From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 19:13:16 GMT

In article <1928@snap>, paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:

>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]

Perhaps you should add the late Isaac Asimov?

>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.

Or simply by making further observations.

>	5: Modify the theory in the light of your results.
>	6: Go to step 3.

>1.2: What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis?
>----------------------------------------------------------------------

>In popular usage, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy sort of fact.
>But to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that *explains*
>existing facts and predicts new ones.  For instance, today I saw the
>Sun rise.  This is a fact.  This fact is explained by the theory that
>the Earth is round and spins on its axis while orbiting the sun.  This
>theory also explains other facts, such as the seasons and the phases
>of the moon, and allows me to make predictions about what will happen
>tomorrow.

Wrong on several counts in your example.  In the first place, the rising and
setting of the sun are explained by the earth's rotation.  Roundness is NOT
required for this.  Second, the phases of the moon are explained by the fact
that the Earth and the moon orbit each other (doesn't matter whether the Earth
orbits the moon, vice versa, or they orbit a common center of gravity), not by
the fact that the Earth is round, nor by the fact that the earth revolves on
its axis while orbiting the sun.

>1.3: 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 spacecraft 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!

This example is in conflict with your definition of a theory in 1.2.  In
particular, "things fall down" is an observation, not a theory.  It has no
explanatory power.
>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 the next thrown stone will 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.  Skepticism is usually
>directed at claims that contradict facts and theories that are very
>near the top of the scale.  Any lower on the scale and they are best
>discussed in the other sci newsgroups.

NO!  If you want to talk about things lower on the scale, use
ALT.FOLKLORE.SCIENCE, NOT other SCI groups.  In particular, SCI.ENERGY would
NOT appreciate having the 100 mpg carburetor conspiracy theory directed there
again.

>1.4: If scientific theories keep changing, where is the Truth?
>--------------------------------------------------------------

>In 1666 Isaac 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.

Unless, of course, you happen to be in an intense gravitational field.

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

>The powers that Geller claims have *never* been demonstrated under
>controlled conditions.  Geller does nothing which a competent stage
>magician such as James Randi cannot do.  Randi has alleged that
>Geller is a fraud.  Geller has sued Randi for libel.

Are you SURE that Randi has alleged that Geller is a fraud?  I thought that
Randi has simply alleged that Geller does nothing that can't be duplicated by a
competent stage magician.

>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.

You might want to mention my prediction registry
(PREDICTION_REGISTRY@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) here.

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

>Targ and Puthoff spring to mind, but actually, Puthoff is no longer
>doing psi research (I don't have any idea what Targ is up to these
>days.) Granted, their SRI work is quite famous, but if we want to
>review the historical (rather than currently active) figures, you
>probably want to go back at least as far as the Rhines.

>Helmut Schmidt, a physicist who has been looking at PK, is still
>active at the Mind Science Foundation in Texas. (Sorry, I don't know a
>more specific address than that.)

>The Foundation for Research into the Nature of Man (FRNM), which is
>what Rhine's work at Duke eventually developed into, is still active
>near Duke. It is currently headed by K. Ramakrishna Rao.

>The Koestler Chair of Parapsychology at the University of Edinborough
>is, as far as I know, still active. The current incumbent is, I think,
>named Robert Morris; his main assistant is Deborah Delanoy.

>Active workers in the field that I can think of currently include Dean
>Radin, who occasionally posts to sci.skeptic as dir2@gte.com,

Interestingly, Radin claims to be doing PSI research.  On the other hand, R. D.
Nelson, who works with him, claims they are NOT doing PSI research, they're
simply investigating engineering anomalies.

>Jessica Utts, and Ed May. The Parapsychological Association has a much larger
>roster than that, of course, but I'm not a member myself and don't
>have access to their membership roll.

>2.6: Could psi be inhibited by the presence of skeptics?
>--------------------------------------------------------

>Psychic researchers have noted something they call the "shyness
>effect" (or more grandly "psi-mediated experimenter effects").  This
>is invoked to explain the way in which many subjects' psychic powers
>seem to fade when exposed to careful scrutiny and proper controls.
>Often it is alleged that having a skeptic in the audience can prevent
>the delicate operation of psi.

>This is a "catch-22" which makes any results consistent with a psi
>hypothesis.  This renders the hypothesis unfalsifieable and therefore
>unscientific.

Not quite.  You could sneak a skeptic into the audience for a performance, and
observe that the alleged powers seem to manifest, despite the presence of the
skeptic.  If the alleged psychic is then unable to produce the claimed effects
in the presence of that same skeptic under controlled conditions, it's been
demonstrated that is wasn't simply the presence of the skeptic that inhibited
the ability.

>3.1.2  Are UFOs natural phenomena?
>----------------------------------

>Possibly.  A number of theories have been proposed, suggesting that
>some UFOs are "plasmas" or variations of ball lightning or earthquake
>lights.

What are "earthquake lights"?

>Unfortunately, the theories seem to change to fit observed
>data, rather than predict the observations.  Also, studies designed to
>support the theories have used newspaper articles and raw, unsifted UFO
>case lists for data, and therefore the studies do not appear to be
>completely unbiased.  Perhaps time will tell.  Until then it is safe to
>say that SOME UFOs are probably ball lightning or other rare natural
>phenomena.

>3.1.3  But isn't it possible that aliens are visiting Earth?
>------------------------------------------------------------

>Yes.  But it is also possible that there is an invisible snorg reading
>this over your shoulder right now.

>Basically, astronomers such as Carl Sagan are generally convinced that

SOME astronomers, not all.

>there are other habitable planets in our galaxy, and that there may be
>some form of life on them.  Assuming that parallel evolution occurred
>on these other planets, there MIGHT be intelligent life forms there.
>It is possible that some of these life forms could have an advanced
>civilization, and perhaps have achieved space travel.  BUT - there is
>no proof that this is so.  SETI programs such as those Carl Sagan is
>involved with are "listening" to other stars in the hope of detecting
>radio signals which might indicate intelligent life - kind of listening
>for the equivalent of "Watson, come here, I need you!", or "I love
>Lucy" in the infancy of our early communications.  Such searches have
>been fruitless, so far.

>IF there are aliens on distant planets, then it is possible that they
>might have found a way to travel between stars in their lifetimes.
>According to our present understanding of physics, this is not likely,
>given the vast distances between stars.  Even travelling at the speed
>of light (which cannot be done), a round trip to the NEAREST star would
>take about ten years.

8.6, but who's counting?  However, the SUBJECTIVE time for such a trip would be
zero.  

>So, either the aliens have made a breakthrough in physics, or they're not
>visiting Earth.

No, they don't need to have made a breakthrough in physics.  There are a number
of alternatives.  Two of them are:
	1)  They've designed a ship that travels close enough to the speed of
	    light that time dilation is significant, allowing them to travel
	    between stars in a reasonable lenght of subjective time;
	2)  They use generation ships to travel between stars, and their flying
	    saucers are simply scout ships intended for use only within a solar
	    system.

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

>Some channelled entities are alleged to come from the distant past.
>They can be asked about events, climate and language in ways that can
>be checked.

If we can verify it, then they could have done the same research themselves. 
Thus even if the channeler passes this test, it's not evidence of channeling.

>[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? PAJ]

Why should advanced beings be able to prove or disprove Fermat's Last Theorem. 
It could be true but unprovable.

>3.7.1:   Are crop circles made by "vortices"?
>---------------------------------------------

>Probably not.  There are a number of meteorologists who believe that
>crop circle formations are created by rare natural forces such as
>"ionised plasma vortices".  Basically, winds blowing across rolling
>hills sometimes form eddies which in some circumstances (that have
>never been quantified) become strong, downward spiralling drafts which
>lay down the crop.  Cerealogists claim to have over two dozen witnesses
>to such events.  Unfortunately, many more have said they have seen
>flying saucers do the same thing.

>If natural phenomena are the culprits, then why would the formations
>occur mostly in southern England?  In one year, as many as 2000 (!)
>crop circles were claimed there, with negligible ones elsewhere in the
>world.

This argument assumes that the reporting of crop circles is uniform.  It's
quite possible that all the publicity about the crop circles in southern
England has resulted in a higher percentage of observed crop circles there
being reported than elsewhere.

>3.10: What is the face on Mars?
>-------------------------------

>[A refereed journal printed a paper on this.  Can someone give me a
>reference?  PAJ]

>One of the Mars orbiters took a photograph of a part of Mars when the
>sun was very low on the horizon.  The picture shows a "face" and some
>nearby pyramids.  Both these structures are seen more by their shadows
>than their actual shape.  The pyramid shadows appear regular because
>their size is close to the limit of resolution of the camera, and the
>"face" is just a chance arrangement of shadow over a couple of hills.
>The human brain is very good at picking out familiar patterns in
>random noise, so it is not surprising that a couple of Martian surface
>features (out of thousands photographed) vaugely resemble a face when
>seen in the right light.  Another feature nearby resembles Kermit the
>Frog.

The Mars Observe spacecraft, scheduled for launch September 25 has a camera
that can give 1.5m per pixel resolution.  More details of the Cydonia
formations should become available in about a year and a half from now, if I
recall the mission timeline correctly.

>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 lactose (milk-sugar), although a
>bitter-tasting liquid or injections of 1cc saline can be used instead.

No.  A placebo CAN have physical effects; it's just that the physical effects
it has depend solely on the patients belief that it will have such effects. 
You need to reword this paragraph.

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

>4.10: Does religious healing work?
>---------------------------------

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

You're forgetting the placebo effect.  In general, maybe.

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

>In general, no.

It's evidence of the beliefs of those who wrote and translated it.

>It is true that most Christians take the truth of at
>least some parts of the bible as an article of faith, but
>non-Christians are not so constrained.  Quoting the bible to such a
>person as "evidence" will simply cause them to question the accuracy
>of the bible.  See the alt.atheism FAQ for more details.

>Even most Christians accept that the Bible does not relate scientific
>and historical facts, but rather reflect the thinking of times when it
>was written.  Only fundamentalist sects assert that the Bible is
>totally inerrant, a view that most contemporary priests, ministers,
>rabbis, and theologians dismiss.

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

>Isotope dating takes advantage of the fact that radioactive materials
>break down at a rate independent of their environment. Any solid
>object that formed containing radioactive materials therefore steadily
>loses them to decay. If it is possible to compare the amount of
>radioactive material currently present with the amount originally
>present, one can deduce how long ago the object was formed. The amount
>originally present cannot, of course, be observed directly, but can
>be determined by indirect means, such as identifying the decay
>products.

>C-14 dating uses an unstable isotope of carbon that is constantly
>being produced in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. This process
>is in equilibrium with the decay of C-14 throughout the biosphere,
>so the proportion of carbon that is C-14 as opposed to the stable
>C-12 and C-13 isotopes is essentially constant in any living organism.

No, it's not.  The rate at which N-14 is transmuted into C-14 varies.  The rate
at which C-14 is produced is therefore NOT in equilibrium with the rate at
which it decays.  That's why C-14 had to be calibrated against
dendrochronology.  Also, C-14 dating is useful ONLY for organisms whose source
of carbon is the atmosphere or other organisms whose source was the atmosphere.
For example, if some organism is somehow able to assimilate the carbon from
coal, then you could NOT use C-14 dating to determine the age of that organism. 
Instead of the age of the organism in question, you'd get the age of the coal
bed.

>5.6: "The second law of thermodynamics says....
>-----------------------------------------------

>...that entropy is always increasing.

IN A CLOSED SYSTEM.

>Entropy is a measure of the
>randomness in a system.  So the universe is getting more and more
>disordered.  But if this is so, how can life happen, since
>evolutionists claim essentially that life is a system that becomes
>more ordered with time?"

>In fact the second law of thermodynamics only makes statements about
>the whole universe.  Small parts of it can become better organised,
>but only if some other part becomes less organised.

>For instance, when you freeze water the molecules of H2O line up in
>beautifully organised crystals.  This organisation does not violate
>the second law of thermodynamics because the work done by the freezer
>in extracting the heat from the water has caused the total entropy of
>the *universe* to rise, even though the entropy of the *water* has
>decreased.

>Similarly the existence of life on earth has not decreased the entropy
>of the universe, so the second law has not been violated.

>5.7: How could living organisms arise "by chance"?
>--------------------------------------------------

>This is actually a less sophisticated version of the question above.
>Consider the freezing water in the example.  The wonderful arrangement
>in crystals arises from the random movement of water molecules.  But
>ice crystals do not require divine intervention, and neither does
>life.

>Also, consider a casino.  An honest casino makes profits from roulette
>wheels.  The result of a spin of a particular wheel is purely random,
>but casinos make very predictable profits.  So in evolutionary theory,
>even though the occurance of a particular mutation is random, the
>overall effect of improved adaptation over time is not.

You're mixing abiogenesis with evolution.  Please keep them separate.

>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.  Jan Willem Nienhuys <wsadjw@nl.tue.urc> adds that about 1
>  second total contact time per foot seems on the safe side.

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

>o The "Leidenfrost" 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.  Since steam is a relatively poor conductor
>  of heat the foot does not get burned.  Jearl Walker, of Scientific
>  American's "The Amateur Scientist" column, explains the Leidenfrost
>  effect in the August 1977 issue; he walked across coals unharmed and
>  attributes this to the Leidenfrost effect.  Other scientists believe
>  that the Leidenfrost effect is unimportant in firewalking.

Consider the following argument against the Leidenfrost effect having anything
to do with it:  If the Leidenfrost effect is, in fact, able to keep your feet
from making contact with the coals, then your entire weight is being supported
by steam.  That means that you should be able to place your feet in live steam
without suffering burns.  I rather doubt that's possible.

>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.

>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 heretical 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 while it was waiting to be
>launched.  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]

What's this "balance it" bullshit?  If the description is accurate, it should
stand.  If it's inaccurate, it should be changed.  Balance has nothing to do
with it.

>7.2: What is the Gaia hypothesis?
>---------------------------------

>There are several versions:

>Religious: The planet (or the ecosphere) is aware, and tries to
>	   preserve itself.

>Strong: The planet/ecosphere reacts to preserve a homeostasis; if, for
>	example, global warming raises the temperature then various
>	changes in the planet's biota will occur which will (in some
>	period of time) lower the temperature.

>Weak: Life affects the conditions of life.

I've always heard the strong Gaia hypothesis described as the Earth IS a
living organism (not necessarily aware, but alive), and the weak hypothesis
stated as you've stated the strong hypothesis.  This is little more than
applying Le Chatelier's principle (a system in equilibrium, when disturbed,
reacts to as to tend to restore the original equilibrium) to the planet as a
whole.

>8.1: Why don't electrical machines work?
>----------------------------------------

>Electrical perpetual motion machinists usually present a machine that
>causes a small battery to generate a huge amount of power.  The most
>common problem here is that the "huge amount of power" was incorrectly
>measured.  AC power measurements are tricky; you can't just multiply
>the voltage and current, because they may be out of phase.  Thus,
>measuring 10 Volts and 10 Amps could indicate anything from 0 to 00
                                                                  --
Surely this should be 100.

>Watts, depending on the power factor.  In addition, most AC meters
>expect a sinusoidal wave; if they are given some other wave they may
>be totally wrong.  A simple argument against these machines is; "If
>they can provide so much energy, why do they need the battery to keep
>going?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins