments.

However, a more measured response took place in the form of double blind scientific studies. And in 1993 a study showed that MSG symptoms occurred at the same rate whether a person was consuming MSG or a placebo. That was followed two years later by a report that concluded MSG is safe when “eaten at customary levels.” Then epidemiologist Matthew Freeman published a review of 40 years of MSG research and concluded that, “Clinical trials have failed to identify a consistent relationship between the consumption of MSG and the constellation of symptoms that comprise the syndrome.”

In fact, the no-MSG trend is a Western idiosyncrasy, so the Chinese would be suffering perpetual fatigue and discomfort if this phenomenon were real. Still, to avoid the MSG label and its unfounded stigma, most persons who target the umami audience will use natural glutamates instead of what Ikeda discovered. But chemically, these are the same.

There is little beyond anecdotes to suggest MSG consumption will result in unpleasant symptoms. These symptoms include headaches and other pedestrian annoyances, but for those who prefer their fears more exaggerated, we have Joseph Mercola, who claims MSG will cause brain damage that leads to ALS, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s.

He bases this on an assertion that MSG is a toxin which instigates a pathological process that damages nerve cells by excessively stimulating neurotransmitters. I could come across no science to support this, a distinction I suspect I share with Mercola.

The blogger Skeptical Raptor noted it’s possible that a microscopic percentage of the population could be at risk of negative reactions owing to the relationship between the glutamate ion and neural transmitters. But even if that were the case, it is supremely unlikely that one could consume enough MSG to cause this.

And even if that could somehow happen, the population as a whole wouldn’t need to avoid MSG any more than everyone should bypass Reese’s Pieces because a few among us have peanut allergies.

 

 

by

“Ego-centric” (Geocentrism)

geo

Of the many anti-science ideas afloat today, perhaps the most egomaniacal is the geocentric one, which requires a belief that the universe literally revolves around you.  

To show this is the incentive for holding such a position, I offer this quote from scipturecatholic.com: “If the earth is indeed the center, then God is trying to tell us that we are special to him. We are unique.”

The website then dismisses contrary evidence with this straw man: “This is why the atheists and agnostics want so badly to disprove geocentrism, because if they can do that, they can argue that there is no God. They want to argue that there is no God because they don’t want to be accountable to him.”

Of course, one could argue that there is no god without bringing up geocentrism, just like one could argue for helicocentrism without asserting it proves there is no god. So without addressing the existence of any deities, we will examine the substantial proof of helicocentrism.

First, the other view. The egotism addressed earlier is, of course, unrelated to whether the sun and its planets orbit Earth, but this position requires suspending what we know about astronomy and physics. Almost all adherents are a subset of Catholics, for whom the Bible and papal dictates are preferable to observation, research, and confirmation. A tiny number of Orthodox Jews and even fewer Muslims also embrace the cause.

I occasionally see digs from fundamentalists that scientists (especially Darwin) are held in such high regard by the pro-science crowd that they are secular saints whose dogma must never be questioned. In truth, Darwin’s ideas have been added to, subtracted from, and refined as more evidence has been gathered since On the  Origin of Species was published. That’s how science works and the development of the heliocentric model is an excellent example of this.

While Ptolemy considered the universe geocentric, he deduced that astronomical bodies were moving, and he came up with the idea of planets being in motion around Earth. In order to account for Mars’ seeming retrograde motion, his model incorporated the Red Planet’s trajectory as having a large circle and a second smaller circle on which it moved.  

About 1,400 years later, Copernicus suggested a heliocentric model where Earth is one of several planets circling about the sun. This accounted for retrograde motion, but was inconsistent with the observed position of the planets. Kepler solved that problem when he hypothesized that planets have an elliptical orbit, and subsequent observations supported this.

The invention of the telescope allowed Galileo to collect strong evidence of helicocentrism, such as noticing that Jovian moons were orbiting Jupiter rather than Earth. Newton further solidified the idea by developing a model for gravity that included planets with elliptical orbits.

This systematic, fact-based approach is far more admirable than the stance of groups such as Catholic Apologists International, whose leader, Robert Sungenis, wrote, “The geocentric cosmological view of the universe is in accordance with the literal, infallible, and inspired Word of God which, according to Pope Leo XIII, is inerrant in all matters.”

A literal reading would also require denying the existence of earthquakes, as Psalm 105:5 reads, “Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.”

I am unconcerned with a man’s faith, but when he tries to cram into the scientific arena, I respond with counterproofs.

Proofs such as Venusian phases. Venus and the sun could not both orbit Earth and move farther away from each other. Yet Venus appears lighter or darker (and larger or smaller) depending on its phase. In the heliocentric model Venus is largest when it’s closest to Earth and smallest when it’s on the other side of the Sun, and this is consistent with what astronomers observe.  

Let’s continue the stroll through our galactic neighborhood and hit Neptune. If all astronomical bodies were rotating around Earth, then everything more than 2.5 billion miles away would need to exceed warp speed to complete its orbit within 24 hours. The fact that the eighth planet is unable to do so is a fatal blow to geocentrism. Meanwhile, Jupiter and Saturn would need to approach the speed of light to complete a daily orbit, meaning they would be demonstrating relativistic length contraction. Their observed shape would resemble the side of a quarter rather than the coin when looking at George Washington’s profile.

Then there is the Coriolis Effect, which affects satellites, missiles, and long range artillery shells. When the Germans attacked Paris from 75 miles away in World War I, they took the Coriolis Effect into account. This effect exists only because we are on a rotating planet. Someone looking at Earth from space would see objects tending to move in straight lines but being pulled into curving paths by Earth’s gravity.

Also, If Earth moves, the stars should appear to shift in position. A man identified online only as Mr. Emmanuel earned my great sympathy by debating Sungenis, and told him, “Just as a person walking into the rain sees raindrops hitting at a slant, moving with respect to starlight causes the starlight to appear to come at an angle to its true path. If light starts from 300,000 kilometers away, it will take one second to reach Earth. In one second, Earth moves 30 kilometers in its orbit. So the starlight will hit 30 kilometers from its original aiming point.” In what passed for Sungenis’ retort, he chirped, “You’re just parroting someone else without understanding what is being said.” Even if it was parroted and not understood, that wouldn’t impact it being true.

Emmanuel also noted that geocentrism violates the laws of physics. There are no known cases of massive objects circling around lighter ones. The conservation of momentum requires that when one object circles another, the center of mass of that system must remain fixed. When one object is much larger than the other, like the earth and moon or the sun and earth, the center of mass is within the larger object.

It won’t take long to present the other side because there really isn’t one. Unlike Youth Earth Creationists, Flat Earthers, and moon landing deniers, geocentrists seldom mess with sprinkling in a calculus term or attempting to confuse visitors with winding essays. They mostly limits themselves to quoting Bible verses and attacking nonbelievers. For instance, the Kolbe Center’s main plank is that helicocentrism is a moral failing. It never explains why, and even if Earth whirling around its star were somehow ethically bankrupt, that would have no bearing on whether it’s happening.

Similarly, fixedearth.com’s contributions to astronomy are summed up in this unsubstantiated assertion/ad hominem: “Earth is not rotating nor is it going around the sun. The universe is not one ten-trillionth the size we are told. The Bible teaches that Earth is stationary and immovable at the center of a small universe, with the sun, moon, and stars going around it every day. Today’s cosmology fulfills an anti-Bible religious plan disguised as science.”

It also claims that true science supports biblical teaching. So if something seems to support the Bible, they consider it science, neatly completing this affirming the consequent fallacy. Fixedearth.com also throws in doses of anti-Semitism and manages to blame evolution for obesity, UFOs, and Madonna.

There are many more examples but they’re all the same. Sungenis will infrequently throw some mathematics into his argument, but mostly answers science with scripture, a personal attack, or both. When Emmanuel outlined arguments such as those addressed here, and cited astronomers as his sources, Sungeies, responded with, “It’s amazing to me how you can follow these atheists. If I were you, I would take a good hard look into my soul and find out where my allegiances really are.”

Like our planet does to the sun, geocentrists keep going round and round.

by

“Mind over blather” (Anti-psychiatry movement)

rnuts

Two centuries ago, caged and chained mentally ill patients were on display for the amusement of customers. If the interned weren’t acting sufficiently insane, guests could purchase sticks and stones to prod them to do so.

While Sigmund Freud helped make psychiatry less susceptible to human rights violations, his teachings have been almost completely repudiated. And not that many generations ago, the field was known for lobotomies and electric shock therapy.

More recently, psychiatrists helped implant false memories of child sexual abuse into patients, resulting in the destruction of families and daycare workers. Other psychiatrists played key roles in the Satanic Panic, facilitated communication, and in prompting fragile patients to relive alien abductions.

But dismissing psychiatry because of its checkered past would be like criticizing  allopathy because physicians once embraced trepanation and leeches. And writing off all psychiatry because of a few morally flawed practitioners would be like embracing anarchy because of the Kim Jong-un’s antics. Yet anti-psychiatry activists exist and they make regular use of the guilt by association and composition fallacies. We will look at some of these criticisms, including the most extreme view, that mental illness is nonexistent.

As an organ, the brain is subject to ill health, just like the liver may succumb to cirrhosis and the skin may break out with eczema. However, most mental illnesses cannot be detected with an X-ray, urinalysis, or blood draw. Animal testing is of no value because there are no bipolar gerbils. All this makes it easier for some to act as though mental illness doesn’t exist. But as Dr. Steven Novella has noted, “Brain disorders are different than other organ systems, in that function relies upon more than just the biological health of the cells and tissue. There can potentially be a brain disorder…with healthy brain cells that happen to be connected in a dysfunctional pattern.” 

Some critics will point to the number of mass shooters who were allegedly on psychotic medication, deducing that the pills drove them toward this behavior. However, the actual correlation here is that the perpetrators were on the medication so that it might stem their violent tendencies. The more jaded might point out that this means the treatment didn’t work. But there’s no way to know if the shooter stuck with the prescription, nor can we even know how many persons never commit such an act because of an effective medication regimen.

There are also claims that we are overmedicating children, transforming them into dazed drug addicts. This may be included with statistics showing how many more children are medicated than 100 years ago. But this is a result of recognizing mental illness and knowing how to treat it. As noted earlier, there have always been metal illnesses, but patients in the past were likely to be “treated” with imprisonment and other abuses.

Most in the anti-psychiatry movement are from the alternative medicine and conspiracy theory communities, though it does contain a religious element. The most zealous and active are from the Church of Scientology, who have declared war on the entire psychiatric field.

Steven Anderson, who with the death of Fred Phelps assumed the mantle of the country’s most unhinged preacher, insists all mental illnesses are the result of demons or spiritual apathy and can be solved by immersion in the holy spirit. A secular equivalent is the meme which asserts that the likes of schizophrenia can be combated with a stroll in the woods.

These ideas are dangerously wrong. Dr. Harriett Hall wrote, “It’s rejecting reality to think that mental illness doesn’t exist. Something is clearly wrong with an individual who is too depressed to get out of bed or eat, who is afraid to leave the house, or who believes he is Jesus Christ. These symptoms interfere with life and are usually distressing to the patient.”

For those who loathe mainstream medicine, the hatred increases in inverse proportion to the urgency. The more immediate the danger, the more likely they are to reluctantly accept the treatment. When naturopaths in Germany were sickened at a seminar, they were unable to heal themselves, instead relying on ambulatory personnel. If Mike Adams was shot in the stomach, even he would be likely to seek an ER surgeon as opposed to the healing ginger sprinkles he sells.

The one exception seems to be cancer, as chemotherapy is sometimes passed over for overdoses of lemon water and zucchini bread. But mostly the rejection of modern medicine increases as the immediacy of the danger decreases. As such, mental illness treatments are among the most frequently rejected among the alt-med crowd.

This is most common with ADHD. Last year, conservative Christian blogger Matt Walsh went so far as to write that it doesn’t exist. This prompted an erudite response from Novella. He noted that Walsh used “disease” and “disorder” interchangeably and without defining either.

“The distinction is important, because it relates to how medicine defines diagnostic entities,” Novella wrote. “ADHD is certainly not a disease, which are entities that involve a discrete pathophysiological condition. In medicine, however, there are also clinical syndromes, disorders, and categories of disorders. ADHD is a disorder of executive function, which is what enables us to pay attention and to plan and inhibit behaviors.”

Walsh asserts that those diagnosed with ADHD merely have normal or perhaps above average instances of wandering thoughts. He next claims that since there is no clear division between how much mind-drifting is too much, ADHD is make believe. This is the false continuum fallacy, where one denies the existence of extreme ends of a spectrum because there is no sharp dividing line.

It would be like arguing that there are no eyesight deficiencies because a patient with 20/21 vision and another with 20/400 would both be considered substandard. Or, as Novella noted, it would be like declaring 159/89 to be optimal blood pressure since 160/90 is the cutoff for being unsafe.

A logical cutoff for these and similar conditions would be the point where, for most people, routine activities would be negatively impacted. Granted, there are multiple subjective notions in that definition, but addressing them in this way is of more benefit that denying their existence.

There are mental illnesses and telling someone to get rid of their clinical depression is like telling them to stop having influenza. Some mental illnesses can be treated more effectively than others and not everyone responds the same to medication. But dehumanizing the mentally ill by saying they don’t exist and belittling their conditions by saying they can be cured by the laying on of hands or a day at the lake is shameful and harmful. It drives mental illness further underground and strengthens a stigma that should not exist any more than there should be a stigma attached to any other biological malfunction.

 

 

 

by

“Coyne toss” (Race realism)

Color by Number Printables
Because skeptics are a homogeneous bunch in terms of beliefs, I set out a few months ago to determine if there were any exceptions to this. I poured over the Venn Diagram of Irrational Nonsense, the Skeptic’s Dictionary, and similar sources to see if there was any topic where there was disagreement, not with one aspect of a subject, but with the subject in general.
 
I largely came up empty, but there was one area where I found one skeptic and two others who likely identify as such who disagree with every other skeptic I am familiar with. The topic was whether race is a biologic or social construct, with most skeptics saying the latter. The three outliers were former James Randi Educational Foundation president D.J.Grothe, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne. I dealt with Grothe’s objections in an earlier post and may look into Dawkins’ views later, but want today to consider Dr. Coyne.
 
He taught evolutionary science at the University of Chicago, so it would be hard to imagine a more learned source on such matters. But if he has evidence to support his assertion that race is biological, he has thus far been disinclined to air it.
 
In a column last week, he related how he was filling out a form that instructed him to list whether he was black, Pacific Islander, white, Hispanic, etc., and that the form noted, “These categories are taken to be social constructs only, and are not biological.” Coyne then asserted, “That statement is palpably false. When people say ‘Race is a social construct,’ they’re simply wrong.”
 
I presumed he was then going to delve into points that supported this position.
Instead, he wrote, “The designation of a finite number of easily-distinguished human groups is a futile exercise, because we have differentiation within differentiation, making the whole exercise purely subjective.”
 
Saying that he cannot identify the races and describing the undertaking as subjective seems to undercut his assertion that race is a biologically valid distinction. The closest he comes to making his point is when he writes, “The human species isn’t divided into a finite number of well-differentiated genetic groups, but groups can still be distinguished by combining information from different genes, and those groups tend to be those that evolved in geographic isolation.”
 
This is true with regard to some external features, but not with unseen clines. Normally I would assume Coyne was simply confusing genetics with race. But it seems unlikely that someone with his credentials would be unaware of the difference, so I’m unsure what he’s getting at. I’m left mostly to guess because after Coyne flatly declared twice that race was real, he then somewhat backtracked, and finally meandered into why people might think race was a social construct.
His primary supposition was that left-wing ideology was the culprit, that any attempt to assign traits by skin color would be anathema to liberals. Of course, whether liberals feel this way and what their motivation is for doing so is unrelated to the central question as to whether race is biological. 
Coyne seems to be tilting at a straw man. There are genetic differences in all of us and there may, in general, be traits that are more frequent in certain ethnic groups or areas. But the social construction of race can be seen in the word’s fluid definition.
 
Consider the U.S. Census categories, which includes “American Indian or Alaska Native.” There is no logical reason for a person with Inuit ancestry to be in the same category as another of Seminole lineage. But they both reside in this category constructed by a U.S. bureaucrat, and this pigeonholing also includes someone from El Salvador.
 

No one from Southwest Asia is considered Asian by the Census. I’m not saying they should or shouldn’t be, I’m saying there’s no biological reason for these types of distinctions. Nothing we have learned from the Human Genome Project would justify Cambodians and Japanese being assigned the same category. Ethnic Baluchis are classified as either Asian or Caucasian, depending on which side of the Iranian/Pakistani border they were born on. Jews, Irish, Spaniards, and Italians have all been labeled white or not white depending on who was deciding and when. Hard core racists bicker among themselves as to whether Finns can claim the exalted status reserved for pale faces. Similarly, Antebellum Southerners used the one-drop rule to declare that any person who had even one dark-skinned ancestor, no matter how far back, was potentially subject to the Fugitive Slave Law.  These categorizations of peoples into neat tidy groups based on ever changing criteria is the definition of social construct. While populations have allele frequencies and phenotypic traits, it is society that decides which of these are relevant for racial classification.

 
One group that wholeheartedly believes in the biological reality of race are the aforementioned  debaters of the Finnish question. A recent trend among this group is to have themselves genetically tested to show how white they are. They have been mostly using 23andMe. The company is less than thrilled with this association, and it stresses that the Swastika-tatted slackjaws are misreading the data they are sent.
 
The company’s testing assigns a percentage of regional origin based on the subject’s genome, such as sub-Saharan African, South American, or European. But those ancestral roots don’t correspond directly to race. In fact, 23andMe says it does not report any race-related information. If a racist gets his report back and he is 99.7 percent European, he assumes this to mean 99.7 percent white.
 

Meanwhile, those that get, say, only 80 percent white, are handling this in one of two ways. Some explain away their insufficient Caucasian majesty by saying savage dark-skinned beasts had raped their pure white ancestors. Inverting the color of the rapist and victim is never considered, even though a white master raping his black slave is a more likely scenario to explain this unexpectedly diverse lineage.

Meanwhile, other commenters claim 23andMe is falsifying data. They are doing so in an attempt to convince persons of their mixed lineage, hoping to get them to question their racist beliefs. If so, that strategy is failing. None of the racists have responded, “Oh, I guess I was wrong about all this. Let’s celebrate my new enlightenment at the Hispanic Heritage Festival.”
 
 
 
 
by

“Do you want lies with that?” (Fast food hysteria)

ronald2

McDonald’s is not my first culinary choice, nor even my 11th. But my home decision-making is limited to when schoolwork is done and when bedrooms are cleaned, so my five children see to it that we end up at the Golden Arches once or twice a month.

There, many dangers await, according to an assortment of gruesome graphics and frightful photos. We’ll look today at the stated dangers of a standard meal of a Big Mac, fries, and Coke. First, though, a couple of more items that appear in announcements featuring capital letters, multiple exclamation points, and exhortations to arise from slumber.

One video shows a McDonald’s cheeseburger being dipped in acid. The commentator notes that four hours later, it is merely darkened, not broken down, and invites viewers to imagine this black blob festering inside of them. However, the acid has no digestive properties, nor is it in someone’s stomach working with other organs to break the food down and dispense it through the body for nutritional benefit. The experiment is pointless from a scientific standpoint, but does meet its fearmongering intent.

Another video is of a hamburger that is said to be from two to 14 years old, yet neither this former cow nor the bun that houses it has begun to rot. There is no way to verify the hamburger’s age, but the claim could be true, and it has nothing to do with a plot between evil corporations, mad scientists, and Grimace. It has everything to do with storage. Lacking sufficient moisture in the food or surroundings, bacteria and mold will not grow and decomposition will not occur. A hamburger’s size and shape allow it to repel moisture quickly, which makes decomposition even less likely. And that’s true whether it’s a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, a Jumbo Jack, or Amy’s California Veggie Burger.

Now onto the main course. A trio of viral graphics purports to establish that a Big Mac, Coke, and fries make for a most malevolent meal. We already know what happens to someone when they consume tens of thousands of Big Macs and Cokes. They make a couple of documentary cameos, get a book published, and become a slice of Americana and a borderline D List celebrity.

But the focus here is one serving of each, so let’s start with the sandwich and its distinctive two lower buns. The first point in the graphic is that the Big Mac hooks us because of how our ancestors adapted. It reads, “Our brains evolved during a time when food was scarce, so we became adept at choosing high-calorie foods.” This is meant to suggest that our Neolithic grandpappies needed high-calorie meals to survive because their brains were developing, but that we no longer need this and yet continue to crave it. Combined with our hunting-gathering now being limited to us foraging in the vicinity of the deep freeze, our bodies are paying a (literally) heavy price. But this point has the connection between high-calorie food and brain development backwards. It’s not that our brains evolved and grew, necessitating that we eat high calorie foods to compensate. Rather, we developed our cognitive function from scarfing food that was high in fat and protein, causing our brains to grow and develop.

Whatever the evolutionary impact of Big Mac consumption, the graphic next warns us that it will “trigger your brain’s reward system by releasing a surge of feel-good chemicals such as dopamine, which induce feelings of pleasure.” This is accurate, but is a half-truth without context. Anytime pleasure is received, dopamine is released. So if one enjoys Big Macs, here comes the neurotransmitter rush. This goes for any food, as well as roller coasters, poker, and listening to Beethoven, if one enjoys those pursuits.

The second half of this point reads, “This process works in a similar way to cocaine and contributes to the likelihood of compulsive eating.” This is at once the guilt-by-association and composition fallacies. For any neophyte critical thinkers out there, first, welcome to my blog. Second, a composition fallacy is when someone takes two items that maybe have something in common and asserts this means they are alike in totality. But while Big Macs and cocaine are both ingested and may enhance released dopamine, the similarities end there. No one goes into beef withdrawal, the special sauce doesn’t tear families apart, and no mother has ever given birth to a pickle-addicted baby.

A third claim warns of excessive amounts of high fructose corn syrup and sodium. Yet there are just seven grams of the former, compared to the 30 grams in fat-free yogurt. The sodium is a little high, but at just over 40 percent of the recommended daily limit, is not a dangerous amount. The graph further claims this could lead to dehydration, yet sports drinks contain sodium precisely because of the role it plays in replacing electrolytes lost through perspiration.

Next is an assertion that the Big Mac takes 51 days to digest. This is off by 50, by which I don’t mean that it takes 101 days. The graph offers no source for this and it has now gone from half-truths to zero-truths.

It then veers back to half-truths by accurately listing what is in the two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun. But it never bothers to explain the relevance and this is meant only to appeal to chemophobia. This is accomplished by  referencing ammonium sulfate, azodicarbonamide, and many other polysyllabic offerings. One could do this with almost any item, including human blood, green tea, and bananas.

Enough about the sandwich, on to what we are going to wash it down with. A second viral graphic makes some astonishing claims about what happens when one drinks a Coke. First up is the assertion that the 10 teaspoons of sugar in a serving would make the consumer vomit if it weren’t for phosphoric acid that makes it less sweet. But BuzzFeed quoted Dr. Kimber Stanhope, a nutritional biologist, as saying, “This is not true. We have studied hundreds of participants in our studies who consumed beverages that contained more than 10 teaspoons of sugar, but no phosphoric acid. No one ever vomited due to the sweetness, and I don’t remember any of them ever reporting that they felt nauseated due to the sweetness.”

The graph also attempts the dopamine/drug gambit: “Your body ups your dopamine production by stimulating the pleasure centers of your brain. This is physically the same way heroin works.” The composition fallacy was addressed earlier, so here I just want to focus on the problem with cherry picking. A dopamine deficiency could lead to Parkinson’s, so taking this one isolated fact, a person could claim this shows that chugging away on Coke while shooting up heroin would be a beneficial for avoiding nervous system disorders.

Yet another tale of lurid lunches and diabolic dinners centers on McDonald’s French fries. The associated graph purports to show the difference between what we in the U.S. consume, compared to our northerly neighbors. Our fries are supposedly crammed with 17 dangerous Frankenstein concoctions, while the fortunate Canadians are worry-free.

Again, the chemophobia is almost as heavy as the ketchup I prefer on my fried potatoes. A long series of chemicals are listed without explaining what it means or why it should matter. And the truth is, dimethylpolysiloxane is there to reduce foaming and oil splattering, while sodium acid pyrophosphate is added to prevent the fries from turning gray. These agents and the rest play an important role and are all safe. Another key point is that toxicity and danger are determined by dose, not chemical or element.

When I pointed all this out to the Friend who posted the graphic, he lamented, “Why can’t we just have fries, salt, and ketchup?” Yet those could be made to sound scary if one doesn’t know better. Salt is a fusion of sodium and chloride, which are potentially dangerous on their own. Sodium will even explode under the right conditions. Ketchup has monosodium glutamate in it and potatoes contain chlorogenic acid. When I typed that last one, it gave me a squiggly line underneath. They don’t even know what it is and they are feeding it to our children!

When Mike Barrett at naturalsociety.com, writes, “McDonald’s fries contain a petrol-based chemical called tertiary butylhydroquinone,” he is either being ignorant or a fear monger. This ingredient serves as a food preservative and Barrett’s point is no more valid than him questioning the efficiency of Exxon’s gasoline because it has a common ingredient with a tasty side order.  

Barrett next asks, “Did you know that McDonald’s French fries contain a form of silicone found in Silly Putty?” I did not, though I was aware that the same element or chemical can be used safely in multiple products, as what it’s combined with will change its properties.

With a wealth of scientific information readily available, there is no excuse for spreading fear over facts. Had Barrett conducted a Google search, he would have found websites like chem4kids.com, where concepts like chemical reactions are explained in deliberately simple terms. I will make a point to introduce my children to that site the next time we access McDonald’s WiFi.

 

 

by

“Lamp shady” (Himalayan salt crystal lamps)

angrylamp

Himalayan salt crystal lamps are made from material mined in Pakistan, which lies outside the Himalayas.  “Himalayan” is probably used to appeal to those captivated by eastern mysticism or New Age thought. But Panama hats are made in Ecuador and Canadian Bacon is of British origin, and I have no issue with those products. With the lamps, my concern is again not with the region, but with the alleged benefit.

The primary claim is that they purify the air, though depending on how many unicorns and wizards are in the storefront you’re buying them from, additional boasts may include the ability to increase chi, produce positive energy, realign chakras, boost immune systems, and my favorite, eliminate electro-smog.

All this is allegedly accomplished by releasing negative ions. But how they are released and the mechanism of how the ions purify the air or retool auras is never explained. In truth, there is no scientific support for the powers attributed to salt crystal lamps.  Electric lights don’t get near hot enough to break apart the ionic bond between sodium and chlorine. That’s probably a good thing since it would open the possibility of kitchen lights causing salt shakers to release chlorine gas. I for one prefer my French fries without World War I overtones.    

The only way to get the salt crystal lamps to release negative ions would be to destroy them by boiling, which would emit sodium and chlorine ions. So unless one plans on keeping an armada of salt lamps on hand for a daily boil, they are not an effective means of unleashing negative ions. It is noteworthy that the lamp’s size remains constant. Lamps are wont to do that, of course, but ones that are releasing ions would be shrinking over time. 

These lamps are merely a hollowed salt crystal with a light bulb inside.  Without a steady supply of electrons from a source, there’s no way for them to be releasing negative ions. If they did, they would be giving themselves a positive charge that would attract negative ions, rendering the whole process pointless. It would be like comedian Steven Wright’s stated desire to place a humidifier and dehumidifier in the same room and let them fight it out.

There is a separate question about the impact of releasing negative ions. The idea that it proffers a multitude of health benefits is mostly without merit, though there are some double blind studies that suggest being bombarded with negative ions can positively impact Seasonal Affective Disorder. But this is a negative ion overload for persons with a specific condition, not the release of a spattering of negative ions for the general population to fend off any malady. I don’t want to go traipse down this road any further since it doesn’t matter because lamps aren’t releasing ions anyway.  

They look pleasant enough and there’s nothing wrong with buying one.  Just don’t expect any benefit beyond increased visibility when looking for your Panama hat.