Trust me.
Click this link:
Cell Size and Scale
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Eye evolution
In researching intelligent design for a newsletter article, I found a really neat video about the evolution of the eye.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Bogus: The Sleazy Scam of Psychics
Why are so many professional psychics successful? Most people, in my observation,
thoroughly enjoy believing in the supernatural. They delight in the idea that human beings have the potential to transcend our “normal” parameters. And most successful psychics do transcend some of those norms. They have abilities beyond those of the general public. But the catch is, their special powers are not supernatural at all, which becomes apparent when observed through the lens of skeptical, critical thinking.
Since 1996 the stage magician and noted skeptic James Randi has had laid out on the table a million-dollar prize to anyone who can - under controlled testing conditions agreed upon by both parties - prove that they have paranormal abilities. And over a dozen years and hundreds of applicants later no one has been able to claim the prize or even progress through the screening process to the formal testing stage. The famous psychic and television personality Sylvia Browne won’t even take the test. She claimed for a while that the money’s not there and the contest is a farce, but Randi attests that the money exists in the form of bonds with Goldman Sachs and that
the documentation is available to anyone who requests it. Eventually, on Larry King’s show, she finally agreed to take it, but in the years (a little over eight years now) after making that public statement she has continued to waffle and won’t
commit to it. In such a public debate, if she really can do what she says she can, would it be so much effort to take the test simply to authenticate her psychic abilities and to prove The Amazing Randi (a man who is all but a sworn enemy) wrong?
Could it possibly be that she knows that under controlled testing her “powers” would prove to be nothing more than a bit of observation and conjecture and a willingness to lie to desperate people for monetary gain? I’ll let you readers make your minds up about that.
Most psychics have never been formally tested in controlled situations. And of the ones who have, I have never been able to find an instance where they do much better than what would be expected by random chance. In the lack of evidence, the only way to convince people that they’re genuine is by employing techniques often used by stage magicians and mentalists. They read people, not tea leaves.
Probably the most powerful tool in a psychic’s bag (other than the gullibility of his or her mark) is the technique of cold reading. Mentalists, psychics, mediums, con artists and hucksters of all stripes have found great value in cold reading. Cold reading is a method of making educated guesses by asking leading questions. The psychic might say, “I’m hearing a sound like the letter J. Are you close with someone whose name starts with J?” The odds are in favor of that being the case so the person sitting for the reading will usually volunteer who “J” is. Maybe a brother, at which point the psychic can say, “I’m sensing that you’ve had some problems in the past but that you now have a pretty good relationship with your brother.” And on and on, using leading questions to narrow down the possibilities, each question prompting the client to reveal more and more of the truth. All the psychic has to do is be able to choose the right questions and make a couple good guesses. To someone who doesn’t know they’re being read this technique can be very convincing.
Hot reading is even better, but it’s more complicated because it requires an accomplice or some other means of surveillance to provide the psychic with information about the person they will be reading. All it takes to pull this off is a little imagination and subtlety.
Professional psychics prey on the vulnerable. Most people who go to psychics are unprepared to deal with a practiced manipulator. They enter the situation with hope and a degree of trust, a trust that is reinforced and bolstered by the performance of the psychic. A couple hits and a reassuring attitude go a long way. Some psychics
use the client’s fears and superstitions against them. They may tell someone that a family member has put a curse on them, and that to lift that curse it will cost more money. In other circumstances they may groom someone, manipulating the client into relying on them for advice in even the most trivial decisions in his or her life. There have been many cases where the client has become so dependent on this advice that they are willing to give all they can afford and more. It’s often far too late by the time someone realizes they were being scammed all along. Sometimes they go to
the police, sometimes they don’t.
And then there are the “mediums.” They prey on the grief-stricken. Many of the people who use the services of mediums are suffering an emotional instability and devastation that they may not have ever known before. It must be very easy for someone with the right skills and dishonorable intentions to swoop in and tell them
all the things they want to hear... for a price, of course. John Edward has made millions of dollars by convincing people that he can talk to the dead. I’ve seen his television show and I can understand why, to a believer, it’s extremely compelling. But the broadcast version is edited to show the hits and not the misses. An unedited viewing would shine a truer light on his accuracy. He uses cold reading extensively, which is blatantly obvious to anyone who can recognize it, but it’s likely that he
uses hot reading as well. A Time article reported that his aides made conversation with the crowd as they were being admitted to the studio and that there was a long delay before Edward came out, during which people in the audience were conversing with one another about the people they hoped to make contact with. It would have
been easy for him to listen in on these confidences and use them to his advantage in the show.
Aside from the financial and/or psychological harm a psychic might do to a client, there are also unintended consequences. Innocent bystanders get caught in the crossfire. False accusations can be taken as truth by a believer and can cause emotional trauma, among other problems, for the accused. In one case, a school counselor went to a psychic who told her that a student with the first initial “V” was being sexually abused. The counselor believed she knew which child it was and brought her assumption to the school administration. The child’s single mother was
accused of the crime and had to suffer through a horrible ordeal to prove herself innocent. Had the psychic not been so careless as to make such a wild guess, or had the the counselor not been so gullible as to believe it, an already burdened family (the child is autistic) could have been spared further pain.
The bottom line is this: psychics can’t do anything better than the tricks that stage mentalists use, and mentalists will at least tell you it’s all a show. They may be very talented in their art but that doesn’t make it supernatural. If someone does manage to win Randi’s million there might be cause to take a closer look. Until then, save your money - and your trust - for those who deserve it.
thoroughly enjoy believing in the supernatural. They delight in the idea that human beings have the potential to transcend our “normal” parameters. And most successful psychics do transcend some of those norms. They have abilities beyond those of the general public. But the catch is, their special powers are not supernatural at all, which becomes apparent when observed through the lens of skeptical, critical thinking.
Since 1996 the stage magician and noted skeptic James Randi has had laid out on the table a million-dollar prize to anyone who can - under controlled testing conditions agreed upon by both parties - prove that they have paranormal abilities. And over a dozen years and hundreds of applicants later no one has been able to claim the prize or even progress through the screening process to the formal testing stage. The famous psychic and television personality Sylvia Browne won’t even take the test. She claimed for a while that the money’s not there and the contest is a farce, but Randi attests that the money exists in the form of bonds with Goldman Sachs and that
the documentation is available to anyone who requests it. Eventually, on Larry King’s show, she finally agreed to take it, but in the years (a little over eight years now) after making that public statement she has continued to waffle and won’t
commit to it. In such a public debate, if she really can do what she says she can, would it be so much effort to take the test simply to authenticate her psychic abilities and to prove The Amazing Randi (a man who is all but a sworn enemy) wrong?
Could it possibly be that she knows that under controlled testing her “powers” would prove to be nothing more than a bit of observation and conjecture and a willingness to lie to desperate people for monetary gain? I’ll let you readers make your minds up about that.
Most psychics have never been formally tested in controlled situations. And of the ones who have, I have never been able to find an instance where they do much better than what would be expected by random chance. In the lack of evidence, the only way to convince people that they’re genuine is by employing techniques often used by stage magicians and mentalists. They read people, not tea leaves.
Probably the most powerful tool in a psychic’s bag (other than the gullibility of his or her mark) is the technique of cold reading. Mentalists, psychics, mediums, con artists and hucksters of all stripes have found great value in cold reading. Cold reading is a method of making educated guesses by asking leading questions. The psychic might say, “I’m hearing a sound like the letter J. Are you close with someone whose name starts with J?” The odds are in favor of that being the case so the person sitting for the reading will usually volunteer who “J” is. Maybe a brother, at which point the psychic can say, “I’m sensing that you’ve had some problems in the past but that you now have a pretty good relationship with your brother.” And on and on, using leading questions to narrow down the possibilities, each question prompting the client to reveal more and more of the truth. All the psychic has to do is be able to choose the right questions and make a couple good guesses. To someone who doesn’t know they’re being read this technique can be very convincing.
Hot reading is even better, but it’s more complicated because it requires an accomplice or some other means of surveillance to provide the psychic with information about the person they will be reading. All it takes to pull this off is a little imagination and subtlety.
Professional psychics prey on the vulnerable. Most people who go to psychics are unprepared to deal with a practiced manipulator. They enter the situation with hope and a degree of trust, a trust that is reinforced and bolstered by the performance of the psychic. A couple hits and a reassuring attitude go a long way. Some psychics
use the client’s fears and superstitions against them. They may tell someone that a family member has put a curse on them, and that to lift that curse it will cost more money. In other circumstances they may groom someone, manipulating the client into relying on them for advice in even the most trivial decisions in his or her life. There have been many cases where the client has become so dependent on this advice that they are willing to give all they can afford and more. It’s often far too late by the time someone realizes they were being scammed all along. Sometimes they go to
the police, sometimes they don’t.
And then there are the “mediums.” They prey on the grief-stricken. Many of the people who use the services of mediums are suffering an emotional instability and devastation that they may not have ever known before. It must be very easy for someone with the right skills and dishonorable intentions to swoop in and tell them
all the things they want to hear... for a price, of course. John Edward has made millions of dollars by convincing people that he can talk to the dead. I’ve seen his television show and I can understand why, to a believer, it’s extremely compelling. But the broadcast version is edited to show the hits and not the misses. An unedited viewing would shine a truer light on his accuracy. He uses cold reading extensively, which is blatantly obvious to anyone who can recognize it, but it’s likely that he
uses hot reading as well. A Time article reported that his aides made conversation with the crowd as they were being admitted to the studio and that there was a long delay before Edward came out, during which people in the audience were conversing with one another about the people they hoped to make contact with. It would have
been easy for him to listen in on these confidences and use them to his advantage in the show.
Aside from the financial and/or psychological harm a psychic might do to a client, there are also unintended consequences. Innocent bystanders get caught in the crossfire. False accusations can be taken as truth by a believer and can cause emotional trauma, among other problems, for the accused. In one case, a school counselor went to a psychic who told her that a student with the first initial “V” was being sexually abused. The counselor believed she knew which child it was and brought her assumption to the school administration. The child’s single mother was
accused of the crime and had to suffer through a horrible ordeal to prove herself innocent. Had the psychic not been so careless as to make such a wild guess, or had the the counselor not been so gullible as to believe it, an already burdened family (the child is autistic) could have been spared further pain.
The bottom line is this: psychics can’t do anything better than the tricks that stage mentalists use, and mentalists will at least tell you it’s all a show. They may be very talented in their art but that doesn’t make it supernatural. If someone does manage to win Randi’s million there might be cause to take a closer look. Until then, save your money - and your trust - for those who deserve it.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
What is Skepticism?
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence.”
– Carl Sagan
It occurs to me that I should explain the foundation of what I plan to talk about before jumping in. Just what is this whole skepticism thing, anyway?
Skepticism (specifically scientific skepticism), which is not in any way to be confused with cynicism, is a principle by which claims are accepted based on
observable evidence. In learning critical thinking there are three key components:
1- The scientific method. Probably the greatest tool we have to discern fact from fiction. It is the system by which ideas are tested, the bad ones discarded and the
good ones reserved for further exploration. Note that last point; it’s very important. Science leads us in the right direction but it is a never-ending, always-evolving discipline. We don’t know everything. That’s why we still do science.
2- Logical fallacies. While the scientific method shows us how to learn new things
and test hypotheses, logic is how we think through the results and come to a conclusion. It’s essential to become familiar with the common ways in which arguments fail due to leaps or mistakes we may make in pondering our answers. In
exploring logical fallacies I recommend starting with some that I observe
to be the most common: causation does not imply correlation (my child was
diagnosed with autism after he was vaccinated, therefore the vaccine caused his autism), the appeal to ignorance (I can’t understand how creatures this complex could have evolved, therefore God must have created everything like it says in Genesis) or the Ad Hominem, Latin for “to the person” (he cheated on his wife, therefore he is a liar and anything he says must be untrue).
3- Ways the mind can be tricked. This is why so many professional magicians are skeptics. They understand how easy it is to fool the senses. But it extends far beyond stage magic. Optical illusions, waking dreams, the fallibility of memory, pareidolia, the power of suggestion, and so on. All of these things can contribute to a perception or memory that is incorrect or imagined.
So, what should we do? When it’s so easy to be wrong, what should we do? Think, question, doubt. If something seems incredible, implausible or too good to be true, do some basic research. I know I’m not the only one who’s opened my inbox and found
e-mail after e-mail that, if the sender had bothered to check, can be proven false in about a minute and a half on Google. How many times have you heard, “We only use ten percent of our brains,” or, “You need eight full glasses of water every day”? At some point these myths became a part of “common knowledge” and once there it’s very hard to shake them. But if everyone had the ability and desire to skeptically
evaluate the claims presented to them we would all become incrementally wiser.
It’s time to look beyond the smoke and mirrors and appreciate reality for what it is.
evidence.”
– Carl Sagan
It occurs to me that I should explain the foundation of what I plan to talk about before jumping in. Just what is this whole skepticism thing, anyway?
Skepticism (specifically scientific skepticism), which is not in any way to be confused with cynicism, is a principle by which claims are accepted based on
observable evidence. In learning critical thinking there are three key components:
1- The scientific method. Probably the greatest tool we have to discern fact from fiction. It is the system by which ideas are tested, the bad ones discarded and the
good ones reserved for further exploration. Note that last point; it’s very important. Science leads us in the right direction but it is a never-ending, always-evolving discipline. We don’t know everything. That’s why we still do science.
2- Logical fallacies. While the scientific method shows us how to learn new things
and test hypotheses, logic is how we think through the results and come to a conclusion. It’s essential to become familiar with the common ways in which arguments fail due to leaps or mistakes we may make in pondering our answers. In
exploring logical fallacies I recommend starting with some that I observe
to be the most common: causation does not imply correlation (my child was
diagnosed with autism after he was vaccinated, therefore the vaccine caused his autism), the appeal to ignorance (I can’t understand how creatures this complex could have evolved, therefore God must have created everything like it says in Genesis) or the Ad Hominem, Latin for “to the person” (he cheated on his wife, therefore he is a liar and anything he says must be untrue).
3- Ways the mind can be tricked. This is why so many professional magicians are skeptics. They understand how easy it is to fool the senses. But it extends far beyond stage magic. Optical illusions, waking dreams, the fallibility of memory, pareidolia, the power of suggestion, and so on. All of these things can contribute to a perception or memory that is incorrect or imagined.
So, what should we do? When it’s so easy to be wrong, what should we do? Think, question, doubt. If something seems incredible, implausible or too good to be true, do some basic research. I know I’m not the only one who’s opened my inbox and found
e-mail after e-mail that, if the sender had bothered to check, can be proven false in about a minute and a half on Google. How many times have you heard, “We only use ten percent of our brains,” or, “You need eight full glasses of water every day”? At some point these myths became a part of “common knowledge” and once there it’s very hard to shake them. But if everyone had the ability and desire to skeptically
evaluate the claims presented to them we would all become incrementally wiser.
It’s time to look beyond the smoke and mirrors and appreciate reality for what it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
