Pseudoscience

by

“Warped speed” (Tachyons)

tachyon4

Tachyons are theoretical particles that move faster than warp speed, have negative mass, and travel backwards in time. They would be unknown outside the world of advanced theoretical physics were it not for being occasionally referenced on shows like Star Trek Voyager.

There is no evidence for tachyons, they have no known use even if they exist, and there is no method of capturing them even if they exist and have a use. Nevertheless, several websites purporting to harness tachyon power sell products such as beads, belts, blankets, lotions, oils, pillows, sweatbands, tablets, wafers, and wraps. Pretty much everything except the kitchen sink, although I suppose if you cleaned yours often enough with tachyon water, you’d have that, too.

The Carbondale Center for Macrobiotic Studies reports that, “The Tachyon Field supplies the energy needs of all living organisms until balance is achieved. Whenever depletion occurs, tachyons rush in until balance happens again.” And the company will sell you this product, which everyone has a naturally recurring, inexhaustible supply of.

It further states, “The nervous system and brain are a sophisticated antenna and receiver that absorb, process, and transform resources of the Tachyon Field.” These sophisticated antennas apparently work best in conjunction with the company’s $75 shoe inserts. Tachyon products are also sold for dogs and cats, with nary a canine or feline consumer complaint yet.

The Advanced Tachyon Technologies website suggests Nikola Tesla tapped into tachyon energy when he tried developing an alternative to AC generators. He didn’t finish, but, no worries, the work of a pioneering engineer genius will be completed by an untested theory using a tachyon doo-rag.

Yet another site claims to have developed a tachyonization process, although the inventor has yet to apply for a patent. He explains that unsavory lawyers would file baseless patent infringement suits, and the costs associated with defending himself would deprive consumers of $50-a-bottle consciousness-raising pills. It also sells Tachyonized Water, which some New Age gurus think has flowed from the Fountain of  Youth. If they’re reading this 200 years from now, they were right.

Going deeper into the site, we learn that “Most people exist in a fragmented, horizontal energy system. Becoming vertical in our energy flow is a way of accelerating our shift in consciousness.” When I want to leave my fragmented, horizontal state and access increased consciousness, I get out of bed. Another suggestion is, “To gain extra energy, regenerate connective tissue, and clear the mind, we recommend tapping the Subtle Organizing Energy Field, or SOEF.” Furniture to the rescue again, as when I want these benefits, I access the SOFA.

The company also makes clear that their internal products work from the inside out. That would seem obvious, but I guess in the time-traveling, negative-mass, beyond-light-speed world of tachyons, one should never assume anything.

Heralding another product, the site announces, “This is a catalyst or energy source for the evolution of self-organizing systems to greater and greater states of order. They protect from electromagnetic dangers by energizing subtle organizing energy fields. It has a variety of special applications and offers deep, lasting rejuvenation. It contains botanical component extracted from the aqueous solution of rare algae. It stimulates the metabolic actions of the body so that the body can fight illness and or disease.” This product cures every ailment except muddled writing.

At one point, the site stresses the importance of “interacting with the lepton family, beginning with a pion.” Now, a pion is not a lepton, but a meson. Maybe they just let their secret slip, and the key to harnessing tachyons is converting a pion into lepton form. If you don’t know how to do that, you can still be part of this. Because while these sites misuse medical, scientific, and mathematical vernacular, the one term they use correctly is multi-marketing.

by

“On the Origin of Specious” (Creationism)

chimpgod
Creation Ministries International runs a “Question Evolution!” campaign. Presumably the “Question Gravity!” campaign will follow. I have no doubts about evolution’s legitimacy, although I wonder about its efficacy when members of its most advanced species are joining Creation Ministries International.

There have been a couple of bizarre, albeit tasty, attempts to disprove evolution through bananas or jars of peanut butter. The answers to those challenges might be worth a quick Google search, but we won’t be addressing those here. Instead, we will start by touching on a few ideas that are still put out by neophyte Young Earth Creationists, then work our way to, how shall we say, more evolved ideas. Young Earth Creationists, by the way, are those who maintain God created animals in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. The term does not refer to those who believe in a creator who oversees evolution, and who accept the scientific evidence for the age of the universe.

Sometimes the existence of gorillas or similar apes is presented as evidence against evolution. The thinking, if you can call it that, is if these animals evolved into humans, they would no longer be around. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept, which posits that man and apes have a common ancestor. The evidence of a common ancestor is shown by the similarity of our bone and muscle structure to that of the chimpanzee and other apes. The farther back the common ancestor, the fewer shared traits there are.

Another tactic is to claim evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But this Law applies only to closed, isolated system. Since Earth receives continual energy from the sun, it is an open system.

A third point is that there are animals which have changed little in millions of years. But environment drives the change, or lack thereof. Creatures like sharks or the coelacanth have evolved adequately for their mostly static surroundings.

A relatively recent attack on evolution centers on the idea of irreducible complexity. This argues a system is irreducibly complex if its function is lost when a part is removed, and claims that evolution could not work this way. But evolution involves more than adding parts. It also involves changing or removing parts. An irreducibly complex system can evolve from a precursor by adding a part and making it necessary. This has been demonstrated in the attempt to combat Pentachlorophenol, a toxic chemical.

A few soil bacteria devised a method to destroy Pentachlorophenol, and they did it in an irreducibly complex way. The bacteria use three enzymes in succession to break down the toxic chemical. The first enzyme replaces one chlorine with OH. The resulting compound is toxic, but not as much as the original. The second enzyme acts on this compound to replace two chlorines with hydrogen. The resulting compound is much easier to handle, allowing the third enzyme to break open Pentachlorophenol. By now, what had been a toxic chemical is food for the bacterium. All three enzymes are required, so we have irreducible complexity, arrived at through evolution.

Another frequent Young Earth Creationist line is that evolution has never been observed. Yet it is on display every day at Michigan State University, where Richard Lenski continues his ongoing e. coli long-term evolution experiment. Since 1988, he has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical groups. The population has now topped 60,000, and Lenski has observed many genetic changes along the way.

Natural selection leading to evolution can also be shown in a Petri dish of bacteria. When an antibiotic is introduced, most of the bacteria dies, but a few are immune. The subsequent generation will inherit that immunity from the survivors.

Most Young Earth Creationists begrudgingly concede this point. They allow that these changes take place on what they call the microevolution scale. They are OK with a butterfly’s wings becoming more efficient, but deny that whales developed in a series of changes that included Pakicetus evolving into Ambulocetus. Microevolution and macroevolution are terms used almost exclusively by Young Earth Creationists, and are intended to create a false chasm between the two. Macroevolution is nothing more than a series of microevolutions.

For many decades, Young Earth Creationists claimed there were no transitional fossils, even though were many, with Lucy and Archaeopteryx the most prominent. A biologist would announce a new fossil, and present this find as being a link from an earlier animal to a later one. Young Earth Creationists would insist the fossil was merely a microevolved example of the earlier animal, or a not-quite-as-microevolved example of the later creature. So whenever biologists presented a transitional fossil, creationists would insist this was instead two more gaps to fill in. They could keep up this charade indefinitely. Or so they thought.

Then Tiktaalik came along. This is probably the biggest find in evolution history. Tiktaalik has features of both the fish it swam with and the four-legged tetrapods that came along 12 million years later. It has fins, scales, and gills like fish. It also has a flat head and body, and eyes on the top of its skull, like a crocodile. Unlike fish, it has a functional neck, and it has ribs resembling those of early tetrapods. These ribs helped support Tiktaalik and allowed it live and breathe out of water.

In what seemed more like a skeptic’s satire than a serious position, some Young Earth Creationists argued Tiktaalik was a crocodile that ate a fish. Others opined it proved creation. You see, since there was no other creature like it, God made it special. Young Earth Creationists, it seems, have an unmatched ability to adapt to their environment.

by

“Feng no way” (Feng shui)

fenghooey

Feng shui has traditionally been a Chinese philosophy centered on harmonizing people with their environment. In the modern West, its primary manifestation is as overpriced redecorating. Its literal meaning is “wind water,” while a looser translation is, “You paid HOW much?”

Feng shui purports to be a type of architecture that uses invisible binding forces. It works, provided that metaphor is coupled with lumber and nails. One advertisement boasts, “Get your life moving by using the energy of specific feng shui colors in order to achieve the desired results. Color is very powerful, as it is an expression of light, and many homes and offices are starved for light. So bring on vibrant light energy with beautiful feng shui colors.”

This ad says nothing more than light and color can brighten a room, and this is the advice some people pay thousands of dollars for. Most persons selling feng shui wave one of the most common pseudoscience red flags, the appeal to irrelevant authority, in this case the ancient Chinese. Another frequent tactic, seen here, is including an isthmus of science in a mainland of gobbledygook, since color derives from the light spectrum. And no new age claim would be complete without a poorly-defined reference to energy.

There is no way to disprove most feng shui claims since they cannot be tested. There has been one notable exception. One feng shui customer followed the be-kind-to-nature suggestion to plant lucky bamboo in his yard. In so doing, he introduced into the ecosystem a plant it couldn’t handle.

In ancient Southeast Asia, temples, castles, and cities were built with the main entrance oriented to the south, since feng shui taught this to be the most fortunate side. There are few castles to orient in California, but there are plenty of folks with expendable income who orient it toward feng shui practitioners. These persons will rearrange living room, dining room, and bedroom sets for $3,000, which would be a fair price if the sets were included.

In the spirit of Do It Yourself home repair, I settled for snagging a promotional brochure and tackling feng shui on my own. Words from the brouchure are in italics.

From the outside, a good feng shui house has no Sha Chi energy attacking it, nor any Si Chi low energy sapping it. The only thing I saw outside were two rabbits, so I’m not too worried about this one. Besides, if there’s any Sha Chi or Si Chi energy there, they can fight it out.

Any big trees in the front yard could be blocking chi. So to live in harmony with nature, chop down that mature oak.

Keep all pathways, doors, and windows clear of debris. This is promoting the free movement of Chi, previously known as identifying fire hazards.

It is important to create a welcoming, strengthening channel of good energy. What is the first thing you see as your enter your house? The feng shui brochure I tossed in the trash. Where does your attention go right away? To my wife telling me I forgot to take out the trash.

Maybe your front door is aligned to the back door, so that most good energy enters the house, then escapes easily. Until now, I thought they were telling me the constant stream of chi was a good thing. But I guess it’s supposed to be trapped, which means never opening a door or window. Sounds like they should tap into the agoraphobe market.

Everything is in constant flow and change. Even after we create a strong feng shui foundation in your house, the work continues. So every time you screw up, I pay to bring you back.

by

“A sticky situation” (Dowsing)

dowsingpic

Dowsing has traditionally been a method of using a rod or stick to try and locate underground substances, usually water. It is based on no known science or law of nature.

Practitioners most commonly operate in an open field with a wishbone-shaped stick. At some point, the object will begin to shiver and point downward. There can be rare instances where this is caused by an electromagnetic force, but is almost always the result of the ideomotor response. This is involuntary movement caused by thoughts rather than sensory stimulation, and the dowser is unknowingly moving the stick. The experience can be profound since an outside force seems to be acting on the object.

Belief in dowsing requires post hoc reasoning, the notion that because one event happens after another, the two are necessarily related. The stick shakes, water is found, therefore it works. Dowsers can relate their experiences to fellow practitioners, stoking the confirmation bias. But tests, not testimonies, are what constitute proof.

The first recorded experiment was in 1641, with poor results for the dowsing camp. Over three centuries later, the American Society for Psychical Research tested 27 dowsers, all of whom failed miserably. By contrast, a geologist and engineer team went 16-for-16 in the same field. Other tests have been done by Nature and the Skeptical Inquirer, with participants never performing better than chance.

In a challenge posed by James Randi, three dowsers attempted to find water in underground pipes. Any tester achieving an 80 percent success rate would be given $10,000. All failed. With the prize now at $1 million, and with so many persons convinced they have the ability, dowsers are the most frequent claimants to the James Randi Challenge. None has won the money, and Randi reports reasons given for the failures have included too much noise, too much silence, the wrong temperature, high humidity, planet misalignment, and an upset stomach.

As the engineer and geologist example from 1949 shows, there would be little need for dowsing even if it worked. So the artificial art has entered the modern era and its purported abilities amplified. Digital dowsers now offer rods with ergonomic plastic handles, notional electronic circuitry, and a scientific look and name.

One was the DKL Remote Heartbeat Detector. Its manufacturer claimed it could pick up a person’s pulse from 500 yards away in the open, or through several yards of thick concrete and rubble. It was marketed as a way to find missing children or victims of collapsed buildings. The device was a fraud, but even if worked, it would have failed since it would have picked up the heartbeat of the operator instead.

Before being shut down by the FBI, the Qaudrop Corporation sold its QRS 250G Detector to police departments and schools. The company claimed the device could find drugs, weapons, or whatever else the customer wanted it to, including oil, minerals, and golf balls. When scientists at the Southwest Research Institute got their hands on one, they found its insides to be just epoxy and dead ants.

For those both gullible and greedy, we have the Treasure King System 2000. The company hails it as “An operator body response long range locating and tracking instrument.” With that description, there’s no telling what it’s supposed to do or if it’s working. But as an additional cover, the company cautions if no treasure is found, the user lacks conductive abilities. So, if it works, we did it. If it fails, you did it.

Then we have the GT200, which Mexican defense officials used to root out drug traffickers. The device was a mix of ersatz electronics, the ideomotor response, and the operator’s conscious movements. On a highway outside Monterrey in 2009, the device “pointed” to a car, and Soldiers swarmed. In this case, the device worked and drugs were found: A bottle of Tylenol. This was presented as evidence of how thorough and hypersensitive the GT200 is.

Pilfering of taxpayer money and frightening innocent motorists are minor compared to what happened in Thailand. Although the GT200 was advertised in Mexico as a means to ferret out drugs, in Thailand it was marketed as explosives detector. At least four persons died after using the device and proceeding when it failed to detect explosives that were present.

The GT200 has been put out of business, but there are several devices competing for its share of the market. And like the wishbone sticks of yore, none of them hold water.

by

“Loonar module” (Moon landing hoax theory)

moontake

Landing on the moon is a source of national pride for 90 percent of Americans. It is a source of personal satisfaction to the other 10 percent, for whom seeing a hoax in it is preferable to celebrating mankind’s greatest accomplishment.

While mostly a fringe moment, the idea has been endorsed by the Fox Network and that greatest of modern astrophysicists, Whoopi Goldberg. The most frequent protest focuses on an allegedly waving flag. It is pointed out the moon has no atmosphere and no wind. But the flag is not waving. The creases in the flag were due to it having been folded during the trip, and the only time it moves is when it’s touched. After this touch, the flag takes much longer to settle than it would on Earth, due to the lack of atmosphere critics had been so fond of addressing.

Another argument centers on the Van Allen Belt, where Earth’s magnetic field intensifies solar radiation. Critics say a trip through the Van Allen Belt could never be survived. But this would be like arguing that an X-ray would be fatal. A two-second exposure to an X-ray is fine. A two-hour exposure would not be. It would take at least a week of hanging out in the Van Allen Belt doing astronaut stuff for someone to be killed.

Conspiracy theorists gleefully note the lack of exhaust flames when the astronauts began their return trip. But this is because the propelling agent was a mixture of nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine 50, which produces transparent gas.

The lack of stars in the background is also raised. Having passed a freshman-level photography class, I know that shots taken with a fast exposure and small aperture fail to capture faint objects on a dark background.

A couple of more arguments focus on a Hollywood explanation. Critics think that shadows from objects going in different directions indicate multiple light sources. However, if there had been multiple light sources, the astronauts and equipment would cast more than one shadow. The shadows go in multiple directions because they are distorted by a low sun and uneven surface. Keeping with the movie studio theme, propononets of the hoax theory point out a supposed letter ‘C’  on a moon rock, and claim this is a stage prop. However, the letter isn’t on the original NASA negatives or prints, and is a hair or fiber that got onto a reproduction.

Still another claim is that since moon dust is dry, it wouldn’t take a boot imprint, much as how dry sand won’t take prints. But moon dust is unlike sand. Its particles have different sizes and shapes. Its more like talcum powder, which does take prints when dry.

Perhaps the laziest point is wondering how a photograph of Neil Armstrong could have been taken unless someone was standing there to snap it. The shot was taken on a still camera mounted on the Eagle lander. Moreover, remote cameras left on the moon snapped the departure. These were relatively well-known facts at the time and even the most superficial investigation would have revealed this answer.

Frustrated by these refutations, moon landing hoax proponents will resort to challenging NASA to end the supposed controversy by having the Hubble Space Telescope take photos of equipment left behind. But all that’s left is the 12-foot wide Eagle lander, much too small an object to be captured. And even if it could be photographed, the idea that it would silence hoax proponents is itself a hoax. Conspiracy theorists, by their nature, consider any contrarian evidence to be part of the conspiracy.

For instance, they cited Neil Armstrong’s reticence and few public appearances to be proof he was hiding something. Simultaneously, Buzz Aldrin’s high public profile, including his decking of a conspiracy theorist, was evidence that he was feeling the heat of the hoax coming undone.

The only way hoax proponents could possibly be convinced is if they were sent to the moon themselves. I’ve heard worse ideas.

by

“Walking on coals to a higher vortex” (Pseudoscience)

QUACKERS

Science doesn’t know everything. If it did, we would have stopped doing science. But limits on science does not mean that the unexplained is inexplicable. Some will try to fill in the gaps with supernatural or paranormal explanations. A much better idea is to continue the quest for knowledge.

Fire walking was once thought to be mystical and indicative of a greater power. Then science revealed that coal has a poor ability to contain and conduct heat. Hence, walking on coals is similar to putting your hand in a 350 degree oven, not like touching the pan.

Proclaiming to have inexplicable mystic powers is only one way the pseudoscientist operates. Another common technique is creating a scientific façade through linguistics. Online, I found this gem about gems: “All crystals have a magnetic energy flow and this energy is able to be channeled in order to increase frequency to encourage healing. It opens a vortex to the higher realms to receive and transmit messages from your guides and helpers. Crystals have a strong energy and they are useful for using in a grid formation to protect an area or place from negative energy.”

We have a reference to magnetism, which is genuine physics. We have energy, which science defines as the ability to do work. Also thrown into the mix are vortex, healing, transform, and grid. This language is designed to display air of legitimacy, but the terms as they are applied here are medically worthless. Without a double blind study and critical peer review, these claims are without merit.

Another ploy is claiming to be the latest in a long line of misunderstood and eventually vindicated geniuses. It’s true that ridicule was heaped on Copernicus, the Wright brothers, and Alfred Wegner. But far more wannabes were scoffed at for good reason. Flying in the face of conventional wisdom takes guts, but not necessarily a lot of brainpower. Most heretical ideas are wrong. This doesn’t mean they should be dismissed out of hand, but they must be looked into.

Some people are convinced that sleeping with a bar of soap prevents their legs from cramping. This could be true and there might be a chemical reason behind it. But it could also be selective memory or the result of the cramping having been mitigated for other reasons. Until a double blind study confirms the results, this is not a scientific claim.

If the soap test is ever carried out, legitimate researchers will accept whatever conclusion is reached. That’s the way science works. Biologist Teruhiko Wakayama appeared to make a groundbreaking discovery in stem cell research. He deduced that stem cells could be made quickly and cheaply by dipping them in acid and converting them to the biological building blocks. But after the experiment could not be duplicated, Wakayama acknowledged he had reached the wrong conclusion. He also requested that he no longer be considered for an award he had been nominated for.

Contrast this to Sylvia Browne when she met with public failure. On The Montel Williams Show, an audience member told Browne her boyfriend had never been found. Browne said this was because he was under water. The guest then offered that he had died in the Sept. 11 attacks. Aided by apologist Williams, Browne spun a wildly improbable tale that a firefighter’s misdirected hose may have been the reason for the boyfriend’s demise.

Another time, parents were trying to figure out how their son died. When Browne told them he was shot, the parents responded that he had been in his room and collapsed. Again, Browne and Williams attempted a ludicrous spin. They offered he might have been hit in the chest somehow, someway, leading to cardiac arrest, and that this magically equated to being killed by a firearm.

Science has its limits. Not so pseudoscience, which has infinte power to stretch logic and mangle reason.

by

“Chi blinded me with science” (Pseudoscience)

BAD SCIENCE
Since I am not a scientist, it follows that I am qualified to write about things that aren’t science. We can deal with the logic of such conclusions during another post, but for now, let’s take a look at some of the hallmarks of pseudoscience.

The brightest of the red flags is taking one’s claims straight to the public or, more ominously, to a selected sympathetic audience. New claims or ideas should be announced to fellow scientists, who can conduct peer review and tests.

In 1989, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann made the astounding claim that they had managed cold fusion, a nuclear reaction at room temperature, as opposed to the seven-figure temperatures thought to be required. Because of the significant implications, this claim attracted worldwide notice. But Pons and Fleishmann revealed little about their methods and resisted requests to validate the claim. Other physicists were unable to replicate the alleged findings, and the purported methods could never be proven. Pons and Fleishmann withdrew from public life, and the only thing cold was their reception in the scientific community.

Similarly, the company Steorn announced it had produced a perpetual motion machine, dubbed the Orbo. Again, this claim flew in the face of accepted science. The Orbo could never be verified under independent testing conditions and it met the same fate as cold fusion.

Ken Ham regularly issues pronouncements asserting evidence for a Young Earth or Intelligent Design. But he publishes these on his website, with no independent verification and without inviting challenge. When I asked on his Facebook page if any of his work had been published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal, the response was to delete the question and ban me from further posting. Someone doing genuine science is going to want it tested. Getting it right and adding to the field’s knowledge takes precedence over bias, personal vindication, and accolades.

When dealing with new products, another major red flag is failing to use a control group alongside the group being tested. Furthermore, the subjects, and those researching them, should never know which group is which. This equates to a double blind test, which should always be used if practicable and ethical.

Once the test is complete, it should be accepted or rejected as a whole. Cherry picking results to support one’s position is pseudoscience.

Another dead giveaway is being agenda-based. When a researcher announces a finding, he or she should detail the method, evidence, and conclusion. There should be no mention of the dangers of engineered food or of the environment being bombarded with toxins. There should be no rants about impending pandemics or about Intelligent Design being denied a spot in biology class by a nefarious cabal of political and educational bigwigs.

When such alarmist language is used, it is probable that the “study” had predetermined results. Scientists search for evidence, develop a hypothesis based on what they’ve found, then test those ideas. Pseudoscience starts with a desired hypothesis, then seeks evidence to support it, perhaps even relying on anecdotes. Testing, if done at all, is shoddy and conducted by biased researchers, who either agree with the agenda or who are being paid to reach desired conclusions.

It is true that research can reveal serious dangers. But the results should speak for themselves. If there are shouts of alarm, they should come from those hearing the report, not those giving it.

Warning bells should also sound when hearing that something is “all-natural.” The product is probably all-natural, but there would be no reason to mention this, as all natural does not necessarily mean all good. Hemlock, mercury, and mamba venom are all-natural. Throwing this term around is meant to appeal to persons seeking a healthy lifestyle and has little scientific relevance.

Similarly, vague, undefined terms with no scientific meaning are another red flag. Examples included negative energy, immune booster, and chi. And products that are claimed to be based on ancient or long-lost knowledge are best avoided.

While not fraudulent like the previous examples, there is another point to address. An honest mistake can be made by confusing correlation and causation. A study at the University of Pennsylvania, whose results were published in Nature, revealed that children who slept with the light on were more likely to develop myopia. However, another study at Ohio State University found that the true cause was genetics. It turned out that myopic parents were more likely to put their children to sleep with the light on. While there was a correlation between the light being on and developing myopia, it was not the cause.