From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: skeptic-faq V 0.1
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:39:19 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, Essex

The Frequently Questioned Answers
=================================

Version 0.1

I hereby volunteer to maintain a sci.skeptic FAQ.  Unfortunately I
don't have much time to do this in, and anyway a FAQ should be the
Distilled Wisdom of the Net rather than just my bigoted point of view.
So I plan to write very little.  Instead I would like to request
submissions on a list of topics, and let all the net experts out there
fill in the details.  Submissions from any point of view and on any
sci.skeptic topic are welcomed, but please keep them short and to the
point.  The ideal submission is a short summary with one or two
references to other literature.  I have added comments in square
brackets where I think more information is particularly needed, but
don't let that stop you sending something else.  Please mail
submissions and comments to <paj@gec-mrc.co.uk>.

Note: I do not speak for GEC.

This is in no way an `official' FAQ.  I am a computer scientist by
profession and deeply skeptical of paranormal claims (although I plan
to include pro-paranormal arguments here).  If anyone else with a less
skeptical point of view wants to start a FAQ list, please feel free.
I certainly can't stop you.

Contents
========

Background
----------
0.1: What is sci.skeptic for?
0.2: What is sci.skeptic not for?
0.3: What is CSICOP?  Whats their address?
0.4: What is `Prometheus'?
0.5: Who are some prominent skeptics?
0.6: Aren't all skeptics just closed-minded bigots?
0.7: Aren't all paranormalists just woolly-minded fools?
0.8: What is a `conspiracy theory'?

The Scientific Method
---------------------

1.1: What is the scientific method?
1.2: Can science ever really prove anything?
1.3: If scientific theories keep changing, where is the Truth?
1.4: What evidence is needed for an extraordinary claim?
1.5: What is Occam's Razor?
1.6: Galilleo was persecuted, just like researchers into <X> today.
1.7: What is the `Experimenter effect'.

Psychic Powers
--------------

2.1: Is Uri Geller for real?
2.2: I have had a psychic experience.
2.3: What is `sensory leakage'?
2.4: Who are the main psi researchers?

UFOs/Flying Saucers
-------------------

3.1: What types of aliens are there?
3.2: Is it true that the US government has a crashed flying saucer
     (MJ-12)?
3.3: What is `channeling'?
3.4: How can we test a channeler?
3.5: I am in telepathic contact with the aliens.
3.6: Some bozo has just posted a load of `teachings' from a UFO.  What
     should I do?
3.7: Are crop circles made by flying saucers?

Faith Healing and Alternative Therapies
---------------------------------------

4.1: Isn't western medicine reductionistic and alternatives holistic?
4.2: What is a double-blind trial?  What is a placebo?
4.3: Why should scientific criteria apply to alternative therapies?
4.4: What is homeopathy?
4.5: What is aromatherapy?
4.6: What is reflexology?
4.7: Does accupuncture work?
4.8: What about psychic surgery?
4.9: What is Crystal Healing?
4.10: Does religious healing work?
4.11: What harm does it do anyway?

Creation versus Evolution
-------------------------

5.1: Is the Bible evidence of anything?
5.2: Could the Universe have been created old?
5.3: What about Carbon-14 dating?
5.4: Can you be a skeptic and a Christian?

Firewalking
-----------

6.1: Is firewalking possible?
6.2: Can science explain firewalking?

New Age
-------

7.1: What do New Agers believe?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
==========

0.1: What is sci.skeptic for?
-----------------------------

[Did anyone save the Charter? PAJ]

Sci.skeptic is for those who are skeptical about claims of the
paranormal to meet with those who believe in the paranormal.  In this
way the paranormalists can expose their ideas to scientific scrutiny,
and if there is anything in these ideas then the skeptics might learn
something.

0.2: What is sci.skeptic not for?
---------------------------------

The scope of sci.skeptic extends into any area where hard evidence can
be obtained, but does not extend into speculation.  So religeous
arguments are out of place here (take them to alt.atheism or
talk.religion.*).  On the other hand discussion about miracles and
creation science is to be welcomed, since these are issues where
evidence can be obtained.

Also out of place are channeled messages from aliens.  If your
channeled message contains testable facts then post those.  Otherwise
we are simply not interested.  Take it to alt.alien.visitors.

Sci.skeptic is not an abuse group.  There is a regrettable tendency
for polite discussion here to degenerate into ad-hominem flames about
who said what to whom and what they meant.  PLEASE DO NOT FLAME.  You
won't convince anyone.  Rather the opposite.

0.3: What is CSICOP?  What is its address?
------------------------------------------

CSICOP stands for the "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of
Claims Of the Paranormal".  They publish a monthly magazine called
"The Skeptical Inquirer".  Their address is:

	Skeptical Inquirer,
	Box 229,
	Buffalo, NY 14215-0229.

0.4: What is `Prometheus'?
--------------------------

Prometheus Books is a publisher specialising in skeptical books.
Their address is:

	Prometheus Books
	700 Amherst Street
	Buffalo, NY 14215-9918   

0.5: Who are some prominent skeptics?
-------------------------------------

James "The Amazing" Randi is a professional stage magician who spends
much time and money debunking paranormal claims.  He has a standing
reward of $100,000 to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal powers
under controlled conditions, and he was recently sued by Uri Geller.

Martin Gardner is an author, mathematician and amateur stage magician
who has written several books dealing with paranormal phenomena,
including "Science: Good, Bad and Bogus" and "Fads and Fallacies in
the Name of Science".

Philip Klass is an author and UFO investigator.  He has written a
number of books debunking UFOs.

[Can someone supply me with potted biographies and publication lists
of these and other people? PAJ]

0.6: Aren't all skeptics just closed-minded bigots?
---------------------------------------------------

People who have failed to convince skeptics often say "Well all
skeptics are just closed-minded bigots who won't listen to me!".  This
is not true.  Skeptics pay close attention to the evidence.  If you
have no evidence then you will get nowhere.

Unfortunately life is short.  Most of us have better things to do than
investigate yet another bogus claim.  Some paranormal topics,
especially psi research and UFOlogy, produce vast quantities of low
grade evidence.  In the past people have investigated such evidence
carefully, but it always seems to evaporate when anyone looks at it
closely.  Hence skeptics should be forgiven for not bothering to
investigate yet another piece of low grade evidence before rejecting
it.

Of course there are some who substitute flaming and rhetoric for
logical argument.  We all lose our temper sometimes.

0.7: Aren't all paranormalists just woolly-minded fools?
--------------------------------------------------------

No.  Some just pick a belief and then search for evidence to support
it.  Others have had experiences which they find compelling evidence
for belief.  This includes channelers, palmists and dowsers.  Shouting
won't convince these people.  The best tactic is to explain why you
think they are wrong, and do it slowly and quietly.

Of course, some of them are confidence men out for a fast buck.  But
its best to assume innocence unless you can prove guilt.

[Any paranormalists out there want to add something? PAJ]

0.8: What is a Conspiracy Theory?
---------------------------------

A conspiracy theory is a belief that there is a large-scale conspiracy
by those in power to mislead and/or control the rest of the world.
Consider the following (mostly imaginary) example:

	There is a conspiracy amongst the computer programmers to
	control the world.  They are only allowing the public to have
	simple machines, while they control the really powerful ones.
	There is a computer in <city> they call `The Beast'.  It has
	records about everyone.  They use this information to
	manipulate the politicians and businessmen who ostensibly rule
	the world into doing their will.  The Beast was prophesised in
	the Book of Revalations.

Conspiracy theories divide the world into three groups.  The
Conspirators, the Investigators, and the Dupes.  Conspirators have
this vast secret.  The Investigators have found out parts of the
conspiracy, but much is still secret.  Investigators are always in
great danger of being silenced by Conspirators.  Dupes are just the
rest of us.

Evidence produced by the Investigators is always either circumstancial
or it evaporates when looked at carefully.  The theories can never be
disproved, since any evidence to the contrary can be dismissed as
having been planted by the Conspirators.  If you spend any time or
effort digging into the evidence produced by Investigators, you will
be labelled a Conspirator yourself.  Of course, nothing a Conspirator
says can be believed.  Hence conspiracy theories are inherantly
unfalsifiable.


The Scientific Method
=====================

1.1: What is the `scientific method'?
-------------------------------------

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing
the truth from lies and delusion.  The simple version looks something
like this:

	1: Observe some aspect of the universe.
	2: Invent a theory which is consistent with what you have
	   observed.
	3: Use the theory to make predictions.
	4: Test those predictions by experiments.
	5: Modify the theory in the light of your results.
	6: Go to step 3.

This leaves out the co-operation between scientists in building
theories, and the fact that it is impossible for every scientist to
independantly do every experiment to confirm every theory.  Because
life is short, scientists have to trust other scientists.  So a
scientist who claims to have done an experiment and obtained certain
results will usually be believed, and most people will not bother to
repeat the experiment.

Experiments do get repeated as part of other experiments.  Most
scientific papers contain suggestions for other scientists to follow
up.  Usually the first step in doing this is to repeat the earlier
work.  So if a theory is the starting point for a significant amount
of work, then the initial experiments will get replicated a number of
times.

Some people talk about `Khunian paradigm shifts'.  This refers to the
observed pattern of the slow extension of scientific knowledge with
occasional sudden revolutions.  This does happen, but it still follows
the steps above.

1.2: Can science ever really prove anything?
--------------------------------------------

Yes and no.  It depends on what you mean by `prove'.

For instance, there is little doubt that an object thrown into the air
will come back down (ignoring rockets and the Bull Supergun for the
moment).  One could frame a scientific theory which states `Things
fall down'.  I am about to throw a stone into the air.  I use my
theory to predict that the stone will come back down.  Wow - it did!

But next time I throw a stone, it might not come down.  It might
hover, or go shooting off upwards.  So not even this simple theory has
been really proved.  But you would have to be very perverse to claim
that a thrown stone would not come back down.  So for ordinary
everyday use, we can say that the theory is true.

You can think of facts and theories (not just scientific ones, but
ordinary everyday ones) as being on a scale of certainty.  Up at the
top end we have facts like `things fall down'.  Down at the bottom we
have `the Earth is flat'.  In the middle we have `I will die of heart
disease'.  Some scientific theories are nearer the top than others,
but none of them ever actually reach it.

1.3: If scientific theories keep changing, where is the Truth?
--------------------------------------------------------------

A few hundred years ago [Dates, anyone? PAJ] Issac Newton proposed his
theory of gravitation.  This was one of the greatest intellectual
feats of all time.  The theory explained all the observed facts, and
made predictions which were later tested and found to be correct
within the accuracy of the instruments being used.  As far as anyone
could see, Newton's theory was the Truth.

During the nineteenth century, more accurate instruments were used to
test Newton's theory, and found some slight discrepancies (for
instance, the orbit of Mercury wasn't quite right).  Albert Einstein
proposed his theories of Relativity, which explained the newly
observed facts and made more predictions.  Those predictions have now
been tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the
instruments being used.  As far as anyone can see, Einstein's theory
is the Truth.

So how can the Truth change?  Well the answer is that it hasn't.  The
Universe is still the same as it ever was, and Newton's theory is as
true as it ever was.  If you take a course in physics today, you will
be taught Newton's Laws.  They can be used to make predictions, and
those predictions are still correct.  Only if you are dealing with
things that move close to the speed of light do you need to use
Einstein's theories.  If you are working at ordinary speeds and use
Einstein, you will get (almost) exactly the same answer as you would
with Newton.  It just takes longer, because using Einstein involves
rather more maths.

1.4: What evidence is needed for an extraordinary claim?
--------------------------------------------------------

Extraordinary evidence.

An extraordinary claim is one that contradicts a fact which is close
to the top of the certainty scale discussed above.  So if you are
trying to contradict such a fact, you had better have facts available
which are even higher up the certainty scale.

1.5: What is Occam's Razor?
---------------------------

Occam's Razor is the principle (proposed by William of Occam, or
Ockham) in the fifteenth century, that `entities should not be
multitplied unecessarily' [anyone know the original Latin? PAJ].  In
more modern terms, if you have two theories which both explain the
observed facts then you should use the simplest until more evidence
comes along.

The reason for this is that for any given set of facts there are an
infinite number of theories which could explain them.  For instance,
if you have a graph with four points in a line, the simplest theory
which explains this is a linear relationship, but you can draw an
infinite number of different lines which all pass through the four
points.  There is no evidence that the straight line is the right one,
but it is the simplest possible solution, so you might as well use it
until someone comes along with a point off the straight line.

Also, if you have a few thousand points on the line and someone
suggests that there is a point which is off the line, its a pretty
fair bet that they are wrong.

1.6: Galilleo was persecuted, just like researchers into <X> today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

People putting forward extraordinary claims often refer to Galilleo as
an example of a great genius being persecuted by the establishment for
heretical theories.  They claim that the scientific establishment is
afraid of being proved wrong, and hence is trying to suppress the
truth.

This is a classic conspiracy theory.  The Conspirators are all those
scientists who have bothered to point out flaws in the claims put
forward by the researchers.

The usual rejoinder to someone who says "They laughed at Columbus,
they laughed at Galilleo" is to say "And they also laughed at Coco the
Clown.

1.7: What is the `Experimenter effect'?
---------------------------------------

It is unconscious bias introduced into an experiment by the
experimenter.  It can occur in one of two ways:

 o Scientists doing experiments often have to look for small effects
   or differences between the things being experimented on.

 o Experiments require many samples to be treated in exactly the same
   way in order to get consistent results.

Note that neither of these sources of bias require deliberate fraud.

A classic example of the first kind of bias was the `N-ray',
discovered early this century.  Detecting them required the
investigator to look for very faint flashes of light on a
scintillator.  Many scientists reported detecting these rays.  They
were fooling themselves.

A classic example of the second kind of bias were the detailed
investigations into the relationship between race and brain capacity
in the last century.  Skull capacity was measured by filling the empty
skull with beans and then measuring the volume of beans.  A
significant difference in the results could be obtained by ensuring
that the beans in some skulls were better settled than others.  For
more details on this story, read Stephen Jay Gould's `This Mismeasure
of Man'.

Psychic Powers
==============

2.1: Is Uri Geller for real?
----------------------------

No.  The man is a fraud.  And now that the suit against CSICOP has
been defeated I can say that without fear of harrassing lawsuits.
Geller does nothing which a competant stage magician such as Randi
cannot do.

2.2: I have had a psychic experience.
-------------------------------------

Thats pretty remarkable.  But before you post to the Net, consider:-

 * Could it just be coincidence?  The human mind is good at
   remembering odd things but tends to forget ordinary things, such as
   premonitions that didn't happen.  If psychic experiences happen to
   you on a regular basis then try writing down the premonitions when
   you have them and then comparing your record to later events.

 * If you think you have a mental link with someone you know, try a
   few tests with playing cards [Has anyone got a good protocol for
   this kind of thing? PAJ].

 * If you are receiving messages from elsewhere (e.g. UFOs), ask for
   specific information which you can then check.  A proof or
   counterexample of Fermat's Last Theorem (see the sci.math FAQ)
   for example [Has anyone got any better ones? PAJ]

2.3: What is `Sensory Leakage'?
-------------------------------

Sensory leakage is something that designers of tests for psi must be
careful to guard against.  Tests for psi use powerful statistical
tests to search for faint traces of communication.  Unfortunately the
fact that communication has taken place does not prove that it was
done by telepathy.  It could have been through some more mundane form
of signal.

For instance one experiment involved a `sender' in one room with a
stack of numbered cards (1-10) and a `receiver' in another room trying
to guess what the next card was.  The sender looked at a card and
pressed a button to signal to the receiver.  The receiver then tried
to guess the number on the card.  There was a definite correlation
between the card numbers and the guesses.  However the sender could
signal the receiver by varying the delays between buzzes.  When this
channel of communication was removed, the effect disappeared.

2.4: Who are the main psi researchers?
--------------------------------------

[Targ and Puthoff spring to mind.  Could someone let me know more
please? PAJ]

UFOs and Flying Saucers
=======================

3.1: What types of aliens are there?
------------------------------------

[I have seen occasional references to `greys'.  Can someone add more
please? PAJ]

3.2: Is it true that the US government has a crashed flying saucer (MJ-12)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is also known as the `Roswell Incident'.  Philip Klasse has
investigated this one and shown the reports to be bogus.  One of the
more notable items of `evidence' was a document `signed by the
president'.  Klass showed that this signature was a photocopy of an
existing presidential signature.  [Can someone supply me with more
details please? PAJ]

3.3: What is `channeling'?
--------------------------

`Channeling' is remarkably similar to Spiritualism.  The main
difference is that the relatives `on the other side' are replaced by
aliens in UFOs.  This means that the channeler does not have to worry
about providing accurate information about people in the audience.

3.4: How can we test a channeler?
---------------------------------

[I have read lists of questions which advanced beings should be able to
answer (e.g. Proof or counterexample of Fermat's Last Theorem).  Can
someone suggest more?]

3.5: I am in telepathic contact with the aliens.
------------------------------------------------

See the earlier section on psychic experiences and then try testing
your aliens to see if you get a specific answer.  If you can come up
with new facts which can be tested by scientists then you will be
listened to.  Otherwise you would do better on alt.alien.visitors.

3.6: Some bozo has just posted a load of `teachings' from a UFO.  What
----------------------------------------------------------------------
     should I do?
     ------------

You have several choices:

 * Ignore it.

 * Ask for evidence (see question 3.4 above).

 * Insult or flame the poster.  This is a bad idea.

3.7: Are crop circles made by flying saucers?
---------------------------------------------

The only evidence put forward for the theory that crop circles are
made by aliens is that there is no other explanation.  This is not
true.  Circles have been made which are indistinguishable from `real'
circles.  In an experiment in 1991, a fake circle was made and various
experts asked for comments.  They proclaimed the circle genuine.
[I saw this on TV.  References anyone? PAJ]


Faith Healing and Alternative Therapies
=======================================

Disclaimer: I am not medically qualified.  If you have a medical
	    problem then I strongly recommend that you go to a
	    qualified medical practitioner.  Asking the Net for
	    specific medical advice is always a bad idea.

4.1: Isn't western medicine reductionistic and alternatives holistic?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Practitioners of alternative therapies often put forward the idea that
modern scientific medicine is reductionistic: it concentrates on those
parts of the body that are not working properly, and in so doing it
reduces the patient to a collection of organs.  Alternative therapies
try to consider the patient as a whole (a holistic approach).

This is a fine piece of rhetoric, but it doesn't mean anything.  It is
true that modern medicine looks at the details of diseases, trying to
find out exactly what is going wrong and what is causing it.  But it
also looks at the life of the patient, and tries to understand how the
patient interacts with his/her environment and how this interaction
can be improved.  For instance, smoking is known to cause a wide
variety of medical problems.  Hence doctors advise patients to give up
smoking as well as treating the individual illnesses which it causes.
When a patient presents with an illness then the doctor will not only
treat the illness but also try to understand how this illness was
caused in order to avoid a recurrence.

4.2: What is a double-blind trial?  What is a placebo?
------------------------------------------------------

A double-blind trial is the standard method for deciding whether or
not a treatment has any `real' effect.

A placebo is a `treatment' which has no physical effect.  The usual
form is a pill containing a little milk and sugar, although a
bitter-tasting liquid or injections of 1cc saline can be used instead.

The `placebo effect' is the observed tendency for patients to display
the symptoms they are told to expect.

The problem is that the state of mind of a patient is often a
significant factor in the effect of a course of treatment.  All
doctors know this; it is why `bedside manner' is considered so
important.  In statistical tests of new treatments it is even more
important, since even a small effect from the state of mind of a small
fraction of the patients in the trial can have a significant effect
on the results.  Hence new medicines are tested against a placebo.
The patients in the trial are randomly divided into two groups.  One
of these groups is given the real medicine, the other is given the
placebo.  Neither group knows which they have been given.  Hence the
state of mind for both groups will be similar, and any difference
between the two groups must be due to the drug.  This is a blind trial.

It has been found that patients can be unconciously affected by the
attitude and expectations of the doctor supplying the drug, even if
the doctor does not explicitly tell them what to expect.  Hence it is
usual for the doctor to be equally unaware which group is which.  This
is a `double blind' trial.  The job of remembering which group is
which is given to some administrative person who does not normally
come into contact with patients.

This causes problems for many alternative therapies because they do
something to the patient which is difficult to do in a placebo-like
manner.  For instance, a treatment involving the laying-on of hands
cannot be done in such a way that both patient and practitioner are
unaware as to whether a `real' laying on of hands has taken place.
There are partial solutions to this.  For instance one study employed
a three-way test of drug placebo, counseling and alternative therapy.

4.3: Why should scientific criteria apply to alternative therapies?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

So that we can tell if they work or not.  If you take an patient
and give them treatment then one of three things will happen: the
patient will get better, will get worse, or will not change.  And this
is true whether the treatment is a course of drugs chosen by a doctor,
an alternative therapy, or just counting to ten.

Many alternative therapies depend on `anecdotal evidence' where
particular cases got better after the therapy was applied.  Almost any
therapy will have some such cases, even if it actually harms the
patients.  And so anecdotal evidence of Mrs X who was cured of cancer
by this wonderful new treatment is not useful in deciding whether the
treatment is any good.

The only way to tell for sure whether or not an alternative treatment
works is to use a double-blind trial, or as near to it as you can get.
See the previous question.

4.4: What is homeopathy?
------------------------

Homeopathy is sometimes confused with herbalism.  A herbalist
prescribes herbs with known medicinal effects.  Two well known
examples are foxglove flowers (which contain digitalin) and willow
bark (which contains asprin).

Homeopathists believe that if you take a drug which has a certain
effect and then dilute it a great deal then the drug will have the
opposite effect.  The greater the dilution, the stronger this opposite
effect will be.  Great importance is also attatched to the way in
which the diluted solution is shaken during this process.

People are skeptical about homeopathy because there is no known
mechanism by which it can work.  Many homeopathic treatments are so
diluted that not one molecule of the original substance is contained
in the final dose.

[Can someone provide details about the French experiment that seemed
to give evidence for homeopathy until Randi set up a double-blind
trial? PAJ]

4.5: What is aromatherapy?
--------------------------

A belief that the essential oils of various flowers have theraputic
effects.  Does anyone know more?

4.6: What is reflexology?
-------------------------

An alternative therapy based on massage of the feet.  The idea is that
parts of the body can be mapped onto areas of the feet.  There is no
known mechanism by which massaging the feet can affect other parts of
the body (other than the simple soothing and relaxing effect that any
massage gives) and no evidence that it actually works.

4.7: Does accupuncture work?
----------------------------

[I don't know.  I have heard of a few studies.  Does anyone have more
information, especially references? PAJ]

4.8: What about psychic surgery?
--------------------------------

Psychic surgeons have claimed to be able to make magical incisions,
remove cancers and perform other miracles.  There are two types of
psychic surgeon:

 1: Those who just use simple conjuring tricks.  These people are
    confidence tricksters who prey on the desperate and the foolish.

 2: Those who are just as deluded as their patients.  These people are
    even more dangerous than the first, as their treatments may
    actually cause harm in addition to whatever was wrong with the
    patient in the first place.

4.9: What is Crystal Healing?
-----------------------------

The belief that carrying a small quartz crystal will make you a
healthier person.  People selling these crystals use phrases like `the
body's natural energy fields' and `tuning into the right vibrational
frequencies'.  All this sounds vaguely scientific but means absolutely
nothing.  Crystal Healing is mostly a New Age idea.  See the section
on the New Age below for more information.

4.9: Does religious healing work?
---------------------------------

This section will be filled in when I have time to dig out some info.
In general, no.

4.10: What harm does it do anyway?
----------------------------------

People have died when alternative practitioners told them to stop
taking conventional treatment.  Children have died when their parents
refused to give them conventional treatment.  These issues matter.

Most alternative treatments are harmless, so the `complementary
medicine' approach where conventional and alternative therapies
proceed in parallel will not hurt anyone physically (although it is a
waste of time and money).


Creation versus Evolution
=========================

5.1: Is the Bible evidence of anything?
---------------------------------------

In general, no.  It is true that Christians take the truth of the
bible as an article of faith, but atheists are not so constrained.
Quoting the bible to an atheist as `evidence' will simply cause the
atheist to question the accuracy of the bible.  See the alt.atheism
FAQ for more details.

5.2: Could the Universe have been created old?
----------------------------------------------

An argument is sometimes put forwards along the following lines:

	We know from biblical evidence (see above) that the Universe
	is about 6,000 years old.  Therefore God created it 6,000
	years ago with fossils in the ground and light on its way from
	distant stars, so that there is no way of telling the real age
	of the Universe simply by looking at it.

This hypothesis is unfalsifiable, and therefore not a scientific one
(see the section on the scientific method).  It could also be made for
any date in the past (like last Tuesday).  But it requires that God,
who is alledged to speak to us through His Works, should be lying to
us by setting up a misleading Creation.  Therefore this hypothesis is
also unchristian.

5.3: What about Carbon-14 dating?
---------------------------------

[Can someone explain quickly and simply what Isotope dating is, how it
works, and what the fudge factor introduced into the Carbon-14 dates
was about? PAJ]

5.4: Can you be a skeptic and a Christian?
------------------------------------------

[I am not a Christian, so I am not really qualified to comment.
However I gather that being a Christian requires that you accept Jesus
as your saviour.  One can certainly do this while questioning the
authenticity of miracles and `Creation Science'.  Would any Christian
skeptics out there like to add more? PAJ]

Firewalking
===========

WARNING: Whatever the truth about firewalking may be, it is a
	 potentially dangerous activity.  Do not attempt it without
	 expert guidance.

[Please could one of the firewalkers on the net contribute a paragraph
or two for this section. PAJ]

6.1: Is firewalking possible?
-----------------------------

Yes.  It is possible to walk on a bed of burning wood without being
hurt.

6.2: Can science explain firewalking?
-------------------------------------

There are a number of theories which have been put forward to explain
firewalking.  Any or all may be the explanation for a particular
event.

o The dry wood coals used by firewalkers conduct heat very poorly.
  The coal itself may be very hot but it will not transfer that heat
  to something touching it.

o The coals are a very uneven surface, and the actual surface area of
  foot touching the coals is very small.  Hence the conduction of heat
  is even slower.

o Firewalkers do not spend very much time on the coals, and they keep
  moving.

o The `Leidenforst' effect may play a part.  This occurs when a cold,
  wet object (like a foot) touches a hot, dry object (like a burning
  coal).  The water vaporises, creating a barrier of steam between the
  hot and cold objects.  Hence the two objects do not actually touch
  and evaporation from the cold object is much slower than might
  otherwise be expected. [Have I got this right? PAJ]

o Blood is a good conductor of heat.  What heat does get through is
  quickly conducted away from the soles of the feet.

Some skeptics have challenged firewalkers to stand on hot metal plates
instead of coals.  Others have pointed out that making such a
challenge in the belief that the firewalker would be seriously hurt is
of dubious morality.

New Age
=======

7.1: What do New Agers believe?
-------------------------------

An awful lot, it would seem.  New Age seems to be a sort of
`roll-your-own' religion.  Some of the more common threads include:

o Divination, especially Tarot, I-Ching, and Western and Chinese
  Astrology.

o Green politics, especially the more extreme `deep green' movements.

o Flying saucers.

o `Alternative' health (see above).

o Vegetarianism.

o Pacifism.

o Conspiracy theories to explain why the rest of the world does not
  follow the same beliefs.

o Rejection of science and logic as tools for understanding the
  universe.  A reliance on feelings and intuition as guides to action.

o Pseudo-scientific jargon.  New Agers talk about `rebalancing energy
  fields' and `vibrational frequencies'.  These sound vaguely
  scientific but in fact have no meaning at all.

o Eastern religions, especially `cult' religions.  Mainstream eastern
  religions such as Hinduism and Sihkism don't seem to attract New Age
  believers.  Most New Agers are actively against organised
  Christianity, but some favour heritical variants such as Gnosticism.

Not all of these are bad just because New Age people follow them, but
the rejection of logical argument as a basis for belief and action
often leads to bizarre beliefs and futile actions.  A recent example
was the vandalism of a GPS satelite.  The vandals claimed that GPS was
part of a nuclear first-strike system.  In fact ICBMs use inertial
guidance instead of GPS, and have done for decades.

[Would any New Agers out there like to try summarising their beliefs
in a few paragraphs for this section?  This has been rather negative
and I would like to balance it. PAJ]