Psience

What's up with the Psience Blog?

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — 2007-08-17T13:32:16Z

I've put the blog back up, since there are still a few links to some of the entries floating around out there, but most likely I will not be updating it anymore. I've decided to spend my free time drawing a skeptical webcomic named Cectic instead (it's a much more enjoyable outlet for me than blogging).

An Approach to Arguing with True-believers

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — 2007-04-09T18:32:00Z

Recently I've found myself often using a certain tactic during discussions with believers that seems to evoke interesting and sometimes amusing reactions. In my head, I've termed it the "pseudoswap" method, though I by no means claim stake to inventing it. It's really just a simple way to come up with effective analogies that can help you point out fallacious reasoning during discussions or debates.

The idea is to subtly probe the believer to find other pseudosciences to which they do not subscribe, and then draw comparisons between the arguments they are giving in support of their pseudoscience, to the arguments commonly made in support of the other pseudoscience.

For example, I stumbled upon this by accident when I was talking to my mom about some of her beliefs in various alternative medicine pseudosciences (such as energy healing and acupuncture). She made the comment that these ancient practices have been around for thousands of years in use by the Chinese, and if they didn't work, they wouldn't still be around today--implying that this proved their efficacy, so they didn't need to be tested in double-blind clinical trials. I asked her if she believed that the Holy Bible was the true word of God, to which she replied that she didn't. "Well," I said, "the Bible has been around for over a thousand years... If it wasn't the true word of God, why would people still be saying that it is today?"

She couldn't really answer that one, other than to say that the Bible had some good messages in it. I conceded this particular point, since I hadn't actually read the Bible at that time. I have since, and would say now that even that is quite debatable.

In later discussions with other non-religious true-believers, I have found pesudoswapping to be quite effective at either stumping them, or at least triggering highly amusing emotional responses and ad hominem attacks--either way, essentially winning the debate.

Another personal example is from a true-believer paranormal forum--the point was being put forward that most UFOs are "obviously intelligently controlled," implying that their movements, as described by witnesses, clearly cannot be explained by natural phenomena. I equated this to the arguments put forth by creationists to support the theory of intelligent design--simple appeals to ignorance, attributing something to an intelligence because of personal incredulity. This suggestion was met with hostility. Here's some excerpts:

Me: To say something was intelligently controlled is similar to the whole intelligent design/creationism versus evolution debate. Something that complex couldn't possibly have happened by chance, therefore God did it. Something that weird couldn't possibly happen naturally, therefore aliens did it. It's all very unscientific, unimaginative, and ultimately does not actually answer any questions.

Responder: It is not the same at all. You know that. You only made the analogy because the two concepts share a word. The similarity ends there. It can be shown that evolution happens naturally. It has not been shown that the more well-documented UFOs were natural. Furthermore, intelligent design appeals to some higher power to explain everything -- a power beyond the rules. Simply observing an object and determining if it is under control is not the same at all. Your argument is specious at best.

Me: I stand by my analogy. They are both appeals to ignorance--explaining something that you can't personally comprehend by attributing it to an intelligence.

Responder: What? This is not an appeal to ignorance. If I see a car driving on the street below me, it is an event in which I can safely assume the object is being controlled intelligently. If I see an airplane flying by, I can make the same assumption. But if I see a eliptical craft going at high speed, doing the same thing, then I am making and appeal to ignorance? And where do you get off saying I can't comprehend a UFO? For the record, I did see a UFO and it definitely behaved as it was under control. Man, you really are something.

Me: A Jehovah's Witness once used a similar argument to convince me of intelligent design. He said something along the lines of "If you were walking along the beach, and you saw a watch in the sand, it would be obvious that it was created, and thus had a creator. Now, look at living organisms. They are much more complex than a simple watch... clearly they must also have had a creator."

You just used the same argument for intelligent control of flying objects in the sky. You can't possibly imagine how what you saw, or how what some eye witness told you he saw, could possibly not be intelligently controlled. The Jehovah's Witness can't possibly imagine how something complex as a living organism could come about without being intelligently designed. It's the exact same fallacious argument.

Responder: That is not the same argument at all. You analogies always become insulting and of dubious value. I would rather not even discuss this with you anymore.

Me: Well, if you change your mind, I am still willing to hear arguments for why it's a bad analogy. You simply stating that it's not the same argument doesn't convince me... I personally can't see a difference. I do not believe it is possible to prove an intelligent force behind something in either case in the analogy.

And that was the end of the discussion with that particular person. As you can see, he was offended and insulted that I would equate his arguments with those of a creationist, since he obviously sees how creationist arguments are fallacious. Was my analogy a valid one? I think it was. Did I convince this believer? Probably not. Was it fun anyway? Sure!

The beauty of pseudoswapping is that believers in the paranormal are generally not religious, so drawing parallels between the pseudoscience and religion is almost a surefire way to illustrate the absurdity of a believer's arguments. All you need to do is identify which fallacy the believer is using, and then present the same fallacy in another (in this case, religious) context. The ultimate goal, of course, is not to piss him off, but rather to help him see the error in his thinking.

I suppose in a worst-case scenario, you might end up converting the believer to whatever religion you were drawing comparisons to... so pick a good one (assuming such a thing even exists).

April Fools Prank Roundup

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — 2007-04-01T16:52:03Z

It's that eye-rolling time of year again when would-be comedians around the web invoke dry chuckles from their viewers by posting fake announcements on their websites. Here's the best that I've found on various science, skeptical, and atheist websites:

Deep-Sea News covers the story about deep-sea squid invading the Mississippi river due to hurricanes causing an increase in water salinity.

In episode 88 of The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, Dr. Novella pranked his team of skeptical rogues during the Science or Fiction segment by claiming that Chinese scientists have devised a way to process Panda feces into edible wafers to help curb their country's hunger problems.

Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge gives us the real truth about semi-conductors.

Respectful Insolence shares a mailing list gag about chiropractic treatments fighting global warming

Parallel Divergence has a great post recounting an April Fool's story from the past involving lotto tickets and an extremely pissed off mom.

NoBeliefs.com has changed its name to Christianity Now, leaving us with this little gem:

Announcement: I know a lot of you freethinkers have been loyal to NoBeliefs.com but we're in for a big change. NoBeliefs.com has been bought out by Christianity NOW. Starting today, the articles and news items will be replaced by Chrisitan oriented subjects. The author of NoBeliefs.com has also converted to Christianity and has given his life to Jesus. He will help to transfer this site into God's good plan and to prepare for the Final Days. Hallelujah!

The Discover Institute revealed that the much-maligned Dr. Egnor was actually an invented personality created to take "gullible Darwinists" for a ride. There is speculation that this is simply their way of safely distancing themselves from the increasingly bizarre Egnor. Will we ever know the truth? Who cares?

[Update: It turns out that this April Fool's announcement was itself an April Fool's prank perpetrated by The Panda's Thumb. Nice one!]

Tetrapod Zoology gives us a couple of posts about rhinogradentians... small rodent-like mammals that walk around on their noses.

That's about all I can handle. For more (not necessarily science/skepticism/religion related) April Fools goodness, check out The Museum of Hoaxes Top 100 April Fool's Day Hoaxes page. Also, as per usual, SlashDot has been pretty much rendered un-readable for the entire day, if you're into this kind of thing.

Extraterrestrial Code in our DNA?

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — 2007-03-22T17:44:46Z

I was recently pointed to a hilariously absurd article called Scientists find Extraterrestrial genes in Human DNA. It saddens me that the site hosting this nonsense is associating itself with my favorite country.

Anyway, I'm sure most people would recognize this particular article for the idiotic drivel that it is (even most of the believer sites that I found referencing it seem to discuss it with an air of incredulity), but I thought it would be fun to analyze it in detail regardless. Let's look at the opening statement:

A group of researchers working at the Human Genome Project indicate that they made an astonishing scientific discovery: They believe so-called 97% non-coding sequences in human DNA is no less than genetic code of extraterrestrial life forms.

The non-coding sequences are common to all living organisms on Earth, from moulds to fish to humans. In human DNA, they constitute larger part of the total genome, says Prof. Sam Chang, the group leader. Non-coding sequences, originally known as "junk DNA", were discovered years ago, and their function remained a mystery. The overwhelming majority of Human DNA is "Off-world" in origin. The apparent "extraterrestrial junk genes" merely "enjoy the ride" with hard working active genes, passed from generation to generation.

Look at the wording of the first paragraph. It's written to imply that the astonishing discovery is that there is alien code in human DNA, but if you actually read what it's saying, the astonishing discovery is that they believe that there is alien code in human DNA. I wonder if that was intentional. Hmmmmmmmm.

They are talking about Junk DNA here. There are a lot of hypotheses as to what it is and how it formed--and I bet they are all a lot more credible than Sam Chang's "discovered" belief that it was planted there by aliens. Speaking of Prof. Chang, I did a search for his name at the Human Genome Project website, and there was nary a Chang to be found. I also checked their list of publications and, surprise, there was nothing there with any mention of extraterrestrials. A few PubMed searches showed many papers attributed to various S Changs, but none that talk about extraterrestrial origins of non-coding DNA.

Let's just think for a minute about what process would be required to scientifically test for the presence of extraterrestrial information in human DNA. The first (seemingly insurmountable) obstacle that must be overcome would be that you must know what extraterrestrial information in the human genome would look like. No problem, right? Just head on down to your local branch of Area 51 and ask the men in black for some sample data. Uh huh. Let's see how Chang approached this issue:

After comprehensive analysis with the assistance of other scientists, computer programmers, mathematicians, and other learned scholars, Professor Chang had wondered if the apparently "junk Human DNA" was created by some kind of "extraterrestrial programmer".

This paints a pretty clear picture for me. I can see the exchange now (doodity doo doodity doo doodity doo (those are the sounds of transition to a fantasy sequence in the TV show of my mind)):

Chang: I have done a comprehensive analysis of the human genome. I have called you all here to assist me.
Scientist: Who are you?
Computer programmer: You said there would be free donuts... But I don't see any...
Mathematician: Why are wee meeting in your mom's basement?
Chang: Hmmm. I bet this "junk DNA" stuff was made by aliens!
Other learned scholars: This is gay. We're leaving.

The article just gets more bizarre from there. Chang's grand hypothesis is that an alien race was working on coding an ultimate human race, the code for which is in our non-coding DNA. Due, however, to time restrictions from the alien programmers' bosses (or whatever), the aliens were forced to scrap the large code base for the ultimate humans, and release a stripped down basic version of their DNA program (ie., our coding DNA sequences). Since our "basic" version of DNA isn't as powerful as the scrapped version stored in our non-coding DNA, we are not immune to cancer (as we would be had the aliens' bosses given them an extension on the "Earth project"). The article also states in various places that this is all "verified fact" and that there is "absolute proof" to support this theory. Right.

So, let's recap:

Chang is probably not even a real person, and even if he is, he is grossly misrepresented in the article.

The article claims to be about science, but is in reality just a bunch of poorly thought-out childish fantasies.

The website hosting it is called The Canadian.

The Canadian also has articles titled AIDS is bio-terrorism created to kill billions some doctors and scientists say, Testimony claims crop circles made by "alien allies" of humanity, and Global Warming reveals that Stephen Harper and George Bush are not Christians.

What conclusions can we draw from this information? It's simple: Canadians, myself included, are full of shit, and you should never believe anything we say. Ever. Especially if it's on the Interweb.

What if "The Secret" were true?

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — 2007-03-14T01:05:49Z

What would it mean if The Secret were true, and there really was a Law of Attraction? Let's brainstorm!^*

Over 800 million starving people around the world simply don't want food badly enough.

Behold the power of The Secret™.

Millions of people who die from AIDS and cancer every year, didn't think about staying alive hard enough.

If only she knew The Secret™.

Every two and a half minutes, someone somewhere in America wanted to be sexually assaulted.

He can come for you, too, if you know The Secret™.

It didn't cross the minds of over six million Jews to think about not being slaughtered during the Holocaust.

Looks like they didn't know The Secret™.

Hundreds of thousands of people in New Orleans were wishing that their houses and lives would be devastated by Hurricane Katrina.

The Secret™ strikes again!

Thousands of soldiers in Iraq are dead because they didn't think enough anti-bullet and anti-explosion thoughts.

^** The infidels must never learn The Secret™, or we shall surely perish.

Not enough of the thousands of people who died on 9/11 were concentrating strongly enough on the buildings not collapsing.

If only the movie about The Secret™ had come out a few years earlier.

Let's not forget about Steve Irwin.

The Secret™: Not just for humans any more!

It's called blame the victims, folks. Oprah does it, so it can't be wrong! If you'll excuse me now, I'm going to go visualize me up some french fries and gravy. Yum!

^* Yes, I realize that this post is in incredibly poor taste. Hopefully it conveys how amazingly fucking stupid I think The Secret is.
Special thanks to Tombstone Generator and The Newspaper Clipping Generator.

Non-fossil Evidence Supporting Evolution

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — 2007-03-09T04:52:00Z

The claim is often made by creationists that the lack of "transitional forms" in the fossil record proves that evolution is false. There are obvious problems with this claim. First of all, even if you accept this premise, the lack of proof for evolution is not the same as proof for creationism. Disproving one theory is not sufficient to prove an alternate theory--the alternate theory needs to be proved on its own merits and evidence. It must make predictions (like the theory of evolution does), and then confirm those predictions by finding or demonstrating further evidence (like the theory of evolution does).

Second of all, the statement is based on a poor understanding of evolution and the fossilization process in general. The conditions under which fossils are formed are very rare, and the likelihood that any given organism will become a fossil is vastly low. The "transitional" species (for example, fish evolving the ability to walk on land, dinosaurs evolving some bird-like traits but still retaining dinosaur traits, etc.) would be confined to a small geographic location, and (relatively speaking) short time period, so the likelihood of the right conditions for fossilization coming together for of a member of one of those "transitional" species would be particularly low. There are undoubtedly countless species that have lived and evolved that we will never know about, just due to the fact that fossilization is so rare. If we never found any "transitional" fossils, the rarity of fossils in general could easily explain it.

Thirdly, the statement is false anyway--there are "transitional" species in the fossil record. Technically, since evolution is an ongoing process, all species are transitional, but we even have examples when using the definition set up by creationists. Archaeopteryx, many species in the evolutionary lineage that lead up to modern day horses, Ambulocetus (the "walking whale"), Tikaalik, various proto-humans in our own evolutionary lineage, and many, many more. Did I mention there are many more?

Not convinced? Have excuses for why each of these fossils does not actually, as common sense and science would have us believe, represent a transitional species? That's OK, because fortunately there is plenty of independent evidence that also supports evolution.

Molecular Evidence

Around this time last year, Dr. Zachary Moore started a series of episodes in his fantastic Evolution 101 blog and podcast that explained the molecular evidence for evolution in detail. His source was primarily Dr. Douglas Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, which he "dumbed-down" into less technical terms. I won't bother reproducing Dr. Zach's detailed descriptions, instead I'll use what information I gleaned from both sources to further "dumb" them down into shorter and more concise summaries.

1. Protein Functional Redundancy (Dr. Theobald / Dr. Zach)

The idea here is that there are certain proteins that are encoded in DNA that all living things have, because they are necessary for life. Humans have them, horses have them, flies have them, fungi have them, bugs have them, bacteria have them--every living thing has them. They are called ubiquitous proteins. There are, for all intents and purposes, an infinite number of possible ways these proteins could be constructed to carry out their function. Let's consider the two possible scenarios that I'm addressing here, and what they would predict about these proteins.

Evolution says that all living things evolved from a common ancestor. It would predict that these ubiquitous proteins are more similar in closely related species (for example between humans and chimps) than in less related species (for example between humans and yeast).

Creationism might predict either a) that these proteins would be identical in all living things (God's blueprint), or b) that these proteins would be different in each species (perhaps specifically tailored for maximum efficiency in each one).

When we look at the data, it overwhelmingly supports evolution. As evolution predicted, the similarity of these proteins very closely correlates with how related the species are (identical or very similar in closely related species, and more and more different as you go to species that are less and less related).

But wait a second, how do we know that this isn't just a result of prediction b) that creationism may make above (ie., that God has not simply tweaked his protein design to better accommodate each species' specific requirements)? Well, scientists have tried swapping these proteins between very distantly related species (for example, humans and yeast). The results show that the proteins function equally well, regardless of how they are constructed. This means that there is no reasonable explanation why God would have made them differently in the two different species (and, furthermore, to make them different in a way that would exactly correlate with how natural evolution would predict them to be).

2. DNA Coding Redundancy (Dr. Theobald / Dr. Zach)

This is related to point 1. above. Basically, the patterns for constructing the ubiquitous proteins are stored in an organism's DNA. I mentioned before that there are essentially an infinite number of ways you could construct the proteins to achieve their function. There is also an essentially infinite number of different DNA sequences that could code any given protein. When we look at the proteins in humans and chimps, we see that they are very similar or identical, in contrast with less similarity between less related species (despite there being no functional reason for the differences). Since this is also true for the DNA sequences that code the proteins (again, with no functional reason for them to be similar or different between any species), it reinforces and supports the protein evidence for evolution for the same reasons mentioned above.

The only way that creationists can explain this evidence is to say that God designed the proteins and their DNA coding sequences this way for reasons that we can't possibly understand. I would posit that there really is only one reason that God could possibly have to design things this way, assuming that he did. That would be to ensure that anybody with the capability to investigate this evidence would unquestionably arrive at the conclusion that evolution and common ancestry is true, thus damning himself to Hell for all eternity. Boy, if God did create us, he sure is a dick!

3. Transposons (Dr. Theobald / Dr. Zach)
4. Redundant Pseudogenes (Dr. Theobald / Dr. Zach)
5. Endogenous Retroviruses (Dr. Theobald / Dr. Zach)

I'm grouping these final three points together, because they are basically describing three different things that support evolution in the same way. The previous two points described how similarities and differences between the coding parts of DNA strongly support evolutionary theory. These last three points describe how certain aspects of the non-coding part of DNA (or "Junk DNA") also provides strong evidence in support of evolution.

Transposons are "mobile" chunks of DNA code that can move around within the genome, pseudogenes are vestigial genes that no longer have any function in the DNA, and endogenous retroviruses are pretty much what they sound like--viruses that infect DNA and get passed on to the organism's offspring in the genome (and eventually, over multiple generations, mutate into inactive "fingerprints" in the DNA of a species). The insertion or creation of each of these things into an organism's genome is controlled by completely random circumstances, and each one is passed on genetically to offspring. What this means is, if two separate organisms have identical or very similar copies of these "fingerprints" in their genome, it means that they are almost certainly genetically related (since the chance that the same random fingerprint would arise in both independently is astronomically low). It is the same concept that is used in paternity tests (looking at similarities in DNA that can only be explained by genetic relationships). So, essentially, using the same concepts that allow us to look at the DNA of two brothers and determine that they had the same parents, we should be able to look at the DNA of members from two different species to determine if they had a common ancestor.

Again, the evidence strongly supports the theory of evolution and common ancestry--related species have many of these DNA "fingerprints" in common with each other. For example, chimpanzees and humans have several in common, indicating that we have a common ancestor. Evolutionary theory would also predict that less related species would have less of these fingerprints in common, and this is also the case. For example, DNA fingerprints that are shared between hippos and whales (which evolution predicts are closely related) are not shared with other, less related mammals (such as pigs and camels). Again, this data can only be explained by accepting that these species evolved from common ancestors.

Since we can actually watch these processes take place in a science lab (see these "fingerprints" created in the genome, and get passed along to offspring), it means that creationists must accept that God also created this process--again apparently with no good reason other than to "trick" scientists by making it look like evolution and common ancestry is true.

Biological/Anatomical Evidence - Vestigial Structures

Penguins have hollow bones and wings like other birds do, but can't fly. Blind mole rats have eyes like other animals do, but can't see with them. Whales have leg bones, but no legs. Dandelions produce petals and pollen, but don't use them for reproduction like other flowers. Humans get goosebumps like other fur-covered mammals, yet don't have any fur to raise. Pythons have pelvis bones, but no legs. There are countless other examples of structures in organisms (even at the molecular level) that either perform no function, or completely different and lesser functions than similar structures in other closely related organisms. These are structures that are clearly meant for a particular function (as can be observed by their working counterparts in other species), but do not.

This evidence can be perfectly explained by evolution and common ancestry. And, again, evolution can make predictions about vestigial structures, which are supported by the evidence. Using phylogenies constructed using independent evolutionary evidence, any vestigial structures in a species should have working counterparts in other closely related species, and must necessarily derive from a working structure in a previous ancestor. As it turns out, this is absolutely the case.

Any competing theory (for example, creationism) should also be able to explain the existence of vestigial structures--not only occurring in individual species, but in entire groups of species (which evolution says evolved from a common ancestor), and should also address their structural similarity to working structures in other species. For example, vestigial veriform appendixes in both humans and chimpanzees, which are non-functioning versions of cecums in other herbivorous species. One could argue that these vestigial structures do perform some minor secondary function, and thus are not vestigial (even though complete non-functioning is not a requirement for a structure to be considered vestigial), but it still does not address the issue that they closely resemble and are obviously derived from working counterparts in related organisms or ancestors. Additionally, evolution can account for the alternative functioning of these vestigial structures (ie., they evolved to perform the new function after their primary function was no longer necessary for the organism's survival).

So What Does It All Mean?

I've only covered a few of the many kinds of non-fossil evidence that support evolution--there is a lot more that is covered in great detail elsewhere on the web and in books (I recommend Dr. Theobald's essay on TalkOrigins.org). It really is not possible to deny the fact that evolution occurs, and that all species share common ancestors with other species, without completely ignoring the incredibly overwhelming evidence.

Sure, creationists also have "explanations" for all of the evidence presented here and elsewhere (generally, "God did it that way--I don't know why, but He did.") As I said before, if you believe that, then you are basically saying that God is a jerk who wants evolution to seem absolutely true. If you believe God created everything, then you believe that he did so in a way so as to perfectly remove any trace of his existence from the equation--as though he wants us to come to the inescapable conclusion that he didn't have anything to do with it, thus ultimately damning anyone who is actually curious enough to check the evidence out for themselves to eternal damnation.

What a prick!

Other References:
http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/20evolution01.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#Rarity_of_fossils
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#morphological_vestiges
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial_structure
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/appendix.asp

Conspiracy: A Believer's Last Refuge

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — 2007-03-04T19:40:00Z

I'm sure it's happened to everyone at one point or another. You're debating with a believer about a topic close to her heart, and taking her to school. Hard.

She serves up anecdote after anecdote, but you don't miss a step. You are bombarded with logical fallacies, but return each with the ease and grace of a seasoned pro. You win point after point, set after set. You've never been able to express yourself as eloquently or clearly as you have been in this debate. Even you are surprised by your own adeptness. The game is nearing an end, and you think this might be it--the fabled love game of skepticism. Maybe, just maybe, you can actually make her see reason.

You can see she's tired. You recognize a glimmer of rationality in her eyes. You've sent her running all over the court for the entire match, and her struggling has made her realize that she's up against a much better player. She is starting to discover that maybe her beliefs are not as rock solid as she had suspected. She finally concedes that there is no reliable physical evidence or experimental replicability to support her claims. She lobs a Hail Mary into the air to give her time to catch her breath. This is it. Match point. If you place this stroke right, the debate is yours.

That's when it happens.

The glimmer of realization you thought you saw in her eyes suddenly erupts into flames of irrationality. Her tired expression is replaced by a grin. Her posture straightens, and her grip on her racquet tightens. You are put off by this change in her demeanor, and your arm falters mid-stroke. You watch in horror, thinking to yourself 'No... It can't be... please... not...'

That's when she drops the dreaded C-Bomb.

The rules have changed mid-game. You glance at the umpire, just to realize that he's been naught but a scarecrow all along. Suddenly, the lack of evidence somehow supports your opponent's beliefs. The ball splits into a million copies, and the court twists and contorts into impossible shapes as the net grows a hundred feet taller.

The game is over, but you haven't won. Nobody can win now. You make a few futile attempts to start up a new rally. "There's too many people involved, it's just not possible..." you serve. "Compartmentalization," she counters. Your ball doesn't even come close to clearing the distorted, impossibly high net. "But... Even I would have to be in on it..." you plead. She stares at you suspiciously.

Logic has decided to leave the stadium early--perhaps only to get a hot dog and a beer, you hope--but as time drags on, your optimism fades. You realize that it was a game you could never have won from the very beginning. There's only one thing left for you to do now.

You gather up your balls, and go home.

A Closer Examination of Sheldrake's Trial Sequences

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — 2007-02-22T07:27:00Z

An idea struck me after reading the article at CSI by David F. Marks and John Colwell that provides a critical analysis of Rupert Sheldrake's staring experiments (see my previous post on the subject here). It occurred to me that the gambler's fallacy might be able to explain their results (as discussed in another previous blog entry here), and that I might be able to verify their conclusions for myself by means of a simple computer simulation. Being the complete uber-geek that I am, I immediately set to work.

The Program

I spent a few hours hammering out a fairly simple Perl script that could be used to simulate a few different kinds of trials. The source code can be viewed here. I've tried to make the code as easy to read as possible, with commenting where appropriate (an unbelievably ginormous leap from my normal coding practices). The program simulates staring experiments using either Sheldrake's trial sequences, or random sequences (generated using Perl's built-in rand() function). The virtual-test-subjects' guesses can be configured in any one of three ways:

completely random (using Perl's built-in rand() function),

using a gambler's fallacy algorithm applied to their own guesses, or

using a gambler's fallacy algorithm applied to the actual trial types.

It is possible to configure a yes-bias for the subjects (baseline increased likelihood that a user will choose yes instead of no)--this is set to 5% for the purposes of this article, since this is the number that seems to come up most frequently in the relevant literature.

The gambler's fallacy algorithm I used in the simulations essentially increases the subject's likelihood (configurable in the program, set to 33% for this article) of choosing the opposite answer on their next guess, if the previous trial or guess was the same as the current one. For example, using method #3 from above, the subject's chance of guessing yes on trial 1 is 55%. Say trial 1 is a yes. On trial 2, their chance of picking yes is still 55%. Say trial 2 is a yes. Now, since the previous trial (1) and the current trial (2) were both yes, the subject thinks it is less likely to be a yes on the next trial. On trial 3, the chance that he will guess yes is now 22%. If trial 3 were also a yes, then his chance on trial 4 would drop to 0% and stay there until a no trial came up which would reset him back to 55%. This is also applied conversely in the event of multiple no trials in a row. Using method #2 above, the numbers work the same, but instead of looking at the actual trial types to adjust the values, the subject bases the fallacy on his own guesses (essentially ensuring that the subject will never guess yes or no too many times in a row--instead spreading guesses out more evenly over a number of trials, as a real human might be more likely to do). Method #3 assumes that the subject is given feedback after each guess about whether he was right or wrong, method #2 assumes that he is not.

Got all that? Me neither, but that's the best I could explain it. Just learn Perl and look at the code if you're unsure. Let's move on.

When generating random trial sequences instead of using Sheldrake's sequences, it is possible to specify the number of subjects and trials to simulate. In either case, the gambler's fallacy modifier and "memory" of the previous trial is reset for each subject.

The source code linked above is in the configuration to run 20 experiments using Sheldrake's trial sequences, guessing method #3 from above, with a yes-bias of 5% and a gambler's fallacy modifier of 33%. These values and methods are all easily modified by adjusting the values of variables in the first few lines of code. Since Sheldrake provides 20 sequences of 20 trials each, the total number of trials that will be simulated when the program is executed is 8,000.

Upon completion of the simulated trials, the program outputs the following results for each experiment, and for the total run of all experiments:

total number of trials run across all subjects,

the total number of trials that were staring trials,

the total number of staring trials that were correctly guessed by the subject,

the total number of non-staring trials that were correctly guessed by the subject,

the total number of trials that were correctly guessed (#3 + #4 from above), and

the breakdown of subjects into Sheldrake's "plus or minus" categories, in which subjects who guessed correctly more often than incorrectly are labeled "plus" subjects, subjects who guessed incorrectly more often than correctly are "minus" subjects, and subjects who guessed correctly and incorrectly an equal number of times are ignored.

The Method

Using my program, I generated four sets of results (Set I, Set II, and Set III, and Set IV--roman numerals are t3h aw3s0me). Each set consisted of the 20 simulated experiments, each consisting of 20 trials on 20 different subjects, for a total of 8,000 trials each.

Set I

For the first set, I used randomly generated trial sequences, and guessing method #1 (no fallacy algorithm) from above. This was primarily to test the accuracy of my program under truly random circumstances. The results I expected to see were values that were statistically insignificant and no better than chance.

Set II

The second set used Sheldrake's sequences, and guessing method #3 (gambler's fallacy when feedback is provided). This would test whether or not Colwell's conclusions--that Sheldrake's sequences are sufficiently non-random enough to allow for statistically significant results without any paranormal effects (assuming that the subject is given feedback)--could be illustrated using my simple gambler's fallacy model. The results I expected were values that would show the subjects guessed correctly significantly more often than chance would dictate.

Set III

The third set used Sheldrake's sequences, and guessing method #2 (gambler's fallacy when no feedback is provided). This was purely for curiosity's sake, to see if the gambler's fallacy has any effect when applied even without feeback. Based on common sense and the conclusions drawn by Colwell et al in their experiments, I expected no significant results above chance to be shown in this set.

Set IV

For the final set I used randomly generated trial sequences, and guessing method #3 (gambler's fallacy when feeback is provided). I wanted to see if gambler's fallacy also could have a significant positive effect on truly random sequences, and if so how did it compare to Sheldrake's pseudo-random sequences. I expected a possible significant effect here, but not as strong as in Sheldrake's sequences.

The Results

First, I will provide a table of overall results from all four Sets, then discuss and further analyze each individually. For ease of comparison, I will use the same table layouts and graphing methods that Rupert Sheldrake presents in his paper The Sense of Being Stared At - Part 1: Is it Real or Illusory? (pdf).

Set	Trials	Right	% right	N	+	-	p	Raw data
I	8,000	4,013	50.16	400	160	167	0.6987	set1data.txt
II	8,000	4,143	51.79	400	187	140	0.0093	set2data.txt
III	8,000	4,040	50.5	400	165	162	0.8682	set3data.txt
IV	8,000	4,029	50.36	400	175	166	0.6260	set4data.txt

The sign scores are tallied the same way Sheldrake did in the paper mentioned above. Subjects who were more often right than wrong were scored +, subjects who were more often wrong than right were scored -, and subjects who were right the same number of times they were wrong are excluded. The p values are also calculated the same way Sheldrake did, using the chi-square test where the null hypothesis is that + and - should be equal.

As you can see, Sets I and III have high p values, indicating no significance beyond chance, as I had predicted. I expected a possible significance in Set IV, but this did not pan out in the actual trials. The fact that these three sets did not produce any significant results essentially means the following:

(Set I) when the trials are completely random, and the guesses are completely random, the results are dictated by chance (duh!);

(Set III) when Sheldrake's sequences are used, and no feedback is available to base the guesses on (but the guesses themselves are affected by the gambler's fallacy), the results are dictated by chance; and,

(Set IV) when the trials are completely random, feedback is given to the subject, and the guesses are affected by the gambler's fallacy, then the results are dictated by chance.

The interesting set was Set II, the one for which I predicted that the subjects would guess right significantly better than chance would dictate. This was the set that used Sheldrake's trial sequences, provided feedback to the subject whether each trial was stare or non-stare, and had guesses that were affected by my gambler's fallacy algorithm. As you can see, the very low p value tells us that, shockingly, I was right--the results are significantly above simple chance. Here are some charts made from my Set 2 data, also modeled after the ones Sheldrake produces in his paper:

Chart A gives the percentages of correct and incorrect guesses in staring trials, non-staring trials, and total trials. The findings that people did much better on the staring trials than non-staring trials is consistent with Sheldrake's findings.

Chart B gives the number of subjects who guessed correctly more often than incorrectly and vice versa in staring trials, non-staring trials, and total trials. Again, subjects did much better in staring trials than in non-staring trials (which is also consistent with Sheldrake's findings).

Conclusions

This little personal exercise has solidified for me that any experiments that use the trial sequences that Sheldrake provides on his website should be disregarded. Indeed, this is true for any experiments at all that use pseudo-random trial sequences arrived at using similar methods to those used by Sheldrake. The fact that a computer simulation implementing a simple gambler's fallacy algorithm can clearly produce statistically significant positive results in-line with Sheldrake's findings makes it an undeniable fact that this can happen even in the complete absence of any paranormal psi effects.

If you're feeling particularly sadistic, you should download and run my script with the settings from Set II, but with a way higher experiment number (for example 50 or 100). It is 100% consistent in showing huge statistical significance using the p value as calculated by Sheldrake, even with ridiculously huge trial numbers. (Just in case someone gets the idea that I cherry picked the best run to fit my hypothesis out of a billion runs, or something. The results I used were all first-runs with the specified settings.)

I do recognize the fact that the effect shown by my program is not as strong as the one that Sheldrake reports (mainly in the "% right" column from the results table). The human mind is a complex thing though, much more complex and clever than about 30 lines of code in a Perl script (most human minds, at any rate). It is no stretch of the imagination to presume that the subjects involved in real human experiments employ much more complex and effective strategies for guessing the correct answers (such as some kind of subtle pattern learning as suggested by Marks and Colwell) which could account for the slightly better hit rates. It might even be possible to tweak some of the variables in my program to improve the numbers. The ultimate fact remains that, when using pseudo-random trial sequences, such as the ones provided by Sheldrake, it is entirely possible to get statistically significant positive results in staring detection experiments due to reasons totally unrelated to psi or any other paranormal effect.

Q E (Oh man did I really waste two whole days on this?) D.

Rupert Sheldrake and Being Stared At

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — 2007-02-20T04:20:00Z

Somebody suggested to me that if I took a closer look at the work of Rupert Sheldrake, that it might persuade me from my skeptical opinion of ESP. In this post I'll take a look into the idea that people or animals can somehow sense when they're being stared at. Sheldrake also promotes other ideas, which I will probably further address in future posts.

I'm sure most of us have sensed it at one time or another--the eerie feeling that you are being watched. The rational and common-sense side of me says that there's probably nothing to it. There could be any number of other indicators that could alert you to the fact that someone's staring at you (other subtle clues that someone entered the room, for example--smell, movement in the corner of your eye, or noises). It could also be due to selective memory (for example, you often get the feeling that you're being stared at, and only remember the few times where it actually turned out to be true, ignoring the times when the feeling passed without any kind of confirmation). Fortunately, this seems like an ideal candidate for testing in a controlled, scientific manner.

Sheldrake has published a number of papers on the subject, all of which I have now read. Primarily, his claim is that simple experimentation can and does prove that this sense is real, and that these results are independently repeatable. A lot of the research he cites seems kind of suspect to me--namely, allusions to anecdotal accounts, experiments conducted by kids for school science fairs, the "NeMo experiment" which consists of an unsupervised computer display at a kid-oriented science center where people can test their own ability to detect stares, and equally unsupervised online tests where anybody can do the same on Sheldrake's website. Even excluding these questionable studies, however, the data that Sheldrake cites from his own experiments, which were performed by himself and several participating independent schools, seem to show that we really do have the ability to detect when someone is staring at us.

A little further investigation into the phenomenon, however, turns up some sources that make it appear that Sheldrake's results may not be as replicable as he would lead us to believe. A critique of Sheldrake's findings can be found here, which details an attempt to replicate his experiment in 2000 by John Colwell et al. In these trials, it was determined that the positive results were only apparent when the subject was given feedback after his answers (ie, told if he was correct or incorrect after guessing if he was being stared at). In trials in which no feedback was given, the results were not significantly better than chance. Further analysis of the results when feedback was given showed that the subjects tended to get better at guessing as trials went on. They hypothesized that the random sequences of staring versus non staring trials that they were using (the same ones that Sheldrake used in his experiments) were not truly random, and that the subjects were perceiving and learning patterns in the sequences which allowed them to more accurately guess the correct answers as time went on. Further analysis of Sheldrake's trial sequences seems to support this idea as well, by proving that they are not truly random.

Colwell conducted further experiments with new trial sequences that were truly random. In those trials, even when feedback was provided to the subject, the results were no better than chance, and the same "learning" effect was not observed. This further supports the theory that Sheldrake's sequences were a possible source of error in his experiments and the experiments performed for him by the independent schools. Sheldrake later responded to this critique, in which he makes some arguments against the idea that non-random sequences could fully account for the results obtained, and also mentions how their experiments involved different starers as a possible source of their contradictory findings.

Fortunately, there are other studies we can look at as well. This paper (pdf) by Eva Lobach and Dick Bierman documents three separate attempts to reproduce Sheldrake's findings, one of which was even designed with Sheldrake's input (though, they did not use his random trial sequences). All three failed to find any significant effect. To quote the discussion near the end:

The three studies presented above show a rather disappointing picture as far as the replicability of the staring effect is concerned. None of the studies found the large staring effects reported by Sheldrake. The straightforward conclusion must be that staring effects are not easily replicable, although they do indeed serve as great student projects.

Sheldrake does address these experiments in his writings as well. He states that error may have been introduced due to the fact that the subjects had to use a computer to enter their answers, which may have distracted them from the subtle effects that the staring caused in them--though, this would seem to contradict his inclusion of the positive results obtained from the unsupervised NeMo experiment and the online test on his own website earlier in the same paper.

Ultimately, I am unimpressed by the evidence I have seen so far, and unconvinced that there is anything to the staring-detection phenomenon. I get the overall impression that the only experiments that produce positive results seem to either be easily explained by experimental error, or somehow involve Rupert Sheldrake personally--whereas all of the properly conducted independent experiments show no positive results.

An Examination of Archaeology Pertaining to the Bible

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — 2007-02-17T01:41:00Z

The claim is often made that the Bible has been independently confirmed to be a historically accurate reference text. I've always been curious to what extent this is actually true. How much has actually been verified? How was it verified? Which parts have been verified?

In general, people who make the claim do so in extremely vague terms--usually referring to unspecified archaeological findings ("archaeology proved that this was right!"), unnamed archaeologists, or saying things like "no archaeological evidence that contradicts the bible has ever been found."

If you actually dig a little deeper than the surface, however, it becomes quite apparent just how empty these particular claims are. Instead of going over all of the examples of archaeology "proving" the Bible in detail, I will simply provide brief summaries of some of the specific claims in the form of simple conversations in order to provide an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the claims. (Well, okay, just the weaknesses... but only because there are no strengths.)

The Hittites

Archaeologist: Wow! I found a whole new civilization! Let's call them the Hittites.
Christians: Wow! There really were Hittites? Just like in the Bible?
Other Archaeologists: Well, actually we can't say for sure that these people are the same people mentioned in the Bible. In fact there is essentially no evidence at all to suggest...
Christians: Dude! You guys just proved the Bible!!

Bricks Without Straw

Archaeologists: Oh, look. Some bricks without straw in them.
Christians: Wow! They used those in the Bible! That must be the Tower of Babel!!
Archaeologists: ...
Christians: Dude! You guys just proved the Bible!!

The Walls of Jericho

Archaeologists: We found the city of Jericho. It's really old so most of it has crumbled and collapsed.
Christians: Wow! God made its walls fall down in the Bible!
Archaeologists: Well, we have no way to tell when it happened. And based on the evidence, most likely it was caused by an earthquake, or...
Christians: Dude! You just proved that Jesus died for my sins!!

The City of Ur

Archaeologists: We found the city of Ur.
Christians: Super! That city was totally in the Bible! You just proved that Heaven exists and I'm going there when I die!!

Cities of Ancient Israel

Archaeologists: We found a bunch of ancient cities.
Christians: OMG! The Bible said there were cities around there!
Archaeologists: (Sigh.)
Christians: I'm so incredibly excited, I just lost all control of my bowels and went poo in my pants!!

Noah's Ark

Christians: Look! There's a big kinda-boat-shaped lump on the side of that mountain!
Archaeologists: Um...?
Christians: It must be Noah's Ark! Archaeology rules!!
Archaeologists: Er...?

The Great Flood

Archaeologists: The Pyramids and Sphinx in Egypt were built before the Biblical flood was supposed to have occurred--the fact that they are still here today proves that the flood couldn't have happened as described in the Bible. We have also found other evidence all around the world that shows millions of people were alive all over the Earth just shortly after the flood should have occurred. This can't really be accounted for by the Bible.
Christians: You guys are just stupid and don't know what you're doing. You do everything incorrectly, and everything you say about anything is completely wrong!
Archaeologists: ...
Christians: SCREW YOU THE BIBLE SAYS IT HAPPENED SO IT DID OKAY?!!

You get the idea. Not only is the archaeological evidence for the accuracy of the Bible extremely weak (it can only prove that places, people, or events in the bible may have actually existed--it cannot say anything one way or the other about the nature of the actual narratives being told), but Christians must also pick and choose only specific archaeological findings that support the Bible, and ignore ones that contradict them.

The bottom line is, archaeology does not prove anything of religious consequence in the Bible. Any sources that claim otherwise, or that claim that the archaeological findings that support information in the Bible in some way gives credibility to everything else in the Bible, are simply being intellectually dishonest.

Again, I will close on a quote by someone who's definitely much more qualified to comment on the subject than me. Christopher O'Brien, archaeologist and professor of anthropology at California State University, wrote in his blog:

...archaeological data are cherry-picked, archaeological concepts and methods misconstrued, and archaeologists' statements taken out of context by creationists to provide "confirmation" of the particular version of biblical history that best serves them.

References
http://www.beyondthisplanet.org/bible/No_mistakes/accurate_history1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites#Biblical_Hittites
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2000/20000926.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a011.html
http://www.dawnbible.com/booklets/archeology.htm
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/bible-archaeology.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may04.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11747932/

Dean Radin, Parapsychology, and Science

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — 2007-02-12T17:58:00Z

It seems to me that people who want to believe in something tend to hastily jump to conclusions when presented with a bare minimum of evidence that seems to support the belief. Believers of ESP seem to like throwing Dean Radin's name around, for example. Radin has written some books (which I admittedly have not read), and is involved in parapsychology, including some experiments that purportedly prove the existence of a type of ESP.

The experiments certainly are intriguing--they essentially involve recording a test subject's response to certain stimuli (pictures, for example) that are intended to either provoke an emotional response or a non-emotional response. In Radin's experiment, it involved serene pictures (landscapes, trees, etc.) versus erotic or violent images (at a 2 to 1 ratio). Radin claims that the results of the experiments seem to show that the test subject responded to the emotional pictures before they were shown (he coins the term "presponse" to describe the effect).

A detailed explanation of some of these experiments can be found here. Note that even Radin himself confesses that the results of his experiments could have possible non-paranormal explanations:

The major (and maybe only) source of normal explanations remaining after Radin's original analyses is the hypothesis that subjects developed anticipatory strategies that resulted in different anticipatory physiology preceding calm or emotional pictures.

The idea is that the test subject's emotional "presponse" was subject to what is known as the gambler's fallacy. Essentially, after each calm picture, the subject would (incorrectly) assess the probability that the next picture would be an emotional one as slightly higher (thus increasing the measures of their emotional response). Additionally, after each emotional picture they would relax, figuring (also incorrectly) that they're not due for another one right away. The net result of this process would seemingly be that there would be an overall higher measure of emotional response prior to the emotional pictures than to the calm ones. This would explain the results of the experiment without resorting to the paranormal.

Radin dismisses this possibility due to a number of factors. Namely (a) that his results seem to show different levels of presentiment before erotic versus violent emotional pictures, which could not be explained by a simple anticipatory build-up; also, (b) further analysis of the data in which presentiment was measured at equal intervals before calm versus emotional images (for example, a calm image presented after two preceding calm images versus an emotional image presented after two calm images) showed that presentiment levels were higher before the emotional image than before the calm image, which would also not be expected assuming an anticipatory build-up explanation; finally, (c) he developed some computer simulations to test the anticipatory build-up models, and concluded that although there was an effect shown by his models, they were not to the same extent as found in the experiment (and thus his experimental results must require a paranormal effect to completely explain them).

Now, I am by no means an expert in statistics, or even experimental science. These are just some ideas that strike me as a skeptical layperson when reading about his reasons for dismissing an anticipatory effect.

(a) I can conceive of a situation, even under an anticipatory model, that would allow for apparent statistical differences in emotional measures before erotic and violent images. While the two types of images may certainly generate emotional responses in a subject, they both won't necessarily have the same "resetting" effect on the subject's anticipatory level. Conceivably, a subject's emotional response to erotic images may be a positive one, compared to a negative one for violent images. In other words, there may be a complex interaction of independent anticipation levels for each type of image.

(b) Admittedly, an explanation for the further statistical analysis mentioned above escapes me, other than it also possibly being due to what I said about (a). Unfortunately I don't have the mathematical training required in order to assess these claims one way or another.

(c) The computer models seem the most frivolous method of rationalization to me. This is an area in which I do have some small degree of expertise (B.Sc. in computer science from the University of Calgary). The models used are described in the link I provided above as such:

The following anticipatory strategies were tested:

a) Increase anticipation by 1 unit after each calm target, and reset anticipation to 1 after each emotional target.

b) Double the anticipation after each calm target (to a maximum of 500) and reset the anticipation after each emotional target to either half of the previous value, or 1.

The simulated effects in the open-deck situation were never larger than 2% while the observed experimental effects in Studies 1 and 2 were generally larger than 10%. However, these analyses are by no means exhaustive and there may be less plausible statistical anticipation models that may result in larger differences. The major point in favor of the psi hypothesis is that there are no indications in the real data that support any of these sequential strategy models.

No explanation for choosing these particular models is given, and it all seems highly arbitrary to me. The idea that a human brain and emotions can even remotely be modeled by these simple algorithms seems ridiculous--I could easily replicate either algorithm in 5-10 lines of computer code. It may very well be true that such models do not result in effects that are equal in magnitude as those shown in the experiment, but all that really says is that if there is a mundane anticipatory-effect that can explain the experimental results, that it is not governed by one of these two over-simplified algorithms. That's not really saying much when you consider the complexity of the human mind.

After a little more searching, I found a paper titled A Computational Expectation Bias as Revealed by Simulations of Presentiment Experiments (pdf), by Jan Dalkvista, Joakim Westerlunda and Dick J. Bierman. Interestingly, Bierman is one of the people who had originally replicated Radin's results in an independent experiment of a similar design (and is, in fact, the subject of the link I reference above regarding the experiment). This is pure speculation, but perhaps Bierman was not content in making the radical conclusions that Radin did, and instead went on to consider other possible explanations. The paper discusses the expectational bias, or anticipation build-up idea in much further depth, including more computer simulations that make Radin's dismissal of the effect seem a little hasty and premature. To quote the discussion from the end of the paper:

There is no doubt that the presentiment experiment could be afflicted by a potential statistical bias, based on an expectation effect: an effect of the expectation that the likelihood of an activating stimulus being presented increases with the number of previous consecutive calm stimuli – that is, a variant of the ”gambler's fallacy”.

Ultimately, given what information I have managed to gather, I remain highly skeptical of Radin's experiments and others modeled after them which replicate their results. I am not convinced that they inarguably represent a paranormal presentiment effect, and feel that the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that further study and experimentation should be performed. Fortunately, I am not alone in this, and other scientists have tried to further replicate the "presponse" phenomenon.

In a paper titled Exploring the Reliability of the "Presentiment" Effect (pdf), Richard S. Broughton details his attempt to replicate Radin's experiment. His design was similar, but the results failed to replicate the prior experiment. To quote the abstract:

The experiment did not produce overall evidence of a presentiment effect, nor did it demonstrate test-retest reliability. Since this experiment deviated from prior methods of analysis the data were examined without de-trending and automatic artifact removal, but there was still no evidence of a presentiment effect.

So, even using Radin's original statistical analysis methods, a similar experiment failed to show the same results. The possible reasons for this are discussed in the paper, but ultimately all it does for me is cast doubt on the original experiments. Add this to the innumerable additional scientific ESP experiments that have been performed over the years which decidedly fail to show any anomalous results, and it all further fuels my skepticism.

To add to the flames, I'll close this post with a couple links that I find particularly enlightening as to the state of parapsychology as a whole. The first is an entry in ex-parapsychologist Louie Savva's blog entitled Why I Quit Parapsychology. A short quote:

Evaluating parapsychology as a whole, it seems best described as a house of cards and one whose very foundations are extremely shaky and yet people continue to build on top, regardless.

Savva followed in the footsteps of Susan Blackmore, who also left the world of parapsychology in frustration. A quote from her website:

It was just over thirty years ago that I had the dramatic out-of-body experience that convinced me of the reality of psychic phenomena and launched me on a crusade to show those closed-minded scientists that consciousness could reach beyond the body and that death was not the end. Just a few years of careful experiments changed all that. I found no psychic phenomena - only wishful thinking, self-deception, experimental error and, occasionally, fraud. I became a sceptic.

Bull-Shuit

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — 2007-02-05T03:25:00Z

I've been doing some reading on Feng Shui recently. I think it's hilarious how these "ancient Chinese" pseudosciences get swept up by new-agers in the west and turned into almost cult-like movements. Feng Shui, acupuncture, Therapeutic Touch, and so on. All you have to do is tell an average American that you know the secrets behind something that the Chinese have been doing for centuries, and he will throw bushels of cash at you.

For those not in the know, Feng Shui is essentially a set of rules and principals for arranging spaces that "maximizes harmony with nature." At its core, it can seem like a perfectly reasonable idea. I don't think it's hard to imagine that your immediate surroundings can have an effect on you--for example, surrounding yourself with objects that remind you of something depressing will probably make you depressed. Feng Shui does address some of these kinds of common sense ideas, but it also goes much further. To quote the Skeptic's Dictionary:

Alleged masters of feng shui, those who understand the five elements and the two energies such as chi and sha (hard energy, the opposite of chi), are supposed to be able to detect metaphysical energies and give directions for their optimal flow.

The idea is that Nature is an actual entity that breaths energy, or chi, and that by arranging furniture and other things in a space correctly, you can maximize the flow of good chi, and minimize bad chi. The alleged benefits from utilizing Feng Shui range anywhere from improving your love life, to increasing your income, to losing weight.

I don't mean to insult the ancient Chinese or anything--I mean, they lived thousands of years ago and did not have the same kind of scientific understanding of the world that we do today. But in this day and age, I think if such a thing as chi existed, we would have discovered it by now (or at least observed some kind of evidence that could only be explained by the existence of this elusive "energy"). I've said it before, and I'll probably say it many times to come, but energy is a very well understood and defined thing in science. The idea of chi is analogous to something like the idea of the aether. The aether was introduced to science by Aristotle to answer some questions that eluded understanding by scientists and philosophers at the time. Advances in modern science have eliminated the need for the aether to answer those questions, so the theory has been discarded. The concept of chi should have shared a similar fate--but since it's Chinese, it's somehow managed to survive even into present day. Why do people give so much credence to something purely on the basis that the Chinese have been doing it for a long time? Like the Chinese are somehow not bound by the same physical laws of the universe, or something.

Anyway, my main beef with Feng Shui is the so-called "consultants" that charge people to come in and redecorate their houses, or sell retarded little knick-knacks like crystal balls and funny-shaped mirrors at outrageous markups in the name of increasing good chi flow. It's a form of legal con-artistry. Just look at any website advertising the services of these so-called experts--they will often make vague and general wishy-washy statements about the environment's effects on your physical and emotional well-being, as well as imply that their services can help you in an astonishing wide variety of ways. Some examples:

From SanDiegoFengShui.com:

Scientific studies prove that our environment greatly influences our mental, physical, and emotional well - being. When our homes feel safe, nurturing, and inspiring, we have better health, a more positive outlook, improved relationships, and greater success. So many people today lead hectic and stressful lives. They want to come home to a place that creates a sense of peace, beauty, security, and comfort. A Feng Shui consultation with Cathleen will help you do just that.

Not the use of the word "science" used to throw off viewers. I defy anyone to find or conduct a proper double-blind scientific experiment that proves the existence of chi or any beneficial qualities of using Feng Shui above and beyond simple common sense.

From MJGDesigns.com

If you want to lose weight, avoid stimulating, bright colors in your dining room, and add some black accents. Finally, wear a black crystal bracelet to add some wealth and wisdom to your life today.

I agree that rearranging your furniture might help you lose weight--but not for the same reasons that a Feng Shui consultant might suggest. Especially those ready-to-assemble furniture kits from Walmart and the like. That stuff can get damn heavy! (It should also be noted that the words "black crystal bracelet" in the original source linked to another page on the same site that conveniently was selling just that for only $36. In fact, every single item they recommend using to enhance your life or attract positive chi is also sold by them.)

From FengShui-Consultants.co.uk:

By following our Feng Shui advice, our clients have improved their marriages, got on better with neighbours, retrieved money that was owed them, doubled the turnover of their businesses, improved their children’s performance in school, calmed family friction, got better jobs and improved their health.

Those are some pretty hefty claims--backed up, of course, by nothing but the glowing testimonials from poor saps who probably paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for these services and would read any little thing as a sign that they hadn't just flushed all of that money down the toilet for nothing.

I found an interesting article here on the Tampa Bay Skeptic's website detailing a skeptic's experiences when taking a Feng Shui class at USF. It makes mention of another amusing look at Feng Shui by Penn and Teller in their Showtime series Bullshit. In the Feng Shui episode, they hired three different Feng Shui "masters" to apply their "science" to the same house, and all three had widely differing and contradictory results. If Feng Shui really is a science, shouldn't all of the experts come to at least remotely similar conclusions about the same space?

Some other amusing applications of Feng Shui I found were Feng Shui in web design, cell phones, even poker. (I wonder if Casinos try to maximize negative energy so that people lose more. I bet there could be lawsuits in it if the employees at the casino also started gaining weight, having lousy relationships, and not making as much money.)

Ultimately, Feng Shui is pseudoscientific nonsense. There are surely some common-sense ways to arrange your working and living spaces that are better than others, but I assure you that they have nothing to do with Nature's chi breath or multi-faceted crystals and mirrors used to attract mythical energy. To spend any amount of money on fraudsters trying to push wares or services that supposedly improve energy flows and the like is pure foolery.

Some other Feng Shui references:
Feng Shui at Religious Movements Homepage
Summary of the Feng Shui episode of Bullshit on TV.com
Feng Shui Hippo's Feng Shui