tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53726909365769235182024-03-13T11:19:44.992-07:00The Polite SkepticKevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-81511074110954093262012-02-09T09:10:00.000-08:002018-08-15T20:11:55.119-07:00Wooly mammoth spotted in... videoI just ran into <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4116326/Woolly-mammoth-spotted-in-Siberia.html">an article in The Sun</a> about a land surveyor who spotted a woolly mammoth while on the job. Not only that, he took a video of it. Let's take a look at that.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /><iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mM6azIwmfAY/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mM6azIwmfAY?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Some people are saying it's a bear with a fish in its mouth. Since the resolution of most eyes is better than that of this video, that would mean that our vidographer is a liar, which is a possibility. I don't think it's a bear at all. In the zoomed-in (cropped and enlarged) you can see the suggestion of tusks. Not only that, if you look at the non-trunk part as a bear... well it doesn't look like a bear. It doesn't move like a bear. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
My first thought was, "Why is it dragging its trunk in the water?" Elephants breathe through their trunks, I thought, so it should be holding it up. It turned out I was wrong.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/EV12VuIKBbc?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Still, though, I don't believe that the first video is an actual mammoth. Is it because I'm a Polite Skeptic? Maybe. Is it because I don't think sightings of mammoths in Siberia are genuine? Well, they've only been dead 10,000 years, and stranger things have happened. There are two things, though, make me disbelieve the mammoth video.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
1. Seems fake. This doesn't hold much weight in court, but it just <i>seems fake</i>. Its movements remind me more of bad animation than a breathing flesh-and-bone animal.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
2. The vidographer's disinterest. It's the attitude of, "Whoa! Is that a mammoth! I will take a ten second video of it from a distance." I've taken longer videos of my kids blowing out their birthday candles. And he knows his camera isn't high quality, but he decided to record from the other side of the country. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
All this, to me, seems like someone grabbed some nice footage of a creek, threw in a cgi mammoth, and then hit <i>blur </i>a few times.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
If I wanted to fake a mammoth from a distance, I would throw together a costume not so different than <a href="http://ruachrevival.blogspot.com/2010/07/snuffy-and-koach-hadimyon.html">Snuffy </a>from Sesame Street. I'd get one guy for the back legs, and one for the front legs and head. Then, even from a distance, it could look pretty convincing, and have very natural movement that did, after all, come from an animal (the guy in front).</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
If it is a fake, it's a somewhat good one, and I'm sure this guy got his Reddit.com upvotes he was looking for. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
edit 2018: It does look a lot like a bear to me now</div>
Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-31751539491236485042011-09-23T20:57:00.000-07:002011-09-24T11:05:54.692-07:00My thoughts on irreducible complexity -or- What good is half an eye?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6Mbbe6YDCTYUdMwoFljbmnajK89hMqh61aZmbO8VkUUItIDXwFytZw73M7WWluLmFkjLHGiCRrea0CmveGqJMZW9kKlBshVhqMWC5i8qBZREkaNRPtZfUv-OUEOQzUB8-ygzlL30M1DYJ/s1600/darwin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6Mbbe6YDCTYUdMwoFljbmnajK89hMqh61aZmbO8VkUUItIDXwFytZw73M7WWluLmFkjLHGiCRrea0CmveGqJMZW9kKlBshVhqMWC5i8qBZREkaNRPtZfUv-OUEOQzUB8-ygzlL30M1DYJ/s1600/darwin.jpg" /></a></div><br />
Sometimes I go to church with my dad. Not because I love church, but because I love my dad, and we don't have a lot of things in common. He's very religious, and it means a lot for him to have me there. I'm fine with it.<br />
<br />
A few nights ago, he invited me to a seminar that the people of his church were attending. I had joined him for something like that last year, and my night was free, so I accepted.<br />
<br />
On the way in, I was required to get a barcode card that I would use to check in. I would later learn that if you attend for so many nights, you'd get a free family Bible. The signup for the card asked my address and other contact information, which I gave slightly altered versions of, pretty sure that the host would ever need to contact me at my home. We got seated, and I watched a woman play organ music on a keyboard, wondering about the business plan of the speaker, and if he would end up selling the contact info he was gathering. I realized how much more cynical I had become over the years.<br />
<br />
Before the speaker came out, an image of Charles Darwin popped up on the twin projector screens, and I tensed. I could listen to a man preach about sin, or hell, or the ways to please God, but <a href="http://thepoliteskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/08/turning-fish-into-dog-in-four-steps-or.html">evolution is a subject that I'm fascinated by</a>. It excites me to think about it. I did not want to hear a man talk about how evolution was wrong for an hour.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The presentation began with a marginally funny anti-Darwin song (You won't make a monkey out of me!), along with an Adobe Flash style music video that got laughs from the audience.<br />
<br />
A lot of what he said, I had expected. A certain amount of misunderstanding about the subject. Painting a picture of a world full of scientists that all, behind closed doors, doubt evolution. An enormous emphasis on the word "theory," playing on the audience's misunderstanding of the word. His main argument focused on the idea of "irreducibly complex systems." Simply, the idea that some systems in the body are so complex that a single step back (in evolution) would make them not function, and they would have been weeded out by survival of the fittest. He gave the metaphor of a mouse trap, which can only work with every part intact. He gave a lot of weight to the credentials of the scientists that champion the view that, for things to exist the way they are, they must have been created spontaneously.<br />
<br />
One example of irreducible complexity he used, that I have heard of before, is the eye. What good is half of an eye? It wouldn't function if any part of it were missing, so what part wasn't there before?<br />
<br />
I think the first mistake in questioning evolution in this way is the idea that things evolve piece by piece. Legs, then nipples, then chin hair, then toenails. The creationist mindset might aid this kind of misconception. When we create things, after all, we do it piece by piece. In reality, the gradual changes an organism goes through, over many generations, are more similar to a fetus developing in the womb than a man being put together with legos. Many things change at once, usually by tiny increments.<br />
<br />
I guess my main problem with the idea of irreducible complexity is that someone has to have the authority to decide that there could have definitely been no previous step. Some guy, or some lady, has to be able to make an <i>infallible judgement</i> of what nature can't do. But nobody in this room (this room called the Internet) is nearly creative enough to have come up with one of these remarkably complex systems. Humans are shitty at reproducing biological systems, even when we have real ones to copy. I'm always hearing about how many more connections a brain has than a computer, or how much more sensitive a dolphin's sonar is than manmade sonar, or how much better a biological <i>blah</i> is than an artificial <i>blah</i>, often by huge factors.<br />
<br />
So how is the person who is only beginning to understand how a system works going to stand up and say, with certainty, that there is no way there could have been a previous step?<br />
<br />
Why? Because you can't think of it, buddy?<br />
<br />
One thing that he mentioned is the differentiation of sexes. How does a single organism evolve to have two different kinds that have to mix genes to reproduce? And my answer is: I don't know. It doesn't make any sense to me, either. Does that prove that God made us this way, maybe some six-thousand years ago? Well why would it?<br />
<br />
The pastor of my dad's church approached me after the seminar, and gave me a surprise. He had only asked my dad to invite me to the talk after he had heard what the topic was going to be. I'd never discussed religion with him, but he correctly pinned me as a more analytical thinker, and had thought that I might want my evolution debunked. Hmm.<br />
<br />
One thing he told me, as he (a really really nice guy) nervously/casually tried to back up the positions stated in the seminar, mostly by repeating them in rote, was that regardless of what I was taught in high school, I do have another option.<br />
<br />
Well, I have lots of options. I could believe in evolution, or creationism. I could also believe old Greek stories about the origin of species, or Native American legends. I could go with Scientology. I'm sure there are hundreds of ready-made theories of how we came about that are just as valid as Jesus-dad and the Garden of Eden. So, if someone successfully disproved evolution through natural selection, it wouldn't narrow the possibilities down that much.<br />
<br />
Christianity is a big deal now, but what about a thousand years ago? What about a thousand years from now? What about on the other side of the planet, right now as we speak? Science seeks universal truths, that are always true, everywhere. Religion, it seems to me, bends to fit the people in a certain region of the world, and a certain period of history. At least that's the way I see it.<br />
<br />
It was a fun night.Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-11966029627264003682011-07-18T21:39:00.000-07:002011-07-18T21:39:27.292-07:00Seat of the Soul, first two pages review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWXba5dDstDpOi0zLG0KJtH8uApLhK9ISBympSg9H0feEtej5t_nT31LgxnOUcsvSsCHbySiuM0FQfEafvRkzbBPn0w5_w2b8xVsKNWR4Q-hncBySlCGCIATQ3vG_z1g_swtzi0UDX8Nzd/s1600/%2521B%252C%252BkItQB2k%257E%2524%2528KGrHqQH-DQEquqkRDf5BKt7k0dyF%2521%257E%257E_3.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWXba5dDstDpOi0zLG0KJtH8uApLhK9ISBympSg9H0feEtej5t_nT31LgxnOUcsvSsCHbySiuM0FQfEafvRkzbBPn0w5_w2b8xVsKNWR4Q-hncBySlCGCIATQ3vG_z1g_swtzi0UDX8Nzd/s320/%2521B%252C%252BkItQB2k%257E%2524%2528KGrHqQH-DQEquqkRDf5BKt7k0dyF%2521%257E%257E_3.JPG" width="191" /></a></div>Today's post is a cheap one. I'm going to point out an easy target, and pick it apart like it's an important thing to do. I guess you could call this post a book review, but I'm only reviewing the first two pages. Let's get on with it.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Zukav">Gary Zukav</a> is a popular new-age author. I became familiar with the name a couple of years ago, when a friend of mine reccommended to me the book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dancing-Wu-Masters-Gary-Zukav/dp/0712648720?ie=UTF8&tag=thepo05-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Dancing Wu Li Masters</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thepo05-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0712648720" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />. She said it was amazing. You may know, by the title of this blog, that a book called "Dancing Wu Li Masters" is not really my cup of tea, unless maybe, it was in the fiction section. But probably still no. I was at the used bookstore one day, a place I really appreciate, and I glanced through the five-foot-wide New Age section, and I saw <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Seat-Soul-Gary-Zukav/dp/067169507X?ie=UTF8&tag=thepo05-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Seat of the Soul</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thepo05-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=067169507X" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />. It was "The New, Innovative and Thought-Provoking work by the Author of Dancing Wu Li Masters." I gave it a try.<br />
<br />
I'm going to admit something. I did not read this whole book. I actually got as far as the top of the second page, I think. How can I tell anything from a book after one and a half pages? "Not much," I would have told you before starting this book. Afterwards? "Enough."<br />
<br />
I'm not a mystical guy, but I truly don't belive that my discarding of this book had much to do with me not being a mystical guy. If I read a skeptical book that said something very ridiculous, I would send it right back to the bookstore. Likewise, if I read a mystical-themed book where the author seemed to have a grasp on simple scientific ideas, I might read the whole thing.<br />
<br />
<b>Excerpt from page 1:</b><i>A fish is more complex, and, therefore, more evolved than a sponge; a horse is more complex, and, therefore, more evolved than a snake; a monkey is more complex, and, therefore, more evolved than a horse.</i><br />
<br />
<b>My immediate thoughts:</b> This was right out of the gate, the fifth line down on the first page. Mr. Zukav sets up evolution like a linear journey. To read this, you might expect that one main species has been evolving throughout the millenia, from a sponge, to a fish, to a snake, to a horse, to a monkey, leaving behind species, frozen in progress, every step of the way. Of course, this doesn't happen.<br />
<br />
Is a monkey really more evolved than a horse? It's more intelligent, but it's a common mistake that, over time, species are developing to become more intelligent, and more human-like. What if you valued speed and size, instead? The horse would be more evolved. What if you valued poison, and the ability to eat no more than once a month? The snake is now our most evolved animal, leaving even humans in their dust. Humans have big brains, but we're largely feeble in every other way.<br />
<br />
In reality, none of these creatures is more evolved than the others. <a href="http://thepoliteskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/08/turning-fish-into-dog-in-four-steps-or.html">Evolution </a>doesn't just stop for a species, whether it's a sponge, or a snake, or a monkey. And if we're all descended from a common ancestor, then we've all had the same amount of time to evolve. Some of us evolved into sponges, some into snakes, some into people. Snakes aren't waiting for the cosmic force of evolution to turn it into a monkey. Being a snake works great for snakes. That's why they're snakes. And they're perfectly as complex as horses.<br />
<br />
<b>Page 2, near the top: </b><i>This definition is an expression of the idea that the organism that is best able to control both its environment and all of the other organisms in its environment is the most evolved.</i><br />
<br />
Wow. This paragraph following the other one was like a one-two punch. The kind of thing that can make me choke on my own spit. The kind of thing that can make me exclaim out loud in the library.<br />
<br />
The more a species controls (not effects, controls) its environment, the more evolved it is. That makes things simple. Humans are most evolved. Beavers are second most evolved. Everything else comes in third. <br />
<br />
In general, animals don't go out of their way to control their environment. Woodpeckers peck holes, which are surprisingly big inside, but I'd hardly call that trying to control their environment. Horses poop all over the place, which... is... pretty irrelevant. <br />
<br />
Nonsense. A trend of nonsense.<br />
<br />
I could go on, but I think I've made my point. This is how I can, must, for better or worse, discard a book after two pages. <br />
<br />
I don't want to be a dick to Gary Zuckov. He's a successful author. But I can't honestly not call his explanation of evolution garbage (ooh! A double-negative). A garbage understanding of evolution is, of course, only to be expected in today's environment of garbage-science in films and television, and our population who go to work and go to sleep and make the kids dinner and do just fine without any deeper understanding of the world. But it should not make it into a non-fiction book, and, it should not make it through the editorial process, the fact checking process, and past all of the people that a book has to pass before it ends up in print.<br />
<br />
If I read a paper, or a book, by, say, <a href="http://thepoliteskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/09/polite-skeptic-interview-dean-radin.html">Dean Radin</a>, I might not agree with his conclusions, I might take issue with his experimental setup, but at least I know that he's very intelligent, and he does know what he's talking about. When I pick up a book like Seat of the Soul, though, and I feel like the author is counting on me to be ignorant in order to make his point, I get sad that this is landing in front of thousands (millions?) of people, some of whom haven't given the subject of evolution enough thought to notice the incongruancies in the writing.<br />
<br />
If you don't understand the science, don't write it as if you do. And if you do, don't make it fake in order to screw a few people out of a few dollars.<br />
<br />
I should read the rest of that book sometime.Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com31tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-51486056333976953442011-05-19T12:01:00.000-07:002011-05-19T13:28:20.722-07:00My response to "Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice"<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7R-H_q7EJxXkhxs7bc5kimmvd_1eiOI9rpHfktE6YnHnXWjpqWQcl1BYZ3A-OZE6Ia328BahOwQloZCUTYKUi0Qk-uRRq35FDjlzpLkecYlegtr37K6dH-4zX6EyKa8Yyjen1lwCjYXWL/s1600/40764_f520.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="307" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7R-H_q7EJxXkhxs7bc5kimmvd_1eiOI9rpHfktE6YnHnXWjpqWQcl1BYZ3A-OZE6Ia328BahOwQloZCUTYKUi0Qk-uRRq35FDjlzpLkecYlegtr37K6dH-4zX6EyKa8Yyjen1lwCjYXWL/s320/40764_f520.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I stole this</td></tr>
</tbody></table>According to my friends on Facebook, we've cured cancer. Not only that, but nobody took notice. Except for everyone that's on Facebook.<br />
<br />
I've barely read the article, and am naturally skeptical about it, but I want to give it a closer look. I figured I would write this blog post while I gave it this look.<br />
<br />
(I open <a href="http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_cure_cancer__but_no_one_takes_notice">the link</a>)<br />
<br />
The first thing I notice is the nice HubPages banner across the top. This is not a step in the right direction. Hubpages is one of the many websites where anyone can write anything, and the layout of the site makes it look legit. Some of the articles are legit, of course. You can't forget, though, that I could get on right now, and write an article called, "<a href="http://hubpages.com/hub/Guinea-Pigs-Beat-Humans-to-Mars?done">Guinea Pigs Beat Humans to Mars!</a>" and have it up within an hour. What the Hubpages banner tells me is that one man (cqull8m) is responsible for this article, and he's not backed up by editors, fact-checkers, or anyone else that makes you more confident about the information you read. Like me, I guess.<br />
<br />
So far not good. I'll now read the article.<br />
<br />
There are two links close to the top. The one that's supposed to link to a "little ripple in the news" takes me to "studentprintz.com." It takes me to the homepage, rather than an article. I typed "cancer" into the search bar, and it's currently trying to load my request.<br />
<br />
I now realize that the original article that was linked to is now a 404. Let's keep moving.<br />
<br />
<i>"Canadian scientists tested this dichloroacetate (DCA) on human’s cells... It was tested on Rats...The drug is widely available and the technique is easy to use"</i><br />
<br />
Two things come to mind. Firstly, this is like saying, "This has never been tested on humans," except it's worse than saying that. It's avoiding saying that. It's hiding information between the lines. I also wonder if people who take this drug for metabolic disorders (as noted in paragraph 2) are cancer-proof. Let's see if any of this is answered in the rest of the article.<br />
<br />
<i>"In human bodies there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria, but they need to be triggered to be effective.</i>"<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><b>Red alert! Red alert!</b></span> He called the mitochondria a cell! That's like calling a kidney a human. The mitochondria is a part of the cell. I remember this stuff from middle-school science. I don't know much about mitochondria, but I know at least that much. I will tread carefully through the rest of this article.<br />
<br />
<i>"Scientists used to think that these mitochondria cells were damaged and thus ineffective against cancer."</i><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif5wdoqL5jWr5m-x9f_qmdCyU90773kQOeY90HBrNs5OpgkX-N9FHTPS9MdM6sEbrpIghJkRUa0am18RA_yhZy32Gvxu71Cv8O6laB0Tw5ThfVeSxdd_p1ZvulDDe2sIW5cHcu3oehLkKx/s1600/istock_redbloodcells.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif5wdoqL5jWr5m-x9f_qmdCyU90773kQOeY90HBrNs5OpgkX-N9FHTPS9MdM6sEbrpIghJkRUa0am18RA_yhZy32Gvxu71Cv8O6laB0Tw5ThfVeSxdd_p1ZvulDDe2sIW5cHcu3oehLkKx/s1600/istock_redbloodcells.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Random image of cells</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Scientists thought that mitochondria were damaged? All of them? What in the world is this supposed to mean?<br />
<br />
<i>"You can access the original research for this cancer <a href="http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2007-03-15_Update.cfm">here</a>."</i><br />
<br />
Thank goodness! I suddenly like this guy a lot more. I will do just as he suggests, and look at the original research. Let's finish this article first, though.<br />
<br />
<i>"This article wants to raise awareness for this study"</i><br />
<br />
Mission accomplished. This article has overtaken my newsfeed like malignant cells.<br />
<br />
<i>"hope some independent companies and small startup will pick up this idea and produce these drugs"</i><br />
<br />
I thought this was an existing drug that is already used for metabolic disorders. <br />
<br />
So, most of my gripes in this article are with low-quality writing, and a misunderstanding of the facts. I can't hate on this author though. Like he said, I believe he's just trying to spread the news, and if someone isn't a good writer/researcher, and doesn't have the money to hire a freelance writer, at least he tried. And succeeded.<br />
<br />
So let's get to the meat of this. The research. (I click <a href="http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/Updates/2007-03-15_Update.cfm">the link</a>)<br />
<br />
I was hoping this would link to a horribly dry scientific paper. The kind of scientific paper that can make an anti-gravity device sound as exciting as a new type of foam-rubber. That's not quite what I found. This format is a little more like a blog post.<br />
<br />
Condensed:<br />
<br />
<i>"DCA is an odourless, colourless, inexpensive, relatively non-toxic, small molecule... causes regression in several cancers... [used] to treat children with inborn errors of metabolism due to mitochondrial diseases... [mitochondria] have been connected with cancer since the 1930s... [DCA] as a way to "revive" cancer-affected mitochondria... mitochondrial function resulted in a significant decrease in tumor growth... [DCA] did not have any effects on normal, non-cancerous tissues... However, as DCA is not patented, Michelakis is concerned that it may be difficult to find funding from private investors to test DCA in clinical trials... launch clinical trials on humans in the spring of 2007 pending government approval."</i><br />
<br />
This is very, very interesting. Basically, this existing drug revives the cells' mitochondria, and the mitochondria of the cancer cells kills them.<br />
<br />
One of the main themes of the Hubpages article is that nobody took notice of this discovery. I'll test this by Googling "DCA" with "Cancer."<br />
<br />
2007, ABC NEWS, "<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/story?id=2848454&page=1">DCA: Cancer Breakthrough or Urban Legend</a>"<br />
2007, Toronto Star, "<a href="http://www.thestar.com/living/health/article/171616">Molecule Holds Cancer Hope</a>"<br />
2007, CTV News, "<a href="http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/20070926/dca_070926/">Health Canada approves first human trials for DCA</a>"<br />
2007, Newsweek, "<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2007/02/22/a-new-way-to-fight-cancer.html">A New Way to Fight Cancer?</a>"<br />
<br />
I could keep going, but it's painfully boring. Let's just say that the media did take notice. More research needs to be done, but it seems to be in the same pipeline that any drug goes through on the way to becoming something that the pharmacists push at us.<br />
<br />
Whether DCA is a wonder drug, I don't know. Let's give it some time, and let results come in. I think a more important question is, since it is an existing pharmaceutical, should cancer patients buy the stuff online and self-treat? There are anecdotes online from people who claim to have done <a href="http://www.thedcasite.com/cgi/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=28&forum=DCForumID2">just this</a>.<br />
<br />
The easy answer is no. Taking drugs without your doctor's approval is like playing Russian Roulette. Hell, taking drugs with your doctor's approval can be like Russian Roulette. DCA does have side-effects, which sometimes include nerve-damage. Self-prescribing and self-treating illnesses is a reckless move, and one that many people have regretted over the years.<br />
<br />
But let's cut the bullshit.<br />
<br />
It's fine to be afraid of nerve damage if you've got a sty, or acid reflux disease. That's when you need to sweat over the side-effects. When you have a tumor in your brain, though, or in your lungs, and it's growing like a snowball rolling down a hill, and you're not supposed to be alive by your next birthday, caution can be fatal. It's easy for the authorities to tell you to wait for the clinical trials, because they don't know you, and, in their eyes, people die of cancer every day. But you only get to die once, and then you're out of chances. No more pizzas, no more smiles from attractive strangers, no more petting kittens. No more peeing or breathing or sleeping in.<br />
<br />
I have an uninsured friend with brain cancer, and if he started popping these pills, or snorting them, or shooting them up, I wouldn't even say a word that rhymes with <i>caution</i> anywhere near him. At some point, what was reckless becomes reasonable. At some point, you've got to jump out of the burning building, even if you might break your leg.<br />
<br />
I would do it. I would do it and I would blog about it.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2010/05/12/potential-cancer-drug-dca-tested-in-early-trials/">Further reading</a>Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-47004161798089485822011-05-04T10:35:00.000-07:002018-08-15T19:46:04.545-07:00My reaction to the Geek Zodiac<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjms-YVXukRHjCmNqVw6iakgJNaBSU0Gaboz02eI-6VM2Ka-yqY5zhbZoqQSTI5kuKEpl8zbIdHxEcFoXJ9GH-9KiF6zzUSMCazsN1X_CVO9bmZqwirnz7bSYG5PxW8Wc5sl1RIz4A6cW6R/s1600/tumblr_lj7tu8JX0B1qccmezo1_r2_1280.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="301" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjms-YVXukRHjCmNqVw6iakgJNaBSU0Gaboz02eI-6VM2Ka-yqY5zhbZoqQSTI5kuKEpl8zbIdHxEcFoXJ9GH-9KiF6zzUSMCazsN1X_CVO9bmZqwirnz7bSYG5PxW8Wc5sl1RIz4A6cW6R/s400/tumblr_lj7tu8JX0B1qccmezo1_r2_1280.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
A couple of Facebook friends posted the <a href="http://celebs.icanhascheezburger.com/2011/05/03/funny-celebrity-pictures-the-geek-zodiac/">Geek Zodiac</a>. Being that I'm 1/4 geek by birth, I checked it out. What was my reaction?<br />
<br />
"Astronaut! I knew it!"<br />
<br />
Looking at my own reaction only a few seconds after the fact, I couldn't help but be amused. Putting stock in a "normal" zodiac, the one that's primarily used today in the United States, is one thing. It's been around for a while, and there are whole books and websites out there that preach the word wholeheartedly. Believing in that is generally viewed as a normal thing to do.<br />
<br />
But to look at something that a couple of guys made over a weekend, and to say, "It makes so much sense now!"... Well, that's just absurd. And that's what I did, for the better part of a second.<br />
<br />
Even if you love horoscopes yourself, you should be able to admit that, even if horoscopes were actually just motivational messages that applied to human beings in general, they would still be popular. People would still follow them. Look at mine for today:<br />
<br />
"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">You might be surprised by how clever and creative you are today. Just for fun, you may decide to pick up a paintbrush and try watercolor painting or perhaps writing some poetry. Whatever you attempt, you can be fairly sure that it will work out favorably. Your creative muse is there on your shoulder and waiting for you to make use of her!</span>"<br />
<br />
I'm not a painter, at all, but if I was into horoscopes I might take this advice, and it might be fun, and I might approach it with more confidence than I would without the stars backing me up. Nothing wrong with watercolors. But it would be the same outcome whether I was Capricorn, Aquarius, or Cancer.<br /><br />Suddenly curious about the shared etymology between the two main meanings of the word "cancer."Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-75269818568516557192011-04-28T13:37:00.000-07:002011-04-28T13:37:09.558-07:00Why are UFOs stupid?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuWg9BGUDFTAuRGXSJwUqIPwVXQPSLd7nuCwIQcD2IzltNCLnUpFbnRMnQgBLqOEh1KB2Ogx7h94DwSCt9GR34GNWqmieLSgvE3d8ldoxwWyt9fP5USy1fYKzPQZLR39p2EPo-TKGLucHn/s1600/iStock_000000044968XSmall.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuWg9BGUDFTAuRGXSJwUqIPwVXQPSLd7nuCwIQcD2IzltNCLnUpFbnRMnQgBLqOEh1KB2Ogx7h94DwSCt9GR34GNWqmieLSgvE3d8ldoxwWyt9fP5USy1fYKzPQZLR39p2EPo-TKGLucHn/s1600/iStock_000000044968XSmall.jpg" /></a></div>People see lights in the sky. Lights that aren't stars, or airplanes, or meteors. Little bright points that wander around in a totally un-aircraftlike way. While they remain unidentified, they will be called unidentified flying objects.<br />
<br />
At some point, people started associating these lights with space aliens. I guess once people started thinking of travel through the sky as a thing that happens, they maybe started to figure that they're seeing individuals traveling through the sky. Maybe traveling to see us, from some other planet.<br />
<br />
I don't believe that these lights are all weather balloons, or misidentified planets, and I really don't think they're spaceships. I'm not sure what they are, but nature is complex enough, and still holds enough mysteries, that I don't think it's quite time to start narrowing it down.<br />
<br />
To someone who does believe wholeheartedly that those lights occasionally seen in the sky are spaceships, I have some questions, or at least things to consider.<br />
<br />
1. What's with the light? Why would a flying saucer, or some flying ship, that's presumably made out of metal, give off light? Especially light that's visible from the ground?<br />
<br />
2. Why is it moving like that? If you were in a ship, up in the sky, would it make sense to drift in every direction, like a firefly in a field? If you're traveling, it makes sense to go in a straight line. If you're waiting, or watching, it makes sense to sit still. I can't think of why anyone in an aircraft would behave that way.<br />
<br />
3. If there is someone in there, observing us, why don't they go up a bit higher? We have satellites that can see the ground in fancy resolution from orbit, and I'm sure some of our space telescopes can do better than that. What's keeping our UFOs in the clouds?<br />
<br />
I don't have all of the answers, but I do have a wealth of the questions, and, with a lot of these subjects, they're questions that don't seem to have a simple answer.<br />
<br />
If anyone asked my opinion (I'll assume that by reading this bog, you are doing just that) I'd say that the little balls of light in the sky are some kind of electromagnetic <i>thing</i>. Something that we may not know about, or have thought of, yet. Something that is centralized, gives off light, and wanders around in the sky, sometimes shooting off at speeds and angles that would be improbable for something with mass.<br />
<br />
It's not that I disbelieve in alien life. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we found out that there is complex life elsewhere. I just don't think it's come to earth just to hang around our clouds and act like an idiot.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading.Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-32347423160548430112011-03-17T12:03:00.000-07:002011-03-17T12:03:33.467-07:00Proof of a new method of search engine optimization<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCi53Qx_vY6ucvzH242otAjL00d6JC8a9jDk98R91G8jpBqchFtycFkZm4yqkyDKhyphenhyphenQjllZf2xPQiSLMHlJswhnwwtXpNVo2jpjOUbY2eIXz8YRJkaO0Z4K7SaAnJohw7rsUFTSPNNPmqn/s1600/popular+posts.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCi53Qx_vY6ucvzH242otAjL00d6JC8a9jDk98R91G8jpBqchFtycFkZm4yqkyDKhyphenhyphenQjllZf2xPQiSLMHlJswhnwwtXpNVo2jpjOUbY2eIXz8YRJkaO0Z4K7SaAnJohw7rsUFTSPNNPmqn/s320/popular+posts.JPG" width="234" /></a>Here it is: Write the word "proof" in the title of your blog post.<br />
<br />
In September, last year, I wrote a post called, "<a href="http://thepoliteskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/09/proof-that-2012-will-happen.html">Proof that 2012 will happen!</a>" I wasn't trying to be sensationalist, just silly. The joke ended up being that of course 2012 will happen. Whether or not the end of the world will happen during 2012 is a different story.<br />
<br />
Well, you can see that, on my "top posts" widget to the right, that post is ranking at number 1. But that ranking doesn't tell the whole story. Not at all.<br />
<br />
If you give the number of visits that the #5 item in that list (Gerson Therapy) has gotten in the last month a value of 1, as a baseline, the bottom three items all have a value of about 1. They've gotten about the same number of visits as each other. Then, the #2 item (Proof of Time Travel) has a value of about 2. It has about double the visits of any of the lower three items.<br />
<br />
The number 1 item, though, <a href="http://thepoliteskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/09/proof-that-2012-will-happen.html">Proof that 2012 will happen!</a>, has a value of 12. That means it has approximately twelve times the visits of any of the bottom three, and it even has six times as many visits as the second one. It's a wide gap.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0nU4BrJBonnhkMsNEMGOUKFMxKmbsrgLdgp75WGYO5sDxu4orEJcJ3GbS-IaTzqebbS7D5SEqv5KkPIxV1Hfx0gxwVgibM03eTX6-yqv9Fn6R76HVC3nixxAncig48Cw8u2YmQqlyYz-_/s1600/keywords.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0nU4BrJBonnhkMsNEMGOUKFMxKmbsrgLdgp75WGYO5sDxu4orEJcJ3GbS-IaTzqebbS7D5SEqv5KkPIxV1Hfx0gxwVgibM03eTX6-yqv9Fn6R76HVC3nixxAncig48Cw8u2YmQqlyYz-_/s1600/keywords.JPG" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Note: PornOH, I now know, is a<br />
pornography website. In a search<br />
for that keyword, a link to my blog<br />
is on the second page.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>I noticed this trend in early February, and it bothers me a bit, because I realized that the people who are actually looking for proof of the end-of-the-world scenario are not going to find it at my blog. The bad part is, I didn't even present evidence against it in that post. Just a perspective of what I think of it. So, those people are getting no value out of that search.<br />
<br />
This didn't stop my from my next experiment, though, which you can see above. I wrote a post about a time-travel related video I'd seen, and stuck the word Proof in there, not so innocently this time. Very very quickly, <a href="http://thepoliteskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/02/proof-of-time-travel.html">Proof of time travel! -or- Giving your hoax a makeover</a>, climbed up the charts, and now, as I said, has double the hits of the three lower results. Neither of these posts are particularly interesting, in the scheme of things, but that silly word, proof, makes them popular.<br />
<br />
The Google searches for proof do have a skeptical basis, though. It's a plea to cut through the BS, get away from all of the conjecture, and just please <i>prove it to me</i>. Unfortunately, there is no proof to be found online. You can find videos that can be faked, stories that can be made up, peer-reviewed scientific papers that are, nevertheless, ever-debated. You can find theories and hypotheses and absurd certainties. But no proof.<br />
<br />
Sorry.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-55509436258869660122011-03-17T10:52:00.000-07:002011-03-17T10:53:38.694-07:00The Singularity -or- Why I'm not afraid of the coming robot holocaust<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR0uz24jmJ_-VFYjpLNRe0mI8YjeUrQ3d8M_sYvoiVoJYPYZYYuks_Ya2mXNDmrQjx-8af-kvsJ_bJh8r-3pbvTGwwlPPFV-is-ak1nYKBGNqx4pzqq5rF7k_e6WM4OQ1aT785_URrGu3t/s1600/IBM-Watson-Jeopardy-500x285.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR0uz24jmJ_-VFYjpLNRe0mI8YjeUrQ3d8M_sYvoiVoJYPYZYYuks_Ya2mXNDmrQjx-8af-kvsJ_bJh8r-3pbvTGwwlPPFV-is-ak1nYKBGNqx4pzqq5rF7k_e6WM4OQ1aT785_URrGu3t/s320/IBM-Watson-Jeopardy-500x285.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A little creepy</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Artificial intelligence! It's an exciting subject for me, being that I like to write a bit of quirky sci-fi on the side. More than artificial intelligence, I want to talk about our (some say inevitable) future robot holocaust. With how we rest on technology, if the technology became sentient, isn't it reasonable to think that it would take the very short step from surrounding us to ruling us, destroying us, or turning us into human batteries?<br />
<br />
In my mind, the fear of doomsday-through-artificial-intelligence is fed through a misconception about the nature of intelligence. Human beings are different than the rest of the animals on the planet in two major ways. Firstly, we are, in some very special ways, the most intelligent animals around. Secondly, we <i>rule the world</i>. We lord over this place like a king ape, with our big scepter and crown, making the plants and animals bend to our needs. So, it's only natural that we would get nervous when something that's potentially more intelligent than us comes onto the scene. It's not hard to imagine that, if we start creating slaves that are stronger and smarter than us, we could end up being the next endangered species.<br />
<br />
But keep in mind that intelligence is not the same as a wish to rule the world, or even a wish to be free from bondage. <br />
<br />
Let's think about Data, the humanoid robot from Star Trek. Data was intelligent, but without emotions. At least, he was supposed to be. Watching that show as an adult, though (Which I did one time. Really.) I realize that Data did have emotions. Because, if someone, or something, is truly without emotion, then they will never move from one spot. If I lost all of my emotion right now, I wouldn't be driven by my desire to spread my ideas, so I would stop typing this blog. I wouldn't have any reason to hold my bladder, because I wouldn't fear the consequences of peeing my pants while sitting here. I wouldn't get up and eat, because I wouldn't feel discomfort at the sensation of hunger, nor displeasure at the feeling of wasting away. Every move we make is, at its root, driven by an emotion. We feel the emotion, and then use our intelligence to decide how to accommodate it. This is always running in the background. If Data didn't have any emotions, he would never have gotten out of the crate he was shipped in.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKviwotq76jJlBuCZd6R2IS8KbLd3bOMNFZRNp7Ep9R8bhWC0FzImyT2YtbX_O49qTau5Ox4pPGlhwQIZlnbRDc-VSzvp3qTfM3XNOxDjJhcpphM_dADr1gdviOe6eR0BLXm1sJmpDae5q/s1600/google-self-driving-car-photo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKviwotq76jJlBuCZd6R2IS8KbLd3bOMNFZRNp7Ep9R8bhWC0FzImyT2YtbX_O49qTau5Ox4pPGlhwQIZlnbRDc-VSzvp3qTfM3XNOxDjJhcpphM_dADr1gdviOe6eR0BLXm1sJmpDae5q/s320/google-self-driving-car-photo.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Google's fancy self-driving car</td></tr>
</tbody></table>So, how intelligent could you make a machine before it hit you in the face and took your wallet? We could make it as intelligent as we wanted. In fact, according to Steven Levy, author of a <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/ff_ai_essay_airevolution/">Wired Magazine article</a> that I enjoyed, we've already got artificial intelligence. There are computers that can think faster, and better, in very specialized ways, than humans. Jeopardy champion <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(artificial_intelligence_software)">Watson </a>comes to mind.<br />
<br />
Well, where does this put my philosophy on emotion? Why aren't these emotionless machines sitting and rotting, as opposed to vacuuming our floors and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0I5DHOETFE">driving our future cars</a>? Well, it seems to me that these machines do have emotions. Their emotions are very few, and very simple, but they are there. A Roomba is driven to vaccuum all the time, and it uses its intelligence to figure out how to do it. Watson is driven to answer Jeopardy questions, and it uses its intelligence to figure out how to do it. We are driven to avoid spoiled food, and to have sex with sexy people, and to eat pizza, pizza, pizza all day long, and we use our own intelligence in these pursuits. Simple emotions for simple machines, and uber-complex emotions for uber-complex machines like ourselves.<br />
<br />
My point is that, if computers wanted to rule the world, someone would have to program that desire into them. If they wanted to enslave humanity, some geek would have to spend many sleepless nights figuring out the easiest, most bug-proof way to enslave himself and his species-peers. It's not something that would happen automatically. It's far from a foregone conclusion.<br />
<br />
Just like the idea of alien life, we humans tend to think of intelligent machines in human terms, as if humanity is something you'll reach if you just keep adding virtual neurons. But we're not the product of virtual neurons. We're the product of millions of years of selective pressure in certain environmental/social conditions. Nobody thinks that a virtual brain will automatically generate the personality of a crow, or a lemur, but there are loads of people assuming that a human's drives will spontaneously arise in a complex-enough computer.<br />
<br />
No.Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-28356659965497508952011-03-13T11:11:00.000-07:002011-03-13T11:11:59.887-07:00Japan Earthquake ReliefDoing my small part to help people that need help. All I can hope is that it actually helps.<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.globalgiving.org/javascript/widget/widget.js"> { "projectids" : "6443", "ggtid" : "B70030FBBC0A1DC143E58533C9205E0D" } </script>Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-68768315305026309402011-03-01T11:33:00.000-08:002011-03-01T11:39:45.335-08:00Gerson Therapy: Where is the research?(Time to get that horrid optical illusion off of the top of my blog.)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifVnEMZly2IACSi2H1TyNLpJUVpPcCq715odBo4BcQ4yC9hvXrN0ayY-bV7MEhOKT3sUsnNkArM1MLNLBUnKkA7994MeC2nS-zQR80x_bdy69UgJFw57Pe10agOryO-6cDnYVrW6xR-wER/s1600/krqe-istock-organic-farming-produce-bd_20100118115015_320_240.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifVnEMZly2IACSi2H1TyNLpJUVpPcCq715odBo4BcQ4yC9hvXrN0ayY-bV7MEhOKT3sUsnNkArM1MLNLBUnKkA7994MeC2nS-zQR80x_bdy69UgJFw57Pe10agOryO-6cDnYVrW6xR-wER/s1600/krqe-istock-organic-farming-produce-bd_20100118115015_320_240.JPG" /></a></div>According to Charlotte Gerson, we have a cure for cancer, and we've had it for more than sixty years. And it's not chemotherapy.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gerson-Therapy-Nutritional-Program-Illnesses/dp/1575666286?ie=UTF8&tag=thepo05-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Gerson Therapy</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thepo05-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1575666286" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />, invented by Max Gerson, is, in short, a very extreme, very strict, dietary regimen, that involves a lot (really a lot) of juicing, zero salt, all-organic, a bunch of supplements, nothing processed. And don't forget about the organic coffee enemas. But we're all adults here, so we're not going to overreact about people putting a tube in their asshole to cure cancer, are we? Cancer is a big deal, while a tube in the ass is really not.<br />
<br />
But does it work? In the documentaries about it (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gerson-Miracle-Charlotte/dp/B001J66JQS?ie=UTF8&tag=thepo05-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">1</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thepo05-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B001J66JQS" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Truth-Worlds-Simplest-Cancer/dp/B001J66JQ8?ie=UTF8&tag=thepo05-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">2</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thepo05-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B001J66JQ8" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />) there are nice, convincing stories from real people about how wonderful it is. But any documentary about a thing is going to have nice convincing stories. The documentary about <a href="http://no%20not%20really/">hitting yourself in the face with a hammer</a> has some of the most convincing testimonials I've heard.<br />
<br />
In fact, there are two things, regarding Gerson Therapy, that are as easy to find as they are unhelpful.<br />
<br />
1). Testimonials from people who say that the therapy has cured a number of different maladies, including cancer. Any or all of these could be people who are paid to make blog comments and reviews and things like that. Think I'm being cynical? I've been to Elance. <a href="http://www.elance.com/j/blog-post-commenting-needed/23066402/">I've seen the listings</a>. <br />
2). Skeptical people who take a glance at the therapy and decide that it shouldn't work, because of A B and C, and that Max Gerson once maybe cheated on his wife, and there was once some other BS therapy that was debunked, so this is obviously wrong. Basically, the blah, blah, blah of someone who uses big words in their guessing.<br />
<br />
What I wanted was studies. The scientific controlled experiments that I can pick apart at my leisure. After all, if you've got lots and lots of stories that this thing is vanishing tumors, I would think that the medical community would be eager to either verify the claims, or to show it as a sham. Whichever one may be true.<br />
<br />
But, according to <a href="http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/DietandNutrition/gerson-therapy">cancer.org</a>:<br />
"<i>There have been no well-controlled studies published in the available medical literature that show the Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer.</i><br />
<br />
<i>In a recent review of the medical literature, researchers from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center identified 7 human studies of Gerson therapy that have been published or presented at medical conferences. None of them were randomized controlled studies.</i>"<br />
<br />
Well, that frankly pisses me right off. I know I'm just being a cranky non-scientist. Someone that doesn't begin to understand the struggle of scientific research, and funding, and so on. But, this is a pretty big deal. Cancer is something that a third of us are looking forward to as we quickly age, and many of us are going to be doing the Gerson therapy, whether the scientific community has researched it or not. Because, reading testimonials, it seems to work, and because we've all heard horror stories about chemotherapy.<br />
<br />
Just to make myself clear, I'm not saying that we (we the people) ought to do the Gerson Therapy. I'm saying that it will happen. If it were proven to be more effective than medical treatments, it would be revolutionary. If it were proven to be false, then there would at least be data present to help the cancer victim make their choice.<br />
<br />
Would I do it? Well, if I found that I had cancer, and I had more than a year projected to live, I would probably juice some vegetables and periodically stick a tube in my butt for a month, sure. See what happens. Because, in my heart of hearts, as much as cancer might scare me, chemotherapy scares me a little bit more.Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-22885059662307820142011-02-20T12:36:00.000-08:002011-02-20T13:33:04.229-08:00When my girlfriend learned to teleport -or- The Five Liars<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGRLKXc4Y5PS2BypUS-Ba07wYeDq7n_Noa4y80REnkfXtF3b-PsCTzFUvWDzPH1SFCsGscZBzIKZEx-XlZsAoWF_CBwk_6T7Tjdj6cL-ZtpPU2KbZktYmAgu7clCY7KyDIbXI5isTyPe2B/s1600/37200952638PMmoving-objects-optical-illusion.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGRLKXc4Y5PS2BypUS-Ba07wYeDq7n_Noa4y80REnkfXtF3b-PsCTzFUvWDzPH1SFCsGscZBzIKZEx-XlZsAoWF_CBwk_6T7Tjdj6cL-ZtpPU2KbZktYmAgu7clCY7KyDIbXI5isTyPe2B/s320/37200952638PMmoving-objects-optical-illusion.jpg" width="292" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Don't trust your eyes</td></tr>
</tbody></table>I had mild insomnia last night. For the first couple of hours, I kept falling into a light, fragile sleep, and then waking up what felt like minutes later. There were no dreams, no moments of REM, just blinking on and off like a digital clock after a power-outage.<br />
<br />
I was lying next to my girlfriend, who was sleeping soundly, when I heard the bedroom door open. The kids are not allowed to open our bedroom door without knocking first, and I was going to mention it, but it wasn't one of the kids. It was an adult woman, and, for a moment, I didn't know how to react.<br />
<br />
Of course, it was my girlfriend. She had gotten up during one of my brief moments of sleep, and then had come back while I was awake. Somehow, I wanted to argue about this. "I didn't hear you get up."<br />
<br />
"You were sleeping, silly. It's three a.m."<br />
<br />
I wanted to tell her that I had been semi-alert all night, that even in my sleeping moments I'd been half awake, that it was unlikely that she could have gotten out of bed and opened the door without me noticing. But how absurd would that be? What point, exactly, would I have been arguing? That she had actually teleported out of the room? That I had lost time, like in a UFO abduction? That my real girlfriend had dissolved, and a pod person had walked in from the hallway? I was put off by how obvious it was that she had come in without leaving, even though it didn't make a bit (much less a byte) of sense.<br />
<br />
I know that I slept through my girlfriend's exit from the room, and I think that almost everyone would have eventually come to the same conclusion, even after that brief moment of argumentativeness. But, what if it had happened a little differently? What if I had been awake when one of the children had walked in, but had kept my eyes closed? What if the kid had crawled into bed, and I had, in my sleep-deprived state, simply fallen asleep, and remained asleep when the kid remembered that she'd left her favorite blanket behind and made a stealthy exit?<br />
<br />
When I wake up, and realize that during my obviously (to me) unbroken span of attention, something had come into my room, climbed into bed, and then vanished, I would suddenly have a creepy ghost story that I could tell everyone for the rest of my life.<br />
<br />
It's easy, when you hear a report of something strange happening, from a person who seems to be perfectly honest, to dismiss them either as a liar or someone who makes stupid mistakes. But let's not be so hasty.<br />
<br />
These are our <i>senses</i>, people. These are our only, few, connections to the world around us. Our thoughts and senses are literally the only experiences we have. We all trust our senses. We don't doubt that bacon is on sale for two dollars at the grocery store, or that the driveway is flooded, or that the grape juice stain from last week is still in the carpet, even though it's only our horribly unreliable senses telling us these things. <br />
<br />
Are you sure that if you saw a ball of light meandering in the sky, or felt a hand grab your ankle in bed, or watched a stinky, seven-foot-tall sasquatch cross the hiking trail in front of you, that you wouldn't believe these things were exactly as they seemed? It's easy to be a skeptic when you're sitting at your laptop, after all.<br />
<br />
But it's good to doubt yourself, regardless of your belief system, if you can manage it. If you start trusting everything you see, you may end up believing that, on one sleepless night, your girlfriend had to pee so bad that she teleported to the bathroom.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading.Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-63503412901363100952011-02-18T09:45:00.000-08:002018-08-15T19:13:20.150-07:00A brief and decade-late discussion about "9/11 truth"In language, we often end up giving things names that aren't very descriptive. Names that, if you don't already know what they mean, then you won't from the name. Most examples of this are euphemisms. Nothing about the term, "adult undergarments" tells you that they are diapers. Without the cultural knowledge, the label applies better to a bra or a pair of boxer shorts. "Differently abled," before it meant handicapped, didn't mean anything at all. Everyone is differently abled from everyone else. <br />
<br />
And some things end up with these non-descriptive labels just because they stick. PC means specifically a computer that runs a Microsoft operating system even though a Mac is a personal computer too. And we've all heard the joke about<i> ship</i>ments in trucks and <i>car</i>go in ships.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYD0jipcsEoKKaQR01R7kdObC7kHTHJxQ5nwIeGsLAV6y0nvvD7xw9qBDf-wsAyv4TcZV-HpFz3abVT35W7RmunR1kCAAUKq-qlwihL81z2oLgCCDlz6zn0u3L-YuDs_-y3Lsk1CHpK09u/s1600/9-11%255B1%255D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="135" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYD0jipcsEoKKaQR01R7kdObC7kHTHJxQ5nwIeGsLAV6y0nvvD7xw9qBDf-wsAyv4TcZV-HpFz3abVT35W7RmunR1kCAAUKq-qlwihL81z2oLgCCDlz6zn0u3L-YuDs_-y3Lsk1CHpK09u/s200/9-11%255B1%255D.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
Well, a little over two thousand years into the current calendar, the utterly undescriptive label that could have been stuck to <i>any </i>of a million things, <i>truther</i>, is now being used. For better or worse, it's taken.<br />
<br />
There are a few different schools of thought about the specifics, but the basic message that most truthers have in common is that 9/11, instead of being orchestrated by a terrorist group lead by Osama bin Ladin, was actually staged by the United States government in order to provide a catalyst for military invasion of oil-rich Iraq.<br />
<br />
Naturally, there's been a lot of fighting over this idea. No, I didn't say friendly debate. I think that if people could shoot each other through the internet, they would probably do it over this issue. More than three thousand people died, and those on both sides of the argument are still very fired up a decade later.<br />
<br />
For however many versions of the events there are, only one of them of course happened. Things occurred in a certain way, and even seven billion people feeling the deepest rage in their hearts, could not change the truth. Some people are more inclined to distrust the government, and some people are the opposite, but none of that matters at all. It never will. It's the evidence, put forward by both sides of the argument that, when inspected individually and then taken together, can show us the truth. And the truth is what matters.<br />
<br />
I'm not going to discuss any of that evidence right now. This post is almost a warning that I am, in the future, going to discuss it. Whether or not that is necessary... shrug.<br />
<br />
One thing I will say, though, is that, if I wanted to make up a tragedy in order to invade Iraq, I would have framed an Iraqi, or even Saddam Hussein, for the tragedy. While the fury about 9/11 was, by some, channeled into the Iraq war, it's public knowledge that the government of Iraq wasn't involved. In other words, if I wanted to frame my uncle for a murder, I wouldn't leave my neighbor's hair at the scene.<br />
<br />
I won't say I'm on the fence about "9/11 truth," but I am open-minded. And when I say that I am open-minded (something everyone loves to say) I think it's actually true. So be ready for the occasional post looking at the truthers' best pieces of evidence, and trying to decide if they hold any water.<br />
<br />
Thanks for readingKevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-13417669570955805182011-02-15T13:33:00.000-08:002011-03-01T11:46:49.246-08:00Killing my dog with homeopathy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>We woke up early, and found the big puppy munching on rat poison. It was shocking, but pretty much exactly how you would expect this D-student dog to spend his time.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL6nVcziF4FD50EAfGo3Hz3yEi_Y20HgSCwSIxDK7U2OM8WnUfPSUb8ULtImB6XSoawdqGvzMtCYUYYhDocIO3HudGyB7vPy9yBSa3YRzJI2ocMFmqB4O0Rk3LfqJjaBrkg3WKjyUpobUh/s1600/rat-poison-ad.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL6nVcziF4FD50EAfGo3Hz3yEi_Y20HgSCwSIxDK7U2OM8WnUfPSUb8ULtImB6XSoawdqGvzMtCYUYYhDocIO3HudGyB7vPy9yBSa3YRzJI2ocMFmqB4O0Rk3LfqJjaBrkg3WKjyUpobUh/s200/rat-poison-ad.jpg" width="140" /></a></div>Before we called the vet, we (naturally) looked at Google. The internet told us to make him puke with peroxide (boy, did he ever) and then get him some activated charcoal. I was off to the drugstore.<br />
<br />
The clerk pointed me in the right direction, and I found the supplement. Reaching for it, though, I froze. <i>Homeopathic</i>, it said on the front of the bottle. Standing there, with my hand hanging in front of the shelf, my heart rate was up, and I actually had some adrenaline running through my veins. I felt as if I had almost touched a hot pan, or peed on an electric fence. I was a little angry for a moment, and then I took a deep breath, and grabbed the bottle to the right of that one.<br />
<br />
What is homeopathy? Briefly, a homeopath will take a substance that is supposed to produce a certain symptom, dilute it greatly, and then use the dilution to treat the condition that it, in greater concentrations, would cause. So, (and this is my own assumption) if you grabbed some ipecac, and diluted it down into a homeopathic solution, following the correct steps, you could treat nausea with it.<br />
<br />
Now what do I mean by a homeopathic solution? Well, with homeopathy, the thinner, the better. As in, if you mix a homeopathic solution with water, so it's 10% solution, and 90% water, what you end up with is supposed to be more potent than the original solution. An 8X homeopathic solution, for instance, would be the result of diluting a substance to this extent eight times. The amount of the original substance in the water shrinks exponentially with every new "potentization." <br />
<br />
So, if you look at a solution of 30X potency (very potent, and very thin), one dose, which is about a sip, which equals maybe an ounce, has about this many water molecules in it:<br />
<br />
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000<br />
And the amount of original substance in the 30X solution is 1 over:<br />
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000<br />
<br />
The visible length difference between these numbers tells us something. You're not going to get a particle of original substance in every dose of your medicine. In fact, to come across that elusive particle, in a 30X solution, you'll have to take about 100,000 doses, or drink something like 781 gallons of water, which could fill an Olympics swimming pool to a little more than one foot deep with virtually pure water. And in that whole giant wading pool, there would be maybe one particle of the thing that isn't water, maybe floating at the far end, hopefully not caught in the filter.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzvqAn_Fe2NclMOgk9_qiRVnsZY9hdHApsUuzbzN5ZoVs3-CQhp6zEwdT7SR72SwGoJCBnPIglWeebn-rvqkKgdfMest3_Nd_6ExedgLX6RF8ZrO9rEzWTbBi5bzXr4WfITql78IiDuLYT/s1600/homeopathyflower.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="253" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzvqAn_Fe2NclMOgk9_qiRVnsZY9hdHApsUuzbzN5ZoVs3-CQhp6zEwdT7SR72SwGoJCBnPIglWeebn-rvqkKgdfMest3_Nd_6ExedgLX6RF8ZrO9rEzWTbBi5bzXr4WfITql78IiDuLYT/s320/homeopathyflower.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The flowers make the pills look natural</td></tr>
</tbody></table>These kinds of criticisms are not new to homeopathy. But, it is said, this practice is not about actually consuming the substance. It's about the water. The water, believers say, has a memory. (For more on this way of thinking, take a look at <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Messages-Water-Masaru-Emoto/dp/0743289803?ie=UTF8&tag=thepo05-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Hidden Messages in Water</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thepo05-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0743289803" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />, by Masaru Emoto.) If you "succuss," or shake in a particular way, the water container correctly, it is said, you will instill the properties of the substance in the water. When you get to higher potencies like 30X, it won't matter if the substance is present, only the water. Look at this post on <a href="http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/how-to-make-your-own-remedy/">making your own homeopathic remedy</a> for more info.<br />
<br />
And, having said all this, I can't think, for the life of me, how one would make homeopathic activated charcoal.<br />
<br />
Well, to be honest, the dog probably would have been fine without the charcoal. We'd gotten him to puke (a lot, I'm telling you), pretty early on in the process of him poisoning himself. I was angry, though, that I almost treated a canine medical emergency with a medicine that seems, at very best, iffy. Not only that, but the word "Homeopathic," instead of being in a starburst on the package, was in a thin, black, sans_serif font, almost like it was embarrassed. If things had gone a little different, (discover the poison later, grab the homeopathic charcoal) I fear they would have gone very badly, indeed.<br />
<br />
But who am I to criticize this thing that I've never tried? And to listen to scientific studies that could, very well, be biased? I know how to make a homeopathic remedy now, so I'm going to do it. I'll get something that causes weight gain (sugar is a simple choice) and make a weight-loss syrum. I'll make it 30X, so that the results will be very obvious, if they are there, and then I'll take daily measurements of my "total inches" (something I read about <a href="http://www.amazon.com/4-Hour-Body-Uncommon-Incredible-Superhuman/dp/030746363X?ie=UTF8&tag=thepo05-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">in a Tim Ferriss book</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thepo05-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=030746363X" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />.) It sounds like a lot of work, of course (succussing 40 times 30 times adds up to beating my hand 1,200 times, hoping I don't lose count) but I'll try (m)anything(s) once. And since I don't expect it to work, I don't have to worry too much about the placebo effect, an effect I'm not too offended by, in the first place.<br />
<br />
And how conclusive is a (not too) scientific study with a sample size of 1? Well, it's not. But I'm going to do it anyway, and likely prove nothing that the reader didn't already believe. So wish me luck.<br />
<br />
The dog's doing fine, by the way.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading.Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-43381990110107982922011-02-13T22:15:00.000-08:002018-08-15T18:56:50.356-07:00Proof of Time Travel! -or- Giving your hoax a makeoverLet's talk about time travel today.<br />
<br />
First, watch the video. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8E4a4CdX6R8/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8E4a4CdX6R8?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
The story in short: This guy is repairing a sink, he climbs deeper and deeper into cabinet under the sink, and then... comes out the other side. On the other side, there is his future self, about seventy years old. He has the presence of mind to take a cell-phone video of him and his older self, which is shown in the above television clip.<br />
<br />
He doesn't mention coming back. Unless the future he went to was now (which would put his origin time in the pre cellphone-camera era) we have to assume that he... I don't know. Woke up back in his kitchen?<br />
<br />
The television production value of this clip, which is pretty interesting at first glance, makes it a little more emotionally compelling than the homemade stuff you see on YouTube. Of course, if you watch Fox News, (or any news at all, to a lesser extent), you know that the people who give you your television don't think much of your intelligence. Even if nobody involved in a program like this believes in the report, it will still make its way to our screens, because we, as a viewing audience, love it. Honesty only rarely gets in the way of cashflow.<br />
<br />
To be honest, I'm almost embarrassed to cover this video. In my mind, it's a very weak hoax. But, keeping in mind that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily see things through my eyeballs, I'll spell out my thoughs.<br />
<br />
First, his story of climbing under a sink strikes me as sci-fi. And I'm not talking about fantastic, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Contact-Paperback-Carl-Sagan-Blyton/dp/0099469502?ie=UTF8&tag=thepo05-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Contact-by-Carl-Sagan</a><img alt="" border="0" src="https://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thepo05-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0099469502" height="1" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1"> sci-fi, but more like silly <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Johnny-Test-Complete-Second-Seasons/dp/B004HI79JQ?ie=UTF8&tag=thepo05-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Johnny Test</a><img alt="" border="0" src="https://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thepo05-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B004HI79JQ" height="1" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1"> sci-fi. He doesn't describe if the undersink had become a tunnel, or if the tunnel's floor, ceiling and walls had the texture and character of the walls under the sink. If maybe he was mesmerized, and didn't notice that the back wall of the cabinet, that was inches from his face, had disappeared. He didn't mention if there was more plumbing, or another can of Comet, five feet back from the doors. He only says that he climbs under, doesn't describe the compulsion to keep crawling (usually, working on a sink, your butt or knees are on the kitchen floor), doesn't mention how he gets past the p-trap and all that. It's the kind of thing that makes me put down a bad novel, and mark the author's name on my mental blacklist.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsyZIIBzes0ottOqfBR9jESG4h1W5B19hFE3JGwsIiNEjw3MQpTwXeZ8cyQmMYkZ397MaaSnZc8AZMjKYgFvsBE97ISKUrqrltv8f3X57uTWbppXmmcPavik6Tdou3PyuLNn7BEOav_L_E/s1600/Deanna+Wardin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsyZIIBzes0ottOqfBR9jESG4h1W5B19hFE3JGwsIiNEjw3MQpTwXeZ8cyQmMYkZ397MaaSnZc8AZMjKYgFvsBE97ISKUrqrltv8f3X57uTWbppXmmcPavik6Tdou3PyuLNn7BEOav_L_E/s320/Deanna+Wardin.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Tattoos don't stay sharp<br />
Image by Deanna Wardin</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
And then the video, there to redeem the inadequate story, instead seems to add a nail to its coffin. For one thing, as many many YouTube commenters have pointed out, the thirty-year-old arm-tattoo seen in the video is crisp, sharp and dark. Skin is not actually archival. While tattoos never go away on their own, they sure do get crummy after a decade or so.<br />
<br />
Secondly, and more important to me, the two men in the video only slightly resemble each other. And by slightly, I mean <i>maybe </i>a family member. Something that movies have made us forget is that people's looks don't change <i>that </i>much over time. Two different actors have to play normal Will Smith and kid Will Smith. In real life it's all played by the same actor. We all have a basic face, sometimes seen through a fat filter, or an age filter, a drug-addict filter, but always the same basic image (barring some surgery, of course). I have gained height, weight and a beard since middle school, but I still run into people from that long-ago time who stop and say, "Oh, wow! It's you!" If I knew this guy, and then ran into that older guy a few years later, I can't imagine there would be any recognition. They look more like son and dad than self and self. <br />
<br />
Assuming that this is a hoax (I am, of course, assuming that) let's fix it. Let's make it more believable.<br />
<br />
Step 1: Fix the older tattoo. Draw the thing on with your marker, and then rub at it for ten minutes. If you're going to age yourself, age every part of yourself.<br />
<br />
Step 2: Fix the older guy. Find an older guy with a weaker jaw, nose and brow than you have, and then spend a few bucks on some good Hollywood prosthetics. I'm not talking about Klingons, or anything, but if you match these three features up on a guy that's your color, and your height, you just might drop a couple of jaws.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgc0uwe4qnRCoUmHUPZWEBIRyI4V_oYQPscchXcsR8rX79tJySlG_Xg9IVPPYggpbe40DVNO3OEJTIyr7qRxHJ8gHI-hb_pLwm2Dam4ScZFksPJMJDeYupwZHhf3qp4crl4jQh-FP6lh5y/s1600/weta+workshop.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="215" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgc0uwe4qnRCoUmHUPZWEBIRyI4V_oYQPscchXcsR8rX79tJySlG_Xg9IVPPYggpbe40DVNO3OEJTIyr7qRxHJ8gHI-hb_pLwm2Dam4ScZFksPJMJDeYupwZHhf3qp4crl4jQh-FP6lh5y/s320/weta+workshop.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Weta Workshop could hoax the pants off of me.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Step 3: Attention to detail: Make your little cellphone video with your house in the background, but change things around a bit, get rid of that tarp, maybe build a temporary facade of an additional room. Experts will "discover" these things, and back you up, revealing your made-up evidence to the world.<br />
<br />
Step 4: Give your story a remake. You could go on Elance.com and find professional writers who could come up with something good. A nicely filled-out story might cost you less than $100, and much less if you hire from a firm in India (Please look at reviews. Reckless clients will find that a language barrier is the least of their problems).<br />
<br />
The story that I would have come up with: <i>I was reading out by the pond, and I kept looking up, because it looked like a person was moving around, but I was only seeing it in the corner of my eye, right at the edge of the water. When I looked directly there was nothing there. I thought I was seeing a ghost or something, so I started trying to just keep watching it out of the corner of my eye. </i><br />
<br />
<i>But then I saw it get up, and was walking toward me, and I was scared, because I thought that if I looked at it, it would go invisible, but it would still coming toward me. I eventually gave in, though, and I looked up, and it was still there. I thought he was just an old guy, and I was freaked out at this point, so I was going to just leave, but then I noticed... well, that he looked just like me. </i><br />
<br />
<i>The area looked different, the walnut tree was about ten feet taller. We were both confused, and we eventually figured out that I had somehow, as crazy as it sounded, traveled forward in time. It was 2038, and I was talking to my future self. We talked for hours, and he said he remembered this happening when he was younger, and he told me that he had taken a cell-phone video, because the older him had told him to, so I did it.</i><br />
<br />
<i>I don't remember coming back to my time. I just remember kind of shaking my head, and realizing that I had been standing by the pond for a while, like in a daze. If it wasn't for the video, I wouldn't have told anybody. I wouldn't believe it myself.</i><br />
<br />
<i>I was just happy that I never had to climb under a sink.</i><br />
<br />
Thanks for reading.Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-23525323362941128212011-02-12T11:50:00.000-08:002011-02-14T08:55:24.085-08:00Coping with the wrongness of othersRaising kids, sometimes I get asked tough questions. No, I'm not talking about sex questions. Sex questions I at least know the answers to. The questions I have to be careful with are things like:<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMUCTFN6BdPJi2fi7el-WaYk-YGF2NbybwfgHqXDo6kX1a3Seg_-3OR9ndglT5PFXaLnnwPcBx6IO21j0T6gYoeprLf1INYnZ9sMMgYQGs7WmOM6x3kzqmIpReGi-1Eez3BQCPilLkn4wW/s1600/corndog.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMUCTFN6BdPJi2fi7el-WaYk-YGF2NbybwfgHqXDo6kX1a3Seg_-3OR9ndglT5PFXaLnnwPcBx6IO21j0T6gYoeprLf1INYnZ9sMMgYQGs7WmOM6x3kzqmIpReGi-1Eez3BQCPilLkn4wW/s320/corndog.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Four is better</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Are there really aliens?<br />
<br />
Are there really ghosts?<br />
<br />
Did God make libraries?<br />
<br />
To many, many people, the answer to these kinds of questions are as straightforward as to the sex questions, maybe moreso. We humans tend to be very certain about our beliefs, and very willing to shove these certainties down the throats of others, especially our children. My answers always involve the phrases, "Some people believe," and, "Other people believe." Sometimes it's more specific. "Lot's of people believe," and, "A few people believe."<br />
<br />
My trio of mini-humans have been to church maybe twice. I'm not a Christian at all (I'm also not one of those people that say, "I'm not religious, but I believe in God." I really don't) and the significant other is some form of dormant Catholic. We don't go to church, but when they visit their gramma during the summer, she brings them along, and the eight-year-old has really taken a liking to Christianity. I was dragged to church about once a week growing up, and the obligation drove me away from the practice of religion. I sometimes wonder if the opposite is happening with my little one.<br />
<br />
I don't believe in God, but I don't see why she shouldn't. If she asks me why I don't, I'll tell her, but I won't push her. And it's not only because of the (increasingly clear) fact that, when you push children, they tend to push back.<br />
<br />
Beliefs really gets to some people. In fact, the idea that others could believe the wrong thing, something that is <i>not true</i>, is a thorn in the side of many. People preach to strangers, call others woo-woos, and all-around lose sleep because untruth is so offensive to them. This is because some of us put a lot of value on the truth.<br />
<br />
Of course, giving value to truth sounds like a good thing. It sounds like something the good guy lawyer would talk about in the climax of a legal drama. What's wrong with the truth, after all? Well, it depends on the truth.<br />
<br />
Knowing the truth about your poisoned food, an incoming hurricane, or the risks of Russian Roulette, all have immediate practical value.<br />
<br />
Knowing the truth about high fructose corn syrup (just corn, my ass), and smoking, and living in the midst of high levels of radiation, have long-term practical value.<br />
<br />
Knowing the truth about the age of the universe, though, and natural selection, and how light takes so-and-so years to reach earth from any given star, have, for most of us, zero practical value. These distant and long-term ideas are simply matters of interest. They're things that work our brains, and our worldviews, and excite some of us, but none of them will change the fact that there's grilled-cheese for lunch, with tomato soup.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkkORRanJ6b3mPJ6HStrPSGY7HAS9I5XaBhjxND0EtTZaFeWllSaSQrMzsYJWZ6jU3tlOXYEVF2Q7wmiHy9Wi8FjBFp5UqLsA7WcmSk_0t28ZQ7WGSegAMIJwwUynmR1AmHstwIDatvRim/s1600/church.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkkORRanJ6b3mPJ6HStrPSGY7HAS9I5XaBhjxND0EtTZaFeWllSaSQrMzsYJWZ6jU3tlOXYEVF2Q7wmiHy9Wi8FjBFp5UqLsA7WcmSk_0t28ZQ7WGSegAMIJwwUynmR1AmHstwIDatvRim/s400/church.jpg" width="238" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/13384589@N00/">robinsan </a>(flickr link)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>And ideas such as that there is a God watching over you during all of your struggles, and that your loved ones are now living a better life because they're dead, and that your good thoughts are bringing good things into your life, do have value. They change how we cope with circumstances, how cruel our world seems to be, whether to move forward boldly, or with fear. They have emotional value, and being that our emotions drive virtually everything we do, they have practical value. For all of the bad things that have stemmed from religion, most of what we're surrounded by would not be there if it weren't from the inspiration people got from their beliefs.<br />
<br />
So, as they said in The 40 Year Old Virgin, don't put the truth on a pedestal. I think that's what they said. For those of you who, like myself, have a passion for the truth, then search for it, study it, roll around in it like a dog in compost, if it do ya fine. And if someone else's belief is different than yours, stop for a minute and consider that their truth probably suits them better, and that they don't need your beliefs any more than they need your shoes.<br />
<br />
But if you notice that your friend's food is poisoned, go ahead and preach the truth to him or her, with the assumption that this knowledge will help them out. And if the food isn't poisoned, tell them anyway, and you just may get four corndogs instead of just two.<br />
<br />
And four corndogs is better.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading.Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-49229651763528069492011-02-07T22:27:00.000-08:002011-02-08T10:07:32.127-08:001,200 exoplanets. Any neighbors?<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjILRBQhevaYCJic4HSU9Dee_9iY2SEJfM86uZCEr7fU8ZA6e12_2U7UynHQAlVHdGkFbj1y24sfi58pjHCSze9JcAwNcsylgF5KeCDPguROnsnloHVjQOPrOEmmrJ7aXW6P0w0_Tz563AP/s1600/exoplanet.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjILRBQhevaYCJic4HSU9Dee_9iY2SEJfM86uZCEr7fU8ZA6e12_2U7UynHQAlVHdGkFbj1y24sfi58pjHCSze9JcAwNcsylgF5KeCDPguROnsnloHVjQOPrOEmmrJ7aXW6P0w0_Tz563AP/s320/exoplanet.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image by NASA</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Take a walk with me, to the scientific fringe. Let's talk briefly about aliens.<br />
<br />
I don't mean alien abductions, or alien autopsies, or gray men with bulbous skulls, and eyes that seem far too big to fit two inside of a head (have you ever noticed that?). I'm talking about something more exciting. Aliens that look nothing like humans. Aliens that haven't evolved under our gravity, or our sun. Real aliens.<br />
<br />
Before 1992, many believed that our solar system contained the only nine planets in the universe (there were nine back then!). It wasn't a matter of whether this was the only solar system that contained life, but whether it was the only solar system at all. If it were the only solar system, the chance of our existence would be astronomically more astronomically unlikely than it seems now. This specialness would mesh well with the worldview (universeview) of those that wrote the Bible. <br />
<br />
But, in 1992, the first exoplanet (planet outside of our solar system) was discovered and confirmed, and we've been looking for more ever since. There are a few different methods that scientists use to detect the planets, because we can't see them the way we see a car down the street, even with powerful telescopes. Astronomers look at the bahavior of stars to determine if there is anything orbiting it, and then determine that thing's properties. That's as far as I'll go here, but feel free to Google it if you're interested.<br />
<br />
After the first exoplanet was confirmed, it became a question of whether there existed habitable exoplanets. After all, what good is a molten world, or a gas giant? They're also looking for the possibility of liquid water. <br />
<br />
There are plenty of scientists that believe life can't exist without conditions similar to what we have here on Earth, but I personally think that's sort of ridiculous. You can't draw conclusions about life-hosting planets when your sample size is one, after all. How thirsty do you have to be before you start assuming that all life in the universe wants a glass of water? All we can safely assume, I think, is that life requires energy. As has been proven on Earth, though, life-giving energy can be radiated from the center of the planet as well as from outside.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-RtQkhIdXk_j573fJ7nn0P0fmeKRICcmXhVsvt5nS449hRvwvDflWDOxCL63VJBT0Pf1rA11GHO02ikGzgz3hK3AjSSD0nkbwPJe5OnDGLTb0bLLszxFyDGhBpq9lJOacCaFe-oXslP5f/s1600/mars.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-RtQkhIdXk_j573fJ7nn0P0fmeKRICcmXhVsvt5nS449hRvwvDflWDOxCL63VJBT0Pf1rA11GHO02ikGzgz3hK3AjSSD0nkbwPJe5OnDGLTb0bLLszxFyDGhBpq9lJOacCaFe-oXslP5f/s200/mars.gif" width="175" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A wet Mars.<br />
Image by Michael Carroll.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>That aside, in the summer of 2008, we found out that there is frozen water on Mars, right next door. Enough that, at some point in the past, Mars just might (also might not) have been covered in oceans. The artists' depictions of the red planet with blue seas are exciting to look at.<br />
<br />
When some scientists talk about life on other planets, they make sure to mention they're talking about microbial life. I have to say, right now, that this makes no sense to me. I think they say this to sound reasonable, and restrained, (unlike the news, or the lay population). In this gritty, dusty place we call reality, though, it seems unlikely that microbial life would sit around and stay microbial for a million years, just because a few scientists are trying to sound reasonable back on this little blue marble.<br />
<br />
In 2009, the Kepler telescope was launched specifically to look for earth-like planets orbiting distant stars. Well, on February 2, 2011, scientists gave us an analysis of data gathered during five months in '09, and it was big news. 1,200 new planets! About five of them are potentially Earthlike, and at least 54 of them in "habitable orbits." Some of these might be false alarms, but not 1,200 of them.<br />
<br />
So, planets aren't as rare as we thought, water isn't as rare as we thought, Earthlike planets aren't as rare as we thought. In my mind, these progressive discoveries are like a road. One that leads to a destination. I can't say for sure what the destination is, but I'll bet all of you twenty dollars that it's <i>life outside of our solar system</i>. My unscientific reasoning says that we just seem to be moving in that direction so fast. And if life as we (don't) know it is out there, even in one place, then it's not a coincidence. Life is too complex to be a coincidence <i>twice</i>. So if there's one more, there's a million more.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfT4JXGcN2tW7BceZx6q_YPGf7egXqWyqCUQbYf9s9QwC8Vd5ZDUtF9tje1SArn5a1oebMB8N_GB2lDQTeN7PxTtPhZ0vRNrEHtwH7134szY8nBuOUuYxBjmuSsctbAYVVRMIELMfo5Rir/s1600/avatar.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfT4JXGcN2tW7BceZx6q_YPGf7egXqWyqCUQbYf9s9QwC8Vd5ZDUtF9tje1SArn5a1oebMB8N_GB2lDQTeN7PxTtPhZ0vRNrEHtwH7134szY8nBuOUuYxBjmuSsctbAYVVRMIELMfo5Rir/s320/avatar.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">True aliens would not look attractive to humans</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
If you've read, or watched, science fiction, you might have some funny ideas about alien life. Of course, this is necessary. The organisms and technologies found on alien worlds in sci-fi are based, almost entirely, on organisms and technologies really found on Earth. I don't think you can (or should) write a story that absolutely nobody can relate to.<br />
<br />
Consider these three (of many) assumptions we make in our science fiction, and how they effect our expectations of reality:<br />
<ul><li><b>That a dominant species will be humanoid:</b> We even make our cartoon animals humanoid. There is no reason for this to be true, as far as I know. This is one of the (several) reasons I question the existence of the "greys" or the "reptilians." The most inhuman aliens we make tend to look like insects. Our imagination will never beat that of natural selection.</li>
<li><b>That other worlds will have a dominant species, at all:</b> The dominant species may very well be an anomaly specific to Earth. One primate got a bigger brain, and started bending the rest of the planet to its will. I don't see this as inevitable. Think about it this way: If humans had never come about, what would the dominant species on Earth be? Sharks? Bears? Orangutans? Of course not. (As a side note, I always hear that dinosaurs once ruled the earth. Of course they didn't. They just lived here.)</li>
<li><b>A division between plants and animals:</b> Our most basic distinction between organisms is that between the plant and the animal (and the fungus, of course). This only seems so natural to us because it's what we were built (so to speak) around. What are some alternatives? I have no idea. That's the point.</li>
</ul><div><br />
</div><div>And we can't ignore the very real possibility that my metaphorical road may end with <i>no </i>life on other planets. Our own little Earth may be the specialest planet ever, like we've been saying since we started speaking. It's not good for our sense of wonder, but it's great for our ego. And it would also mean that, when we eventually invent the Starship Enterprise, and start settling these distant worlds, we won't have a repeat of manifest destiny, treating the natives in ways that me may, someday, regret.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading.</div><div><br />
<b>Relevant:</b><br />
I read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Crowded-Universe-Race-Beyond-Earth/dp/0465020399?ie=UTF8&tag=thepo05-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Crowded Universe</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thepo05-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0465020399" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />, by Alan Boss, last year. It's a detailed history of the scientific search for Earthlike planets, and the struggles along the way, written in a way that's accessible to the lay person. It also includes an interesting account of the Pluto story, how it was discovered, and then, after much conflict, eventually castrated of its planethood.</div>Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-80478762691550628502011-02-02T15:32:00.000-08:002018-08-15T18:39:53.740-07:00Druids, aliens and StonehengeI've said <a href="http://thepoliteskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/09/who-made-pyramids-or-giving-credit.html">before</a> that, just because something seems impossible by human means, even primitive humans, it doesn't mean we need to resort to alien visitation, the modern scapegoat for a number of hard-to-explain phenomena. <br />
<br />
I found this video today. While it's not Stonehenge, it's impressive, and with more experience, and more folks, it just might be Stonehenge.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0P4HwmmhykI/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0P4HwmmhykI?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Stop underestimating your clever, clever species.<br />
<br />
Druids and aliens don't mix, anyway.Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-54653457900563720732011-01-08T16:17:00.000-08:002011-02-12T10:00:53.949-08:00Men who stare at -porn-? OH! I get it!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSvQ3FgJjpb3tkqvgP7TpiaWLIvPTf2EWhD4I-LOmlyoKhdPkunot0Ss58F8b4vso0LlK0z9Tsgs9JLhsLC6gFEIe_muGXl2T-f3B1Sz_twDpDwP167v1HrKbcJhk22uy1eauSPUhyphenhyphenmGk6/s1600/porn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSvQ3FgJjpb3tkqvgP7TpiaWLIvPTf2EWhD4I-LOmlyoKhdPkunot0Ss58F8b4vso0LlK0z9Tsgs9JLhsLC6gFEIe_muGXl2T-f3B1Sz_twDpDwP167v1HrKbcJhk22uy1eauSPUhyphenhyphenmGk6/s320/porn.jpg" width="320" /></a>So, let's summarize the study first. <a href="http://motherboard.tv/2011/1/7/%E2%80%9Cwe-can-feel-the-future%E2%80%9D-a-visit-with-daryl-bem-precognitive-scientist--2">Daryl Bem</a> would have his test subjects look at a screen, where a pornographic image would appear in a moment, either on the left or on the right. More than half the time, people guessed correctly on which side it would appear. Since people would guess before the computer made the random decision, this was a test of precognition. So, evidence for precognition. Champagne time.<br />
<br />
Of course there's controversy. There's a quote in the linked article of, “[Bem’s results] indicate that experimental psychologists need to change the way they conduct their experiments and analyze their data.” This gem of backward thinking (the evidence of your bad experimentation is your results) was attributed to Eric-Jan Wagenmakers. <br />
<br />
So what are these amazing results? Well, Daryl Bem found that people guessed correctly an average 53.1% of the time.<br />
<br />
Oh.<br />
<br />
No, no. You don't have to tell me, it's statistically significant. That's great. But where's that kapow? Where are the big numbers that would get me all titillated? 70%, 85%, 120%. Not fifty-three. Especially when fifty is the average. It's a wonder that there's been no scientific revolution with these kinds of numbers.<br />
<br />
Maybe because I'm not a scientist, but I'm not impressed (impressed being an emotion) by most statistically significant numbers. Scientists throw around one percents and one-point-five percents so much that I wonder what kind of returns they expect out of their stock portfolios. <br />
<br />
Statistically significant is not the same as emotionally significant. <br />
<br />
Let me speak assuming the psi is real, which is a pretty rare assumption for me. I think a scientist needs to do one of these studies, maybe ten trials of 100 people each, with 100 guesses per person, keeping it simple. And then, ignore the average. Forget about it, whatever it was, and, instead, scour your database for the 100 best performers in that group of 1,000. Put these mini Uri Gellers together in the same study, and get some results that really shine. Put together the first and the second round as a part of the required protocol, so that it's still repeatable, let your results sweep the world. This goes for the ganzfield folk, and the pornographic precog folk and everyone else that's trying to impress us with their one-digit percentages. So that I don't need a statistician to tell me it's significant. I can just see the significance with my eyeballs, and feel it in my gut.<br />
<br />
And, if you put together your star pupils, and your results still aren't that impressive, then don't make excuses, and don't say shoulda/woulda/coulda. Set aside a moment for some soul-searching, making very very sure that you're not barking up the wrong tree with all of this psi research, and act accordingly. Be a scientist.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading.<br />
<br />
PS: This is a public service announcement, regarding the book, that was adapted to a movie, the name of which was used in the article I linked to, the name of which I used in my blog post, here. <br />
<br />
You may have seen the movie, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Men-Who-Stare-At-Goats/dp/B002VECMAE?ie=UTF8&tag=thepo05-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Men Who Stare at Goats</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thepo05-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B002VECMAE" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />. Whatever you think of that movie (I didn't care for it, myself) please check out <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Men-Who-Stare-Goats/dp/1439181772?ie=UTF8&tag=thepo05-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">the book that it was adapted from</a> <img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thepo05-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1439181772" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />(of course, the current edition has the movie cover). The author, Jon Ronson, investigates the government's experiment with creating psychic soldiers by talking to the people involved. Painfully entertaining and interesting, the book is a documentary, which makes me wonder where someone got the idea of making a feature film out of it (as opposed to a film documentary.) It's very very interesting, and the film, in my mind, doesn't do it justice at all.Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-73583795410549827112010-10-25T10:12:00.000-07:002010-10-25T10:15:20.465-07:00The Mind Lamp, $190.00 well... spentI first heard about the Mind Lamp from <a href="http://thepoliteskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/08/polite-skeptic-interview-matthew-smith.html">Matthew Smith</a>, when he posted a link on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Million-Dollar-Psychic/135540263151854">his Facebook</a>. The article he linked to, which was at BusinessInsider.com, made me furrow my eyebrows. Let me give you a glimpse of what I saw.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">MILLION-DOLLAR IDEA: Lamp That Can Read Your Mind - It Turns The Color You're Thinking About</span></b></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">By Eunju Lie</span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Is today's idea brilliant or a bomb?</span></span></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><strong style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The Idea: </span></strong><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The <a href="http://www.mind-lamp.com/inside-mind-lamp.php" style="color: #1d637d; text-decoration: none;">Mind Lamp</a> is a $189 electric <a class="iAs" classname="iAs" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/million-dollar-idea-mind-lamp-that-turns-into-the-color-youre-thinking-about-2010-10#" itxtdid="26356648" style="background-color: transparent !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 100, 0) !important; border-bottom-style: solid !important; border-bottom-width: 0.075em !important; border-color: initial; border-left-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-top-style: none; border-width: initial; bottom: auto; color: rgb(0, 100, 0) !important; display: inline; float: none; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal !important; left: auto; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 1px !important; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; position: static !important; right: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: underline !important; top: auto;" target="_blank">lamp</a> with a random-event generator (REG) built in. When plugged in, the lamp gives off a white light before cycling through eight other colors. It then stays on the one that you're thinking about.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><object height="225" width="400"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" />
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" />
<param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=4614071&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=1&color=&fullscreen=1&autoplay=0&loop=0" />
<embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=4614071&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=1&color=&fullscreen=1&autoplay=0&loop=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="225"></embed></object></span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><a href="http://vimeo.com/4614071">Mind Lamp: 60-Minute Time Lapse</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user1297594">Psyleron</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">You can read the rest of he article <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/million-dollar-idea-mind-lamp-that-turns-into-the-color-youre-thinking-about-2010-10">here</a>.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Quite a statement, huh? If I were a parapsychologist, I would gift one of these to every major skeptic I knew. "Dear James Randi, I know we've had our differences in the past..." </span></div>
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Of course, the article didn't answer any of the questions that automatically popped up in my mind. What percentage of the time does this work? How long does it stay on the target color? How long does it take to reach it? I don't know if you're like me, but I hate the feeling of a writer ignoring my most pressing questions. It's one of the few things that can get me to voluntarily go and research something, often with a frown and tension in my spine, waiting for the pressure of the mystery to be relieved.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Mind lamp doesn't seem to be on Wikipedia, even though it's been around for at least a year. So I went to the official website, and found some stuff about random-event-generators and stuff that, if I already knew the lamp worked, might be interesting. Maybe. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">And then I found the <a href="http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/05/12/review-a-few-days-wi-2.html">BoingBoing Gadgets review</a> entitled, "<b>Review: A few days w/ the Mind Lamp [verdict:trippy]</b>" Well, that's more exciting than anything I had looked at before, not only because I had found someone who had bought and used the thing, but because the verdict was the ever-suggestive <i>trippy</i>. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
The experience relayed in that article was not that trippy, though. Steven Leckart describes failing at producing the desired effect a couple of times, and then perceiving an effect later, but only when he wasn't paying close attention. Don't rely on my spin, of course, read the article yourself.</div>
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
It at least answered the question of what the Mind Lamp experience is. The lamp doesn't, as the first article I read suggested, simply "Stay on the one you're thinking about." If it does work, it takes some practice, and apparently some meditation classes. If it doesn't... </div>
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
If it doesn't work, you'll still get people telling you that it does, to put it plainly. I've never seen the device, never tried to focus my mind on orange, or green. I do know, though, that if it was run by a random-event generator, and, for whatever reason, it did not respond to our thoughts, there would still be just enough coincidences, in the form of, </div>
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
"It worked the third time," </div>
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
or </div>
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
"It definitely worked over half the time," </div>
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
or, </div>
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
"I thought about blue for a while, and then when I thought about red it went blue!" </div>
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
or </div>
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
"I could tell when I was really focused, because then it usually worked," </div>
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
that it would be a marketable product. </div>
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
I'm not saying it doesn't work. As I've said, I haven't spent the $190.00 to become a pioneer. All I'm saying is that it doesn't have to work. Because even if it didn't work, I'm sure it would still work fine.</div>Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-46004516977587847142010-10-20T12:16:00.000-07:002018-08-15T17:45:01.203-07:00Mistaking manatees for mermaids<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUzBjhcp1pRyXkVnqggMrFOZGKODAEu3UA-ymm4JDfuHUVZDXErB_0tEHhMCEBpvduk2fvM3ptRexxxCU78hMPGk611wLXTNVfoA1inDF5ZUg5yZqdJzSm8pjzxY3XtWgpZH1OdHTPwd6_/s1600/Esther+Kirby's+Mermaid.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUzBjhcp1pRyXkVnqggMrFOZGKODAEu3UA-ymm4JDfuHUVZDXErB_0tEHhMCEBpvduk2fvM3ptRexxxCU78hMPGk611wLXTNVfoA1inDF5ZUg5yZqdJzSm8pjzxY3XtWgpZH1OdHTPwd6_/s320/Esther+Kirby's+Mermaid.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Beautiful image created by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/esther_kirby/">Esther Kirby</a> (flickr link)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Manatees are beautiful, elegant animals, their grace matched only by their charm. Their powerful, sleek bodies inspire wonder in boaters as pods of them race alongside fast-moving vessels.<br />
<br />
Or, is that dolphins?<br />
<br />
Either way, manatees are sea creatures, so it leaves them open to being mistaken for other sea creatures. Mermaids, for instance.<br />
<br />
I don't know if you've heard this, but it's often cited that old sailor's tales of mermaids were actually based on sightings of manatees. This story has a wonderfully absurd feel to it. How, after all, did they mistake these bulky, slow, not-getting-a-date-for-prom sea mammals for halfway beautiful heart breakers of the sea? It's a common stereotype that sailors get notoriously horny when between ports, so how much pent up lust does it take for a man to mistake a sea-cow for a possibly-consenting fish-like partner?<br />
<br />
I guess my real question is, who figured this out? After a sailor came to port with tales of pruny-fingered women of the deep, who fact-checked him? The subject of his story is still in the far reaches of the ocean. Was there a weak-armed bubble-burster on board who re-identified the creature, and then, when the boat landed, told everyone about how he had out-smarted the other sailors?<br />
<br />
Let me tell you what I think, because you knew I would. I don't think anybody that hasn't eaten a good ounce of magic mushrooms is going to see a mermaid when looking at a sea-cow. It has zero of the markers that would indicate a mermaid. The front half doesn't look like a woman, the back half doesn't look like a fish, and it's slow, casual movements will never remind anyone of anything but a sea-cow.<br />
<br />
I honestly don't know where the belief that mermaids were actually manatees came from, and if someone came up with it in a quick spurt of whack-a-mole debunking, I have to wonder why the individual chose, of all of the creatures in the sea, the manatee as a mermaid stand-in. But his conclusion apparently can't be <i>that </i>absurd, because people love quoting it to each other, never considering that it's likely not true.<br />
<br />
I mean, maybe, if you're feeling sarcastic, a submerged manatee <a href="https://i.imgur.com/qdoSNNi.jpg">looks a little like a beautiful woman</a>. Maybe a PT Cruiser looks like a bigfoot. And, in a hundred years, when that sentence has bled out of this blog, and into the society, people will be looking back, thinking about how silly it was that we mistook the strange-looking car for the missing link, and not considering that it probably never happened.<br />
<br />
On a related note, read a curious story from 2009 about <a href="http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Israel-Mermaid-Fever-Makes-A-Splash-Mythical-Creature-Spotted-Near-Haifa/Article/200908215358515">mermaid sightings off the coast of Israel</a>. I don't believe that the creature sighted is a mermaid (though wouldn't that be exciting?) but I believe just as strongly that it was not a manatee. More on this story later, when it's even further out of date.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading.Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-18105594613531921892010-10-18T11:31:00.000-07:002010-10-18T11:31:17.684-07:00When climate change becomes personal<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1nbfKrksfmk80gmaxMFgI1CKUA9Qx15nZG6mL1qHE6vKrcGiV3WN-lrqQHca-I6QFNRwg7DI0Gk6m5fPXmNTg8MooJyGO-w5BMJCQahEHCN6IkDSrvyX4CLUsjKbweIFL1Bf_zUVjygBe/s1600/hurricane+katrina.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1nbfKrksfmk80gmaxMFgI1CKUA9Qx15nZG6mL1qHE6vKrcGiV3WN-lrqQHca-I6QFNRwg7DI0Gk6m5fPXmNTg8MooJyGO-w5BMJCQahEHCN6IkDSrvyX4CLUsjKbweIFL1Bf_zUVjygBe/s320/hurricane+katrina.jpg" width="246" /></a></div>
A 2010 <a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateChangeKnowledge2010.pdf">poll</a> conducted by the <a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate/">Yale Project on Climate Change Communication</a> have revealed some trends in belief that aren't <i>that </i>surprising. 2,030 American adults were polled, and asked questions about <a href="http://thepoliteskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/09/pillow-skeptic-or-why-climate-change-is.html">climate change</a>. Not hard ones, either. It turns out, about 45% of the people polled understood that CO2 traps heat, and 57% understood that this is what's referred to as the greenhouse effect. Wait a minute...<br />
<br />
Anyway, there's a lot of information (and please take a look at it yourself, as you have the freedom to do so), but the end result is that Americans (I am one of these) get a big F on knowledge about the shift of the climate.<br />
<br />
But can you blame us? Not only do we have a lot of misinformation going around, and neither the time nor the attention span to sort through it, but, even if this issue is knocking on our door, it hasn't yet put its muddy boots on our couch. What I'm saying is, however immediate of a problem climate change is, it's not as immediate as paying for Alicia's Karate classes, or picking up Robert from the airport. Summers are still hot, winters are still cold, and climate change is, to most of us, just a thing on the news.<br />
<br />
Call me a pessimist, but I don't think that any real effort is going to be put forth by the public until it's too late. And what I mean by real effort is, do you know how sometimes you think you're trying your best to, say, clean up the house, but then you hear that the in-laws are coming over in thirty minutes, and you're suddenly a coked-out Mr. Clean? We're not good judges of our own potential, and nearly all of the time that we think we're giving something our best effort, we later find out that we were actually half-assing it. <br />
<br />
So, when will we start really caring, with our full attention, about the climate, and our impact on the environment? When will we stop pretending that carrying a half-dozen reusable shopping bags in the trunk of our hybrid is going to change a thing? Especially if we forget them before we go into the store.<br />
<br />
The day we stop tearing down mountains to get at the ore hidden underneath, stop putting walls across rivers, stop laminating the soil with endless asphalt, and do away with the idea of healthy population growth... well, I'm just afraid that it will be a very dark day. A day when a Florida hurricane doesn't stop blowing until it's over Nebraska. A day when people can't move to a northern state, because they're all frozen over. A day when our crops stop flowering, and we just plain don't know why.<br />
<br />
I'm not into fear mongering. I'm actually a fairly laid-back person. However, while I do have faith in people, as individuals, I don't have much faith for people as a society. When I try to think of how far it will have to go before climate change becomes an immediate concern--something that's as important to day-to-day life as repairing the dishwasher--I can't picture it.<br />
<br />
People make speculations all the time as to what it will look like when it gets really bad, but no matter how many PhDs the person has, or how many TV shows they've been on, it's all guessing. We can no more predict the future of our climate than we can predict next weeks Lotto numbers. It's too complex. The only thing that we can predict is that, if you consider consistency and stability good, it probably won't be good. <br />
<br />
Thanks for reading.Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-67561789971957465022010-10-13T10:58:00.000-07:002010-10-13T10:58:47.069-07:00NASA photoshopping images of space?<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7AE7ossFGCn0d1rZ4-YTc9vN92rEd86SPy-7rl-7Ka5xI7WcEIn5hn90ArxwPDSWc1V0v1uGNEyHlUT2X8lcLxm7FIUBCT7f69fakp5rEpK1RyBBGCuQ_yqfatC-KECUx-AICIFPZy8L1/s1600/cassiniorb2010.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7AE7ossFGCn0d1rZ4-YTc9vN92rEd86SPy-7rl-7Ka5xI7WcEIn5hn90ArxwPDSWc1V0v1uGNEyHlUT2X8lcLxm7FIUBCT7f69fakp5rEpK1RyBBGCuQ_yqfatC-KECUx-AICIFPZy8L1/s320/cassiniorb2010.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image taken from foxnews.com, but really from NASA</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/">NASA</a>-watching conspiracy theorists found <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/08/conspiracy-theorists-confident-photoshopped-nasa-image-cover/?test=faces">something to latch onto</a> recently when one of them noticed that NASA's picture of the day, when the contrast was increased, had received some very obvious touching up. The image of Saturn's moons apparently had something very large behind the smaller moon, Dione, which the space agency had effectively erased. What are they trying to hide?<br />
<br />
The evidence, posted by NASA itself, and fed through your own image-editing program, is fairly compelling. Around the blacked-out pixels, a green and red aurora can be seen.<br />
<br />
Well, how is the dark and conspiratorial National Aeronautics and Space Administration going to spin this one? We caught them red handed, editing their own images, after all. The official explanation, against all expectation, turned out to be entirely reasonable. The image had to be photoshopped, because the Cassini probe takes photographs with a green filter, a red filter, and a blue filter, one at a time (not good for birthday parties) and the objects pictured were in motion relative to the camera. So the person working on the images had to take the full-color image of one moon, and paste it onto the full-color image of the other moon, painting over the red and green version of Dione. To me, this explanation fits the evidence provided perfectly. And I'm glad, because if there was a space ship behind that moon, it would have to be bigger than Dione itself, which is about seven thousand miles across. I think that deserves an anxious emoticon. : /<br />
<br />
Once again, the excited boy in me is disappointed by cold, boring reality. This time a photographic process curbed my enthusiasm, but in the past it has also happened because of specs of dust, dreams, and people who are simply dishonest.<br />
<br />
And, every time there is something like this photograph, something that is quite compelling, and really makes you wonder, and then that thing gets (I won't say debunked) shown to be more ordinary, it highlights the fact that there's so little really compelling evidence out there. Our videos of UFOs are all taken from thousands of feet away, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_autopsy">best video of a little gray alien</a> we have is an admitted hoax, then there's the <a href="http://thepoliteskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/09/olivers-castle-video.html">Oliver's Castle video</a>, which I've already discussed. Our best bigfoot video, our best Nessie photograph. Miss Cleo. <a href="http://thepoliteskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-fourth-kind-left-me-feeling-sad.html">Milla Jovovich</a>.<br />
<br />
I want something I don't believe in to be true. I want the laws of nature to somehow result in telepathy, or for an alien civilization to, as it turns out, be visiting us frequently, and to finally decide that they want a guest spot on the Tonight Show. I want to be able to change the channel with my mind. <br />
<br />
How many animals have been filmed as rarely as Bigfoot? I would expect the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Earth-Complete-David-Attenborough/dp/B000MR9D5E?ie=UTF8&tag=thepo05-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Planet Earth</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thepo05-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B000MR9D5E" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> crew to at least have found one by now. <br />
<br />
So I guess I'll just sit, and read the various paranormal news blogs on the web. And when Barack Obama finally declares that the politicians have been shooting pool with the extra-terrestrials since the forties, I'm going to wait on the champagne for a week or so, because I'm sure, the next day, someone is going to prove that the speech was not given by the president, but by a man in a Barack Obama costume.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading.Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-70392649700781232472010-10-11T10:25:00.000-07:002010-10-11T10:25:28.284-07:00Getting into HeavenI was raised religious, and at the age of ten was pretty sure that most people were going to Hell. Getting into Heaven, after all, seemed to be just a little harder than getting into MIT. People would sell it to me like it was not that hard, but I could read between the lines.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAnf2L1MQsLtvhQs_XYmkHUDtk2XDVnRdq2TPL4rxFEFXY8hmEdprzX6y_djGKVYCFdqWreisaWVKaMmj4c681NPxV5gZICMSLvEpUuP3cUwxbQyPKgRRi4SlH7LkJfAZbe99YW6xxbAPt/s1600/Clouds+(1).JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAnf2L1MQsLtvhQs_XYmkHUDtk2XDVnRdq2TPL4rxFEFXY8hmEdprzX6y_djGKVYCFdqWreisaWVKaMmj4c681NPxV5gZICMSLvEpUuP3cUwxbQyPKgRRi4SlH7LkJfAZbe99YW6xxbAPt/s320/Clouds+(1).JPG" width="240" /></a>I would be sitting in Sunday school, or talking to one of my fellow church kids, perhaps the scripture-worm that grew up in the Ned Flanders house, and was so religious that it was just a tiny bit awkward for the rest of us. I would hear<br />
<br />
"There's only one thing God isn't able to do. He can't let sin into Heaven."<br />
<br />
"Wait... what?" As I understand, your sins pretty much stick to you like burrs, and you have to ask for forgiveness to get them cleaned off. This brings up the very practical problem of dying after you've recently sinned. <br />
<br />
Say you haven't asked for forgiveness since before bed last night, and you coveted your neighbor's wife at about noon today (she does, after all, make him steak every Wednesday). This is the sort of question the preacher won't take too seriously. After all, we're talking about your lifestyle, we're talking about eternity, we're not talking about fine print that your lawyer can argue over the pearly gates. This is real life, though, and even the best of us is likely to die with a sin or two stuck to the legs of our pants, and it's a serious question that deserves a serious answer. That is, unless you want a seriously shitty afterlife.<br />
<br />
There's also the assumption that you can't ask for forgiveness after you die. Would that be cheating, or does a confession even count when you're a spirit?<br />
<br />
Christianity, to me, always seemed to be more about the letter of the law than the spirit of it. It was reiterated to me, many times, that you would be very surprised at who is in Hell. In other words, you can be a good person, but unless you did this, and avoided this, you're not going to have a good time after you die.<br />
<br />
This whole getting-approved-for-heaven thing has always seemed too much like a scam. If you happen to die with a clean slate, based on these rules, then you get to live here, where it's always sunny, and the lions are as friendly as can be, and you can continue to not sin* for an eternity.<br />
<br />
Well, who's getting in? Not the Muslims, or the Buddhists, or the Hindus. Not the aboriginal nature-lovers or the polytheists. Nobody before zero AD (because no Christ means no Christianity). No atheists. Definitely no Scientologists. None of those unlucky boatless legion that couldn't kick their legs for forty days during the great flood. Plenty of good Christians have probably done some sins that they're not <i>that </i>regretful about, so nix them. And I sure hope you didn't want an attractive person sexually between praying last night and getting hit by a truck this afternoon. You are tainted by the very urges you are burdened with. I think Saint Peter's job as Heaven's bouncer must be an easy one. "Nobody gets in except for the big guy, and he comes in the back door."<br />
<br />
I think we've been duped. Just like getting taken in by the "Get a Free iPad!" banners, we've entered into a contract that we can't follow through with, and our very bodies, supposedly created by God himself, are our biggest enemy on the insurmountable climb to perfection.<br />
<br />
God doesn't want us in Heaven. That's where he keeps all of his stuff. If we were wandering around in his domain we would probably leave hand prints, grimy with sin, all over his nice white couch and flat screen TV. He wants us to be good, though, so we sign the contract, hoping that if we do this, this and this, he'll let us visit. But there's only one key to that door, and he's not getting copies made any time soon.<br />
<br />
That is assuming, of course, that the Christian God exists. From what I've heard about him throughout my life, though, I hope he doesn't. Sinful or not, he doesn't sound like a good person.<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
*I think that some sin is good, in moderation.</div>Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-8463977415288770212010-10-08T11:10:00.000-07:002010-10-08T11:13:56.716-07:00The alternative to scienceI sometimes wonder, if there does happen to be a God, if he's frustrated about how much we know. He gave us eyeballs, so we can see sunsets, dropoffs and wild boars, and somehow we know about dna, atoms and quarks. He gave us legs to get around, and we're flying across the world 30,000 feet above sea level. He gave us mouths to talk, and we're communicating with computers that God himself would probably be impressed by. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihRI13GVWUJsFS3z-pMfAgtC4baljWD_tRDV3lI-iCIV5tyzca35rudZ8R241Nnkth7vRLITlWtF3u0JzrbS_3JCy6j5zIR5Ny7ywZ1Sq3ZFL0PtlgEq6sxsUbcjO4LJEyUM7YWDjzkWPi/s1600/science.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihRI13GVWUJsFS3z-pMfAgtC4baljWD_tRDV3lI-iCIV5tyzca35rudZ8R241Nnkth7vRLITlWtF3u0JzrbS_3JCy6j5zIR5Ny7ywZ1Sq3ZFL0PtlgEq6sxsUbcjO4LJEyUM7YWDjzkWPi/s320/science.jpg" width="320" /></a>These brains, that he probably thought were good enough so we could make rakes and spears, have gotten us a long way out of the savannas and mud huts. We do things that should be impossible daily, breezing through at least fifty miracles just to get ready for work.<br />
<br />
Human ingenuity has gotten us here, but it wouldn't have gotten us this far without science. Science is modern magic, giving us as much awe and wonder as Zeus with his lightning bolts. For how important science is to our modern lifestyle, most of us (this includes me) know pitifully little about it. <br />
<br />
A friend of mine once said that the science fiction and fantasy genres are interchangeable, that the role that magic plays in one, technology plays in the other. I'm not entirely on board with the basic premise, but there is some truth to the statement. To we lay people, there doesn't seem to be much science can't do. We don't always think of the research process, the grants, the journals, the trial-and-error, the trying to turn hypothesis into theory. We just think of the end results.<br />
<br />
Science isn't technology, even though it often uses technology, and sometimes results in new technology. Science is just the narrowing-down of truth. It's getting rid of all of the alternative explanations until you seem to be left with only one, and then seeing if that one conforms to reality. <br />
<br />
It's easy to get irritated with the scientific process, especially when results are slow in coming, biased for political reasons, or when the accepted paradigm gets turned over, and it turns out that everyone has been thinking the wrong thing for the last twenty years. Not to mention that the very cool-hearted impartiality that science embraces can be off-putting, as in the case of vivisection, or, for some, stem-cell research. <br />
<br />
If you want the truth, though, science is necessary. In its most basic form, science arises naturally in our behavior, when we're investigating who knocked down the vase, or who was it that wanted you to call them back. Almost every day, there's occasion to gather evidence, cross possibilities off of your list, and even--like putting a dog treat on the counter to see if the puppy can even <i>get </i>up there--experimentation.<br />
<br />
Even if you frown on some scientists, or some experiments, you should never frown on science in general, because it's just a part of being human. It's not the opposite of paranormal belief, it's not the opposite of religious belief. It's the opposite of guessing. It's the opposite of assuming everything, knowing nothing, and learning only the most basic of facts. Knowing the leaf falls, but not knowing why, nor wondering why. Because once the wondering process starts, discovery is inevitable.<br />
<br />
The alternative is the blissfully ignorant life of your pet, or the woodpecker in the back yard. A life of love and loss, a life of survival and the gradients between desire and contentment. Perhaps a satisfying life. But a life in a world no bigger than your own stomping grounds, with no knowledge, or interest, of what's over the hill. <br />
<br />
And maybe it's because I am a human, and I'm built to wonder, but I couldn't live that way.Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5372690936576923518.post-23616658327642932962010-10-06T09:42:00.000-07:002010-10-06T09:42:25.205-07:00Start dowsing today!When I was maybe ten, I was at my grandparents' house, and there were some aunts and uncles there, as there tended to be during that time period. One of them called me into the living room, and handed me two L-shaped pieces of wire hangers, about a foot long, with the short part of the L being handles. They told me that something was hidden in the living room, and that I was supposed to hold the two pieces of wire loosely, by their handles, with the length of them pointing forward, and then I was supposed to follow where they pointed, to lead me to the hidden object.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKKnwqZHnnnPqcv61c0Y6F-tuOP5KWN78xIeRAa71zoPs2UgCWAEJe06Y9ecBf1sdkjYMfSOlxlf0KLVuGXCHsjxpjgvRkyOTM1uxvn_NQll0SmxEgaBi_gDv2yXyui7Xvz8Nzs3k98Jxb/s1600/watch.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKKnwqZHnnnPqcv61c0Y6F-tuOP5KWN78xIeRAa71zoPs2UgCWAEJe06Y9ecBf1sdkjYMfSOlxlf0KLVuGXCHsjxpjgvRkyOTM1uxvn_NQll0SmxEgaBi_gDv2yXyui7Xvz8Nzs3k98Jxb/s320/watch.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
I don't remember how conclusive the results were, but they couldn't have been that good, because I remember them talking about how well it worked for my cousin, which sounds a little like they needed to change the subject. This was my first encounter with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing">dowsing</a>.<br />
<br />
Different people have varying definitions about what dowsing is, but there are some common elements. A dowser is someone who uses an instrument that relies on physics to gain information. So, in this definition, a tarot-card reader is not a dowser, but someone scrying with a pendulum, walking around with a forked stick, or using the L-shaped wire hangers like in my example, is a dowser.<br />
<br />
And addendum to that definition would be that the feedback from the dowser's instrument/s seems always to rely on the minute, unconscious movement of the muscles. Called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideomotor">ideomotor effect</a>, it's what makes the pendulum swing, and what makes the tensed branch dip. Our minds dictate these movements, even if we're not causing them intentionally. Contrary to popular belief, most popular writing on the subject does not contradict this. Most instructional books on dowsing seem to come from the point of view that, yes, our subconscious is moving the objects, through our muscles, but since our subconscious is connected to the rest of the universe, it's still a good source of info. <br />
<br />
You can do it yourself, with no practice, and at no cost to you. I encourage you to, even sitting in front of my blog. Go find a nut (not a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Screw_head_types.svg">bolt</a>, but a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hexagon_nuts.jpg">nut</a>) and maybe a foot and a half of fishing line, or thread. Tie the heavy one to the end of the long one. You now have a pendulum, and are ready to tap into the knowledge of the universe.<br />
<br />
Grab the length of string between your finger and thumb, and put your elbow on the desk. Bend your wrist so that the string is hanging parallel to your forearm, and the nut is about an inch from the surface of the desk. Following me so far? Now (and keeping a straight face, you silly skeptics) tell your fancy new pendulum something with your mind. Start with, "Pendulum, please swing counter-clockwise." I'm not sure if it's psychologically important that you address it as pendulum, but that's what I did.<br />
<br />
It's important that you try your hardest to keep your hand still. When the thing starts to swing, as it likely will, it should be pretty surprising. Once you've had it swing counterclockwise, and clockwise, and along the x axis and the y, it's time to start getting more information than you put in. It's at this point that the whole things starts breaking down for me.<br />
<br />
You may not expect it to give you the lottery numbers, or tell you what the neighbor is watching on TV, but as I experimented with this I was at least interested in whether it could tell me what I already knew, but was unable to remember. Things that, if my unconscious mind is the sponge it's supposed to be, should be in there. I tried to remember where I had put my headphones, and, using the pendulum, narrowed it down to within a foot of my bedroom television. Well, unless I'm quite blind, that was a miss. For how fascinating it is to watch the thing swing on command, when it came to practical applications it stopped impressing me pretty quickly.<br />
<br />
Maybe it's because I'm a skeptic, and I'm resistant to things that are just a little too nifty. I can't say. Feel free to email me with any dowsing stories you've got. It seems like something that taps into the unconscious mind should have some practical applications, but I have never had any luck on that front. <br />
<br />
So, there you have it. If you've followed my directions, you have a firsthand understanding of the ideomotor effect, and you can test, yourself, in your living room, whether dowsing works. I'd say that, with that kind of opportunity, you shouldn't enter another single debate on the subject until you've tried it. Because, of course, an ounce of experience is worth a pound of speculation.<br />
<br />
And all it costs is a nut and a string.Kevin R. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.com2