on invisible beings

Published by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

Vol. 37 No. 2 | March/April 2013the Magazine for Science and Reason

Scotland Mysteries | Herbs Are Drugs | The Pseudoscience Wars | Psi Replication Failure | Morality Innate?

Clever Hans’s Successors

Testing Indian Astrology

Believers’ Cognitive Dissonance

CSICon Nashville Highlights

BEINGS

ONINVISIBLE

SI March April 13 cover_SI JF 10 V1 1/31/13 10:54 AM Page 2

AT THE CEN TER FOR IN QUIRY–TRANSNATIONAL

Massimo Polidoro, Research Fellow

Benjamin Radford, Research Fellow

Richard Wiseman, Research Fellow

Ronald A. Lindsay, President and CEO

Bar ry Karr, Ex ec u tive Di rect or

Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow

* Mem ber, CSI Ex ec u tive Coun cil (Af fil i a tions giv en for iden ti fi ca tion on ly.)

www.csicop.org

James E. Al cock*, psy chol o gist, York Univ., Tor on toMar cia An gell,MD, former ed i tor-in-chief,

New Eng land Jour nal of Med i cineKimball Atwood IV, MD, physician; author;

Newton, MASteph en Bar rett,MD, psy chi a trist; au thor; con sum er

ad vo cate, Al len town, PAWillem Betz,MD, professor of medicine, Univ. of Brussels Ir ving Bie der man, psy chol o gist, Univ. of

South ern CASandra Blakeslee, science writer; author; New York

Times science correspondentSus an Black more, vis it ing lec tur er, Univ. of the West

of Eng land, Bris tolMark Boslough, physicist, Sandia National Laborato-

ries, Albuquerque, NMHen ri Broch, phys i cist, Univ. of Nice, FranceJan Har old Brun vand, folk lor ist; pro fes sor emer i tus

of Eng lish, Univ. of UtahMar io Bunge, phi los o pher, McGill Univ., MontrealRobert T. Carroll, emeritus professor of philosophy,

Sacramento City College; writerSean B. Carroll,molecular geneticist; vice president

for science education, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Madison, WI

Thomas R. Casten, energy expert; founder andchairman, Recycled Energy Development, Westmont, IL

John R. Cole, an thro pol o gist; ed i tor, Na tion al Cen ter for Sci ence Ed u ca tion

K.C. Cole, science writer; author; professor, Univ. of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Journalism

Fred er ick Crews, lit er ary and cul tur al crit ic; pro fes soremer i tus of Eng lish, Univ. of CA, Berke ley

Rich ard Dawk ins, zo ol o gist, Ox ford Univ.Ge of frey Dean, tech ni cal ed i tor, Perth, Aus tral iaCor nel is de Ja ger, pro fes sor of as tro phys ics,

Univ. of Utrecht, the Neth er landsDan i el C. Den nett, Aus tin B. Fletch er Pro fes sor

of Phi los o phy and di rect or of Cen ter for Cog ni tiveStud ies, Tufts Uni v.

Ann Druyan,writer and producer; CEO, Cosmos Studios, Ithaca, NY

Sanal Edamaruku,president, Indian Rationalist Association and Rationalist International

Edzard Ernst,professor, Complementary Medicine,Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter andPlymouth, Exeter, UK

Ken neth Fed er, pro fes sor of an thro pol o gy,Cen tral Con nec ti cut State Univ.

Barbara Forrest, professor of philosophy, SE Louisiana Univ.

An drew Fra knoi,as tron o mer, Foot hill Col lege, Los Al tos Hills, CA

Kend rick Fra zi er*, sci ence writer; ed i tor, SKEP TI CAL IN qUIR ER

Christopher C. French, professor, Department of Psychology, and head of the AnomalisticPsychology Research Unit, Goldsmiths College, Univ. of London

Yv es Gal i fret, executive secretary, l’Union Rationaliste

Luigi Garlaschelli, chemist, Università di Pavia(Italy); research fellow of CICAP, the Italian skeptics group

Maryanne Garry, professor, School of Psychology,Victoria Univ. of Wellington, New Zealand

Mur ray Gell-Mann, pro fes sor of phys ics, San ta Fe In sti tute; No bel lau re ate

Thom as Gi lov ich, psy chol o gist, Cor nell Univ.David H. Gorski, cancer surgeon and re searcher at

Barbara Ann Kar manos Cancer Institute and chiefof breast surgery section, Wayne State UniversitySchool of Medicine.

Wendy M. Grossman,writer; founder and first editor,The Skeptic magazine (UK)

Sus an Haack,Coop er Sen ior Schol ar in Arts and Sci en ces, professor of phi los o phy and professor of Law, Univ. of Mi ami

Harriet Hall*, MD, family physician; investigator,Puyallup, WA

C.E.M. Han sel, psy chol o gist, Univ. of WalesDavid J. Helfand, professor of astronomy,

Columbia Univ.Terence M. Hines,prof. of psychology, Pace Univ.,

Pleasantville, NY.Doug las R. Hof stad ter,pro fes sor of hu man

un der stand ing and cog ni tive sci ence, In di ana Univ.Ger ald Hol ton,Mal linc krodt Pro fes sor of Phys ics and

pro fes sor of his to ry of sci ence, Har vard Univ.Ray Hy man*, psy chol o gist, Univ. of Or e gonStuart D. Jordan, NASA astrophysicist emeritus;

science advisor to Center for Inquiry Office ofPublic Policy, Washington, DC

Barry Karr, executive director, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Amherst, New York

Law rence M. Krauss, foundation professor, School of Earth and Space Exploration and Physics Dept.;director, Origins Initiative, Arizona State Univ.

Harry Kroto, professor of chemistry and biochemistry, Florida State Univ.; Nobel laureate

Ed win C. Krupp, as tron o mer; di rect or, Grif fith Ob ser va to ry, Los Angeles, CA

Law rence Kusche, sci ence writerLe on Le der man, emer i tus di rect or, Fer mi lab;

No bel lau re ate in phys icsScott O. Lil i en feld*, psy chol o gist, Emory Univ.,

Atlanta, GALin Zix in, former ed i tor, Sci ence and

Tech nol o gy Dai ly (Chi na)Je re Lipps,Mu se um of Pa le on tol o gy, Univ. of CA,

Berke leyEliz a beth Loft us*, pro fes sor of psy chol o gy,

Univ. of CA, Ir vineDa vid Marks, psy chol o gist, City Univ., Lon donMar io Men dez-Acos ta, jour nal ist and sci ence writer,

Mex i co CityKenneth R. Miller, professor of biology,

Brown Univ.Marv in Min sky, pro fes sor of me dia arts and sci en ces,

M.I.T.Da vid Mor ri son, space sci en tist, NA SA Ames Re search

Cen terRich ard A. Mul ler, pro fes sor of phys ics, Univ. of CA,

Berke leyJoe Nick ell, sen ior re search fel low, CSI Jan Willem Nienhuys, mathematician, Waalre,

The NetherlandsLee Nis bet, phi los o pher, Med aille Col legeSteven Novella*, MD, assistant professor

of neurology, Yale Univ. School of MedicineBill Nye, sci ence ed u ca tor and tel e vi sion host,

Nye LabsJames E. Oberg, sci ence writerIrm gard Oe pen, pro fes sor of med i cine (re tired),

Mar burg, Ger ma nyLor en Pan kratz, psy chol o gist, Or e gon Health

Sci en ces Univ.

Robert L. Park,professor of physics, Univ. of MarylandJay M. Pasachoff, Field Memorial Professor of

Astronomy and director of the Hopkins Observatory, Williams College

John Pau los,math e ma ti cian, Tem ple Univ.Clifford A. Pickover, scientist, au thor, editor,

IBM T.J. Watson Re search Center.Massimo Pigliucci, professor of philosophy,

City Univ. of New York–Lehman CollegeStev en Pink er, cog ni tive sci en tist, Harvard Univ.Philip Plait, astronomer; lecturer; writerMas si mo Pol id oro, sci ence writer; au thor; ex ec u tive

di rect or of CI CAP, It a lyAnthony R. Pratkanis, professor of psychology,

Univ. of CA, Santa CruzBenjamin Radford, investigator; research fellow,

Committee for Skeptical Inquiry James “The Amazing” Randi, magician; CSICOP

founding member; founder, James Randi Educational Foundation

Mil ton Ro sen berg, psy chol o gist, Univ. of Chic a goWal la ce Sam pson, MD, clin i cal pro fes sor of med i cine,

Stan ford Univ.; ed i tor, Sci en tif ic Re view of Al ter na tive Med i cine

Am ar deo Sar ma*, chairman, GWUP, Ger ma nyRichard Saunders, president, Australian

Skeptics; educator; investigator; podcaster; Sydney, Australia

Joe Schwarcz, director, McGill Office for Science and Society

Eu ge nie C. Scott*, phys i cal an thro pol o gist; ex ec u tive di rect or, Na tion al Cen ter for Sci ence Ed u ca tion

Rob ert Sheaf fer, sci ence writerEl ie A. Shne our, bi o chem ist; au thor; president and

research director, Bi os ys tems Re search In sti tute,La Jol la, CA

Seth Shostak, senior astronomer, SETI Institute,Mountain View, CA

Simon Singh, science writer; broadcaster; UKDick Smith, film pro duc er; pub lish er; Ter rey Hills,

N.S.W., Aus tral iaKeith E. Stanovich, cognitive psychologist;

professor of human development and appliedpsychology, Uni v. of Toronto

Vic tor J. Sten ger, emer i tus pro fes sor of phys ics and as tron o my, Univ. of Ha waii; ad junct pro fes sor of phi los o phy, Univ. of CO

Karen Stollznow*, linguist; skeptical investigator; writer; podcaster

Jill Cor nell Tar ter,as tron o mer, SE TI In sti tute, Moun tain View, CA

Car ol Tav ris,psy chol o gist and au thor, Los Ange les, CADa vid E. Thom as*, phys i cist and math e ma ti cian,

Per al ta, NMNeil de Gras se Ty son, as tro phys i cist and di rect or,

Hay den Plan e tar i um, New York CityIndre Viskontas, cognitive neuroscientist, tv and pod-

cast host, and opera singer, San Francisco, CA Ma ri lyn vos Sa vant, Pa rade mag a zine

con trib ut ing ed i torStev en Wein berg, pro fes sor of phys ics and as tron o my,

Univ. of Tex as at Aus tin; No bel lau re ateE.O. Wil son, Univ. pro fes sor emer i tus, organismic and

evolutionary biology, Har vard Univ.Rich ard Wis e man, psy chol o gist, Univ.

of Hert ford shire, EnglandBenjamin Wolozin*,professor, Department of

Pharmacology, Boston Univ. School of MedicineMarv in Zel en, stat is ti cian, Har vard Univ.

March April 13 *_SI new design masters 1/31/13 9:52 AM

FROM THE EDITORA Good Look at Invisibility ..............4

NEWS AND COM MENTFailure to Replicate Results of BemParapsychology Experiments Publishedby Same Journal/A Small Victory in theWar on Quackery/Hall, Novella Join Ex-ecutive Council of Committee for Skepti-cal Inquiry/Bent Spoon Awarded toHomeopath/Five New Fellows, Two Con-sultants Elected to Committee for Skep-tical Inquiry/Paul Kurtz Changed Viewson Secularism and Science/Registry forParapsychological Experiments/Long Is-land Chicanery: Old Tricks in a NewPackage .........................................................5

IN VES TI GA TIVE FILESScotland Mysteries—Part I: The Silly Ness Monster JOE NICK ELL ....................................................20

THINKING ABOUT SCIENCEThe Proper Role of Sociology of ScienceMAS SI MO PI GLI UC CI ........................................23

PSYCHIC VIBRATIONSUFOs Infest Denver, Says Fox TV Affiliate ROBERT SHEAFFER...........................................25

THE SCIENCE OF MEDICINEHerbs Are Drugs STEVEN NOVELLA .............................................28

SCIENCE WATCHInnate Morality? Babies Weigh In KENNETH W. KRAUSE .......................................30

SKEPTICAL INQUIREELessons from a Denver Fly BENJAMIN RADFORD........................................32

NEW AND NOTABLE BOOKS .....................59

LET TERS TO THE ED I TOR..........................62

THE LAST LAUGH.........................................66

Skep ti cal In quir er March/April 2013 | Vol. 37, No. 2

The Parameters of PseudoscienceDAVID MORRISON.................................58

e Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringeby Michael D. Gordin

B O O K R E V I E W S

34Treatise on Invisible BeingsJOE NICKELL AND JAMES MCGAHA

40The Elberfeld HorsesSTEFANO VEZZANI

45An Indian Test of Indian AstrologyJAYANT V. NARLIKAR

50Understanding Believers’ Cognitive DissonanceJAMES WALKER

12CSICon Nashville 2012Ideas and Insights, Inquiries and Investigations: A Lively ConferenceNashville Eyes Latest Trends in Science,Pseudoscience, and Belief

Economic Fraud: How Cons and Criminals Scam the Public

‘Quackademic Medicine’: Teaching Pseudoscience in Medical Schools

Gender Issues in Science: What’s Different, What’s Not?

53Closing the Book on ‘Open-Mindedness’ KATJA PETROVIC

54Help! I’m Being Followed by Ancient Aliens!KENNETH L. FEDER

56Perpetual Discussion! MARK LEVY

A R T I C L E S

Flawed Look at MonstersTERENCE HINES..................................60

Medusa’s Gaze and Vampire’s Bite: e Science of Monsters.by Matt Kaplan

F O R U M

C O L U M N S

C O N F E R E N C E R E P O R T


“. . . promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.”

Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

[ FROM THE EDITOR

A Good Look at Invisibility

One of my favorite speculative novels is Memoirs of an Invisible Man by H.F.Saint. In this fine 1987 novel (later made into a very bad movie starring amiscast Chevy Chase) a thirty-four-year-old securities analyst is caught

in an extraordinary scientific accident that renders him and a small sphericalchunk of New Jersey invisible. Like all good science fiction (although this onehas little science), the compelling aspect is the “What If?” If this happened toyou, how would you live? Work? Drive? Eat? Make a living? From at least thetime of H.G. Wells, invisibility has been a recurring, and often appealing, deviceof science fiction and fantasy, from Star Trek’s Romulan/Klingon cloaking deviceto Harry Potter’s cloak of invisibility. Invisibility also plays a role in the newmovie and classic novel The Hobbit. But that’s all fiction.

In their “Treatise on Invisible Beings” in this issue, Joe Nickell and James Mc-Gaha take a broadly encompassing look at claims of entities reputedly capableof invisibility. It is remarkable how widespread such ideas are in the real world.By invisible the authors don’t mean transparent, camouflaged, obscured, or mi-croscopic but truly invisible: “incapable of being seen by human vision in the vi-sual spectrum.” Starting with a supposed “invisible girl” exhibited in eighteenth-century Paris, they roam over the entire topic: advanced technology (includingthe hoax Philadelphia Experiment), extra-dimensional realms, alien domains, thespirit realm, visionary experiences, “Magick,” and deistic power. Popular beliefnotwithstanding, they conclude—not surprisingly—that allegedly invisible en-tities are indistinguishable from imaginary beings. It is a revealing look at an en-tertaining topic that’s not all it appears to be.

This is the third time Nickell and McGaha have teamed up recently in theSKEPTICaL INquIRER. They wrote “The Roswellian Syndrome,” our May/June2012 cover article, and “The Exeter Incident Solved,” a special report in ourNovember/December 2011 issue. Theirs is a cross-country collaboration. Nick-ell, a prolific investigator and writer, is of course our senior research fellow, basedat our amherst, New York, headquarters. McGaha, an astronomer, retired mil-itary pilot, and uFO skeptic, has his own observatory in Tucson.

In 1907, psychologist Oskar Pfungst published his now-classic exposé ofClever Hans, the supposed talking (and calculating) horse. The incident has sinceserved as case study of the perils of subconscious experimenter influence on an-imal or human subjects. But Clever Hans nevertheless had his successors, and inthis issue Stefano Vezzani tells the story of “The Elberfeld Horses,” which alsoturned many scientific heads with supposed mathematical powers but in fact rep-resented “an archetypal instance of pseudoscience.”

There is much more in this issue, including a physicist’s examination of Indianastrology, an inquiry into understanding believers’ cognitive dissonance, a seriesof reports on our CSICon 2012 conference in Nashville, and many othercolumns, including Kenneth Feder’s “Help! I’m Being Followed by ancientaliens” and Steven Novella’s “Herbs Are Drugs,” the latter being another re-minder that herbal supplements are a dangerous and unregulated big business.

—KENDRICK FRazIER

Skep ti cal In quir er™

THE MAG A Z INE FOR SCI ENCE AND REA SON

ED I TOR Kend rick Fra zi er

ED I TO RI AL BOARD James E. Al cock, Thom as Cas ten, Harriet Hall, Ray Hy man, Scott O.Lilienfeld, Elizabeth Loftus, Joe Nick ell, StevenNovella, Am ar deo Sar ma, Eugenie C. Scott, KarenStollznow, David E. Thomas, Leonard Tramiel, Benjamin Wolozin

CON SULT ING ED I TORS Sus an J. Black more, Ken neth L. Fed er, Barry Karr, E.C. Krupp, Da vid F. Marks, Jay M. Pasachoff, Rich ard Wis e man

CON TRIB UT ING ED I TORS Austin Dacey, D.J. Grothe,Kenneth W. Krause, Chris Moon ey, David Morrison,James E. Oberg, Rob ert Sheaf fer, Karen Stollznow

DEPUTY ED I TOR Ben ja min Rad ford

MAN A GING ED I TOR Julia Lavarnway

ART DI RECT OR Chri sto pher Fix

PRO DUC TION Paul E. Loynes

ASSISTANT EDITOR Sean Lachut

WEBMASTER Matthew Licata

PUB LISH ER’S REP RE SENT A TIVE Bar ry Karr

COR PO RATE COUN SEL Steven Fox, Brenton N. VerPloeg

BUSI NESS MAN A GER Pa tri cia Beau champ

FIS CAL OF FI CER Paul Pau lin

SUBSCRIPTION DATA MANAGER Jacalyn Mohr

STAFF Melissa Braun, Cheryl Catania, Roe Giambrone, An tho ny San ta Lu cia, John Sul li van, Diane Tobin, Vance Vi grass

COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR Paul Fidalgo

IN QUIRY ME DIA PRO DUC TIONS Thom as Flynn

DI RECT OR OF LI BRAR IES Tim o thy S. Binga

The SKEP TI CAL IN QUIR ER is the of fi cial jour nal of the Com mit tee for Skeptical Inquiry, an in ter na tion al or gan i za tion.

The SKEP TI CAL IN QUIR ER (ISSN 0194-6730) is pub lished bi -month ly by the Com mit tee for Skeptical Inquiry, 3965 Ren-sch Road, Am herst, NY 14228. Print ed in U.S.A. Pe ri od i calspost age paid at Buf fa lo, NY, and at ad di tion al mail ing of fi ces.Sub scrip tion pri ces: one year (six is sues), $35; two years,$60; three years, $84; sin gle is sue, $4.95. Ca na di an and for eign or ders: Pay ment in U.S. funds drawnon a U.S. bank must ac com pa ny or ders; please add US$10per year for ship ping. Ca na di an and for eign cus tom ers areen cour aged to use Vi sa or Mas ter Card. Canada Pub licationsMail Agreement No. 41153509. Return undeliverable Cana-dian addresses to: IMEX, P.O. Box 4332, Station Rd., Toronto ,ON M5W 3J4.In quir ies from the me dia and the pub lic about the work ofthe Com mit tee should be made to Barry Karr, Executive Di-rector, CSI, P.O. Box 703, Am herst, NY 14226-0703. Tel.:716-636-1425. Fax: 716-636-1733. Email: [email protected] u scripts, let ters, books for re view, and ed i to ri al in quir -ies should be sent to Kend rick Fra zi er, Ed i tor, SKEP TI CAL IN QUIR -ER,EMAIL: [email protected]. 944 Deer Drive NE,Al bu querque, NM 87122. Be fore sub mit ting any man u -script, please con sult our updated and expanded Guide forAu thors for styles, ref er en ce requirements, and submittalre quire ments. It is on our website in two formats at www.csi -cop.org/pub lications/guide. Ar ti cles, re ports, re views, and let ters pub lished in the SKEP -TI CAL IN QUIR ER rep re sent the views and work of in di vid u al au -thors. Their pub li ca tion does not nec es sa ri ly con sti tute anen dorse ment by CSI or its mem bers un less so stat ed.Cop y right ©2013 by the Com mit tee for Skeptical Inquiry.All rights re served. The SKEP TI CAL IN QUIR ER is avail a ble on 16mmmi cro film, 35mm mi cro film, and 105mm mi cro fiche fromUni ver si ty Mi cro films In ter na tion al and is in dexed in theRead ers’ Guide to Pe ri od i cal Lit er a ture.Sub scrip tions and chan ges of ad dress should be ad -dressed to: SKEP TI CAL IN QUIR ER, P.O. Box 703, Am herst, NY14226-0703. Or call toll-free 1-800-634-1610 (out side theU.S. call 716-636-1425). Old ad dress as well as new arenec es sa ry for change of sub scrib er’s ad dress, with sixweeks ad vance no tice. SKEP TI CAL IN QUIR ER sub scrib ers maynot speak on be half of CSI or the SKEP TI CAL IN QUIR ER.Post mas ter: Send chan ges of ad dress to SKEP TI CAL IN QUIR ER,P.O. Box 703, Am herst, NY 14226-0703.


Two years ago the prepublication re leaseof a research paper by psychologistDaryl Bem claiming experimental evi-dence for precognition created a world-wide media stir and intense controversywithin the scientific and skeptical com-munities.

Bem, of Cornell university, claimedthat through nine experiments he haddemonstrated the existence of precogni-tion, specifically the existence of “con-scious cognitive awareness . . . of a futureevent that could not otherwise be antic-ipated through any known inferentialprocess.” Essentially, he had claimed tohave produced evidence that psychicabilities not only exist but can transcendtime and allow the future to reach back-ward to change the past.

Informed critics of parapsychologywere almost uniformly incredulous. al-though Bem is a respected psychologist,they found so many flaws in the researchprotocols and methods that in their viewthe conclusions had no validity. One ofthe most stinging re bukes came in theform of an ex tended, in-depth critique ofall nine experiments by York universitypsychologist and CSI Executive Councilmember James alcock in the SKEPTICaLINquIRER (“Back from the Future:Parapsy chology and the Bem affair,” SI,March/april 2011; see also editorial“Why the Bem Experiments are NotParapsychology’s Next Big Thing” in thesame issue).

alcock also concluded that the jour-nal that published Bem’s study, the Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psy chology( JPSP), had done everyone a disserviceby publishing this “badly flawed researcharticle.” Parapsy chology and the journal’sown reputation, he wrote, had been dam-aged, and the article’s publication dis-served the public as well, “for it only addsto [public] confusion about the existenceof psi.”

Experiments attempting to replicateBem’s results were quickly conducted at

various universities, but none were ac-cepted for publication by JPSP. In fact,it said it would not consider publishingreplication failures. This fact raised morecontroversy and concern.

Now the journal has had an apparentchange of heart. It has finally publisheda set of experiments that attempted (andfailed) to replicate Bem’s results. Sevenexperiments conducted by Jeff Galak ofCarnegie Mellon university, Robyn a.LeBoeuf of the university of Florida,Leif D. Nelson of the uni versity of Cal-ifornia at Berkeley, and Joseph P. Sim-mons of the university of Pennsylvaniahave been published in JPSP’s final issueof 2012 (Vol. 103, No. 6) under the title

“Correcting the Past: Failures to Repli-cate Psi.”

The article is lengthy, but the centralconclusion is succinctly stated:

“across seven experiments (N= 3,289),we replicate the procedure of Experiments8 and 9 from Bem (2011), which had orig-inally demonstrated retro active facilitationof recall. We failed to replicate that find-ing.” They further conducted a meta-analysis of all replication attempts of theBem experiments “and find that the aver-age effect size (d = 0.04) is not differentfrom 0.”

To put it even more directly (from thebeginning of their conclusions section):“We conducted seven experiments test-ing for precognition and found no evi-dence supporting its existence.”

How can their results be reconciledwith Bem’s? “It is unclear how Bemcould find significant support for a hy-pothesis that appears to be untrue,” theauthors say. They suggest such possibil-ities as what psychologists call Type Ierror—a false rejection of the null hy-pothesis. They also point to concernsabout researcher degrees of freedom,which also raise the likelihood of falselyrejecting the null hy pothesis. Whilemany experimental decisions are defen-sible, “because their application is at thediscretion of the researcher examiningdata after the completion of the exper-iment, they can make a true effect moredifficult to discern. . . . Researcher de-grees of freedom do not make a findingfalse . . . but they do make it muchharder to distinguish between truth andfalseness in reported data.”

They end by quoting philosopher ofscience Karl Popper: “an effect is not aneffect unless it is replicable, and a sci-ence is not a science unless it conducts(and values) attempted replications.”They do compliment Bem for encour-aging the independent replication of hisexperiments.

alcock, who wrote SI’s 2011 critique,has mixed feelings about the Galak etal. paper:

While I am happy that they carriedout this research and that it was pub-lished, I find it very odd that they fo-cused on Bem’s studies as though

Failure to Replicate Results of Bem Parapsychology Experiments Published by Same JournalKENDRICK FRAZIER

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2013 5

[ NEWS AND COMMENT

Correcting the Past: Failures to Replicate Psi

Jeff GalakCarnegie Mellon University

Robyn A. LeBoeufUniversity of Florida

Leif D. NelsonUniversity of California, Berkeley

Joseph P. SimmonsUniversity of Pennsylvania

Across 7 experiments (N � 3,289), we replicate the procedure of Experiments 8 and 9 from Bem (2011),which had originally demonstrated retroactive facilitation of recall. We failed to replicate that finding.We further conduct a meta-analysis of all replication attempts of these experiments and find that theaverage effect size (d � 0.04) is no different from 0. We discuss some reasons for differences betweenthe results in this article and those presented in Bem (2011).

Keywords: psi, precognition, ESP, researcher degrees of freedom, meta-analysis

Recently, Bem (2011) published an extremely thought-provoking article demonstrating the existence of precognition, a“conscious cognitive awareness . . . of a future event that could nototherwise be anticipated through any known inferential process”(p. 407). Through nine experiments, Bem found consistent supportfor the idea that people have such precognitive abilities. He sug-gested that these findings present examples of retroactive influ-ence, through which future events influence people’s current re-sponses and that more broadly these findings are instances of psiphenomena, or “anomalous processes of information or energytransfer that are currently unexplained in terms of known physicalor biological mechanisms” (Bem, 2011, p. 407).

In his article, Bem (2011) acknowledged that psi is a contro-versial topic. He reported data suggesting that many, if not most,academic psychologists do not believe that psi phenomena exist.Indeed, the publication of Bem’s research met with a wide varietyof reactions in the academic and popular media alike, and althoughsome reactions were supportive, many were skeptical (Carey,2011a; Carey, 2011b; Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, & vander Maas, 2011). In light of the skepticism surrounding psi and inanticipation of the reaction to his article, Bem suggested that psiresearchers must conduct tightly controlled experiments that dem-onstrate psi and “that can be replicated by independent investiga-tors” (Bem, 2011, p. 407). Whereas Bem’s article may indeed

provide the necessary tightly controlled experiments, the purposeof the current article is to conduct and to synthesize replications byindependent investigators.

Psi Phenomena

The precognitive abilities reported by Bem (2011) emergedacross a range of tasks. As one example, in Experiment 1, Bem(2011) asked participants to select whether a picture would appearon the left side of the screen or the right side of the screen.Participants’ selections were accurate more often than chancewould predict when the picture in question was an erotic one (butnot a neutral, positive, or negative one), suggesting that peoplehave precognitive abilities to detect where erotic stimuli willappear.

Precognitive abilities also manifested on more complicatedtasks. For example, in Experiment 5, participants were asked tochoose which of two negatively arousing pictures they liked better.After this choice, the computer randomly selected one of thepictures to serve as the target picture, which then flashed sublim-inally on the screen from 4 to 10 times. Research on the mere-exposure effect suggests that subliminal exposure to a negativetarget increases liking of that target (i.e., causes habituation;Kunst-Wilson & Zajonc, 1980). Bem (2011) suggested that ifpeople have precognitive abilities, their current liking of a negativepicture would be enhanced by the fact that they will see thatpicture several times in the future (even though they have noknown way of knowing that they will see it). Bem’s resultssupported this prediction: When participants chose between neg-ative picture pairs, they were more likely to prefer the one thatwould later be selected to be the subliminally presented target.

Perhaps the most straightforward and impressive demonstrationof precognition emerged in Bem’s (2011) Experiments 8 and 9,which documented “retroactive facilitation of recall” (p. 419). Inthese studies, participants saw 48 words and then were asked torecall as many of those words as possible. Next, participants weregiven a chance to practice a randomly chosen subset of the 48words by, for example, retyping them and recategorizing them. In

This article was published Online First August 27, 2012.Jeff Galak, Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University;

Robyn A. LeBoeuf, Department of Marketing, University of Florida; LeifD. Nelson, Department of Marketing, University of California, Berkeley;Joseph P. Simmons, Operations and Information Management Department,University of Pennsylvania.

We would like to thank Eduardo Andrade and Justin Kruger for crucialassistance with the project and Gia Nardini for her help in collecting datafor this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to JeffGalak, Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000Forbes Avenue, Office 381-D, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology © 2012 American Psychological Association2012, Vol. 103, No. 6, 933–948 0022-3514/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0029709

933


they had been carefully de signed andwell-executed. They were so poorlydesigned and so badly executed thatthe results do not merit the carefulconsideration that this research givesthem. However, the experiments thatGalak address, #8 and #9, were thebest of a bad lot. Nonetheless, I amglad that they have done this researchand that it is in print. It countersBem’s claims very nicely, without ruf-fling any feathers I guess.

Ray Hyman, professor of psychologyemeritus at the university of Ore gon andalso a CSI Executive Coun cil member, isanother longtime expert on such research.

Here is his initial comment: The number and size of their experi-ments, the detailed analyses, alongwith their inclusion of several otherstudies which fail to replicate Bem, de-prive the parapsychologists of theirstandard excuses for dismissing failedreplications. Bem and his supportershave one other excuse they can use.They can, and will, point to ways inwhich the Galak et al. experimentsdiffer from Bem’s experimental proto-col. The authors have anticipated thisand have adhered so closely to Bem’sprotocol, that whatever differences re-main appear trivial.

Publication by JPSP of the Galak et

al. paper may or may not bring to an endthis latest dramatic claim of scientificevidence of the paranormal, but—com-bined with the previous critiques—it ap-pears to have dealt a serious blow. as al-cock emphasized in his 2011 critique(and as Hyman has often also stressed),over the past eighty-odd years this kindof drama has played out multiple times,and “each time parapsychologists ulti-mately failed to persuade the scientificworld that parapsychological phenom-ena (psi) really exist.”

Kendrick Frazier is editor of the SKEPTICAL INqUIRER.

I was surprised to see a display for a prod-uct made and distributed by a companycalled Healing Hazel on the dispensarycounter of my pharmacy, a branch of theJean Coutu Group (PJC) Inc. in Montreal.

The product is available as a range ofnecklaces and bracelets made of hazel-wood links (prices range from about$14.95–$24.95). The claims in the point-of-sale material and the brochure imme-diately set my quackometer pinging intothe red zone.

according to Healing Hazel, “Haz el -wood helps neutralize acidity throughoutthe body,” and “Its significant benefitshave long been utilized by First Nationspeople.” It “works for the most part” torelieve acne, eczema, psoriasis, kanker [sic]sores, ulcers, heartburn, arthritis, asthma,headaches, migraines, constipation, etc.”

Its website (www.healinghazel.com/)makes for interesting reading too, includ-ing the fact that they are now offeringhazelwood/amber necklaces and braceletspromoted with similar claims: “Whenamber is worn on the skin, the warmth ofthe body releases trace amounts of heal-ing oils which is [sic] then absorbed intothe blood stream [sic]. It is a natural rem-edy for side effects associated withteething, such as redness in the cheeks,droolling [sic], diaper rashes, swollengums, etc.”

The McGill university Office for Sci-

ence and Society looks into the claimsmade by hazelwood promoters on its in-formative (and highly entertaining) blogsite (http://blogs.mcgill.ca/oss/2012/03/02/can-hazelwood-or-amber-necklaces-help-with-the-pain-of-babies-teething).

among its findings: Hazelwood, they say, has the medicinalproperty of neutralizing the body’sacidity. and what do the amber neck-lace promoters claim as a mechanismfor the miraculous work of their prod-uct? It releases succininic acid! It in-creases acidity!

There are several layers of nonsensehere. First of all, the body isn’t acidic orbasic. That concept makes no sense.Body fluids such as blood, sweat orurine can be acidic or basic, but not thebody itself. as far as blood goes, it hasto be alkaline with a pH between 7 and7.4. If it wanders outside this range, it’sa life-threatening situation. While itmay be possible to slightly alter bloodpH by diet, it certainly isn’t possible todo so by wearing a necklace.

Healing Hazel offers no proof or sci-ence, cites no properly conducted con-trolled double-blinded placebo studies,and offers no links to credible sources thatcould back up its claims.

Clearly, by placing this on the counterof the dispensary, the pharmacy was tac-itly endorsing the product. I brought myconcerns to the attention of the branchowner, who is also a pharmacist. I told

him I don’t have a problem with peoplewho choose to waste their money on use-less—or at best unproven—products, butplacing this display on the counter of thedispensary undermined customer confi-dence in the credibility of his pharmacy.

He immediately agreed and told methat the hazelwood products would bemoved elsewhere forthwith. He ex plainedthat much as he would like to, he couldn’tremove them altogether because the pur-chase had been made by his head office—the Jean Coutu Group. But he did addthat he refuses to sell homeopathic prod-ucts in his pharmacy.

In conclusion, the McGill blog puts itbest:

There is no science here, just some tes-timonials, the same as one might getfor any intervention be it a hazelwoodor amber necklace, or a suppositorymade from earwax collected by albinovirgins from Ethi opian mountaingoats by the light of the full moon. . . .What makes people buy into suchfolly? It’s the packaging. The necklacescome wrapped in a mix of scientific il-literacy, simple credulity and wishfulthinking.

What the blog doesn’t say is that anyone of us can make a difference. arguingwith true believers is usually a waste oftime, but taking a small action where itmight actually get results can be wellworth the effort.

Matthew Copeworks in Montreal’s burgeoning TVanimation industry, writing scripts and story ed-iting for a variety of shows.

6 Volume 37 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer

A Small Victory in the War on QuackeryMATTHEW COPE


The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry has announced that twoluminaries of science and skepticism, CSI Fellows Harriet Halland Steven Novella, have been elected to the Committee’s Exe -cu tive Council.

“We’re extremely fortunate to have two such important fig-ures in the skeptic movement formally take leadership positionsat CSI,” said Barry Karr, executive director of the Com mittee forSkeptical Inquiry. “Dr. Hall and Dr. Novella have made extraor-dinary contributions to the public’s understanding of science,

and have better armed us against the insidiously false and ab-surd claims that pervade medicine and the media.”

Members of the CSI Executive Coun cil are charged with de-veloping programs for the Committee and making recommen-dations on the activities and areas of activism on which CSIshould focus. They serve on the editorial board of the SKEPTICAL

INQUIRER, assist and advise in conference and event planning,take part in the election of new Fellows and Consultants, andrepresent CSI at outside events and in the media.


[ NEWS AND COMMENT

Hall, Novella Join Executive Council ofCommittee for Skeptical Inquiry

Harriet A. Hall, MD, a retired AirForce physician and flight surgeon,has made a national name for her-self by educating the public aboutpseudo scientific and so-called al-ternative medicine. She is a con-tributing editor and frequent contrib-utor to both the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER

and Skeptic magazines, and wrote“The Health In spector” column for O,

The Oprah Magazine. On the web, she contributes to the blogScience-Based Medicine and serves as an advisor for thewebsite Quackwatch. In 2008, she published the bookWomen Aren’t Supposed to Fly: The Memoirs of a FemaleFlight Surgeon, and coauthored the 2012 textbook, Con-sumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions.

Steven P. Novella, MD, is an academicclinical neurologist at Yale Uni versitySchool of Medicine. His column “TheScience of Medicine” ap pears in theSKEPTICAL INQUIRER, and he is host of thepopular weekly science podcast TheSkeptics’ Guide to the Universe. HisNeuro LogicaBlog covers news and is-sues in neuroscience, skepticism, andcritical thinking, and he is founder and

executive editor of the blog Science-Based Medicine. He is currentlypresident of the New England Skeptical Society, a senior fellow andDirector of Science-Based Medicine at the James Randi Educa -tional Foundation, and a founding fellow of the Institute for Sciencein Medicine.

Bent Spoon Awarded to HomeopathGURMUKH MONGIA

For thirty years, the australian Skep ticshave annually presented the Bent Spoonaward in mockery of prominent pseudo-science. Richard Saunders, president ofthe australian Skeptics, says that he’sproud to be involved with this importanttradition:

The Bent Spoon is awarded each yearby the australian Skeptics to the per-petrator of the most preposterouspiece of paranormal or pseudoscien-tific piffle. It’s meant as sort of a lighthearted award, although it does havea serious side to it. Take the winnerof the 2012 Bent Spoon award: FranSheffield of Home opathy Plus. Nowthis is a group who advocates the useof Home opathy instead of vaccinesfor polio or whooping cough or

meningitis or anything you care tomention. They also claim that youcan use Home opa thy to treat domes-tic violence, a bizarre claim indeed. Ifthe Bent Spoon award helps shedlight on the activities of these people,then it’s well worth it.

alternative health advocates haveoften been the recipients of this award,including several anti-vaccination advo-cates such as Dr. Viera Scheibner, thecompany Gentle Heal Pty Ltd, andMeryl Dorey of the infamous austral -ian Vaccination Network. almost halfof the Bent Spoon awards have beengiven out to promoters of “alternativehealth” practices, demonstrating justhow widespread they are.

The award itself is constructed froma polished and glossy chunk of gopherwood that (it is said) originated fromNoah’s ark. affixed to this piece ofwood is a spoon that (many believe)may have been used during the LastSupper. The spoon has been bent into agraceful curve by unexplained energiesthat are (suspected to be) un known toscience.

The Bent Spoon award was firstgiven out in 1982 to Tom Wards, a noto-rious “psychic” who made many predic-tions of world events that were remark-able for their inaccuracy.

The latest recipient of the Bent Spoonaward, Fran Sheffield, is a homeopathbased in New South Wales who manages



the Homeopathy Plus website. Sheffieldhas, on more than one occasion, com-pletely ignored sanctions from the Ther-apeutic Goods administration that wouldforce her to take down misleading adver-tisements and replace them with a severestatement of retraction.

One outrageous claim from the Homeopathy Plus website is that home-opathy “treats excesses of human behavior,”including victims and perpetrators of do-mestic violence. The website also labels thewhooping cough vaccine as “unreliable,”and advises visitors to the website to “hot-foot it to your local homeo path if you arestruggling with whooping cough.”

approximately one in twelve aus-tralian babies (8 percent) has not beenfully immunized. For herd immunity totake full effect, this number needs to belowered. Herd immunity is extremelyimportant for children who are not ableto receive proper immunization. Thesechildren rely on herd immunity to keepthem safe. In November, the australianacademy of Science distributed a book-let that dispelled the myths about vacci-nation in an attempt to convince parentsto do the right thing for the health oftheir children.

The australian Skeptics also hope thattheir Bent Spoon award will bring somemuch-needed attention to this issue. Theaward was presented at a dinner duringthe australian Skep tics’ national conven-tion. In addition to the Bent Spoonaward, the australian Skeptics also gaveout the 2012 Skeptic of the Year award.This more desirable award went to thelobby group Friends of Science in Medi-cine in recognition of their efforts to chal-lenge australian universities that providecourses in medical pseudoscience, such asacupuncture, naturopathy, re flexology, andchiropractic.

Gurmukh Mongia is a computer scientist workingin the field of web development. He currently op-erates a blog and podcast related to critical think-ing, The Dumb asses Guide to Knowledge(www.dumbassguide.info).

Five New Fellows, Two Consultants Elected to Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

David H. Gorski. Cancer surgeon and re -searcher at the Barbara Ann Kar manosCancer Institute and chief of the breastsurgery section, Wayne State UniversitySchool of Medicine, De troit, Michigan.Both an MD and a PhD, Gorski is manag-ing editor of Science-Based Medicine, ablog exploring controversies in the rela-tionship between science and medicine.Since first becoming interested in pseu-doscience and “alternative” medicinearound 2000, he has become a frequentblogger examining and exposing quack-ery and pseudoscience.

Terence Hines. Professor of Psychol ogy,Pace University, Pleasantville, New York.He is also an adjunct professor of neu-rology at New York Medical College, Val-halla, New York. His research interests in-clude genetic and cognitive bases forbelief in the paranormal. Hines is authorof PseudoscienceandtheParanormal,in its second edition, and he frequentlydoes critical reviews of work in parapsy-chology. His PhD is from the University ofOregon, where he was a student of RayHyman.

Clifford A. Pickover. Scientist, au thor, edi-tor, IBM T.J. Watson Re search Center. Pick-over’s PhD is in the field of molecular bio-physics and biochemistry, but his dozensof books range over the entire spectrum ofscience and mathematics to religion andhistory. His three most recent are TheMed-icalBook, ThePhysicsBook, and TheMathBook. Pickover’s books are motivated by hisinterest in bringing science, mathematics,and creativity to the broader public. Also

an inventor, he has been awarded morethan one hundred U.S. patents.

Joe Schwarcz. Director, McGill Office forScience and Society. The office is dedi-cated to helping the public separatesense from nonsense. Schwarcz, who hasa PhD in chemistry, is a professor atMcGill Uni versity in Mon treal and is widelyknown, under the moniker “Dr. Joe,” for hisscience popularization efforts includingbooks, public lectures, a weekly news -paper column, a weekly radio show, andfrequent segments on the DiscoveryChannel Canada.

Indre Viskontas. Cognitive neuroscien-tist, television and podcast host, andopera singer, San Francisco, California.With a PhD in neuroscience, her researchhas explored the neurological basis ofmemory, reasoning, and creativity. She co -hosted the television show MiracleDetec-tives where she provided the scientific viewin examining mysterious events. SinceFebruary 2012, she has cohosted theCenter for Inquiry’s radio show and pod-cast PointofInquiry.

In addition to the new Fellows, two newScientific and Technical Con sultants forthe Committee for Skepti cal Inquiry havebeen elected:

Sharon Hill: Geologist, writer, re searcher,creator and editor of the DoubtfulNewsblog (doubtfulnews.com), Harrisburg, PA.

Tim Printy: Amateur astronomer, UFOskeptic, former Navy nuclear reactor oper-ator/division chief, Man chester, NH.

The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry has elected five new Fellows. Hailing from arange of disciplines, they were chosen for their significant contributions to the publicunderstanding of science, reason, and critical inquiry through scholarship, writing,and work in the media. On CSI’s roster of Fellows, past and present, they join thelikes of such legends as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, James Randi, E.O. Wilson, ElizabethLoftus, Eugenie C. Scott, Nobel laureates Murray Gell-Mann, Harry Kroto, and StevenWeinberg, and of course the late Paul Kurtz. The list of present Fellows appears onthe inside cover of every issue of the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER.

Fellows are recommended by other Fellows and elected by the CSI ExecutiveCouncil. That body met in Nashville October 28, 2012, immediately following theCSICon 2012 conference there.

The five new Fellows:



[ NEWS AND COMMENT

It’s a bittersweet honor to say a fewwords in memory of our dear friend anda great man, Paul Kurtz. Before therewere celebrity atheists, there was Paul.Paul did not appear on the Col bert Re-port, did not write bestsellers, and didnot travel on coast-to-coast book tours.But Paul did something deeper andmore fundamental that paved the wayfor those of us that came after him.

Paul, first of all, changed the world’sview of what it meant to be a championof secularism and science. He did notdefine himself as an atheist, in terms ofsomething we should not be lieve in, butrather as a humanist, in terms of thingswe should believe in. In his various hu-manist manifestos, Paul laid out a posi-tive agenda for a defensible, enlightened,moral worldview, one that did not de-pend on dogma or supernatural agents,but that laid out a moral vision andagenda that we could positively believein and work to fulfill.

Paul also built institutions: brick andmortar institutions but also magazinesand book imprints and associations thatoutlived him and that carried his mes-sage to a much greater audience than anysingle person could have done on hisown.

So, in mourning Paul’s passing, wecertainly can’t comfort ourselves with thethought that he’s up there looking downon us, or that we’ll meet him againsomeday. Paul would be the last personthat would tolerate such bromides. Butwe can comfort ourselves with some-thing deeper: that Paul left us a worldthat was better for his efforts.

Steven Pinker is Johnstone Family Pro fessor inthe Department of Psychology at Harvard Uni-versity. Rebecca Goldstein is a novelist and philosopherand is currently the Franke Fellow at the Whit-ney Humanities Center, Yale University.

Paul Kurtz Changed Views on Secularism and ScienceSteven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein

Registry for Parapsychological ExperimentsCAROLINE WATT

a webpage for registering parapsycho-logical experiments has been imple-mented by the Koestler Parapsy -chology unit (KPu) at the universityof Edinburgh. Registration prior toconducting an experiment eliminatesmany common biases in research andis particularly valuable for controversialtopics. It is a well-established practicein medical research but has not beenformally practiced in parapsychologyor academic psychology.

Prospective registration makes aplanned experiment a matter of publicrecord, which prevents the suppressionof results that do not come out the waythe experimenters hoped. Registrationincludes the specific hypotheses thatare planned, which prevents experi-menters from adapting the experimen-tal hypotheses to match the results orreporting results for only the analyseswith favorable outcomes. Medical jour-nals increasingly require registration ofstudies as a condition for publication.

The value of study registration for

parapsychological experiments hasbeen discussed many times, but a reg-istry has not previously been available.This study registry provides an oppor-tunity to demonstrate that the experi-ments are free of common biases in ex-perimental research. These biases canbe very difficult to detect withoutprospective registration. Registration isvaluable for experiments conducted byskeptics as well as for experiments byproponents of the paranormal.

The KPu study registry webpage isat http://www.koestler-parapsychol-ogy.psy.ed.ac.uk/TrialRegistry.html.

Other options for study registrationmay become available in the future. TheKPu registry webpage is also intendedto serve as a resource that will provideinformation about other registrationoptions as they become available.

Caroline Watt is at the Koestler Para psychologyUnit, Department of Psy chology, School of Phi-losophy, Psychology, and Language Sciences,University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Long Island Chicanery: Old Tricks in a New PackageBRYAN FARHA

James van Praagh. Sylvia Browne.John Edward. It’s starting to soundlike a broken record, but make wayfor the next in a long list of allegedpsychics who have hit it big with themedia—eresa Caputo. You proba-bly know her from the Long IslandMedium, a popular television show one Learning Channel (TLC). To noskeptic’s surprise, TLC in recent yearshas been using the word “learning”very loosely (although I credit theirsister network, Discovery Channel,for airing critical-thinking shows likeMythbusters). Long Island Medium isyet another show devoid of scientificscrutiny by TLC, most assuredly be-cause of the almighty dollar. While

the show is now enjoying its secondseason, its inaugural season netted 1.3million viewers per episode.

Forgive me for describing Ca-puto’s methods using the same oldterms and phrases you’ve heard in de-scribing those of the others men-tioned in the previous paragraph—subjective validation, fishing, coldreading, and warm reading—butthat’s what it is.

eresa Caputo likes to give pre-sumably “impromptu” readings (al-though I don’t assume that anythingis genuinely impromptu in an editedprogram). She does this by givingreadings while she is out and aboutdoing her daily errands and such. I


“It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.” – Thomas Paine

Since 1976, three remarkable

organizations have been at

the forefront of efforts to

promote and defend critical

thinking and freedom of

inquiry. The Committee for

Skeptical Inquiry (founded

in 1976), the Council for

Secular Humanism (1980),

and the Center for Inquiry

(1991) have advocated,

championed, and, when

necessary, defended the

freedom to inquire—while

demonstrating how the fruits

of objective inquiry can be

used to understand reality,

refute false beliefs, and achieve

results that benefit humanity.

CSI Fellow and SkEPTICAl INquIrEr Editorial Board Member

James Alcock leads a class at a Skeptics’ Toolbox event. The Toolbox

has been held every year, except once, since1992.

In many ways, our organiza-

tions have been ahead of their

time. Now, they are

truly 3 For Tomorrow.

Through education, advocacy,

publishing, legal activism,

and their network of regional

branches, CFI and its affiliate

organizations continue to

provide support for everyone

who seeks a better life—in

this life—for all.

ACT, COMBAT, and PROMOTE

We are currently focused on three

goals central to our core objectives:

Act to end the stigma

attached to being

nonreligious.

Combat religion’s

privileges and its influence

on public policy.

Promote science-based

skepticism and critical thinking.

Each year, magazine

subscriptions fund a smaller

percentage of this work, even

as the need for activism in-

creases and the population

we serve grows.

More than ever, CFI and its

affiliates depend on the

generosity of our supporters

both to fund daily operations

and to build capital

for the future.

Your support today can

protect tomorrow for us all.

Your generous gift can

perpetuate our work toward

the kind of world you—and

your grandchildren—can feel

proud to live in.

Your Help Is a Necessity!

Make your most generous gift

today, or request information on

planned giving or a bequest.

For more information, return the

attached card or contact us at:Center for InquiryDevelopment OfficeP.O. Box 741Amherst, NY [email protected]: www.centerforinquiry.net

You Are Invited to Join the Center for Inquiry

to Act, Combat, and Promote…



[ NEWS AND COMMENT

started noticing that when she givesreadings to passers-by—in one instanceat a supermarket—that they were no-ticeably less detailed (“I can tell thatyour mother is with you”) than whenshe would read an employee at a retailoutlet. e employees got a more de-tailed reading, like she did in a coffeeshop with an employee’s mother in oneepisode (“Your mother—she told meshe was a seamstress”). Why would thisbe? While I can’t be certain of this, itcould be that the employee is likelypresent in the establishment each timeCaputo visits the retailer and she couldbe finding out information in advance.Don’t many employees have name tags?Hmmm. Of course, the general reading(cold reading, in fact) elicited tears sinceit was a heart-warming message.

But what psychic’s record is com-plete without incorrect assertions aswell? On Anderson Live, Caputo askeda man in the audience—knowing hiswife had died—“Is that your weddingring [from your wife]?” e man replied,“No, it’s my mother’s.” Caputo waswrong. Regarding furniture, Caputoasked the man, “Do you still have thechair?” to which the man replied, “No.”Wrong again. Caputo continues, “Didshe have an issue with her legs prior toher passing?”—the man replies, “No.”Wrong yet again. adept at fishing (ask-ing a question to a large group of peo-ple, hoping that just one will answerpositively), she cleverly asked the entireaudience (250 to 300 people) if some-one they knew had an issue with theirlegs—so the failure was overlooked andattention was diverted to someone on theother side of the studio. is happenedwith lightning speed, so the inaccuracieswere unnoticed by most.

She commented to another personwhose mother had passed, “So whenyou would sit with mom [when you felther spirit], you would feel the presenceof others who had departed—is thatcorrect?” e audience member shookher head “no.” Once again, wrong.Sometimes even fishing to the massesfails and psychics really wind up withegg on their faces—like Caputo did

with yet another Anderson Live audiencemember: “So who was buried in a reddress?” Complete silence. Ouch. ques-tioning another audience member (whohad lost her mother), “Is your dad alsodeparted as well?” She responded, “Yes.”Caputo says, “So know that they are to-gether.” is made the audience mem-ber feel comforted. But there’s a prob-lem with this exchange. If Caputo knewthat they were together, why did sheneed to ask if her father had departed?

Caputo was busted, but I’m sure loyalbelievers would dismiss the failure.

is train of logic (or illogic) is sim-ilar to what she said at the start of oneof her TLC programs: “When I told myhusband I was a medium, he didn’tknow what to say.” Wanting the viewerto believe she had to tell her husbandshe was a psychic after being marriedseveral years is a hard pill to swallow. Hecouldn’t figure it out for himself? It alsodoesn’t square with her saying on An-derson Live that she has been psychic allher life. If so, her husband should haveknown from the get-go. Hmmm.

Now for the million-dollar question:Why does eresa Caputo receive somany disconfirming answers from thesubject being read when she’s a guest onother television shows, yet more con-firming answers when on her own pro-gram? Do I really have to answer this,or can I just say that it’s much easier fora magician to do card tricks whenthey’re using their own deck of cards?

But what about some of the appar-ently amazing things she’s done, like

convincing a group of skeptics that shehas true psychic ability? Did you hearabout this one? ere has to be a catch,right? as it turns out, according to CSIweb columnist Karen Stollznow, the“skeptics” were a group of Caputo’s hus-band’s friends in the motorcycle shopwhere he was employed. Her husband’sfriends.

So why is she so popular? First, shehas the same fast-paced speech andrapid-fire readings that helped JohnEdward to fame. is is a huge advan-tage because it doesn’t give the personbeing read time to calculate hits andmisses. But it sure seems like there havebeen many hits. erefore, there aremore readings to be subjectively vali-dated in a shorter amount of time, lead-ing to perceived accuracy (even thoughthe rate of hits is poor). Second, she hasa novel twist in that her TLC gig is, es-sentially, a reality show. Recall the im-promptu readings of strangers (in theDavid Blaine and Criss angel tradi-tion). again, I’m not staking my pay-check on these being truly impromptuencounters, but at least the illusion ofsuch has been created. It’s a fresh twistfor a psychic television show. Samesong—different verse.

eresa Caputo won the Pigasusaward for Performance from the JamesRandi Educational Foundation in 2012.Performance is the operative word. asfor e Learning Channel, what havewe really learned? Now, for the saddestpart of all: Why do so many peoplewant to watch it? as usual, it tells usmore about ourselves than it does Ca-puto or TLC.

Acknowledgments

anks to my friend Denise for askingme to investigate Caputo and to Kai forurging me to write this piece.

Bryan Farha is professor of Behavioral Stud-ies in Education at Oklahoma City University.He is a CSI consultant and editor of Paranor-mal Claims: A Critical Analysis. His e-mail ad-dress is [email protected] .

Long Island Mediumis yet another showdevoid of scientific

scrutiny by TheLearning Channel, most assuredly because of thealmighty dollar.


Our CSICOP group (now the Com -mit tee for Skeptical Inquiry) originatedthe skeptics’ conference. So it was re-freshing when, after a multiyear hiatus,CSI got back into the conference scenein October 2011 with its CSICon con-ference in New Orleans. That proved afun intellectual idea fest (see reports inour March/april 2012 issue). It wasgood to be back. For the 2012 confer-ence (October 25–28), CSI moved theCSICon site north to Nashville, an-other lively location, and the talks, sym-posia, and surrounding events garneredgenerally great reviews from partici-pants.

The irrepressible Richard Wise man,the u.K. psychologist and CSI Fellow,emceed throughout the conference withhis usual effervescent wit. Many speak-ers were CSI Fellows; all were knowl-edgeable experts. Chief conference or-ganizer and CSI Execu tive DirectorBarry Karr didn’t speak but was every-where in evidence. The Halloweenparty again was a big hit. There was amidnight séance to call up Houdini (hedidn’t show). The whole thing con-cluded on Sunday with a lively first-ever full-audience interactive discussionwith members of the CSI ExecutiveCouncil.

CSI dedicated the conference to ourfounder and former longtime chairman,the philosopher Paul Kurtz. Kurtz diedthe weekend before at the age of eighty-six (see our January/February 2013 issuefor tributes). In the opening remarks,committee CEO and Presi dent Ronalda. Lindsay and I, representing SKEPTI-CaL INquIRER and the CSI ExecutiveCouncil, lauded Kurtz’s powerful legacy


Ideas and Insights, Inquiries and Investigations: A Lively Conference in Nashville Eyes Latest Trends in Science, Pseudoscience, and Belief

KENDRICK FRAZIER

[CONFERENCE REPORT

Photos by Brian Engler



in creating the modern skeptical move-ment. Many speakers over the next dayslikewise remarked on Kurtz’s key role increating the first organized movementto advance critical inquiry, the scientificattitude, and informed scientific criti-cism of paranormal and pseudoscien-tific claims.

a live-audience two-hour taping ofThe Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe pod-cast followed. The Novella clan (Steven,Bob, and Jay), Rebecca Wat son, andEvan Bernstein showed why theirweekly science-and-skepticism show isso popular. George Hrab then enter-tained with his unique combination ofguitar and skeptical wit.

(all this was preceded by two pre-conference workshops, one by the Skep -chicks applying skepticism to everydaynonsense, one on conducting investiga-tions.)

The conference was off to a finestart. I was able to hear most sessions(I missed a couple of individual speak-ers). Some highlights I found memo-rable follow.

Biologist P. z. Myers is most knownfor his outspoken attacks on religion, butat CSICon for the second year in a row,he surprised many by giving a straightscience talk. The first part dealt with dif-fering rates of evolution. “Selectionworks best in very large populationswith a low mutation rate,” he said.“Small populations with a high muta-tion rate are dominated by chance.”Lest we think humans are numerous inbiological terms, he quickly disabused.Humans have “a small population,”about 7 × 109. In contrast Pelagibacter,which make up half of all bacterialplankton in the ocean in summer,number about 2 × 1028. “So in humans,selection is not the prime pressure forchange.”

Recent research into the gorillagenome shows, to the surprise of some,that “in 30 percent of the genome go-rillas are closer to humans or chim-panzees than the latter are to eachother.” He then described how thatagrees with calculations in what’s called

coalescent theory, a population geneticsmodel for tracing genes back to com-mon ancestors. The anti-evolutionDiscovery Institute, Myers said, claimsthat the gorilla genome research messesup the human genetics connections tothe great apes. “That’s hilarious,” Myerssaid. “These people don’t have a god-damned clue about evolutionary biol-ogy. They are dead wrong.”

Psychologist James alcock led off asession on Belief and Memory with asurvey about belief, noting that beliefsare a dynamic production and can beproduced very quickly. Some beliefs arebased on reason and carefully assembledevidence, but many are based on socialconstructions (we rely on the perceptionsand reactions of others we trust) andfeeling. The “feeling of knowing” is anemotion and is not tied to knowledgeand may have nothing to do with reality.as for belief and disbelief, assessment isa two-stage process. We automaticallybelieve new information before we assessit. Judging it comes later, if at all. Thebrain processes content information andveracity information separately. He re-visited “The Belief Engine” he wroteabout in SI many years ago (“we are abelief-generating engine”) and endedby emphasizing again that some beliefscorrelate with reality, and some do not.

Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus notedthat beliefs can begin to feel like mem-ories, “then we have false memories.” Shedescribed some of her and colleagues’ground-breaking experiments demon-strating that beliefs can be implanted.She also gave examples of prominentpolitical figures recalling false memories,noting, “no one is protected from havingfalse memories.” She also emphasizedthe notorious unreliability of eyewitnesstestimony, noting the Innocence Projecthas used DNa evidence to overturn225 wrong ful convictions, “most basedon faulty memories.” She facetiouslyproposed that the oath administered towitnesses testifying should be changedto: “Do you solemnly swear to tell thetruth, the whole truth, or whatever youthink you remember?”



Neuroscientist Indre Viskontas praisedthe value of storytelling as a memory aid(“to remember details of a past event,make them part of a great story”) butnoted that remembering is a reconstruc-tive process that is often the functionalequivalent of imagining.

In “Is Paul Dead?” investigator Mas - simo Polidoro gave one of the most en-tertaining talks, a multimedia feast ofimagery and music and sounds play-fully exploring the persistent idea that

Paul McCartney of the Beatles is dead.“What is going on here?” Polidoroasked. “There’s no evidence of a pre-planned hoax. . . . You start with anidea, and you look for proof. It can beanything. and it always works.”

another hilarious session featuredRichard Wiseman, Jon Ronson (authorof The Men Who Stare at Goats, madeinto the movie with George Cooney),and Rebecca Watson re counting theirCSI “Paranormal Road Trip.” In thisjourney earlier that week by car fromCSI headquarters in amherst, NewYork, to the Nashville conference sitelooking for “paranormal” adventuresthey encountered a lot of “hauntedhouses” but nothing paranormal. Wise -man did find himself gobsmacked dur-ing a visit to the underground lair inKentucky of a leading collector of magicmemorabilia (“a cave full of magic”).There, neatly shelved eighty feet under-ground, he found one of only fifteen

first editions of a 1902 book, The Expertat the Card Table, by someone knownonly by the pseudonym S.W. Erdnase.The book was far ahead of its time, saidWise man, “the best sleight of handever.” “We still don’t know who wrotethat book,” Wiseman said. “It is a realmystery.” The group’s planned visit to theCreation Museum in Kentucky didn’thappen. Recounted Watson: “They saidyes, you can film. But you can’t make funof us. We ended up skipping it.”

That evening, at the CSI Hallo weenParty, Wiseman was presented his ear-lier-announced CSI Balles annual Prizein Critical Think ing (SI, September/October 2012), for the best skepticalbook of the year, Para normality: Why WeSee What Isn’t There. On first thought theCSI Halloween Party might seem astrange venue for awarding Wiseman hisprize. But maybe it all does fit. Heseemed to relish it.

Sara Mayhew, the writer/illustratorof Manga-style graphic novels (see hercover article in the March/april 2012SKEPTICaL INquIRER) gave anotheren tertaining talk, illustrated with herdrawings. “I want to create a fandom-type feeling for skeptics and scientistheroes,” she said. She noted that thesecomic versions of anime are a multimil-lion-dollar art form with a high femalereadership, about 70 percent in the u.S.“Good role models present a variety ofdifferent people. Manga does that.

The visit by Richard Wiseman, Jon Ronson, and Rebecca Watson to the Creation Museum in Kentucky didn’t happen. Recounted Watson: “They said yes, you can film. But you can’t makefun of us. We ended up skipping it.”



Having more female role models is goodfor young men and males as well.” Shesaid one can apply the same goal to sci-ence role models.

“My goal is to combine my love of sci-ence and critical thinking with this emo-tional art form for people to connect.”Like Indiana Jones (“a cool scientist rolemodel”) or the women in her stories, “Weneed more of these epic stories,” but in-stead of “faith” and “believe” as themes,seen too often in other epics, “we can havea message of, ‘How do we know about theworld?’ in an honest way. We need heroeswho think their way out of crises, whocare about the truth.”

With two strong statements—“Just be-cause you call something science doesn’tmake it so” and “There is no scientific ev-idence against evolution,” Eugenie C.Scott of the National Cen ter for ScienceEducation began her report on the currentstatus of evolution-creation disputes. attheir root is that creationists mistakenlybelieve that “evidence against evolutionequals evidence for creation,” thus theircontinual attacks on evolution and theirevolving strategies for undermining itsteaching.

Statehouse legislatures are a prime tar-get. about forty “Evidence against Evo-lution” bills, also called “academic free-dom” bills, exist in various stages. Twohave passed, in Louisiana and Ten nessee.

Creationists are masters at distortingthe meaning of words. “If you see ‘bal-anced’ and ‘evolution’ on the same page,you know you are looking at a creationistdocument.” Other euphem isms to lookout for are “full range of views” and “teachthe controversy.” Says Scott: “To misedu-cate young learners does them no favors.”

Most all these latest bills avoid men-tioning religion, stress free speech, advo-cate teacher protection if teaching “alter-natives” to evolution, and use permissivelanguage (“allow” not “require”). “They arevery clever the way they set up these bills.”

What to do? Inform yourself, pay at-tention to your legislature and state andlocal school boards, and support good sci-ence standards and teaching. as for the

CONFERENCE REPORT]

“What harm does it do?” That is theperennial challenge hurled at skeptics.What harm is there in people credulouslybelieving in things that aren’t true, thatare too good to be true? When it comesto economic fraud crimes, the harm isself-evident. Money is lost, lots of it.Sometimes one’s life savings, sometimesentire fortunes.

Psychologist Anthony Pratkanis, of theUniversity of California, Santa Cruz, isdeeply involved in this issue, and he gavea powerful presentation on the weaponsof fraud—how cons and criminals scamthe public. Amer icans alone lose $40 bil-lion a year in telemarketing fraud, $110billion in fraud generally. Worldwide, thetotals are staggering.

There is no evidence for the myth ofthe weak victim. The weak and the strongare taken. And the evidence indicates thatseniors are less susceptible, not more;they are just targeted more. Victims aremore likely to have experienced a nega-tive life event. And contrary to what youmight expect, victims are more, not less,financially literate. They think they are im-mune. That makes everyone susceptible.

Social influence is the weapon infraud crimes, Pratkanis emphasized.

He showed parts of a training video,“Weapons of Fraud,” detailing how scamartists tailor their pitch to what makes youvulnerable. (“It’s like cold reading.”) Theykeep and share records of phone conver-sations. They use such weapons as phan-tom fixation (something you would like

that is completely unavailable), socialproof (“other people are winning”), falsescarcity (about this rare 1860 coin, “Thereare only four left in the world”), authority,reciprocity, and a whole litany of others.

Can we stop it? Pratkanis de scribeda project he and his psychologist col-leagues have been working on with theFBI and other law enforcement authori-ties. It is called Santa Monica’s ReverseBoiler Room. It involves identifying victimsbefore the con is completed, calling them,and warning them. The reverse call centersends out prevention messages, givingpeople a coping strategy.

Ethical safeguards have been put inplace, and the FBI is on-site to monitor.Victims are debriefed.

Does it work? “It has cut the victim-ization rate in half,” says Pratkanis. “Thisis the first demonstration of an effectivedeterrent to this crime. . . . Forewarningworks.”

As a scientist, Pratkanis says hefinds this work “exhilarating.” But as ahuman being, “I got depressed. We cansee how it [scamming] works. Yet itkeeps going on and on.”

His advice to others? “Develop thoseskeptical skills. Keep asking those crit-ical questions.” —K.F.

Economic Fraud: How Cons and Criminals Scam the Public



court cases so far, the news is good: “Onehundred percent of the case law hasbeen in favor of evolution.”

a symposium on science and publicpolicy was actually an update and elabo-ration of a controversy played out in re-cent issues of the SKEPTICaL INquIRER:social science research into political be-liefs as described in SI Contributing Ed-itor Chris Mooney’s 2012 book The Re-publican Brain: The Science of Why TheyDeny Science—and Reality, his SI article“Why the GOP Distrusts Science,” andthe ensuing controversy (letters in SI andRonald a. Lindsay’s somewhat criticalreview of Mooney’s book in SI.) My introduction was a shorter form of what became my editorial “Can WeHave Civilized Con versa tions aboutTouchy Science Policy Issues” in our Jan -uary/February 2013 issue.

Mooney, knowing he was much thetarget of the ensuing two talks, began bynoting that he is a science journalistcovering the research on the subject.“I’m reporting on the research. So if youdon’t like the conclusions, don’t blameme, blame the science.” He reiteratedthat those studies show that “there’ssomething unique about Re pub licans’view of science,” and it involves “not justdenial of science” but “denial of reality.”He maintained that liberals and conser-vatives “have different personalities.”Without even considering political con-tent, key conservative traits are consci-entiousness and order and stabilitywhile a key liberal trait is openness tonew experience and new ideas. Thesetraits explain much about the differentparties’ political views and their atti-tudes toward science. In his view con-servatives’ need for “cognitive closure”and a tendency toward authoritariancertainty and black-and-white views isantithetical to scientific thinking.

Dan Kahan, a professor of law and ofpsychology at Yale university, was first up.The essential problem all are concernedabout, he said, is “the failure of valid andamply disseminated science to persuade.”He offered “one good explanation” andfour “not so good” explanations.

The good explanation, said Kahan, iswhat he calls “identity-protective cog-nition.” It is simply this: “People havegroup allegiances that make them inter-pret science findings in different ways.”Those ways consistently go in the direc-tion of the values that protect theirgroup identity. Other, not-so-good ex-planations include science denial, mis-information, a rationality deficit, andauthoritarian personality. Science de-nialism fails as an explanation becauseviews are divided along lines consistentwith their group. People of each party“count someone as an expert when hehas positions consistent with their cul-tural outlook.” Both parties believe inbeing guided by a scientific consensus,“but they disagree on what that consen-sus is.”

Lindsay recounted the evidence heamassed in his SI review calling intoquestion Mooney’s key conclusions. Heconcluded that one problem is that manyof the studies Mooney cited may actuallynot be measuring conservatism.

unfortunately, the session’s time ranout before Mooney could give any realresponse, other than to say that he dis-agreed with virtually all of Lindsay’scriticisms. Nevertheless, after the ses-sion they were seen sitting at a table to-gether in what seemed amiable conver-sation, so perhaps, in this setting at least,the civility sought in the title of my SIeditorial prevailed.

In his “The Science of Medicine”column in the November/December2010 SKEPTICaL INquIRER,Yale Schoolof Medicine physician Steven Novellawrote tellingly about “The Misunder -stood Placebo,” and in his talk he re-turned to that topic.

The so-called placebo effect is a sub-jective-only effect, he said, not an objec-tive one. It is manipulated by psychol-ogy only, not physiology. Most placeboeffects are illusory effects that dependupon belief in getting traction. as forthe often-vaunted “mind-body” connec-tion? “Well, yeah,” said Novella, “be-cause it’s the same option. What otheroption is there?” So-called “placebo



CONFERENCE REPORT]

medicine” exploits the confusionabout placebos. It makes vague use ofthe term “healing” and plays into thebranding and marketing of “comple-mentary and alternative medicine”(see adjacent sidebar about the pseu-doscience in medical schools). an ex-ample of the exploitation of placeboconfusion is the often heard statementthat “acu punc ture works—as aplacebo.” That, said Novella, “justmeans that the outcome was nega-tive.” So what’s the harm? Ex tollinga placebo is “installing bizarre, unsci-entific, mystical, nonscientific beliefsin patients.”

In case you didn’t know it, theworld was supposed to end on De-cember 21, 2012. The myth of an im-pending apocalypse on that date—drawing on everything from theMayan calendar to supposed Sumer-ian or biblical predictions, to worriesabout comets or the nonexistentplanet Nibiru, to pole shifts, planetaryalignments, and solar flares—infectedcredulous websites across the Internetand worried the hell out of a signifi-cant share of the world’s population(10 percent of americans, accordingto a Reuters poll). Things got so badthat in the first week of December theRussian government put out an an-nouncement that the world would notend later that month, and in theunited States NaSa did much thesame thing.

Come to think about it, as I writeup these notes in mid December, it’sprobably all for naught, but in the oftchance the world continues after thewinter solstice, I’ll continue. Planetaryscientist David Morrison, as SI read-ers know, has been at the forefront oftrying to rebut these rumors, provid-ing accurate scientific informationthrough NaSa’s “ask an astrobiolo-gist” website, CSI’s website, and in ar-ticles and other forums. He spoke atCSICon Nashville.

The whole thing would be sillyand laughable except that Morrisongets pained messages from children

A problem of serious concern to skepticsthese days is the rapid perfusion of pseudo-science into medical schools. This practice iseagerly promoted by proponents of so-calledalternative medicine and increasingly allowedby a medical education culture not alert towhat’s at stake.

Prominent physicians in the skepticalmovement brought the practice into the spot-light in a major CSICon symposium on theproblem.

One good label for the infiltration of pseu-doscience into medical schools is “Quacka-demic Medi cine,” a term coined by physicianRobert W. Don nell. In the CSI symposium, can-cer surgeon David Gorski, who edits the Sci-ence-Based Medicine website, used that termapprovingly. He noted that quackery has un-dergone a linguistic evolution, a “major re-branding of quackery.” What forty years ago wasproperly called “unscientific medicine” beganto be called, in the 1970s and 1980s, “alter-native medicine.” (He considers that simply“unproven” and “often, disproven” practices.)“Com ple mentary and Alter n ative Medicine”(CAM) came along in the 1990s, and nowthere is another rebranding: “Inte gra tive Medi-

cine.” Gorski’s succinct take? “Integrative med-icine = science + magic.”

Major medical schools like the University ofMaryland and George town have been integrat-ing CAM throughout their curriculum and eveninto basic science courses. This has provenpopular. “Bioener getic medicine” is anothernew term, allowing the teaching of such non-scientific concepts as a “vital force” and “qi.”

“This is the foot in the door . . . like theTrojan Horse,” said Gorski. Har vard, Michigan,and the Cleve land Clinic are all welcomingthese intrusions of questionable medicalconcepts into their curricula.

Often the cry is heard to “treat the wholepatient.” “This pisses me off,” said Gorski. “That’swhat doctors already do,” he notes. “And it cre-ates a false dichotomy: You don’t need to usequackery to ‘treat the whole patient.’”

He and other concerned physicians seean increasing hostility toward science-basedmedicine. One commentator even has calledevidence-based healthcare “micro fascism.”

Contributing to the problem is the relativeindifference of most physicians, what Gorskirefers to as a “shruggie,” a person whodoesn’t care. “Most doctors just don’t care.”

“SkepDoc” Harriet Hall, a frequent SI con-tributor, said what’s happening in medicalschools is a reflection of what’s happening insociety overall. The view is, in short, “We don’tneed no stinkin’ intellectuals” and “We don’tneed no education—we have Google.” Otherfactors include the ideas that positive thinkingmakes it so and “my facts are as good as anyothers,” a distrust for authority, looking for aneasy solution, postmodernism (truth is rela-tive), and a rising acceptability of doctor-bashing.

She told the story of a retired physicianwho took up acupuncture and soon found itworking on everything. Wrote this doctor:“There is nothing like personal experience toconvince one of an effect.” Hall noted that hemade a litany of common mistakes: confir-mation bias, using biased sources, not rec-ognizing how charisma can influence yourview, cherry-picking the data, not under-standing why science is necessary, relying onpersonal experience, the cause-effect fallacy,

‘Quackademic Medicine’: Teaching Pseudoscience in Medical Schools

David Gorski andother concernedphysicians see an increasing hostility toward science based medicine. One commentatoreven has called evidence-based

healthcare “micro fascism.”


the ancient wisdom fallacy, and relying on thepersonal experience of others. “The plural ofanecdote is not evidence,” Hall commented.She lamented that critical thinking is nottaught in medical schools.

Kimball Atwood, another frequent contrib-utor to SI and to Science-Based Medicine, re-iterated Gorski’s view that misleading lan-guage contributes to giving nonscientific andpseudoscientific medical practices a freepass. Terms such as “allopathic,” “holistic,”“complementary,” “alternative,” “integrative,”and “Western” all mislead.

Atwood raised a reasonable question:“Why discuss implausible claims at all?” Hebelieves medical schools should teach sci-entific skepticism. There are also importantlessons in the history of medicine that canbe taught, like the downfall of bloodlettingand the “pre-scientific practices” that persisttoday, such as homeopathy, where teachingabout Avogadro’s number could help stu-dents understand homeopathy’s innate im-plausibility. Skepti cism, with its emphasis onlogical fallacies and its insistence that clearthinking should trump pseudoscience, hasgreat value.

As for worries that it may be impolite orimpolitic to raise such issues, Atwood said,“Clear thinking should not be sacrificed onthe altar of politeness.”

It is a question of medical ethics, he em-phasized: “Implausi ble treatments are uneth-ical. Deceptive placebos are unethical. Andhuman studies of highly implausible claimsare unethical.”

Eugenie C. Scott was the only non-physi-cian who spoke. As executive director of theNational Center for Science Education (anda physical anthropologist) she has great con-cerns about allowing more and more pseu-doscience into medical schools. “It will mise-ducate students,” she said. As for academicfreedom, that is important, she noted, be-cause it allows teachers to teach unpopularideas and to challenge students. But there isalso “academic judgment,” she insisted.

“The issues are quite profound.” The SKEPTICAl INQUIRER plans a future article

on how nonscientific concepts are making theirway into the education of physicians. —K.F.


so caught up in these beliefs that theytell him they are contemplating sui-cide or killing their pets to spare themfrom the devastation.

Morrison recounted some of thesemessages and the “conflation of a va-riety of threads” of non-fact-basedbelief about all of it.

“None of these ‘facts’ is true,” heemphasized. “No scientist supportsany of these claims. None of thesestories is covered in newspapers orTV.” It has been almost entirely anInternet phenomenon.

as for a supposed galactic align-

ment, “I don’t know what an align-ment is. It’s not a term used by as-tronomers. There is no alignment inDecember. There is no core of fact tothis. These things are not going tohappen.”

Says Morrison: “It’s all part of amindset that believes in prophecy.”

Morrison labels this new outlook“Cosmophobia—the fear of the end ofthe universe.” People who believe it aregetting all their “information” onYouTube and elsewhere on the Inter -net. The problem has been exacerbatedby the fact that “science shows on cableTV have gotten a lot worse.” assumingshort attention spans, the trend now,even on mainstream channels, is to be“hyper-exciting,” with explosions, im -pacts, and so on every ninety seconds.

The conspiracy meme doesn’thelp, says Morrison. “People afraid ofthe government in one area havespread it to every topic.”

Sharon Hill, using lively illustra-tions, spoke on “How to Think aboutWeird News.” Hill, a geologist bytraining, does the Doubtful News blogand writes a column on CSI’s websitecalled “Sounds Science-y.” (an SI ar-ticle on that subject by Hill appearedin our March/april 2012 issue.)

“I’m a ‘weird news’ junky,” she said.“Weird news is my favorite conversa-tion topic.” Weird news makes for agood story, she says: “Mystery is mon-gered. The wow factor is stressed. . . .TV and entertainment is our new mis-information highway.”

She considers the main audience forher Doubtful News site “the criticalthinking community.” The topics sheexamines are endless, the sources piti-ful: “Real things entwined withwrongness.” Videos are hoaxed, birdsfall from the sky, strange sounds areheard, dead carcasses of normal ani-mals are claimed to be demonoids ormonsters. She has a whole categorycalled “underwater mysteries.” Thenthere are the quack cancer cures, al-ways a problem for science-mindedskeptics (“There is almost no way towrite about them without soundingheartless”), bogus consumer products,and emotional appeals. You’d think it’dall tire Hill out. But she’s still enthusi-astic. “I’m pretty dedicated to notmissing something good.”

Scott O. Lilienfeld had the “honor”of being the conference’s final speaker,but he performed his task so well noone’s interest wavered. “It has been an

Videos are hoaxed, birds fall from the sky,strange sounds are heard, dead carcasses of normal animals are claimed to be demonoidsor monsters. Sharon Hill’s site has a whole category called “underwater mysteries.”



amazing conference,” he said. He dedi-cated his talk to CSI founder PaulKurtz, who, Lilienfeld observed, “wasalways respectful and gentlemanly.”

Lilienfeld, a psychologist and mem-ber of the CSI Executive Council,spoke on “The Great Myths of PopularPsychology.” He noted that “even forour brightest students, it’s a confusingworld out there.” The pop psychologyindustry perpetuates myths, and no oneis immune. For instance, 77 percent ofhis students begin by believing thatschizophrenics have “multiple person-alities,” 63 percent think memory is likea video camera, 47 percent say memo-ries don’t change, and 61 percent thinkhypnosis is useful in solving crimes.This “naïve realism—the belief that theworld is exactly as we see it”—is exem-plified by the belief that eyewitness ob-servation is always correct and in theoften-heard (and often exactly wrong)phrases “seeing is believing” and “Iknow what I saw.”

Lilienfeld ranged over a variety ofexamples of selective perception andmemory, including illusory correlations(such as the repeatedly debunked ideathat psychiatric admissions increaseduring the full moon) where “our brainsare making the correlation.” He endedby bringing up the troubling implica-tions of some recent research. Debunk-ing can be effective, these studies show,but it can also have backfire effects, re-inforcing beliefs instead of disabusingpeople of them. “We need more thandebunking; we need alternative ac-counts. . . . Spend more time tellingwhat’s true, not what’s false.”

It was good advice and a fine way toend a memorable conference.

The next CSICon will be at thesame time next year (October 24–27,2013) in Seattle/Tacoma. It will be ajoint “Summit” conference of the Com-mittee for Skeptical Inquiry and theCouncil for Secular Humanism, with adistinct skeptic track. See early an-nouncement on our back cover.

Kendrick Frazier is a member of the CSI Exec-utive Council and editor of the SKEPTICAL INqUIRER.

CONFERENCE REPORT]

Gender issues continue to gain attentionand generate controversy. Good science,critical inquiry, and clear thinking all canhelp illuminate, not exacerbate, the issues.A morning session on gender issues ex-plored the degree to which psychologicaldifferences between the sexes exist and towhat degree they are hardwired or the re-sult of culture.

Richard lippa of California State Uni-versity, Fullerton, offered a thought ful exam-ination of Janet Hyde’s argument that thereare not that many differences. He firstlooked at psychological differences. In thedimensions of agreeableness and neuroti-cism, women tend to be more highly repre-sented. In the domain of mental illness,males tend to have such disorders asautism, mental retardation, reading disor-ders, and Tourette’s syndrome, whilewomen experience more depression by a2:1 ratio and also tend to have more bipo-lar, panic, and conversion disorders. Amongpersonality disorders, males tend muchmore than females to be antisocial or so-ciopaths. “So there are big differences inpsychology,” he said.

As for overall intelligence, any differ-ences are small. One area where differ-ences are big is along the people-things di-mension. Men tend always to be moreinterested in things-oriented occupations,women in people-oriented occupations,and studies show that holds true over fifty-three nations. As for social behaviors, mentend to be more aggressive (10:1 male: fe-male ratio of murderers).

Overall, between men and women, hesaid studies show that some differencesare small, some differences are moderate,and some differences are large.

Psychologist Carol Tavris (author of suchbooks as TheMismeasureofWomen) nexttook the stage. “That was a terrific talk,” shesaid of lippa’s presentation. “I have no dif-ferences with it. So I’m going to leave now!”The audience laughed. She proceeded.

She called for perspective (“either/or thinking is not going to get us anywhere”)and a sense of history. She noted thatwomen have come a long way since 1960.She reiterated, “I completely agree with

Richard re garding psychological differ-ences.” But she said many sex differenceshave flipped over in the past decade or two.“The problem is stereotypes.” She cau-tioned against “taking snapshots that as-sume differences at any time tell us aboutfundamentaldifferences.” Another cautionis that in surveys “what people say has littleto do with how they behave. . . . You don’tsee the major differences when you look atbehavior.”

As an example, she said if you defineaggression as “intention to harm,” you don’tsee sex differences. “We just express it indifferent ways. . . . Women are likely to ru-minate more than men.” As for brain differ-ences, there are indeed many anatomicaland activity differences in men/womenbrains, but it all comes down to “so what?”She pointed to three general problems withgeneralizing about brain differences: Thereis no correlation with behavior, brains arecomplex, and each brain is unique.

What is the future of sex differences,and where are we going from here? Tavrissummarized things this way. A lot in societyis changing. It’s women who are getting theeducations. We are seeing huge differ-ences in economic status. Women are nowearning more, getting better educated, andgetting better jobs, so many are delayingmarriage. “The whole planet is becomingSweden,” is how she put it. Changes arebeing caused by the global economy andcircumstances.

A memorable moment came when aman in the audience concerned about howto think about gender differences askedTavris for advice about raising his daughter.She replied succinctly: “Enjoy the ones thatmatter, ignore the rest.” —K.F.

Gender Issues in Science: What’s Different, What’s Not?

Many sex differences haveflipped over in the past decade or two.



Following the excellent skeptics’conference, qED (“question.Explore. Discover.”), in Manches-

ter, England, March 10–11, 2012—where I was the closing speaker and acryptozoology panelist—I went on aninvestigative jaunt with British skepticand investigator Hayley Stevens andher father andy, who is a photographerand professional driver and guide. HereI focus on the Scotland portion of ourtour, beginning with the enduring caseof the Loch Ness Monster.

The Lair

Located in the Scottish Highlands, andstretching for almost twenty-threemiles, is a narrow, trench-like basin, 227meters in depth at its deepest point,holding the greatest volume of freshwater in all of Britain. is is theworld’s most famous lake, Loch Ness,

home to the world’s most famous—andleast terrifying—legendary lake mon-ster. “Nessie” is best known from a 1934photograph, showing it as a long-necked, small-headed, plesiosaur-like

creature but in fact proving to havebeen a hoax made by photographing asmall model (Nickell 1995, 242).

Now, it is not true that Loch Ness isunique among Scottish lakes, or evennearly so, in having a resident monster.Whereas one writer claims there areonly two others in Scotland, LochMorar and Loch Tay, Ronald Binns(1984, 183n) observes that there are“not three but dozens of ‘Lochs naBeiste,’” including one we had lunchbeside, Loch Lomond. admittedly thatlake has little monster tradition, consis-tent with the statement of a gentlemanwe encountered there; he announcedemphatically that there was “no mon-ster.” He is probably correct, althoughsome locals speak of “Lomonda” whonever caught on (“Balloch and LochLomond” 2006). Loch Ness is of coursea different story.

Water Kelpies

e earliest recorded encounter withNessie is told in e Life of St. Columba.Supposedly Columba (a Christian mis-sionary, 521–597 CE) sent a man to

swim across the River Ness to retrievea boat, when he was approached by themonster. e future saint quickly“formed the sign of the cross in theempty air” and commanded the crea-ture to go back, whereupon it fled. atis a saint’s legend—one of a genre ofnarratives that are intended to demon-strate the power of God and that arenotoriously incredible. Moreover, theaccount was written circa 700 CE, wellover a century after the events they pur-port to describe (Shine 2006, 6; Coul-son 1958, 134).

Many Scottish legends tell of kelpiesor water-horses, supernatural watercreatures that prey on humans. “eirtrick,” states Stuart McHardy, in hisTales of Loch Ness (2009, 52), “was to ap-pear as a wandering horse and induceone or more humans to climb on theirbacks. en they would make straightfor their watery home and dive in, theirsupernatural powers keeping the hu-mans on their backs as if glued.” (Seealso Leach 1984, 573.)

Today, kelpies are relegated to thedistant past, but as recently as July 1,1853, the Inverness Courier reported thesighting of two strange animals. Somethought a single sea serpent was coiledat the surface, while others suspected apair of whales or large seals. (e sight-ing was at Lochend, a village near thesea-connected northeastern end of thelake, where such animals might maketheir way.) However, on seeing thecreatures, a “venerable patriarch” threwdown his gun, shouting, “God protectus; they are the Water Horses.” He was

[ INVESTIGATIVE FILES J OE N I CK E LLJoe Nickell, PhD, is CSI’s senior research fellow and author or coauthor of such books as Tracking the Man-Beasts, Entities, and Lake Monster Mysteries.

Scotland Mysteries—Part I: The Silly Ness Monster

When I wondered aloud whether rifles would beavailable to Nessie hunters, a boat hand quicklyanswered that, no, harpoons would be issued“when needed.”



partly right: they turned out to beponies that had wandered from an es-tate more than a mile distant (Shine2006, 6).

Looking back, it is easy to see thatany of several creatures might havegiven rise to water-horse sightings—inaddition, of course, to actual horses andponies! Other possibilities are the oc-casional swimming roe deer, which lacktrue antlers but instead have short dou-ble-pronged horns (Binns 1984, 191–93), and the sturgeon, with its longmuzzle. Says naturalist adrian Shine(2006, 28), “If ever a fish had a horse’shead it would certainly be the Stur-geon.”

Rounding Up Suspects

On our four-day excursion to LochNess, we found the locals to be quiteplayful regarding the “monster.” For ex-ample, at the Glen Ord distillery whereI told a tour guide we had come to thearea to hunt Nessie, the womanquipped that we were quite right tomake a distillery our “first stop.” Inbooking passage on a sonar-equippedboat to tour the loch, I asked if thiswere where we got our hunting licensefor the monster, to which a ticket seller

dead-panned that we would have betterluck hunting Nessie on land—meaningwhere the toy creatures are sold. and onthe boat itself, when I wondered aloudwhether rifles would be available toNessie hunters, a boat hand quickly an-swered that, no, harpoons would be is-sued “when needed.”

More seriously, we made several in-quiries. an information officer in In-verness told us she had seen seals in theRiver Ness, which passes through thecity, linking the loch with the NorthSea. Seals are among the monsterlookalikes that are endemic either tothe Loch or its environs. although thesturgeon is now almost extinct in Scot-tish waters, one could have occasionallyentered the loch to become, say, the“huge fish” of 1882. additional poten-tial “monsters” are salmon and otherfish, swimming deer, long-necked waterbirds, bobbing logs, boat wakes, windslicks, and more (Shine 2006).

en there is the large Europeanotter (Lutra lutra). Otters resembleseals, and both are able to appear onland. However, otters also appear inrivers and lakes that are not accessibleto seals. e otter’s long neck and un-dulating movements can give it a mon-

sterlike look (Binns 1984, 186–91). isis especially so when two or more areswimming in line, as they do becausethey enjoy “chasing each other” and“following the leader” (Godin 1983).ey can thus appear as a single long-necked, multi-humped creature. is il-lusion was observed as early as 1930 inthe Scottish river Clyde, and it hassince been confirmed elsewhere (Gould1934, 115–17; Nickell 2007, 6–7). (It isthe basis for a delightful children’s taletitled “Otterly Impossible.” e story isin Fairy Tales Fairly Told by BarbaraMervine, with illustrations by Noah

Figure 1. A composite iconographic portrait of Nessie—a metamorphosing, contortionistic, chameleonlike crea-ture, or the product of various monster lookalikes and misperceptions. (Illustration by Joe Nickell)

Figure 2. Investigator Hayley Stevens monitors sonarscans aboard an excursion boat on Loch Ness.(Photo by Joe Nickell)



Whippie, a foreward by James Randi,and inspiration for the Ness tale cred-ited to yours truly.)

Iconography

e iconography (or study of images)of the Loch Ness Monster is illuminat-ing. From St. Columba’s “WaterBeast”—with “gaping mouth and withgreat roaring”—and Scottish folklore’shorse-headed kelpie, to the plesiosaur-like creature of the 1934 hoax photo,the monster has continued to evolve. Ithas since been described as six to 125feet in length; shaped like a great eel ofa creature with up to nine humps; col-ored silver, gray, blue-black, black, orbrown; and endowed—or not—withflippers, fins, mane, horns, or tusks(Binns 1984; Gould 1934).

No doubt the extremely diverse de-scriptions are explained by the differ-ences in Nessie lookalikes—as well asthe vagaries of eyewitness evidence. einfamous 1934 hoaxed photo obviouslydid much to influence the developingportrait, although paleontologists havesince postulated that plesiosaurs wereunable to raise their long necks (Shine2006, 11). In Figure 1, I have com-pressed the iconography of Nessie intoa single humorous image that, I trust,makes an effective point.

Nessie Hunters

at the Loch Ness Exhibition Centre inDrumnadrochit, we received the gener-ous attention of adrian Shine, the ven-erable naturalist and Loch Ness expert,who has been a Nessie hunter since1973. e Centre is brilliantly con-

ceived, a wonderful science museumdisguised as a Nessie exhibit. It teachescontinental drift, evolution, perception,and a number of other scientific matterswhile skeptically—but tactfully—dis-cussing the famous monster. Shine’sbook Loch Ness supplements the tourwith fascinating data and pictures—in-cluding one that remarkably recreatesthe previously mentioned 1934 hoaxedphoto (2006, 11).

We also arranged to meet SteveFeltham, who has a little trailer on theloch at the village of Dores (near theinn, which serves delicious haggis). eworld’s only full-time Loch Ness Mon-ster hunter, Feltham is the most inter-esting Ness creature I encountered.Having lived on the Loch since 1991,he supports himself by selling whimsi-

cal little Nessies (made of polymer clayand baked in his oven), along withdriftwood art and watercolor paintings.an intelligent, thoughtful man, Felt -ham is no knee-jerk believer, havingmany times explained a tourist’s sight-ing as, for instance, a boat wake’s de-layed arrival. Most recently he brandeda photo of Nessie a hoax (involving afake fiberglass hump used to film a Na-tional Geographic documentary [“LochNess” 2012]). He told us that even ifthere were no monster legend, he wouldstill have his beachcomber life— “onlyin a warmer place!”

a highlight of the trip, and of myyears of work as a skeptical cryptozool-ogist (with many appearances as suchon TV series like National Geo-graphic’s Is It Real?, History Channel’sMonsterQuest, and animal Planet’s Lost

Tapes Series), was my time spent sur-veying the loch’s waters, especially nearurquhart Castle, the location of manysightings. Our boat crossed the lochfrom the opposite shore to the castleand back, while Hayley and I alternatedbetween searching the waters and mon-itoring sonar scans (see Figure 2). alas,as so often is the case, Nessie was a no-show. n

(“Part II: Ghosts, Fairies, and Witches”will appear in the next SI.)

Acknowledgments

In addition to those mentioned in thetext, I am grateful to everyone whohelped make this Scottish “investigativetravelogue” come to be, including all thewonderful qED folk, especially RickOwen and Michael Marshall, and atCFI, Michelle Blackley, Ed Beck, andour librarian Tim Binga. Special thanksto John and Mary Frantz for their gen-erous financial contributions to mywork.

ReferencesBalloch and Loch Lomond. 2006. Online at

www.fermentmagazine.org/Scotland2/scot4.html; accessed September 11, 2012.

Binns, Ronald. 1984. e Loch Ness MysterySolved. amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Coulson, John, ed. 1958. e Saints: A Concise Bi-ographical Dictionary. New York: HawthorneBooks.

Godin, alfred J. 1983. Wild Mammals of NewEngland. Chester, CT: Globe Pequot Press.

Gould, Rupert T. 1934. e Loch Ness Monster andOthers. Reprinted Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press,1976.

Leach, Maria, ed. 1984. Funk & Wagnall ’s Stan-dard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology andLegend. New York: Harper & Row.

Loch Ness Monster photograph branded a hoaxby Nessie enthusiast. 2012. Online athttp://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/186792-loch-ness-monster-photograph-branded-a-hoax-by-nessie-enthusiast/; accessed Septem-ber 23, 2012.

McHardy, Stuart. 2009. Tales of Loch Ness. Edin-burg: Luath Press.

Nickell, Joe. 1995. Entities. amherst, NY:Prometheus Books.

———. 2007. Adventures in Paranormal Investi-gation. Lexington: university Press of Ken-tucky.

Shine, adrian. 2006. Loch Ness. Drumnadrochit,Scotland: Loch Ness Project.

The world’s only full-time Loch Ness Monsterhunter, Steve Feltham is the most interesting Ness creature I encountered.



This semester I have been teachinga graduate class on the so-called“science wars” of the 1990s and

early 2000s, and in particular on thedifferences between philosophy of sci-ence and so-called “science studies” (asomewhat heterogeneous ensemble ofsociology of science, feminist episte-mology, social criticism, deconstruc-tionism, and a few other things). My at-tention has therefore been drawn back tothe fundamental tenets of the “strongprogramme” in the sociology of scientificknowledge, also known as SSK. One ofits founders, David Bloor, summarizedthem as follows:

1. [e program] would becausal, that is, concerned with theconditions which bring about be-lief or states of knowledge. Nat-urally there would be other typesof causes apart from social oneswhich will cooperate in bringingabout belief.

2. It would be impartial with respect to truth and falsity, ration-ality or irrationality, success or failure. Both sides of these di-chotomies will require explana-tion.

3. It would be symmetrical in itsstyle of explanation. e sametypes of causes would explain, say,true and false beliefs.

4. It would be reflexive. In prin-ciple its patterns of explanationwould have to be applicable tosociology itself.

Go ahead, re-read the list and see if

you can spot the problem. It’s numberthree, the clause about symmetrical ex-planations. To see why, consider thecase in which we are trying to explainwhy young-Earth creationism is a fa-vorite position among the americanpublic, contrasting it with why the sci-entific community at large thinks in-stead that Earth is billions of years old.as a philosopher of science, I would

want to invoke an asymmetry in thetwo cases: the first is an instance ofpseudoscience, the second of actual sci-ence. e first belief is—to the best ofour knowledge and abilities—wrong,while the second one is at least approx-imately correct. You would think thatpart of the explanation for the differ-ence between the two beliefs has to dowith the truth of the latter and the fal-sity of the former (in agreement, inci-dentally, with the second part of num-

ber one above). If so, then scientists be-lieve in an old Earth because the bestevidence available to us points to thetruth of that belief. On the contrary, thefact that a large section of the americanpublic believes in a young Earth is epis-temically anomalous (i.e., it doesn’t haverational standing based on evidence),and it is therefore likely to have socio-logical (and psychological) explana-

tions, for instance of the type traced bysociologist Richard Hofstadter in his1964 classic, Anti-Intellectualism inAmerican Life.

is sensible solution is precluded tothe SSK approach by the symmetryclause. e idea is further explained bysociologist Trevor Pinch: “We ask notwhy science is more true than other ac-counts of the world . . . but rather howdo scientists reach agreement aboutwhat counts as truth.” ahem, yes—but

[THINKING ABOUT SCIENCE MA S S IMO P IGL I UCC IMassimo Pigliucci is professor of philosophy at the City University of New York, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and author of Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy CanLead Us to A More Meaningful Life. His essays can be found at rationallyspeaking.org.

The Proper Role of Sociology of Science

The fact that a large section of the Americanpublic believes in a young Earth is epistemicallyanomalous (i.e., it doesn’t have rational standingbased on evidence), and it is therefore likely to havesociological (and psychological) explanations.



shouldn’t (approximate, provisional)truth figure somewhere into that ac-count? No, says Pinch, because “We tryto avoid explaining the emergence oftruth by reference to its truthfulness be-cause such explanations are circular.”

Now, avoiding circularity is a com-mendable goal, most certainly in linewith anything a reasonable philosopherwould suggest. But if you go back to thequotes above you may notice a sleight ofhand: Bloor’s goal (shared by Pinch) isto explain belief, not truth. If so, thenthere is no circularity at all involved inexplaining some beliefs by invokingtheir (likely) truth, and indeed in distin-guishing them from other beliefs on thebasis that the latter are (likely) untrue.Why wouldn’t proponents of the SSKadopt this time honored and eminentlycommonsensical approach to belief for-mation, then?

Because they would have much lessto say about scientific knowledge, themost prized of their targets. after all,

sociologists are typically in no position(as in fact acknowledged on several oc-casions by both Bloor and Pinch) to ad-judicate disputes in natural science.at’s the job of the natural scientiststhemselves, as well as the meta-job, soto speak, of philosophers of science (intheir role of epistemologists). e scopeof sociology, then, would be limited tothe (partial) explanation of why somepeople happen to believe things that arenot true. apparently, this respectableand indeed useful contribution of soci-ology is not enough for proponents ofSSK, who wish to arrogate for them-selves a much broader role, one thatthey cannot justify other than by invok-ing the symmetry postulate, thus be-coming the lightning rod for the scornof scientists and philosophers of sciencealike. (and, I would hope, of skeptics!)

None of the above argues for notdoing sociology of science, of course.Scientists themselves—either individu-ally or as a group—sometimes do hold

untrue beliefs for nonrational reasons,and sometimes do so for decades (justthink of eugenics, or Piltdown man). Inthose cases science and philosophy ofscience can point out why such beliefswere epistemically unwarranted butcannot explain why they were held, attimes widely, nonetheless. at explana-tion becomes then the province of psy-chology (for individual beliefs) and so-ciology (for socially widespread beliefs).e resulting picture is one where nat-ural scientists, philosophers, psycholo-gists, and sociologists work together toprovide a full account of both true anduntrue (or, to be more precise, warrantedand unwarranted) human beliefs. Can’twe all just get along? n

References:Bloor, D. 1991. Knowledge and Social Imagery.

university of Chicago Press.Pinch, T. 2001. Does science studies undermine

science? In e One Culture? A Conversationabout Science. Ed. by J.a. Labinger and H.Collins. university of Chicago Press.

For details, visit www.gse.buffalo.edu/online/scienceQuestions? Contact John Shook, CFI Vice President for Research, at [email protected].

Earn your master’s degree in Science and the Public through the University at Buffalo and the Center for Inquiry!

Explore the methods and outlook of science as they intersect with public culture and public policy. This degree is ideal for enhancing careers in science education, public policy, and science journalism—and prepares you for positions that involve communicating about science.

This unique two-year graduate degree program is entirely online. Take courses from wherever you are in the world at your own pace!Courses include: Science, Technology, and Human Values; Research Ethics; Critical Thinking; Scientific Writing; Informal Science Education; Science Curricula; and History and Philosophy of Science.



Some critics have long accused FoxNews and its affiliates of practic-ing tabloid journalism. e Fox

affiliate in Denver, KDVR, seems de-termined to prove them correct. OnNovember 8, they broadcast a video ofan ill-defined, very fast-moving objectthat they described as a “mile high mys-tery,” proclaiming, “nobody can explainwhat it is” (http://tinyurl.com/KDVRfly). ere’s only one problem: is“uFO” is obviously an insect—proba-bly a fly.

KDVR received some supposed“uFO” videos from a man who doesnot want to be identified, which to anyseasoned reporter should immediatelyraise a red flag. e videos were takenon a hilltop in Federal Heights, at 84thave. and Federal Blvd., looking southtoward downtown Denver. e “uFOs”appear at least several times a week, weare told, usually around noon to 1 PM(perhaps not coincidentally, around thewarmest part of the day when most fly-ing insects become more active). eanonymous photographer, who hasbeen filming these objects for months,believes that the uFOs are being“launched” from someplace around56th ave. and Clay St. in Denver,which is a residential area.

e “uFO” is said to be flying toofast to be seen by the naked eye, and it’snecessary to slow down the video. eobject is seen to dive down toward theground, between the ground and thecamera (for example, at 1:29 into thevideo; also at 1:40 and 2:40). as in the

case of other fly uFO videos, we are notshown the entire, unedited video. If wewere, it would very likely be obvioushow small the object is when it is seenclearly against the nearby ground.

e “investigative reporter” HeidiHemmat contacted an aviation expert,Steve Cowell, who is described as “aformer commercial pilot, instructor andFaa accident prevention counselor.”as far as I can tell, these qualificationshave nothing to do with optics, videophotography, still photography, insects,or, for that matter, uFOs. Cowell pro-claimed, rather self-evidently, that theobject was no kind of aircraft, helicop-ter, or bird. Hemmat said that Cowellalso proclaimed that it wasn’t an insect,although he later disputed this. eFaa and NORaD were consulted,and both reported that there was no airtraffic in that area. “and it’s not a bug,”said Hemmat, “people keep saying it’s a

bug.” Perhaps you should investigatethat possibility? But no, an “expert” hasspoken, and Hemmat would neverquestion that. If I had a nickel for everytime some “expert” said something idi-otic about uFOs, I’d be rich.

KDVR sent its own cameraman tothe spot, and he, too, photographed atleast one fly. is was taken as confir-mation that mysterious uFOs are in-deed buzzing around Denver on a reg-ular basis. is story is a seriouscontender for the stupidest news reportof 2012, although there is a lot of stiffcompetition for that honor. CNN andother news outlets soon picked up thestory as well.

Obviously delighted by all the atten-tion its tabloid story received, on No-vember 20 KDVR did a second reporton the fly uFO (http://tinyurl.com/KDVRfly2). is time they consultedan entomologist, Mary ann Hamilton,

Sheaffer's “Psychic Vibrations” column has appeared in the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER for more than thirty years; its high-lights have now been published as a book (Create Space 2011). Sheaffer blogs at www.BadUFOs.com, and hiswebsite is www.debunker.com.

[ PSYCHIC VIBRATIONS ROBER T S H E A F FE R

UFOs Infest Denver, Says Fox TV Affiliate



best known as an expert on butterflies.after watching the video, she said, “I donot believe it’s an insect. e shape isinconsistent with an insect.” She doesnot say whether she is familiar withstill-frame video representations ofout-of-focus moving objects. Mean-while, skeptics from the Rocky Moun-tain Paranormal Research Society wentto the supposed uFO spot and foundplenty of people already sitting there,looking for uFOs themselves! ey setup a video camera and recorded flyuFOs too. One uFO even flew be-

tween the camera and a cardboardscreen they had set up about ten feetaway (http://tinyurl.com/bpoq44v).at’s a tiny uFO indeed!

uFO author Leslie Kean noted onher Facebook page, “e object in these[KDVR] videos looks like the one fromChile at the El Bosque aF Base.” isis the Chilean fly uFO video she hasbeen promoting as being perhaps “thecase uFO skeptics have been dreading”(see this column, SI, July/august 2012).It started a huge controversy as evenmany uFO proponents argued it wasjust a bug. It only took months ofanalysis and two trips to Chile to meetwith the promoters of the celebrated flyuFO video, the CEFaa, the Chileanequivalent of the american Faa, butshe finally has reached a conclusion:there is no conclusion (http://tinyurl.com/keanfly2). One uFO “photo ex-pert” concluded it was indeed a bug,while another concluded it couldn’tpossibly be one. Kean is quite content

to pronounce the identity of the objectunknowable, a controversy at thefringes of scientific knowledge: “Eachof us can form our own opinions aboutsomething that science cannot deter-mine, or we can simply accept that wewill likely never know.” absurd! is isnot rocket science—the object is just afly, and it turns up on other videostaken at the same spot!

at least Kean did finally throw inthe towel October 17 on Facebook con-cerning the now-confessed Belgianhoax photo from Petit-Rechain (see

this column, SI, January/February2012). Touted as solid uFO evidencein her book UFOs: Generals, Pilots andGovernment Officials Go On the Record,she concedes, “Yes, this photo seems tobe a fake, unfortunately. Belgian re-searchers have looked into it. I have toupdate this in my book.” Well, I guessthat’s a step in the right direction. ereare still a few dozen other uFO casesin her book that need to be acknowl-edged as mistakes or as hoaxes, but thenshe wouldn’t have much of a book left.

* * *ere are new developments in the fa-mous supposedly uFO-related disap-pearance of Fredrick Valentich, atwenty-year-old pilot in australia. OnOctober 21, 1978, he was piloting aCessna 182L light aircraft over BassStrait. He intended to land at King Is-land and return to Moorabbin airport.However, he never made it to King Island, 127 miles away. Some of thefinal exchanges between Valentich

(DSJ) and Melbourne Flight Services(FS; Robey) are as follows (from Wiki -pedia):

19:06:14 DSJ: Melbourne, this isDelta Sierra Juliet. Is there anyknown traffic below five thou-sand?FS: Delta Sierra Juliet, no knowntraffic.

DSJ: Delta Sierra Juliet, I am,seems to be a large aircraft belowfive thousand.

19:06:44 FS: Delta Sierra Juliet,What type of aircraft is it?

DSJ: Delta Sierra Juliet, I cannotaffirm, it is four bright, and itseems to me like landing lights…

19:08:48 DSJ: Delta Sierra Juliet,it seems to me that he’s playingsome sort of game, he’s flyingover me two, three times atspeeds I could not identify.

FS: Delta Sierra Juliet, roger,what is your actual level?

DSJ: My level is four and a halfthousand, four five zero zero…

19:10:19 DSJ: Delta Sierra Juliet,Melbourne, it seems like it’schasing me. What I’m doingright now is orbiting and thething is just orbiting on top of mealso. It’s got a green light and sortof metallic like, it’s all shiny onthe outside…

FS: Delta Sierra Juliet, is the air-craft still with you?

DSJ: Delta Sierra Juliet; it’s (openmicrophone for two seconds)now approaching from thesouth-west.

FS: Delta Sierra Juliet

19:11:50 DSJ: Delta Sierra Juliet,the engine is rough-idling. I’vegot it set at twenty three twenty-four and the thing is (cough-ing)…

19:12:28 DSJ: Delta Sierra Juliet.Melbourne (open microphonefor seventeen seconds).

This is not rocket science—the object is just a fly, and it turns up on other videos taken at the same spot!



It was Valentich’s first and only nightflight over water. Neither Valentich norhis aircraft was ever seen or heard fromagain.

at last we have some new informa-tion on this puzzling case: “adelaide re-searcher Keith Basterfield has been fol-lowing the case since the disappearancein 1978, but had been told by the Gov-ernment in 2004 the official file hadbeen lost or destroyed. He ‘found’ itwhen searching through an online Na-tional archives index on an unrelatedtopic. e file has since been digitizedand uploaded on the archive’s website”(http://tinyurl.com/butdpmv).

So we have skeptic Keith Basterfieldto thank for the recent government“document dump” that makes this newinformation available. Basterfield ex-plains that the newly released files re-veal that “parts of aircraft wreckagewith partial serial numbers were foundin Bass Strait five years after the disap-pearance.” also, one pilot searching atthe right time and place saw debris thatappeared to be from a Cessna, but be-fore he could get a good fix on its posi-tion it apparently sank. is makes itextremely likely that Valentich’s aircraftsimply crashed into the water in thedarkness.

ere is a nice summary of thesefindings in Basterfield’s blog entries ofJune 28, July 3, and august 24, 2012(http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.co.uk/). You can download the firstset of documents from scribd (http://tinyurl.com/c95hmza). From the doc-uments:

a number of reports of a fastmoving brilliant white light werereceived from various parts of thecountry. Mt Stromlo observatoryadvised that the night of the 21stwas the peak of the meteoritestream with 10-15 sightings perhour achieved.

e question of why Valentich took thissomewhat risky night flight is a sepa-rate matter. according to Wikipedia:

His stated intention was to fly toKing Island in Bass Strait viaCape Otway, to pick up passen-gers, and return to Moorabbin.

However, he had told his family,girlfriend and acquaintances thathe intended to pick up crayfish.During the accident investiga-tions it was learned there were nopassengers waiting to be pickedup at King Island, he had not or-dered crayfish and could not havedone so because crayfish were notavailable anyway.

So clearly Valentich was being evasiveabout something. His stated explana-tions for making his night flight do notcheck out. also, it turns out that Valen-tich was a uFO “True Believer,” and

hence probably inclined to assume any-thing is a “uFO” if he could not imme-diately identify it. He actually worriedabout what to do if a uFO attackedhim!

Various air safety organizations, in-cluding the aircraft Owner and Pilotsassociation, have a pilot education les-son titled 178 Seconds to Live; you canwatch it as a video at http://tinyurl.com/178seconds. e title comes froma study that found (using flight simula-tors, of course) that when non-instru-ment rated pilots are placed in situa-tions where they cannot see the groundor the horizon, nearly all of them gotinto a fatal spiral and crashed, with anaverage time-to-crash of 178 seconds.Watching this video made my bloodrun cold, but it’s absolutely realistic.

is is exactly the situation Valen-tich found himself in when darknessfell on that moonless night (as did JohnF. Kennedy Jr. in 1999). assuming thathe became disoriented and thoughtthat Venus, or perhaps a meteor, was auFO—he says it was “orbiting” him—

we would expect him to crash in about178 seconds. He actually survived 374seconds from the time of his first uFOreport until crashing. Valentich had a“Class Four Instrument Rating,” but weknow he was not watching his instru-ments; his eyes were fixed on the“uFO” he was describing. We also learnfrom Wikipedia that Valentich

had twice applied to enlist in theRoyal australian air Force butwas rejected because of inade-quate educational qualifications.He was a member of the airTraining Corps, determined to

have a career in aviation. His stu-dent pilot license was issued 24February 1977 and his privatepilot license the following Sep-tember. Valentich was studyingpart-time to become a commer-cial pilot but had a poor achieve-ment record, having twice failedall five commercial license exam-ination subjects, and as recent asthe previous month had failedthree more commercial licensesubjects. He had been involved inflying incidents, straying into acontrolled zone in Sydney (forwhich he received a warning) andtwice deliberately flying intocloud (for which prosecution wasbeing considered).

I would never knowingly get into anaircraft with a pilot like that—and es-pecially not for a night flight overwater! We can be quite sure of whathappened to the incautious Valentich,even if we cannot say why he made thatfatal flight.n

Also, it turns out that Valentich was a UFO “True Believer,” and hence probably inclined to assume anything is a “UFO” if he could not immediately identify it.


Herbal supplements are big busi-ness. In the united States alone,2011 sales of all herbal products

were estimated to be $5.3 billion (Blu -menthal et al. 2012). Meanwhile the in-dustry has managed to maintain a“mom and pop” image to the public, therighteous underdog constantly underattack by Big Pharma. In reality, theherbal product industry is just anotherdrug industry, one selling products thatare poorly regulated and likely don’twork for their claimed indications.

There are already a fair number ofscientific studies looking at variousherbal products for specific indications.There is nothing inherently implausibleabout the usefulness of plant-basedremedies. Many modern drugs are de-rived from plants. Plant parts containmany substances, some of which arepharmacologically active and can be ex-ploited for medical use.

The deception inherent to the herb -al product industry, in my opinion, isthe notion that herbs are somethingother than drugs. This is closely tied tothe naturalistic fallacy: the idea that asubstance that is “natural” (a poorly de-fined concept) is somehow magicallysafe and effective.

In reality, herbs often contain mul-tiple active ingredients that potentiallyhave drug-like activity in the body.These drugs are often poorly under-stood, may not even be identified, andexist in highly variable doses withinherbal products (Wurglics et al. 2001).Herbs have drug-drug interactions andthe same potential for side effects andtoxicity as any drug, mitigated only bythe fact that herbal products generally

contain low doses of active ingredients.Some popular herbal products have

been studied in standard placebo-con-trolled trials, and they have generallynot fared well. a recent scientific studypublished in the Journal of the AmericanMedical Association, for example, lookedat the drug silymarin for the treatmentof liver disease due to chronic hepatitisC that has not responded to standardtherapy with interferons (Fried et al.2012). Silymarin is an extract of milkthistle, an herb commonly used to treatliver disease.

There have now been large, double-blind clinical trials of echinacea andcold symptoms (Barret et al. 2002; Tay-lor et al. 2003; Turner et al. 2005),Gingko biloba and memory loss oralzheimer’s disease (Snitz et al. 2009),black cohosh and hot flashes (Newtonet al. 2006), saw palmetto and benignprostatic hypertrophy (Tacklind et al.

2009), and others. Even St. John’s Wort,which is supposed to be a big herbalremedy win, has been shown to have noeffect on moderate or severe depression(although the jury is still out on minordepressive symptoms; see HypericumDepression Trial Study Group 2002).Many of these studies were funded by the National Center for Comple-mentary and alternative Medicine(NCCaM).

Despite this string of negative studies,the herbal remedy industry continues torake in billions of dollars every year.Large, rigorous, and negative studiesseem to have little impact on the sales ofherbal products overall (although theymay affect the relative popularity of spe-cific herbs to some extent).

To make matters worse, in theunited States herbal drugs were essen-tially deregulated in 1994 by the Di-etary Supplement Health and Educa-

Herbs Are Drugs


[ THE SCIENCE OF MEDICINE S T E V EN NOV E LL ASteven Novella, MD, is assistant professor of neurology at Yale School of Medicine, the host of theSkeptics’ Guide to the Universe podcast, author of the NeuroLogica blog, executive editor of theScience-Based Medicine blog, and president of the New England Skeptical Society.

Here are some useful tips for the potential herbal product user:

• Don’t be reassured by claims that a product is “natural”

• Traditional use, whether genuine or not, is not by itself a good predictor of safety or effectiveness

• Find out what the best scientific evidence says, and seek out critical information specifically

• Respect the fact that herbs are drugs, which means:

• They can cause toxicity and side effects

• They can interact with other drugs you are taking• You should inform your physicians about any herbal products you are taking (just as you list your prescription medications)


tion act (DSHEa). Herbs are nowregulated more like food rather thandrugs. Further, a special category ofhealth claims, so-called structure func-tion claims, was carved out for supple-ments. Companies can market herbswithout any prior approval from theFDa or need to provide evidence ofsafety or effectiveness. They can evenclaim that their product supports thestructure or function of the body insome way, as long as they don’t mentiona specific disease by name. Thisamounts to a massive loophole easilyexploited by any savvy marketer.

The deal that DSHEa and NCC -aM made with the public was this: Letthe supplement industry have free reignto market untested products with unsup-ported claims, and then we’ll fund reli-able studies to arm the public with sci-entific information so they can makegood decisions for themselves. This “ex-periment” (really just a gift to the supple-ment industry) has been a dismal fail-ure.The result has been an explosion ofthe supplement industry flooding themarketplace with useless products andfalse claims.

Part of the problem is that negativestudies are too easy to dismiss. In everycase the supplement industry findssome reason to minimize the implica-tions of the studies showing their prod-ucts do not work, instead preferring tocherry pick small and unreliable studieswith positive results. No study can pos-sibly address every possible permuta-tion of how an herb can be used.

For example, herbal apologists mayclaim that the dose was not high

enough, the wrong part of the plant wasused, the preparation was not correct, orthe treatment population was wrong insome way. For echinacea they claimedthat the wrong cold viruses were used.There is always something they canpoint to. Of course, this logic worksboth ways: if it’s so difficult to find theright preparation for the right condi-tion, then how do they justify sellinghighly variable products to the generalpopulation with broad claims?

How are the “traditional” uses ofherbal products derived in the first place?The impression that is often given is that

centuries of successful traditional use isbehind many herbal product claims, butthis is often a modern marketing fiction.

It seems reasonable to require man-ufacturers and marketers of herbalproducts to prove that their productsare safe and effective for whatever it isthey claim they treat. Not only is thisnot required under DSHEa, compa-nies can continue to market their herbswith claims that have been contradictedby major scientific studies funded bytaxpayer dollars.

as with many things, the marketingof herbal products is largely based onideology and a compelling narrativerather than actual science and evidence.For the most part consumers are left totheir own devices to sort out whichproducts are likely to be useful.

Finally, keep in mind that if anherbal product contains a useful activeingredient, it would likely be identified,purified, and properly studied. The bestresult is likely to come from taking aprecisely measured amount of a specific

active ingredient with known pharma-cokinetics and pharmacodynamics aswell as drug-drug interactions.

Herbs are not only drugs, they are amixture of various drugs of unknowndose, activity, and interactions, oftenwith evidence that they do not work. Ittakes effective marketing to convincethe public this is somehow better thantaking highly purified and studiedpharmaceuticals. n

ReferencesBarrett, B.P., R.L. Brown, K. Locken, et al. 2002.

Treatment of the common cold with unre-fined echinacea: a randomized, double-blind,placebo-controlled trial. Annals of InternalMedicine 137(12): 939–946.

Blumenthal, M., a. Lindstrom, C. Ooyen, et al.2012. Herb supplement sales increase 4.5% in2011. HerbalGram 95: 60–64. Online athttp://cms.herbalgram.org/herbalgram/issue95/hg95-mktrpt.html.

Fried, M.W., V.J. Navarro, N. afdhal, et al. 2012.Effect of silymarin (milk thistle) on liver dis-ease in patients with chronic hepatitis C un-successfully treated with interferon therapy, arandomized controlled trial. Journal of theAmerican Medical Association 308(3): 274–282. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.8265.

Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group. 2002.Effect of Hypericum perforatum (St John’sWort) in major depressive disorder: a ran-domized controlled trial. Journal of the Amer-ican Medical Association 287(14): 1807–14.

Newton, K.M., S.D. Reed, a.z. LaCroix, et al.Treatment of vasomotor symptoms ofmenopause with black cohosh, multibotani-cals, soy, hormone therapy, or placebo: a ran-domized trial. Annals of Internal Medicine145(12): 869–79.

Snitz, B.E., E.S. O’Meara, M.C. Carlson, et al.2009. Ginkgo biloba for preventing cognitivedecline in older adults: a randomized trial.Journal of the American Medical Association302(24): 2663–2670. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1913.

Tacklind, J., R. MacDonald, I. Rutks, et al. 2009.Serenoa repens for benign prostatic hyperplasia.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (april15) (2):CD001423. doi: 10.1002/14651858.C

D001423.pub2.Taylor, J.a., W. Weber, L. Standish, et al. 2003. Ef-

ficacy and safety of echinacea in treating upperrespiratory tract infections in children: a ran-domized controlled trial. Journal of the AmericanMedical Association 290(21): 2824–2830.

Turner, R.B., R. Bauer, K. Woelkart, et al. 2005.an evaluation of Echinacea angustifolia inexperimental rhinovirus infections. New Eng-land Journal of Medicine 353(4): 341–348.

Wurglics, M., K. Westerhoff, a. Kaunzinger, etal. 2001. Comparison of German St.John’s Wort products according to hyperforinand total hypericin content. Journal of theAmerican Pharmaceutical Association (Wash)41(4): 560–66.


In reality, the herbal product industry is just another drug industry, one selling products thatare poorly regulated and likely don’t work fortheir claimed indications.



[ SCIENCE WATCH KENNE TH W. K R AUS E

Kenneth W. Krause is a contributing editor and “Science Watch” columnist for the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. He may be contacted at [email protected].

In 1762, Rousseau characterized thehuman baby as “a perfect idiot.” In1890, William James judged the in-

fant’s mental life to be “one great bloom-ing, buzzing confusion.” We’ve learnedmuch about early human cognition sincethe nineteenth century, of course, and thecurrent trend is to assign well-expandedmental capacities to young children. Butintellectual battles continue to rage, forexample, over the possibility of an innateand perhaps nuanced moral sensibility.

Indeed, psychologists split this pastsummer over the question of whetherpre-verbal infants are capable of evaluat-ing the social value of others. Back in2007, Yale university researchers led byJ. Kiley Hamlin claimed to have demon-strated that infants can morally assess in-dividuals based on their behavior towardthird parties (Hamlin et al. 2007). osefindings were challenged last august,however, by postdoctoral research fellowDamian Scarf and his colleagues fromthe university of Otago in New zealand(Scarf et al. 2012).

Hamlin’s pioneering study deployedthree experiments on six- and ten-month-old babies to test her team’s hypothesisthat social evaluation is a universal andunlearned biological adaptation. In all tri-als, infants observed characters shaped likecircles and either squares or triangles mov-ing two-dimensionally in a scene involv-ing an artificial hill. Parents held theirchildren during the program but were in-structed not to interfere.

In experiment one, the characterswere endowed with large “googly eyes”and made to either climb the hill, hinderthe climber from above, or help theclimber from below. With looking timescarefully measured, the infants observedalternating helping and hindering trials.e question here was whether witness-

ing one character’s actions toward an-other would affect infants’ attitudes to-ward that character.

When encouraged to reach for eitherthe helper or the hinderer, twelve oftwelve six-month-olds and fourteen ofsixteen ten-month-olds chose the helper.But might the babies have responded tosuperficial perceptual, rather than social,aspects of the experiment? For example,perhaps the infants merely preferred up-ward or downward movements. In an at-tempt to rule out that possibility, Hamlinmodified a single test condition andgathered a second group of children.

In experiment two, the object pushedwas represented as inanimate. Its googlyeyes were detached and it was nevermade to appear self-propelled. If the in-fants had chosen based on mere percep-tual events in the first experiment, Ham-lin proposed, they should express ananalogous preference for the upward-pushing character in the second. But thatdidn’t happen. Only four of twelve six-month-olds and six of twelve ten-month-olds picked the upward-pushingshape.

So the team decided that three possi-bilities remained. e infants might pos-itively evaluate helpers, negatively evalu-ate hinderers, or both. To determinewhich, Hamlin assembled a third groupof children, reattached the googly eyes,and altered the experimental design toinclude a neutral character that wouldnever interact with the climber.

In the final experiment, children firstobserved either a helper or a hinderer in-teract with a climber as in experimentone. ereafter, they witnessed a neutral,non-interactive character that moved up-hill or downhill in the same way.

When prompted to choose, infantsreacted differently toward the neutral

shape depending on the character withwhich it was paired. Seven of eight babiesin each age group preferred the helper tothe neutral character and the neutralcharacter to the hinderer. Hamlin thusinferred that her subjects were fond ofthose who facilitate others’ goals and dis-approving of those who inhibit them.

“Humans engage in social evalua-tion,” the Yale researchers concluded, “farearlier in development than previouslythought.” e critical human ability todistinguish cooperators and reciprocatorsfrom free riders, they agreed, “can be seenas a biological adaptation.”

Having viewed recorded portions ofthese experiments, I felt compelled toquestion some of the program’s mostbasic assumptions and methods. Can in-fants fathom, for instance, what artificiallandscapes represent, or what “hills” looklike? Can they grasp the symbolic signifi-cance of squares, triangles, and circlesadorned with “googly eyes”?

although groundbreaking in its ownright, Hamlin assured me that her 2007study was built on a solid foundation ofprevious experiments employing both ahill and a helping/hindering paradigm.Numerous analyses, she insisted, haveshown that infants will interpret eventwo-dimensional animations as real, andoften attribute goals and intentions tobasic shapes engaging in apparently self-propelled movement—with or withoutartificial eyes.

I also wondered how the infants were“encouraged” to choose. In the video,characters were shaken by the personholding them. Could that have affectedthe outcome, perhaps combined withverbal inflection? Was one character everheld closer to an infant than the other, orat least closer to the infant’s dominanthand?

Innate Morality? Babies Weigh In



Her presenting colleagues, Hamlinanswered, were always blind to the con-dition—i.e., ignorant of which characterwas helper or hinderer for that particularbaby. So, if differences in proximity oremphasis existed, their effects would havebeen divided randomly across subjects.also, she noted, parents were instructedto close their eyes during choice phases.

Scarf responded quite differently. Hesees no reason to believe, for example,that six- and ten-month-olds would in-terpret Hamlin-esque displays as land-scapes, or that they would be familiarwith the concept of a hill. Nor could theydistinguish between helping and hinder-ing, he argued. and while infants may at-tribute intentions and goals to animateobjects, he added, no convincing datasuggests they might assign relevant feel-ings to them as well.

Five years passed before Scarf ’s teamwould offer a conflicting explanation—the “simple association hypothesis”—forthe infants’ remarkable behavior. Whileinspecting Hamlin’s videos, Scarf distin-guished “two conspicuous perceptualevents” during the helper/hinderer trials:first, an “aversive collision” between theclimber and either the helper or the hin-derer, and second, a “positive bouncing”when the climber and helper reached thehill’s summit.

Rather than rendering complex socialevaluations, Scarf proposed, Hamlin’s ba-bies may have simply been reacting to avisual commotion. e hinderer was per-ceived negatively, he hypothesized, be-cause it was associated only with an aver-sive collision. e helper, by contrast, wasviewed more positively because it waslinked with an optimistic bouncing inaddition to a collision.

To test their suspicions, the Newzealanders devised two experiments. Inthe first, eight ten-month-olds would bepresented with googly eyed characters ona Hamlin-esque stage. Scarf would elim-inate the climber’s bounce on help trialsand then pair the helper with a neutralcharacter. If infants choose based on so-cial evaluation, he reasoned, they shouldselect the helper. But if infants find thehelper/climber collision aversive andreact instead via simple association, theyshould pick the neutral character.

In the second experiment—this time

involving forty-eight ten-month-olds—the team would manipulate whether theclimber bounced during help trials (atthe top), hinder trials (at the bottom), orboth. ey would then present the chil-dren with a choice between hinderersand helpers. again, Scarf proposed, if in-fants choose based on social evaluation,they should select the helper universally.But if driven by simple association in-stead, they should select whatever char-acter was present in the trials whenbouncing occurred, and show no prefer-ence in the bounce-at-both-top-and-bottom condition.

e results were striking. In the firstexperiment, seven of eight children chosethe neutral character over the collidingand non-bouncing helper. In the secondexperiment, twelve of sixteen picked thehelper in the bounce-at-the-top condi-tion, another twelve of sixteen opted for

the hinderer in the bounce-at-the-bot-tom condition, and an equal number(eight of sixteen) chose the helper andhinderer in the bounce-at-both condi-tion.

us, Scarf resolved, simple associa-tion can explain Hamlin’s 2007 resultswithout resorting to the comparativelycomplicated notion of an innate moralcompass. In fact, he continued, his results were entirely inconsistent withHamlin’s core conclusions. Infants do notperceive collisions between hinderers andclimbers as qualitatively different fromthose between helpers and climb ers, andthey do not prefer helpers regardless ofbounce condition.

Invoking Darwin, Scarf claimed toadd momentum to a movement in devel-opmental psychology toward more par-simonious interpretations of infant be-havior. ere is much “grandeur in theview,” he philosophized, that complexadult cognitive abilities can be discoveredthrough a more sober comprehension of“these simple beginnings.”

On august 9, 2012, Hamlin—now atthe university of British Columbia—posted her team’s unyielding response.Generally, they found Scarf ’s account“unpromising,” and were “bemused” bythe New zealanders’ attempt to recruitDarwin—who “wrote extensively aboutthe powers (and the limits) of our inbornmoral sense”—to their cause. Hamlincriticized Scarf ’s experimental design aswell, and his failure to adequately addressresults she had obtained and publishedafter 2007.

By Hamlin’s lights, Scarf ’s stimuli haddiffered from her own in ways that leftthe climber’s goal—and thus the insinu-ation of being helped or hindered—un-clear. First, the googly eyes attached toScarf ’s climber were not fixed in an up-ward gaze. Second, Scarf ’s climbermoved less organically, as if able to climbeasily without the helper’s assistance.

Hamlin also emphasized that she hadreplicated the 2007 results in studies in-volving no climbing, colliding, or bounc-ing whatsoever. In 2011, for instance, shefound that infants prefer characters whoreturn balls to others who drop them

Can infants fathom, for instance, what artificial landscapes represent, or what“hills” look like? Can they grasp the symbolic significance of squares, triangles, and circlesadorned with “googly eyes”?

(Continued on page 52)



an unusual video of mys-terious dark objects mov-ing very quickly and errat-ically over the skies ofDenver, Colorado, caused anational stir in November

2012. an anonymous uFO buffshowed KDVR Fox News reporterHeidi Hemmat home videos he hadfilmed from an open field during thepast summer of “strange objects . . . no-body can explain.”

Robert Sheaffer is covering the sub-ject in this issue, and interested readersshould see his column for a detailed dis-cussion. This case holds some interest-ing real-world lessons about skepticism,credulity, journalism, and uFO believ-ers. I got involved in this case when Iwas asked by the Discovery Channel toresearch the case and write about it in acolumn for Discovery News (Radford2012). The piece elicited interestingcomments from readers.

Several complained that other skep-tics and I had claimed to have solved themystery without having done any inves-tigation. In fact I never claimed to haveinvestigated (or definitively solved) theDenver uFO video. Having had inves-tigation experience with in sects beingmistaken for ghosts and uFOs, I merelyprovided some expert skeptical analysisand context to the claims, pointing out

the logical reasons why what was seenin the film was likely an insect insteadof, for example, an extraterrestrial space-craft.

Ask the Experts

One person asked me, “any chance thata real scientist can get some real highspeed footage of that thing? The cam-eras and lenses certainly are available,and it might actually be able to capturea clear image.” This sentiment wasechoed by others, and seems like com-mon sense. The problem is that, as apractical matter, few if any “real scien-tists” are eager to spend their time onthis, especially those outside of Denver.Most probably have better things to do(such as holiday shopping, work, etc.)than to gather cameras, tripods, andother gear, locate the field in Denver,and videotape what are almost certainlyinsects. Preparing and executing thisexperiment could take several days ofwork for little benefit. It’s not that thescientific community is ignoring or dis-missing it, as is often claimed.

Believers in paranormal phenomenaoften say things like, “Scientists shouldcome investigate” a given uFO or Big-foot or ghost sighting. Which workingscientists, exactly, should take time offtheir jobs in cancer research, developingnew energy technologies, or whatever

important jobs they’re doing, to spendan unpaid afternoon in a cold, emptyfield waiting for an insect to fly by? Ofcourse if a scientist wants to conductsuch an experiment or investigation,their participation would be welcomeand useful. Suggesting that scientistsshould look into these sorts of mysteriesis a great idea in theory, but in the realworld most working scientists cannotsimply take a day or more off work to in-vestigate a uFO video—especially incases like this where the explanation ispretty clear to everyone except uFO be-lievers and TV reporters.

This is where skeptical investigationcomes in—almost always by non-scien-tists such as Joe Nickell, Robert Sheaf-fer, Jim underdown, me, and others.understanding critical thinking andhow science works is far less importantthan having an advanced degree in sci-ence or being a working scientist.

Recreating the Video

This raises a second investigative ques-tion: What is the value in a scientist orskeptical investigator going to the sitewith cameras? The videos had beenshot months earlier, and by the time thestory aired many of the bugs and insectswere no longer active in Denver. There’slittle point in trying to replicate a videounless you can do it under identical (or

A:

[SKEPTICAL INQUIREE BENJAMIN R A DFORDBenjamin Radford is a research fellow at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and author orcoauthor of six books, including Tracking the Chupacabra: The Vampire Beast in Fact,Fiction, and Folklore.

Lessons from a Denver Fly

What’s your take on the recent Denver UFO video?Any lessons for skeptics?

—R. MillerQ:



very similar) conditions. The contextand environment at play on a summerafternoon is not the same as it would beon a winter night. In any event, dozensof locals—as well as several Denver-area skeptics, including those from theRocky Mountain Paranormal Soci-ety—visited the field and noted thepresence of bugs (and lack of uFOs) inthe area.

There’s no harm done in trying torecreate the original videos, but it’s un-likely that the result—no matter howclosely replicated—will satisfy the be-lievers. Even if an investigator providedan iron-clad case with multiple cameras,many uFO buffs would simply findreasons to claim that the videos are dif-ferent than the originals—perhaps the“uFOs” moved slightly faster or slightlyslower, or were a different color, etc.Such is the desire to believe. In fact,there are already several existing videosshowing what flying insects look like;you can find links and video at RobertSheaffer’s Bad UFOs blog.

another problem with this sugges-tion is that it has the burden of proofexactly backward: It is not up to skep-tics or scientists to prove that the uFOis likely an insect; it’s up to those whoclaim that the image is of an unknownentity to prove that it’s not an insect.There are times when an investigatorwill voluntarily assume the burden ofproof (I did it in my examination of the“best case for psychic detectives”; see“The Psychic and the Serial Killer,” SI,March/april 2010). But it’s a slipperyslope, and it’s important for skeptics tomake clear to both the public and uFOclaimants where exactly the burden ofproof lies. The default explanation is anaturalistic one—in this case likely abug—not a supernatural or extraordi-nary one; it’s not a spaceship untilproven otherwise by camera-savvy sci-entists and skeptics.

Alternative Explanations

This case also illustrates an importantissue in skeptical investigation: In orderto get the right answers you have to askthe right questions. Heidi Hem mat, thereporter, made several investigative er-rors, including not considering alterna-

tive explanations. How you understandand approach a mystery dictates howyou will investigate it. The reporter ac-cepted the uFO buff ’s interpretation ofthe flying objects as being large andhigh above the city, so that’s how themystery was framed, and that guidedthe questions asked. On the other hand,if Hemmat had simply taken thefootage at face value (there are dark,out-of-focus objects moving quickly atan unknown distance from the camera)that might have guided her to other ex-planations and experts.

anomalous experiences and photo-graphs—indeed all evidence—does notarrive in the investigator’s hands pure.Instead, the evidence arrives freightedwith opinions and interpretations fromeyewitnesses, researchers, and others.These interpretations of the evidencemay turn out to be completely correct,completely wrong, or somewhere in be-tween. Because those opinions are oftenformed by little more than subjectiveopinion, desire to believe, credulity, orany number of other factors, it is impor-tant for an in vestigator to start fresh,stripping away the second-hand inter-pretations and assumptions, and beginwith a blank slate. The evidence shouldbe taken at face value to start, and eachassumption should be checked for valid-ity before being accepted. In essence,much of investigation is merely decon-structing a theory to see if all the piecesof information really fit or make sensewhen assembled in a different way.

Several readers complained that I andother skeptics had presented the fly ex-planation as definitive; one wrote, “It isdoubtful that Radford’s insect explana-tion is as certain as he maintains.” In fact,in presenting the skeptical viewpoint, Iwas careful to not go beyond the evi-dence, and qualified the explanation aslikely—not certain. This was clear fromthe headline (“Denver uFO Likely HasEarthly Explana tion”) as well as the text(“The most likely explanation? a bug orinsect, probably a fly or bee.”).

Ironically, the only certainty ex pressedby anyone involved in the story was bythe aviation expert, Steve Cowell, thatKDVR put on the air, who categoricallystated what the objects absolutely could

not be: “That is not an airplane, that isnot a helicopter, those are not birds,” hesaid. In an on-air voice-over, Hemmatalso stated that Cowell was certain theobjects were not bugs.

Thus, contrary to the popular view ofskeptical debunkers closed-mindedlydismissing the alien spacecraft theory outof hand as ridiculous and impossible,skeptics merely employed the principleof Occam’s razor to the circumstances ofthe video and offered a plausible alterna-tive explanation. It was instead the uFOpromoters and their experts who dis-missed the most likely theory out ofhand, saying that bugs absolutely couldnot explain the video images.

So who’s being more open-minded:the skeptics who aren’t ruling anythingout as impossible but are merely pre-senting a likely alternative explanationthat fits the facts, or the uFO believerswho immediately conclude that bugscould not possibly be mistaken for theimages and therefore must be some-thing unknown or mysterious?1 (Seealso Petrovic’s Forum, p. 53.)

Some criticized Hemmat and KDVR for incompetence and ratings-grab-bing, and while that may be partly true,it’s easy for skeptics to forget that thegeneral public (which, apparently, in-cludes TV reporters) does not have agood grasp of basic investigation tech-niques. This is why skeptical investiga-tion is so important. n

Note1. Some uFO believers rather disingenuously

claimed that nobody mentioned in the KDVR re-port had claimed or implied that the uFOs werealien spacecraft, but merely “unidentified flyingobjects.” This is not only factually wrong (if thesuggestion was not that the anomalies were air-craft or spacecraft, why were they said to be “tak-ing off and landing” in a specific part of town?)but also nonsensical: if all that’s being claimed isthat they are unidentified, then why the backlashagainst skeptics offering a logical explanation forthe uFO?

ReferencesRadford, Benjamin. 2012. Denver uFO likely has

Earthly explanation. Discovery News (No vem -ber 13). Online at http://news.discovery.com/human/denver-ufo-likely-has-earthly-explanation-121113.html.

Sheaffer, Robert. 2012. uFOs infest Denver, ac-cording to Fox News affiliate. Bad UFOs (No-vember 11). Online at http://badufos.blogspot.com/2012/11/ufos-infest-denver-accord-ing-to-fox.html.


Treatise on

Natural Invisibility?

Invisible, in this context, does not meantransparent 2 (like a jellyfish), nor cam-ouflaged 3 (such as a chameleon), nor ob-scured (as with a magician’s rabbit), normicroscopic (like a bacterium) but in-stead truly invisible: that is, when theentity is in the invisible mode it is in-capable of being seen by human visionin the visual spectrum. It neither re-flects, refracts, absorbs, scatters, nor ra-diates light.4

No physical entity—that is, a beingcomposed of ordinary matter5—canexist in an invisible state, short of beingdematerialized, in which case it would

not exist as matter. The very substanceof such a matter-centric being—a per-son or other living (or even nonliving)thing of the natural world—necessarilyrenders it visible and at the same timeincapable of invisibility. But if this istrue, then what of an invisible girl ex-hibited at Paris in the eighteenth cen-tury?

Supposedly a prodigy born in one ofthe provinces, she was kept, presumablyfor her own safety, in a small casket.This had glass panels on the top, front,and back so spectators could seethrough the box, which was suspendedfrom the ceiling by four chains. Thus

there was nowhere for anyone to hide.Yet a horn attached to one end of thecasket allowed people to address ques-tions to the invisible girl and to hear hervoice in reply! Theories that it was aventriloquial trick were soon discred-ited. as to the theory that a tiny dwarf

Allegedly invisible entities—popular belief notwithstanding—are indistinguishablefrom imaginary beings.

JoE NIckELL and JAmES mcGAhA

INVISIBLEPopular belief aside, the best scientific evidence indicates that entities that are reputedlycapable of invisibility1—ghosts and other spirits, for example, as well as some extraterres-trials, angels, fairies, and many others—are indistinguishable from imaginary beings.



BEINGSINVISIBLE

hid behind the trumpet, that notion waslikewise rejected because—had such aminiature mortal existed—it wouldhave been more sensible to exhibit itthan to fake an “invisible girl.”

as it happened, there really was noinvisible girl but rather a real one hiddenin the adjacent room. She addressedspectators through a speaking tube—with its end that emerged from the wallbeing concealed by the large mouth ofthe trumpet. a picture on the wall had asecret peephole through which the hid-den girl could observe objects held up tothe casket and so describe them in detail(Gibson 1967, 44–45).

Advanced Technology?

Of course, one may assert that sometechnological advance may make invis-ibility possible, but this is merely a sci-ence-fiction notion. It was advanced asearly as 1897 in a novella by H.G.Wells. Titled The Invisible Man, it tellsof a scientist named Griffin whose op-tics research enables him to alter abody’s refractive index to that of air;thus it neither absorbs nor reflects lightand so becomes invisible. (Griffin suc-ceeds in making himself invisible but—unable to reverse the effect—embarkson a rampage that culminates in hisown killing by a mob. as he dies, his

body slowly returns to visibility.) an-other science fiction story is the humor-ous Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisi-ble Man (1951). (Mistakenly accused ofmurder, a man injects himself with a se-




cret formula that renders him invisibleso he can elude authorities and trap thereal killer—with the help of a couple ofwacky private eyes.)

Fiction notwithstanding, in 1943—according to a later book, The Phila -delphia Experiment (Moore and Berlitz1979)—invisibility supposedly becamea reality. allegedly, the united StatesNavy conducted an experiment with“electronic force fields” at the Phila -delphia Navy Yard that succeeded inrendering a battleship and its entirecrew invisible! Reportedly, however, theexperiment had such traumatic effectson the personnel that the research wasabandoned, the project classified abovetop secret, and the entire incident pub-licly denied—another great governmentconspiracy.

In fact, the “experiment” was nothingbut an outrageous hoax, perpetrated oncredulous researchers by one Carl M.allen, who also called himself Carlosallende. Born in 1925, allende wasconsidered brilliant but lazy and givento practical jokes. He later (1969) ad-mitted the invisibility claims were “false. . . the crazyest [sic] pack of lies I everwrote.” Still later he retracted the con-fession, and the subsequent book and a1984 movie helped keep the hoax alive(Stein 1993, 176–77).

But can we really be certain that notechnology in this or another universecan ever be devised to cause invisibility?Well, we certainly can imagine such.“However,” according to Chambers Dic-tionary of the Unexplained, “althoughthere are many theoretical suggestions

as to how invisibility might be achieved,for the time being ‘real’ invisibility orperfect transparency . . . remains firmlywithin the realm of science fiction”(McGovern 2007, 347). (To all thosewho would, from their armchairs, opine,say, about theoretical physics, we wouldonly ask them to wait until they have ac-complished invisibility and then get backto us.)

Extra-Dimensional Realms?

But suppose invisibility already exists.One may hypothesize means by which anentity supposedly appears and disappears,such as a “parallel universe” (Sachs 1980,84) or “another dimension or space-timecontinuum” (Sachs 1980, 239). However,these concepts also are unproven, andcases supposedly proving them typicallydo not withstand scrutiny.

Consider, for instance, the case ofOliver Larch, whose disappearance onChristmas Eve 1889 is one for the an-nals of the incredible. Leaving theLarch family farmhouse on the out-skirts of South Bend, Indiana, to fetchwater, the eleven-year-old boy was soon

heard crying out in alarm. His parentsand neighbors, who had gathered tosing to Mrs. Larch’s organ music, rushedoutside. By lantern light the group fol-lowed Oliver’s footsteps in the snowuntil, about halfway to the well, theyabruptly ended! “Because it defied log-ical explanation,” writes Frank Edwards(1962, 103), “the disappearance of thisboy was quietly filed away and forgot-ten.”

unfortunately, this story succumbedto investigation. Like another disappear-ance narrative—that of Tennesseefarmer David Lang, who in 1880 van-ished in full view of witnesses but whosevoice could be heard faintly at the siteover subsequent years—the Larch storyturns out to have been plagiarized froma trilogy of ambrose Bierce short stories.The Larch tale bears obvious similaritiesto Bierce’s “Charles ashmore’s Trail,”just as the Lang yarn does to his “TheDifficulty of Crossing a Field” (Nickell1980; 1988, 61–73). at the end of his“Mysterious Disappearances” trilogy is apostscript in which he relates the theo-ries of an obvious crackpot who postu-lates, says Bierce, that “in the visibleworld there are void places” likened tothe “cells in a Swiss cheese,” that some-how explain disappearances (Bierce1893).

Alien Domains

at some point, such thinking crossesover into the paranormal. Take extra -terrestrials, for example. alien beingsare sometimes said to have the power ofinvisibility—not unlike fairies and othermagical beings (to be discussed later).

But can we really be certain that no technology in this or another universe can ever be devised to cause invisibility? Well, we certainly can imagine such.



according to many witnesses, an extra-terrestrial may suddenly come into view,or vanish in an instant, while others re-port similar behavior of uFOs. Somethink the disappearing craft simply “re-turns to its original dimension” (Sachs1980, 84), while there is also the impli-cation that, before and after it was per-ceived, it was invisible.

a major proponent of invisible uFOswas Trevor James Constable—a manwith strange ideas indeed. Consta blestated in his book Sky Creatures (1978, 7–8) that “the main direction in whichuFO phenomena lead human inquiry” is“into the invisible.” Constable postulatedthat uFOs were “invisible” beings in an“invisible [infrared] realm.” They “occa-sionally emerge into the visible portion ofthe spectrum,” being sustained and pro-pelled by “orgone energy” (1978, 12, 18).

Imagined by a crank named WilhelmReich (1897–1957), orgone energy issaid to be “life energy.” It supposedlycauses stars to twinkle, produces light-ning and other static electric phenom-ena, and animates dowsing rods—among many other functions. In thehuman body it purportedly rechargesred blood cells through breathing andprovides sexual energy (Gardner 1957,250–262). Constable notwithstanding,Reich’s orgone proved to be imaginaryand, after Reich ignored an injunctionagainst selling his allegedly curative butworthless Orgone accumulator boxes,he was tried, fined, and sentenced to twoyears in prison, where he died (Randi1995, 222).

Constable proposed that there weretwo main types of uFOs: 1) actual living“critters” that inhabit Etheria, an invisi-ble world of the atmosphere (just as fishlive in the sea), and 2) inanimate craftpiloted by Etherean intelligences—bothpropelled of course by orgone energy(Constable 1978; Sachs 1980, 71). Heclaimed to have captured both types oninfrared film, but his work seems doubt-ful in the extreme, has never been con-ducted or reported in any responsiblescientific manner, and has not beenreplicated by mainstream science. Notsurprisingly, he rants against “official sci-ence” for “evading its responsibilities” to

investigate uFOs rather than engage in“organized obscurantism and ridicule”(Constable 1978, 15–17). However, tothe extent scientists have engaged inridicule of uFOs, cranks like TrevorJames Constable have mostly them-selves—and their runaway imagina-tions—to blame.

Spirit Realm

Some claim that a person does not re-ally die at death but instead becomes aghost or spirit, supposedly formed ofenergy, and lives on, invisibly, in thatstate. as with aliens, some speak of an“invisible realm” for spirits (Guiley2000, 356). Proof, however, is lacking.Moreover, we know from the science ofneurology that when the brain dies,brain function ceases; any energy givenoff by the body necessarily dissipates.Nevertheless, “ghost hunters” purport todetect such energy using gadgetry—electromagnetic-field meters, thermalimaging cameras, and so on—but thatapproach is just so much pseudoscience(Nickell 2006).

Some claim the invisible entity maybe viewed psychically. That is to say, aspirit of the dead, for instance, may beseen by a “medium”; or an angel, deity,or the like may be perceived by a “vi-sionary.” Invariably, however, such seersare revealed to have fantasy-prone per-sonalities (Wilson and Barber 1983;Nickell 1995, 40–42, 157, 162, 167, 176,211–14), or they appear to be halluci-nating (Nickell 2007, 80, 245–55, 260–62) or both—assuming they are notoutright charlatans. There is no con-vincing scientific evidence that anyonehas psychic powers of any kind—henceJames Randi’s longstanding offer of asubstantial reward to anyone who can

prove he or she has such abilities underscientifically controlled conditions(Randi 1991, 151–53).

Consider Mary ann Winkowski, forexample. The real-life model for thecentral character in the fantasy TV se-ries Ghost Whisperer, Winkowski claimsto see and talk to earthbound spirits(not those who have supposedly“crossed over” to the Other Side). Sinceshe was a child of four, she says, she hasbeen able to “see” the dead at funeralseven though they are invisible to others.She maintains that the spirits “smoke,comb their hair, change their clothes—all those things we always do too. OnlyI’ve never been able to figure out wherethey get the stuff from” (Winkowski2000, 150).

as a child, Winkowski had whatseem to have been imaginary playmates,although she insists they were notimaginary. as an adult she claims to re-ceive special messages from paranormalentities and frequently encounters ap-paritions—as well as exhibiting numer-ous other traits consistent with being aclassic fantasizer. There is a distinct lackof objective evidence for her claims thatspirit entities exist (for instance, ananomaly in a client’s photo, supposedlydepicting spirit energy, was actuallycaused by the flash rebounding from thecamera’s wrist strap).

The evidence strongly suggests in -stead that Winkowski is simply partic-ipating in encounters of her own imag-ination (Nickell 2010). Therefore, thesource of the “stuff ” that puzzles her—the inanimate objects that are seen inthe possession of apparitions that sup-posedly represent life energy—is clear.as Tyrrell (1973) noted, apparitions ofvisibly rendered invisible people invari-ably wear clothes and are accompaniedby objects—just as they are in dreams—because the items are necessary to theapparitional drama. In other words, theinanimate objects, like the entitiesthemselves, are imaginary.

Visionary Experiences?

as to the perceptions of reputed vision-aries, similar problems present them-selves. Take Joseph Smith, for instance,



the Mormon founder who claimed toreceive instructions from an entity, anangel of God named Moroni. He ap-peared at Smith’s bedside and told himhow to find a holy account, written ongold plates and now known as the Bookof Mormon. Regarded by many as averitable confidence man, and certainlya person with an extraordinary propen-sity to fantasize (Wilson and Barber1983), Smith appears to have experi-enced common “waking dreams” (hyp-nagogic hallucinations) that occur in thetwilight between sleeping and waking(Nickell 2004, 296–303).

Or consider the famed Catholic vi-sionary, Lucia Santos, who at age ten wasone of three shepherd children who en-countered the Virgin Mary at Fatima,Portugal, in 1910. She and her seven-year-old cousin Jacinta Marto saw thedazzling apparition, radiant in whitelight, and Lucia convinced Jacinta’sbrother Francisco to eventually “see” hertoo. Only Lucia ever talked to the Virgin,who supposedly appeared on the sameday during each of several months, yet

remained invisible to the onlookers. asit happened, Lucia was a precocious,imaginative, and charismatic child whohad earlier apparitional experiences.Clearly a fantasizer who manipulated theother children (Nickell 2009), she was,her mother said, “nothing but a fake whois leading half the world astray” (qtd. inzimdars–Swartz 1991, 86).

magick?

During the witch craze of the fifteenthto eighteenth centuries, it was sometimesreported that devils called incubuses wereeither “visible or invisible.” Supposedlythey would copulate with “witches,”whereupon, although the female was saidto be in the throes of ecstasy, the incubuswas not visible, yet at other times “ablacke vapor of the length and bignesseof a man” was allegedly seen to departfrom her. Reginald Scot repeats suchtales in his Discoverie of Witchcraft([1584] 1972, 43–44), albeit with pro-found skepticism.

according to other legends, witchesare themselves said to have the power ofinvisibility—as well as of flying, shape-

shifting, astral projection, clairvoyance,and other supernatural powers (Guiley1991, 647–50). Then again, according togypsy lore, a man could become invisi-ble to witches by doing as follows: “Hemust rise before the sun, turn all hisclothes inside out and then put themon. Then he must cut a green turf andplace it on his head. Thus he becomes

invisible, for the witches believe he isunder the earth, being themselves ap-parently bewitched by this” (Leland1995, 148).

Occasionally, invisibility magic evenpurports to make someone invisible fromhimself. usually, however, the intent is toprevent others from seeing him. Onesuch fourteenth-century charm involvesreciting Genesis 19:11: “and they smotethe men that were at the door of thehouse with blindness. . . .” This is predi-cated on the belief that holy writ will casta spell of blindness over others—thoughthat is not really the same, even if it didwork, as actually becoming invisible(Cavendish 1970, 11:1453).

Yet a medieval grimoire offered a tal-isman promising to “make you invisible,even to spirits.” Reputedly, “You will beable to traverse the bosom of the seas,the bowels of the earth. Likewise youwill be able to sweep through the air,nor will any human act be hidden fromyou.” One needed to “say only: Benatir,Caracrau, Dedos, Etinarmi” (Wedeck1961, 47).

among the magical items reputed tomake their bearer invisible are variouscloaks, amulets, rings, and potions.These may be found in folktales andlegends (McGovern 2007, 347). ac -cord ing to one folklore authority (Leach1984, 526–27), “Some beings, gods andghosts and angels, need no such para-phernalia to appear and disappear, butdwarfs and men must have some talis-man to do the trick.”

Behind all such claims and practicesis the belief in magic—the attempt touse spells, offerings, invocations, or thelike to supplant natural processes.Whereas the latter constitute the do-main of science, magical thinking—theopposite of science (Randi 1995, 193)—is rooted in superstition.

Interestingly, throughout folklorecertain entities that supposedly have thepower of shapeshifting (the ability toalter their shape) also typically have thepower of invisibility. Such reputedshapeshifters include ghosts, spiritualentities, monsters, witches, and others(Leach 1984, 1004–1005). a good ex-ample is the vampire, which may trans-

Interestingly, throughout folklore certain entities that supposedly have the power of shapeshifting alsotypically have the power of invisibility.



form itself into a bat, feline, hound, in-sect, etc., as well as have the power ofinvisibility—in addition to being un-seen in a mirror (Bunson 1993, 42, 70,100, 176–77). another example is thefairy (see Thompson [1955] 1989, 41–44). Shapeshifting’s link with invisibilityemphasizes the latter’s magical/fantasynature.

Deistic Power?

Various demigods and deities through-out history have been attributed powerover visibility. In Greek mythology,Perseus, for instance, son of zeus andDanaë, wore a helmet that conferred in-visibility. This helped him become vic-torious over the snake-haired monsterMedusa whom he decapitated (Mc-Govern 2007, 347).

Some gods, like those of early Hin -du literature, were not only invisible but“could assume any visible form at will tofavoured worshippers” (Hastings 1914,7:405). This was also true of the god ofthe Bible. It was in order to be seen thathe appeared to Moses in the form of aburning bush (Exodus 3:2–4). In NewTestament passages are references to“the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15)and to “the invisible things of him” (Ro-mans 1:20).

according to the Encyclopedia of Re-ligion and Ethics (Hastings 1914, 7:404):

The attribute of invisibility is onewhich is shared by gods, spirits,demons, the dead and the region ofthe dead, or the world of the gods,while the power of becoming invisi-ble belongs to those beings as well asto certain mortals. Where invisibilitywas ascribed to gods or spirits, onesimple reason probably was that inthe case of most of them, apart fromanimal-gods or worshipful parts ofnature, they were in fact unseen.

and that brings us back to our orig-

inal point, that allegedly invisible enti-ties—popular belief notwithstanding—are indistinguishable from imaginary be-ings. That is, an invisible entitynecessarily means an immaterial one,one that therefore can exist only as aproduct of the imagination. n

Notes1. Invisible: Not seen in the visible electro-

magnetic spectrum (VES) (wavelength from400nm to 690nm; frequency from 750THz to435THz). Light is electromagnetic radiation(EMR), i.e., energy emission (oscillating trans-verse wave) produced when charged particles(electrons) are accelerated. The quantum of EMRis the photon.

2. Transparency: The condition of allowingsome light (EMR) to pass through.

3. Camouflage: Concealment against back-ground environment by resembling the back-ground and disrupting patterns and edges. Certaintechnological claims of invisibility—using meta-materials, nanotubes, crystal prisms, and mirrorsto create a two-dimensional illusion—are nothingmore than static active/adaptive camouflage.

4. again, light is EMR (see n. 1).5. Ordinary matter: made of atoms and mol-

ecules, which are made of protons, neutrons, andelectrons, composed of fermions—namely quarksand leptons.

ReferencesBierce, ambrose. 1893. Can Such Things Be?;

quoted in Nickell 1988, 67–68.Bunson, Matthew. 1993. The Vampire Encyclo pedia.

New York: Grammercy.Cavendish, Richard, ed. 1970. Man, Myth &

Magic: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Super -natural. New York: Marshall Cavendish Cor-poration.

Constable, Trevor James. 1978. Sky Creatures. NewYork: Pocket Books.

Edwards, Frank. 1962. Strangest of All. New York:Signet.

Gardner, Martin. 1957. Fads & Fallacies in theName of Science. New York: Dover.

Gibson, Walter B. 1967. Secrets of Magic Ancientand Modern. New York: Grosset and Dunlap.

Guiley, Rosemary Ellen. 1991. Encyclopedia of theStrange, Mystical, & Unexplained. New York:Grammercy Books.

———. 2000. The Encyclopedia of Ghosts and Spir-its, 2nd ed. New York: Checkmark Books.

Hastings, James, ed. 1914. Encyclopedia of Reli gionand Ethics. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

Leach, Maria, ed. 1984. Funk & Wagnalls StandardDictionary of Folklore, Mythology, and Legend.San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Leland, Charles Godfrey. 1995. Gypsy Sorcery &Fortune Telling. Edison, NJ: Castle Books.

Moore, William L., and Charles Berlitz. 1979.The Philadelphia Experiment: Project Invisi -bility. New York: Grosset and Dunlap.

McGovern, una, ed. 2007. Chambers Dictionary ofthe Unexplained. Edinburgh: Chambers.

Nickell, Joe. 1980. ambrose Bierce and those‘mysterious disappearance’ legends. IndianaFolklore 13:1–2; reprinted in Nickell 1988.

———. 1988. Secrets of the Supernatural. Buffalo,

NY: Prometheus Books.———. 1995. Entities: Angels, Spirits, Demons,

and Other Alien Beings. amherst, NY: Prome -theus Books.

———. 2004. The Mystery Chronicles. Lexington:university Press of Kentucky.

———. 2006. Ghost hunters. SKEPTICaL IN-quIRER 30(5) (September/October): 23–26.

———. 2007. Adventures in Paranormal Investi -gation. Lexington: university Press of Ken -tucky.

———. 2009. The real secrets of Fatima. SKEP-TICaL INquIRER 33(6): 14–17.

———. 2010. The real “Ghost Whisperer.” SKEP-TICaL INquIRER 34(4): 16–17.

Randi, James. 1991. James Randi Psychic Investi -gator. London: Boxtree.

———. 1995. The Supernatural A-Z. London:Brock hampton Press.

Sachs, Margaret. 1980. The UFO Encyclopedia.New York: Perigee Books.

Scot, Reginald. (1584) 1972. Discoverie of Witch -craft. Reprinted 1930 edition, New York:Dover.

Stein, Gordon. 1993. The Encyclopedia of Hoaxes.Detroit, MI: Gale Research.

Thompson, Stith. (1955) 1989. Motif–Index ofFolk Literature, vol. 3. Bloomington: Indianauniversity Press.

Tyrrell, G.N.M. 1973. Apparitions. London: TheSociety for Psychical Research.

Wedeck, Harry E. 1961. A Treasury of Witchcraft.Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press.

Wilson, Sheryl C., and Theodore X. Barber. 1983.The fantasy-prone personality: Impli cationsfor understanding imagery, hypnosis, andparapsychological phenomena. In Imagery,Current Theory, Research and Appli cation, ed.anees a. Sheikh, 340–90. New York: Wiley.

Winkowski, Mary ann. 2000. As Alive, So Dead:Investigating the Paranormal. avon Lake, OH:Graveworm Press.

zimdars–Swartz, Sandra L. 1991. EncounteringMary. Princeton, NJ: Princeton universityPress.

Joe Nickell is the Com-mittee for Skeptical In-quiry’s senior researchfellow. A former magi-cian, private detective,and teacher, he has beeninvestigating unsolved

mysteries and fringe-science claims since1969. His website is www.joenickell.com.

James McGaha is a sci-entific consultant forthe Committee forSkeptical Inquiry. Anastronomer, teacher,and retired USAF pilot,he directs the Grass-

lands Observatory. He has lectured aroundthe world on science and pseudoscienceand has frequently appeared as a UFO ex-pert on national TV shows.



The Elberfeld HorsesThey were the most important of Clever Hans’s heirs. Their story is an archetypal example of the intertwinement that often exists between pseudoscience and the paranormal.

STEFANO VEZZANI

On the other hand, the Elberfeldhorses did not enhance our knowledgeof science or psychology, and no classicbook was dedicated to them. as a con-sequence, they have almost been forgot-ten. They deserve to be remembered,however, because the events in whichthey were involved are an archetypal in-stance of pseudoscience. as several au-thors pointed out at the time, the storyof these animals is also an exemplary il-lustration of the intertwinement thatoften exists between pseudoscience andthe paranormal.

Clever Hans, the Progenitor

In 1900, Wilhelm von Osten of Berlinset out to educate his horse, Hans, toprove his revolutionary theory: If horseswere educated like children, the funda-mental intellectual resemblance be-tween them and people would surface.He educated Hans applying the samepedagogical principles then used in ele-mentary schools and taught him bymeans of a blackboard and verbal expla-nations.

allegedly, Hans learned to do arith-metic and understand spoken and writ-ten German. For instance, if he wasasked “What is three times four?,” hetapped the ground twelve times with hishoof. Moreover, Hans was able to “talk,”as he had learned to represent each let-ter by tapping a certain number oftimes.

Von Osten started exhibiting Hansin public in 1904, and very soon the

The story of Clever Hans, the reasoning horse, is verywell known. What is less known is that several otherclever animals followed Hans soon after. The most

prominent among them were the “Elberfeld horses.”Clever Hans is still remembered because he was the ob-

ject of a study that represented one of the highest achieve-ments in experimental psychology up to that time andwhich Oskar Pfungst (1907) detailed in a classic book.Pfungst’s discovery of the “Clever Hans effect” has changedthe way in which many experiments are conducted in fieldswhere there is an interaction between the experimenter andan animal or human subject.

Figure 1. The horse Zarif, one of the Elberfeld horses, attends a lesson by Krall (source Krall 1912).



horse, known by the nickname of“Kluge [Clever] Hans,” became famousthroughout the world. a heated contro-versy opened up between skeptics andbelievers, and it soon became clear thatit could only be settled by conductingexperiments on Hans. a multidiscipli-nary scientific commission delegatedthe psychologist Oskar Pfungst to un-dertake the experiments.

Most of Pfungst’s experiments con-sisted of two conditions: a condition“with knowledge” and another “withoutknowledge.” In the first case, the exam-iner knew the answer to the question heasked Hans; in the second, he did not.Pfungst proved that Hans answered cor-rectly only in the “with knowledge” tri-als. It was as if Han’s did not work theanswer out by himself but rather read itin the examiner’s mind. In fact, whetheror not Hans could hear the questionseemed irrelevant.

Moreover, Hans managed to answercorrectly only when he could see the ex-aminer. This suggested that he was ex-ploiting some visual cues coming fromthe examiner. Indeed, Pfungst ascer-tained that the examiner unconsciouslystooped very slightly immediately afterhaving asked a question. When Hanssaw this movement, he started tapping.When the horse reached the correctnumber of strokes, the examinerstraightened up. Hans perceived thismovement and stopped tapping.

On December 9, 1904, the scientificcommission proclaimed that Hanscould not reason and that rather thanbeing educated he had been trained, al-beit unintentionally. Public discussionabout Hans then came to an end.

according to most accounts, thestory ended here. as a matter of fact,however, it continued when in 1905 vonOsten made contact with one of thevery few people who had not acceptedPfungst’s explanation: Karl Krall, awealthy jeweler from Elberfeld (nowWuppertal).

Sensation at Elberfeld

Krall inherited Clever Hans upon thedeath of his owner in 1909. However,Hans had become almost unmanageable

and Krall resolved to “educate” two otherstallions, Muhamed and zarif. He begandelivering daily lessons to them applyingvon Osten’s methods.

Krall (1912) explains that the workwas worth his while as the horses, afterthey had learned to communicate by tap-ping, like Hans, manifested capabilitiessuperior to those of any child. after thir-teen days, Muhamed could already addand subtract, and after twenty he couldmultiply and divide. Soon, the horses alsolearned to work out roots in a few sec-onds, something beyond Hans’s capabil-ity, and to solve complex equations suchas √4536 – √1849 * √196 – √144. Theyalso learned to understand spoken andwritten German and French, and to“speak” German. as with Hans, each

letter was represented by a number.1In time, two other horses joined

Muhamed and zarif: Hänschen andBerto. These equines were to go downin history as the Elberfeld horses.

The education of the horses contin-ued for a couple of years substantially asa private matter. However, little by little,the news spread and many people askedto see the horses at work. There werescientists among these people and a fewof them were so impressed that theypersuaded Krall to write a book (Mac -kenzie 1912). The book appeared in1912 with the title Denkende Tiere(Thinking Animals) and was more than500 pages long.

Krall was a strong science enthusiast.Nevertheless, his book was un orthodox

The scientific commission proclaimed that Hanscould not reason and that rather than being edu-cated he had been trained, albeit unintentionally.

Clever Hans performs for a crowd.



from a scientific perspective, a pointseveral critics did not fail to notice. Onthe other hand, it also re ceived enthusi-astic comments. Wil helm Ostwald, theNobel laureate for Chemistry in 1909,expected that it would mark “as clearlythe beginning of a new chapter in thedoctrine of man’s place in nature asDarwin’s chief work did in its day” (Na-ture 1914–1915). The eminent psychol-ogist Édouard Cla parède (1912) wrotethat the publication of Krall’s book “iscertainly the most sensational event thathas ever happened in animal psychologyand possibly in psychology at large.”

On the whole, Krall’s book had awide-reaching effect, and the Elberfeldhorses soon became even more famousthan Hans had been in his time.

A Controversy Ensues

Krall and his followers founded theGesellschaft für Tierpsychologie (Society ofanimal Psychology) in 1912 and thejournal Tierseele (Animal Mind) in 1913,two entities entirely dedicated to reasoninganimals. Robert Yerkes, the well-knownamerican psychologist and primatologist,was a member of the Gesell schaft.

Like von Osten, Krall and his advo-cates believed that the horses “have re-ceived a real education, and have learn -ed to think like us” (Mackenzie 1912).as with Hans, however, explanationsbased on telepathy were also put for-ward: perhaps something was beingtransferred directly from the brains ofthose present to the brains of the horses(Claparède 1913).

Many personalities journeyed to El-berfeld. after the influential neurologistLudwig Edinger had seen the horses, hebegan supporting Krall’s theories pas-sionately. a number of zoologists, too,embraced the cause of the horses, for ex-ample, H. Kraemer, P. Sarasin, H.E.ziegler, and K. Gruber, a scholar of theoccult (Gruber 1930). The prestigiousbiologist Ernst Haec kel wrote to Krall:“Your careful, critical experiments con-vincingly prove the existence of reasonin animals, something I have neverdoubted” (Claparède 1912).

However, there were also many sci-entists and intellectuals who thoughtthat the attention the Elberfeld horseswere getting in the intellectual and sci-entific community was unwarranted.Most important, at the IX Inter nationalCongress of zoology held in Munich in1913, twenty-four scientists signed astatement of protest regarding the diffu-sion of Krall’s theory (Cla parède 1913).Skeptics believed that the Elberfeldhorses had simply been trained, likeHans, and that their performancescould be explained by Pfungst’s theory.It is significant that there were expertsin horse training among the skeptics(e.g., von Máday 1914) but not amongthe believers.

I am particularly familiar with theItalian writings, which are very represen-tative of the European literature in gen-eral. The Genoese biologist WilliamMackenzie was the most active Italianadvocate of Krall’s theory and was oftencited in the international debate. Someof his many articles on the subject ap -peared in journals dedicated to the para-normal. In the 1950s, Mackenzie waschairman of the Italian Society ofMetapsychics.

Roberto assagioli also became anenthusiastic admirer of Krall after hav-ing journeyed to Elberfeld with Mac -kenzie in September 1912. He was atheosophist and became famous later onas the founder of psychosynthesis, aschool of psychotherapy. One conceptof psychosynthesis is the transpersonalunconscious, from where paranormalpowers emanate.

The psychiatrist Giulio Cesare Fer-rari was cautiously interested in the El-berfeld horses, mainly because he wasan educator. He wrote that they proved“the boundless possibilities of educa-tion” and was sure that both intentionaland unintentional signs had to be ab-solutely ruled out. However, he ascribedthe achievements of the horses to theirmemory rather than to their intelligence(Ferrari 1914).

The physician and psychologist Fa-ther agostino Gemelli was very critical,

although he conceded that the problemdid not admit of a simple solution(Gemelli 1913). above all, he lamentedthe absence of a serious inquiry aimedat verifying whether Pfungst’s explana-tion of Hans’s feats also applied to theElberfeld horses.

Luigi Siciliano (1914) and the psychi-cal researcher Cesar de Vesme (1912) be-lieved that the performances of the horseshad a mediumistic explanation. StefanoStefani (1913) claimed that the explana-tion was to be found in telepathy.

Pfungst’s Theory Refuted?

Skeptics insisted that the only way to es-tablish whether or not Pfungst’s theoryapplied to the Elberfeld horses was toperform experiments using a “withoutknowledge” condition. The problem was,however, that Krall prevented skepticsfrom experimenting (e.g. Gemelli 1913).Pfungst (1912) himself lamented thatKrall had rejected all three of his re-quests to study the horses.

according to the believers, Pfungst’stheory of unconscious signs hardly de-served to be mentioned. It was widelyrefuted by facts, as so many observershad testified after they had seen thehorses with their own eyes. Claparède(1912), for instance, made the followingwritten statement for Krall: “The horsesanswered correctly under circumstancesthat absolutely rule out the hypothesis ofintentional or unintentional signs. Itseems certain to me that the aforesaidhorses really count the number oftaps. . . .”2 In short, “it can now be af-firmed that the reality and authenticity ofKrall’s results are certainly and definitely es-tablished” (emphasis in original, assagioli1912). In general, however, the evidenceagainst Pfungst’s theory consisted of an-ecdotes and testimonies, whereas strictexperiments were wanting.

Nevertheless, some experiments à laPfungst were undertaken by believers.Krall himself made a few, but he admittedin his book that they had substantiallyfailed. Several other experiments of thiskind were performed by Krall’s advocates.We are told that they succeeded, but usu-



ally in conditions un suited to a serious,controlled experiment. actually, theNobel laureate for Literature in 1911,Maurice Maeter linck (1914), performedan experiment that could be consideredquite satisfactory, if one accepts that hisaccount is reliable. alone with the horses,Maeterlinck randomly pulled three cardsout of a deck without looking at themand put them in front of each animal inturn. The horses “communicated correctlythe sum of the cards by tapping.” (Moreon this presently.) Maeterlinck (1914)dedicated to the Elberfeld horses a longchapter of a book that was wholly conse-crated to the occult.

Claparède managed to study thehorses in March 1913 without Krallbeing present. unfortunately, no conclu-sion could be reached, as the horses an-

swered almost all the questions incor-rectly—independently of the knowledgethat the experimenter had of the an-swers. Krall assures us that another manmade experiments a few days after Cla-parède and that he obtained positive re-sults after he had made friends with thehorses. Krall maintained that the resultsobviously depended on whether the vis-itors “are or are not liked by the horses”(Claparède 1913).

A Magician Enters the Stage

The possibility that any signals givenmay have been intentional was usuallyruled out in very resolute terms. No body,not even the skeptics, doubted the ab-solute good faith of Krall (e.g., Gemelli1913). as for the grooms, “they really aretwo worthy and simple boys. They have

a groom’s mentality and are certainly nomathematics professors” (Mackenzie1912). Most important, the horsesworked well even when Krall and thegrooms were not present, and thisseemed conclusive evidence.

However, only an expert in deceptioncan reliably ascertain whether a trick ex-ists or not. Indeed, the likely truth wasdiscovered only when an unspecified“psychological party” commissioned aninvestigation to be made by a profes-sional conjurer, the Danish F. Faustinus(the stage name of Faustinus Edelberg),who was given the opportunity to studythe horses closely in 1913. Two yearslater, Faustinus disclosed his findings inan article signed by Müller (1915)—seealso Sebeok (1982) for a thorough ac-count in English.

We learn from Schumann (1916)that “Mr. Faustinus Edelberg has al -ready helped Prof. a. Lehmann ofCopenhagen in the debunking of so-called spiritistic mediums. He is be -lieved to be unusually skillful in ‘mindreading’ and it seems that, to this aim,he capitalizes on minimal unintentionalmovements.”

Krall (1916a) wrote later that Fausti-nus had tricked him into believing thathe was “an independent re searcher” onlyinterested in truth. Hence, Krall had lethim perform some experiments with hishorses, “as I have always done withoutany exception when I did not doubt thescientific integrity of the researchers.”

Faustinus found convincing evidencethat albert, the only groom at that time,had swindled Krall. The conjurer started

becoming suspicious when albert im-mediately spotted a mistake that Fausti-nus had deliberately inserted in a prob-lem that consisted of working out afourth root.

Next, Faustinus realized that Muha -med worked only if he could perceivealbert. Even when Faustinus had theimpression that he was alone withMuhamed, albert was actually able tocommunicate with the horse from out-side the stable, even from a considerabledistance. When Faustinus preventedMuhamed from seeing albert, the horsestopped answering correctly. This couldexplain the accounts, including Maeter-linck’s, regarding the horses answeringcorrectly even when their questioner didnot know the answers and was seem-ingly alone with them.

Therefore, it seemed that albertpro vided Muhamed with signals, butwhich signals? Faustinus discoveredthat there was just one very simple and“almost imperceptible” signal. Whenasked a problem, Muhamed started tap-ping but stopped when albert shook hishead slightly but discernibly. In sum,there was “a signaling in Pfungst’s sense,the only difference being that here it isintentional” (Müller 1915). after he haddiscovered the trick, Faustinus was ableto make Muhamed give right or wronganswers as he wished.

But albert was just a groom, so howcould he perform very complex compu-tations so fast? Faustinus pointed outthat a fully reliable system existed forworking out three kinds of roots(square, cube, fifth) very easily.

Hänschen and Berto also failed whenthey could not perceive albert’s presenceand so were almost surely controlled byhim as well. Yet how, Fausti nus was un-able to discover. Cer tainly albert did notuse the same technique with them thathe used with Muhamed. as for zarif,Faustinus could not undertake any ex-periment on him. as a matter of fact,“zarif could only be used as a saddlehorse already by the summer of 1913,” ashis performances had severely deterio-rated (Krall 1916b).

The possibility that any signals given may havebeen intentional was usually ruled out in very resolute terms. No body, not even the skeptics,doubted the absolute good faith of Krall.


Faustinus could not complete his in-vestigation because Krall forbade fur-ther inquiries when he was informed ofthe conjurer’s findings. although in-complete, Faustinus’s account appearstrustworthy, especially considering thatKarl Wigge (1912), also witnessed in-tentional signs by albert.

Krall (1916a, 1916b) and ziegler(1916) tried to challenge Faustinus withvarious arguments, but above all theytried to discredit him as an un -trustworthy investigator. For in stance,ziegler (1916) wrote that it was surpris-ing that more credit was given to the“conjurer and fortune-teller Fausti nus”than to all the scientists who had mostaccurately observed the horses and hadtestified that there was no signaling in-volved. The highly regarded psychologistFriedrich Schumann (1916) replied toziegler that “It is usually well recognizedthat [a person like Faustinus] is moresuitable than ‘learned’ men for discover-ing the intentional or unintentional as-sistance of a groom.” It seems that evenin those days there was awareness that aconjurer is much better at debunking afraud than any scientist.

Then the Great War came. In 1915,albert was recruited (Marbe 1916) andKrall dispensed with his stable, as “it hasbecome too heavy a weight for a singleman” (Mitt. d. Gesell. f. Tierpsych. 1914–1915).

unfortunately, outside GermanyFaustinus’s investigations did not re -ceive the attention they deserved, andthe question of the intellectual capabil-ities of the Elberfeld horses remainedofficially open. For instance, the amer -ican psychologist Joseph Jastrow (1920)did not mention Faustinus in his highlyskeptical article and wrote that “therehas been no definitive examination ofthe Elberfeld horses.”

In any case, the controversy trickledto an end after the war. a silence de-scended over the Elberfeld horses,which from then on was broken occa-sionally but without anything newbeing added to the debate. For his part,

Krall (1916b) tried to educate a newhorse, the mare Jona, and kept speakingand writing about his horses of old. Heinsisted that they could reason butadded that they were also capable ofcommunicating telepathically in partic-ular conditions. He became more andmore involved in parapsychology andspiritism (von den Berg 2008). KarlKrall died in 1929.

a German dog, Rolf, also becamevery famous in the same years as the El-berfeld horses, and other sapient dogscame after Rolf. They were thought tobe even more gifted than the Elberfeldhorses but were not supported by lead-ing scientists. In general, the explana-tions of the believers drifted more andmore toward the paranormal. Thosewho can read Italian can find their sto-ries chronicled in Vezzani (2010). n

Notes1. See Sanford (1914) for a more detailed ac-

count in English of the performances of thehorses.

2. However, Claparède gradually convincedhimself that the Elberfeld horses were simplytrained animals (Claparède 1913; Heuzé 1928).

Referencesassagioli, Roberto. 1912. I cavalli pensanti di El-

berfeld. Psiche 1: 419–450.von den Berg, Britt. 2008. Die “neue Tier -

psychologie” und ihre wissenschaftlicher Vertreter(von 1900 bis 1945). Berlin: Tenea.

Claparède, Édouard. 1912. Les chevaux savantsd’Elberfeld. Archives de Psychologie 12: 263–304.

———. 1913. Encore les chevaux d’Elberfeld.Archives de Psychologie 13: 244–284.

Ferrari, Giulio Cesare. 1914. Psicologia animale.Rivista di psicologia 10: 38–46.

Gemelli, agostino. 1913. I cavalli che “pensano”di Elberfeld. Rassegna nazionale February:544–567.

Gruber, Karl. 1930. Okkultismus und Biologie. Mu-nich: Drei Masken.

Heuzé, Paul. 1928. La plaisenterie des animaux cal-culateurs. Paris: Les Editions de France.

Jastrow, Joseph. 1920. The Case of MauriceMaeterlinck. The Weekly Review 2: 381–384

Krall, Karl. 1912. Denkende Tiere. Leipzig: Engel-mann.

———. 1916a. Ein Brief von Karl Krall. Mit-teilungen der Gesellschaft für Tierpsychologie4(1): 25–26.

———. 1916b. Offener Brief an Herrn Prof.Marbe. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft fürTierpsychologie 4(2): 52–61.

Mackenzie, William. 1912. I cavalli pensanti di

Elberfeld. Rivista di psicologia 8: 479–517.Máday, Stefan, von. 1914. Gibt es denkende Tiere?.

Leipzig: EngelmannMaeterlinck, Maurice. 1914. The Unknown Guest.

London: Methuen.Marbe, Karl. 1916. Offener Brief von Herrn Prof.

Marbe an Herrn Krall. Mitteilungen derGesellschaft für Tierpsychologie 4: 50.52.

Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Tierpsychologie.1914–1915. Mitteilungen an die Mitglieder.2–3(3): 44–46.

Müller, Georg Elias. 1915. Ein Beitrag über dieElberfelder Pferde. Zeitschrift für Psychologie73: 258–264.

Nature. 1914–1915. Thinking animals, 94: 426–427.

Pfungst, Oskar. 1907. Das Pferd des Herrn vonOsten. Leipzig: Barth. [English translation:Clever Hans (the horse of Mr Von Osten). NewYork: Henry Holt, 1911].

———. 1912. Discussion of Pfungst’s “zur Psy-chologie der affen”. In: F. Schumann (ed.),Bericht über den V. Kongreß für experimentellePsychologie. Leipzig: Barth, 204–205.

Sanford, Edmund Clark. 1914. Psychic Researchin the animal Field: Der Kluge Hans and theElberfeld Horses. The American Journal of Psy-chology 25: 1–31.

Schumann, Friedrich. 1916. zu den Bemer -kungen des Herrn Prof. H.E. ziegler über dasProblem der Elberfelder Pferde. Zeit schrift fürPsychologie 75, p. 270.

Sebeok, Thomas albert. 1982. Dialogue aboutsigns with a Nobel Laureate. The AmericanJournal of Semiotics 1: 35–57.

Siciliano, Luigi. 1914. La nona ipotesi. Psiche 3:85–86.

Stefani, Stefano. 1913. Correnti intercerebrali tral’uomo e gli animali? Luce e ombra 13: 193–223.

de Vesme, Cesar. 1912. Les chevaux pensantsd’Elberfeld. Annales des Sciences psychiques 22:354-363.

Vezzani, Stefano. 2010. Animali sapienti. Fanno diconto, scrivono, leggono il pensiero... forse!, Rome:aracne.

Wigge, Karl. 1912. Das Problem der denkendenPferde des Herrn Krall in Elberfeld (Fortset -zung). Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochen schrift 49:753–757.

ziegler, Heinrich Ernst. 1916. Das Problem derElberfelder Pferde. Zeitschrift für Psychologie75: 267–270.


Stefano Vezzani is a formerresearch worker at the Uni-versity of Milano-Bicocca. Hehas written articles on exper-imental psychology and thehistory of psychology in sci-entific and popular journals

and the book Animali Sapienti: Fanno di conto,scrivono, leggono il pensiero... forse! (Clever An-imals: They write, calculate, and read yourthoughts…perhaps!)


Indian astronomer and astrologycritic Balachandra Rao (2000, 149)notes: “The belief in astrology amongour masses is so deep that for every triv-ial decision in their personal lives—likewhether to apply for a job or not—they readily rush to the astrologers withtheir horoscopes.” Likewise, many willconsult an astrologer to ensure theirmarriage date will be auspicious. In1963, the astrologer’s advice, for exam-ple, led to a postponement of the wed-ding of the Crown Prince of Sikkim bya year. a day seen as generally auspi-cious can thus lead to a large number ofweddings taking place, putting severepressure on facilities like wedding halls,caterers, etc.

Prediction of Events

Western astrologers are generallytaught that astrology is nonfatalisticand therefore not a good bet for pre-dicting events. Indian astrologers holdthe opposite view, and every astrologerworthy of the name must be able tomake such forecasts. unfortunately,these predictions do not carry any con-

trols. For example, B.V. Raman (1912–1998), publisher-editor of The Astrolog-ical Magazine, wrote that “when Saturnwas in aries in 1939 England had todeclare war against Germany” (note thefatalism) in a work intended “to presenta case for astrology” (Raman 1992,119). However, this reasoning fails tonotice that Saturn was also in aries in1909 and 1968 when nothing muchhappened other than overseas state vis-its by Edward VII and Elizabeth II, re-spectively.

Indian astrologers often make ex -treme claims about Indian astronomy, aswhen The Astrological Magazine forMarch 1984 claimed uranus, Neptune,and Pluto had been discovered around500 BC (Rao 2000, 36). But their claimsabout Indian astrology tend to be evenmore extreme, as in the august 25, 2003,Indian Express wherein Raj Baldev, whoclaimed to be “an authority on the sub-ject of astronomy, astrology, Cosmo-Mathe matics and Meta physics” said thatancient Hindu astrology “is a completescience” where even one million billionthof a second “makes a lot of difference.”

Skeptics might wonder at this, since itimplies that the shadows cast on ancientsundials were routinely positioned tobetter accuracy than a hundred millionthof the diameter of an atom. Even atnight. Can we believe it?

Complexity without End

Indian astrology is more complex thanWestern astrology, with countless au-thoritative aphorisms to cover everypossible situation. Indeed, the fewWestern authors who have described itfor Western use have typically requireddecades of study before proceeding. Butas one of them has noted: “This is ofcourse natural for a society over 6,000years old whose elders have not onlyemployed astrology but embraced it”(Braha 1986, x).2

and there is no Western equivalentto the ways in which those authoritativeaphorisms can be modified via suitablychosen amulets, mantras, colors, gem-stones (yellow or blue sapphire is saidto strengthen Jupiter or Saturn, respec-tively), and by performing yajnas (aspiritual ceremony involving offeringsto fire performed by a Hindu priest).Ironically these modifications specifiedby the astrologer are essentially fatalisticways of achieving non-fatalistic out-comes.

Miraculous Nadis

Indian Nadi astrology has many varia-tions, but if any of them worked itwould be a miracle. Nadi astrologers,when approached by a client, are foundto have a huge collection of horoscopeson ancient palm leaves, one of which


An Indian Test of Indian AstrologyIndian astrologers claim they can tell a person’s intelligence from his or her horoscope. But twenty-seven astrologers failed to perform better than chance when given forty horoscopes of intellectually bright subjects and mentally handicapped subjects.

JAYANT V. NARLIKAR

In the world of astrology, India has many claims to fame.It has an astrology fundamentally different from bothChinese and Western astrology,1 possibly more part- and

full-time astrologers than in the rest of the world put to-gether, and the world’s longest-running English astrologicalmonthly (The Astrological Magazine 1895–2007). Its maingovernment funding agency, the university Grants Com-mission, provides support for BSc and MSc courses in as-trology in Indian universities. and as for the general public,one finds almost universal belief in it.



turns out to be the client’s. But a littlethinking shows that it is not as mirac-ulous as it may seem. Consider the fol-lowing scenario.

after providing birth details duringthe first visit, the client is asked to returna few days later on the pretext that it willtake time to find his horoscope amongthe thousands held by the astrologer.While the client is away, the astrologer,based on the information supplied bythe client, writes his or her horoscope ona fresh palm leaf and soaks it in a slurryof coconut kernels and mango bark, bothof which are rich in tannin. This givesthe palm leaf an ancient look (Prem-anand et al. 1993, 331). During the sec-ond visit the client is appropriately im-pressed that his/her horoscope turned upafter so many centuries.

Electronic Destinies

In 1984, the first companies to offercomputerized horoscopes appeared inIndia, seventeen years after they hadstarted business in Europe. In twentyminutes (today, in just a few seconds)they could do the calculations that pre-viously took three months. a computerhoroscope may cost twenty-five rupees(about fifty cents) for an ordinary oneand fifty rupees (about $1) for a longerone, more in big cities or air-conditionedcenters. Predictions cost up to 500 rupeesdepending on the number of years ahead(Rao 2000, 147).3 Many websites offerfree horoscopes; see, for example,www.bestindiansites.com/astrology.

as in the West, Indian astrologersimmediately complained that the com-puter was devoid of intuition and expe-

rience, and did not meet their clients’need to talk and vent their feelings. In-deed, about two decades ago an edu-cated young man committed suicideafter a computer horoscope predictedtotal failure in everything he did (Pre-manand et al. 1993, 307). Never theless,as in the West, computer horoscopesseem here to stay.

In 1989, I was showing a visitoraround my newly established astron-omy center in Pune. at that time wehad just set up our new computer and Iexplained its capabilities to the visitor.at the end, I waited for any questionsshe may have had. Yes, she did have aquestion: “Does this computer casthoroscopes?”

The Ultimate Accolade

The lobby for Indian astrology had itscrowning glory when, in February2001, the university Grants Commis -sion (uGC) decided to provide fundsfor BSc and MSc courses in astrologyat Indian universities. Its circular stated:“There is urgent need to rejuvenate thescience of Vedic astrology in India . . .and to provide opportunities to get thisimportant science exported to theworld.” actually, the phrase Vedic As-trology is an oxymoron since the prefixVedic has nothing to do with the Vedas,the ancient and sacred literature of theHindus, which do not mention astrol-ogy. In fact, scholars agree that theusual planetary astrology came to Indiawith the Greeks who had visited Indiasince alexander’s campaign in the thirdcentury BC.

Within nine months of the uGC’sannouncement, forty-five of India’s 200universities had applied for the uGCgrants of 1.5 million rupees (about$30,000) to establish departments ofastrology. Of these, twenty were ac-cepted (Siddhanta 2001, 2). To thoseIndians who believe that astrologicalconsiderations influence the course oftheir business and family lives—andthis category includes leaders of majorpolitical parties—the uGC’s decisionmight seem sensible if overdue.

But the decision provoked outrageamong India’s academics, especiallythose in the science faculties. More than

In 1989, I was showing a visitor around my newly established astronomy center in Pune. . . . At the end,I waited for any questions she may have had. Yes, she did have a question: “Does this computer cast horoscopes?”

Indian horoscopes are a different shape from Western horoscopes, and their signs, houses, and aspects are cal-culated differently. They also differ in how they are interpreted. A Western-style interpretation focusing on theowner’s personality and motivations would be rejected in India, where clients expect fortune-telling.



100 scientists and 300 social scientistswrote in protest to the government. Ofthe thirty letters-to-the-editor that ap-peared in the Indian science journalCurrent Science, most of them from sci-entists in university departments or re-search institutes, about half dismissedastrology as a pseudoscience, and aquarter felt that decisive tests wereneeded. against this, the rest felt therewas nothing wrong with funding some-thing that most Indian people believein. But the protests were without effectbecause, in Indian law, Vedic astrologyis seen as a scientific discipline.

Nevertheless, in 2004, several scien-tists asked the andhra Pradesh HighCourt to stop the uGC from fundingcourses in Vedic astrology because itwas a pseudoscience, it would imposeHindu beliefs on the education system,4and it would reduce the funds availablefor genuine scientific research. How-ever, the court dismissed their case onthe grounds that it was not correct fora court to interfere with a uGC deci-sion that did not violate Indian law.

In 2011, an appeal under the act thatbans false advertising was made to theMumbai High Court. It was dismissedby the court arguing that the act “doesnot cover astrology and related sciences.astrology is a trusted science and [hasbeen] practiced for over 4000 years. . . .”(as reported in The Times of India Feb-ruary 3, 2011).

Failed Predictions

To justify calling it a science, astrologymust fulfil the basic requirement of ascientific theory—it must make test ableand correct predictions. Here the per-formance of astrology in predicting theresults of events has been very poor.The nearest we have are follow-ups topredictions of public events such aselections, where failure is the norm. Forexample, the elections in 1971 were ashowdown between Indira Gandhi andher political opponents. The AstrologicalMagazine was filled with predictions byamateurs and professionals, most ofwhom predicted that Gandhi wouldlose. In fact, she won with an over-whelming majority.

The 1980 elections attracted anotherfrenzy of predictions, most of which saw

Gandhi losing. For example B.V.Raman (whom I discussed earlier), in arare departure from his usual vagueness,predicted that Gandhi’s efforts to regainoffice “may misfire. Her ability to influ-ence the Govern ment will be discon-certingly limited in effectiveness” andthe outcome “may not see a stableGovern ment.” an Indian horary astrol -oger (one who answers questions) pre-dicted that Gandhi “can never becomethe Prime Minister.” However, she wonwith a huge majority, was prime minis-ter, and formed a very stable govern-ment.

also in 1980, at a large internationalconference organized by the Indian as-trologers Federation, both the presidentand secretary of the Federation pre-dicted a war with Pakistan in 1982,which India would win, and a worldwar between 1982 and 1984. allwrong! These examples and many moreare given by Rao (2000, 113–122), whonotes that no astrologer predictedGandhi’s assassination in 1984, andthat the golden rule seems to be “pre-dict only those things which please thelistener’s ego.”5

Lack of Criticism

In the West, books critical of astrologyare not hard to find, but in India the re-verse is true. Some excellent books exist,such as Premanand et al. (1993) and Rao(2000), but all are hampered by a lack ofIndian tests with which to counter truebelievers. Even Current Science had towait until Manoj Komath’s (2009) review, which drew heavily on Westernsources such as the critical but user-friendly www.astrologyandscience.com.unfortunately, given the low level of in-come and high level of illiteracy of themasses, web sources may not be very ef-fective in general.

uGC’s funding of astrology mighthave been justifiable had Indian astrol-ogy ever been a source of new knowl-edge (it hadn’t; see Siddhanta 2001, 13),or if its modus operandi had been veri-fied by controlled tests. But unlike as-trology in the West, where several hun-dred controlled tests have found nosupport commensurate with its claims(Dean 2007), astrology in India hadhitherto been without controlled tests,

even though its focus on predictingyes/no events would make testing easy.6I will now describe a controlled test thatmy colleagues and I conducted recently.

Our Experiment

Our experiment was performed in theuniversity city of Pune (formerlyPoona) about 160 km (100 miles)southeast of Mumbai (formerly Bom -bay) in the state of Maharashtra, whichis the second-largest in population andthird-largest in area of India’s twenty-five states. Pune itself has a populationof about 3.5 million.

For the experiment I was assisted byProfessor Sudhakar Kunte from theDepartment of Statistics at Pune uni -versity, Narendra Dabholkar from theCommittee for the Eradication ofSuper stitions, and Prakash Ghatpandea former professional astrologer whohas subsequently turned into a critic ofastrology.

Indian astrologers claim that theyare able to tell intelligence from a per-son’s horoscope. So volunteers from theCommittee for the Eradication of Su-perstitions went to different schoolsand collected the names of teenageschool children rated by their teachersas mentally bright. They also collectednames from special schools for thementally handicapped. The destinies ofthese cases could hardly be more differ-ent, so they were ideal for testing theabove claim. From the collected data weselected 100 bright and 100 mentallyhandicapped cases whose age distribu-tion is shown below.

Breakdown by age of our 100 + 100 test cases. Abouthalf of the mentally handicapped cases are older thanour bright teenagers, which could have provided cuesbut evidently didn’t.



Birth details were obtained fromtheir parents because birth certificatesare rare in India. Professional Indian as-trologers routinely assume that birthdetails provided by parents are correct,so our procedure followed the norm.Each horoscope (birth chart) was cal-culated by one of us (PG) using com-mercial astrological software. all horo-scopes were coded and stored in safecustody by Professor Kunte at Puneuniversity, so that neither the experi-menters (our group of four) nor the as-trologers could know the identities ofthe individuals.

Publicity

We announced our experiment at apress conference in Pune May 12, 2008,and invited practicing astrologers totake part. We explained that each par-ticipant would be given forty horo-scopes drawn at random from our setof 200 and would have to judgewhether their owners were mentallybright or handicapped. We also invitedestablished astrological organizations totake part, for which they would begiven all 200 horoscopes, a respectablylarge sample size.

The press conference, which was re-ported in almost all local and regionalnewspapers, proved to be an efficient

way to reach astrologers. Within a fewdays we received about 150 telephonecalls from astrologers all over Maha -rashtra expressing interest. We askedthem to send us their names, experi-ence, and method of prediction used,together with a stamped self-addressedenvelope for mailing the forty horo-scopes. They were then allowed onemonth for making their judgments. Indue course, fifty-one astrologers askedfor horoscopes, of which twenty-sevenfrom all over Maharashtra sent backtheir judgments. The rest did not tell uswhy they chose not to participate.

Objections

astrologers from the Pune and Maha -rashtra astrological societies expressedconcern that, because the data had beencollected by skeptics, the experimentwould be biased. We assured them thatthe skepticism of data collectors had noactive role in running the experiment,and that the experiment was of thedouble-blind kind to make sure it wasentirely fair. But they were not con-vinced, and tried (unsuccessfully) todissuade other astrologers from partic-ipating.

a month later, at a Pune astrologicalseminar, we explained that tests, indeedmany tests, are necessary if astrology is

to establish itself as a science. The or-ganizer then said he could provide a setof ten rules that would tell whether ahoroscope’s owner was mentally brightor handicapped, and urged the as-trologers present to participate in ourexperiment.

In India, leading astrologers havetheir own astrological organizations, andso we wrote to those on our list (about adozen) inviting them to judge all 200horoscopes. Two responded with expres-sions of interest, of which one sent in itsjudgment. The other remained silent.

An Interesting Sub-Test

although the Maharashtra astro logicalSociety had urged astrologers to boycottour experiment, its president kept meet-ing with us. among other things he gaveus a rule for predicting sex and anotherrule for predicting intelligence, both ofwhich he claimed were correct in 60 per-cent of cases. But when applied to our setof 200 horoscopes, the predictions wererespectively 47 and 50 percent correct,which offers no advantage over pureguessing or tossing a coin.

Results of Our Main Test

Of the twenty-seven astrologers whoparticipated, not all provided personaldetails, but fifteen were hobbyists, eightwere professionals, nine had up to tenyears of experience, and seventeen hadmore than ten years of experience. Sothey clearly formed a competent group.Their average experience was fourteenyears.

If the astrologers could tell intelli-gence from a person’s horoscope, theywould score at least twenty-eight hitsout of forty. In fact the highest scorewas of twenty-four hits by a single as-trologer followed by twenty-two hits(by two astrologers). The remainingtwenty-four astrologers all scoredtwenty hits or less, including one pro-fessional astrologer who found thirty-seven intelligent and three undecided(so none were mentally handicapped!),of which seventeen were correct. Theaverage for all twenty-seven astrologerswas 17.25 hits, less than the twenty ex-pected by chance (e.g., coin tossing)and well within the difference of ± 3.16needed to be statistically significant at

If the astrologers could tell intelligencefrom a person’s horoscope, they would score at least twenty-eight hits out of forty. . . . The average for all twenty-seven astrologers was 17.25 hits, less than the twenty expected by chance (e.g., coin tossing).


Jayant V. Narlikar, wellknown as an astrophysicistand science communicatorin India, is internationallyknown for his work in cos-mology. He is emeritus pro-

fessor at the Inter-University Centre for Astron-omy and Astrophysics in Pune, India.

p = 0.05. So much for the benefits oftheir average fourteen years of experi-ence! Certainly no scientific theorywould survive such a poor success rate!

The institution whose team of as-trologers had judged all 200 horoscopesgot 102 hits, of which fifty-one werebright and fifty-one were mentallyhandicapped, so their judgments were,again, no better than tossing a coin.

Tragically, our statistician, SudhakarKunte, died in an accident in 2011, andthe security he imposed on data storagehas so far made it difficult for us to per-form further tests, such as whether theastrologers agreed on their judgments,whether they could pick high Iq betterthan low, and whether the three astro-logical methods used (Nirayan, Sayan,Krishnamurty) differed in success rate.We hope that the access to this datawill eventually be possible.

Only two tests of Western astrol -ogers have involved the judgment of in-telligence. In Clark (1961) twenty as-trologers averaged 72 percent hits forten cases of high Iq paired with cere-bral palsy, but this famous result couldnot be replicated by Joseph (1975),where twenty-three astrologers aver-aged only 53 percent hits for ten casesof high Iq when paired with the se-verely mentally handicapped. In anycase the sampling error associated withN = 10 is more than enough to explainboth results, which is consistent withthe dozens of other tests that have beenmade of Western astrology (Dean2007). It is also consistent with the fewtests of Western astrologers who prac-tice Vedic astrology, for example Dud-ley (1995).

Conclusion

Our experiment with twenty-seven In-dian astrologers judging forty horo-scopes each, and a team of astrologersjudging 200 horoscopes, showed thatnone were able to tell bright childrenfrom mentally handicapped childrenbetter than chance. Our results contra-dict the claims of Indian astrologers andare consistent with the many tests ofWestern astrologers. In summary, ourresults are firmly against Indian astrol-ogy being considered as a science.7

AcknowledgmentsThe Department of Statistics, Pune univer-sity, and the Inter-university Centre for as-tronomy and astrophysics, Pune, providedinfrastructural support while this experi-ment was being conducted. a brief accountappeared in Current Science 96(5), 641–643,2009. My special thanks to Geoffrey Deanof Perth, Western australia, for providinginformation on tests of Western astrologyas well as giving me a general backgroundof astrology in the West versus the East.

Notes1. Babylonian omen ideas arrived in India

around 450 BC during the Persian occupation,followed, around 200 aD, by Greek astrologicalideas based on planets. To these were added newideas to suit Indian culture. The end result waslargely the Indian astrology still in use today,which exists in numerous schools disagreeingover details (most schools of astrology, Indian orWestern, disagree over details). The main differ-ences from Western astrology are a preoccupationwith reincarnation and karma, use of the siderealzodiac instead of the tropical zodiac (they nowdiffer by nearly one sign due to precession), ex-clusion of the non-classical planets uranus, Nep-tune, and Pluto in favor of the two lunar nodesRahu and Ketu, use of twenty-seven lunar man-sions or nakshatras, and progressively smaller andsmaller subdivisions of the signs (Dean et al. 1995and Rao 2000).

2. Braha (1986, xiii) warns that the complexitycan be dealt with only by intuition and experience,so Indian astrology cannot be properly learnt frombooks. But tests of Western astrologers have foundthat neither self-rated use of intuition nor experi-ence raise their success rate above chance (Deanand Kelly 2003). So why should Indian astrologersbe any different?

3. at one time Rao ran a computer horoscopeservice but without predictions. It was “only toprove to ‘omniscient’ astrologers that a confirmedanti-astrologer can also do what astrologers do, andwith greater efficiency and knowledge.” His chargefor fooling you was thirty rupees.

4. according to ancient Hindu texts, each be-liever has 8,400,000 rebirths from which they arereleased only by attaining enlightenment. at say,fifty years per birth, and no change over time, theallocated rebirths span more than 400 millionyears, roughly the age of the earliest hominids.

5. More examples can be found in Prema nandet al. (1993) and also via Internet search engine, al-beit with a need to persevere in your searching. Forstarters, try searching for “astrology michael prabhu.”

6. But some come close. For example Rakeshanand (2010) used astrology to make several im-portant decisions in his life, but the results weredisastrous. So he prepared horoscopes for twenty-four celebrities and nine personal friends, changedtheir names, and was able to get 101 astrologersfrom everywhere in far northern India to predicttheir life and events. But none succeeded. For ex-ample, they predicted no political career from thehoroscope of George Bush and no big money fromthe horoscope of Bill Gates. He concluded, “astrol-ogy is a misleading and useless superstition” (6). Healso offered a prize of one million rupees (about$20,000) to any Indian astrologer who coulddemonstrate that astrology works, so far with notakers. For details, visit www.godvslife.com.

7. Over the years I have made many public

statements against the pseudoscience of astrology,which earned me a chapter titled “The NarlikarEpisode” in a 348-page, 1998 book Astrology andthe Hoax of “Scientif ic Temper” by the astrologerGayatri Devi Vasudev, then editor of The Astro-logical Magazine. Her book tries to show that sci-entific inquiry or “scientific temper” is prejudicedagainst astrology, and that critics are quite igno-rant of both science and astrology. The abovechapter accused me of venturing into areas I hadnot investigated and was therefore ignorant of.For example, I had made the supposedly inexcus-able mistake of declaring that astrology was nota science. I hope the present investigation can setthe record straight.

Referencesanand, R. 2010. Astrology Tested Fake. Jammu:

God vs Life Publications.Braha, J.T. 1986. Ancient Hindu Astrology for the

Modern Western Astrologer. Miami: Hermeti-cian Press.

Clark, V. 1961. Experimental astrology. In Search3(1): 102–109.

Dean, G. 2007. The case for and against astrology.In B. Farha (ed.), Paranormal Claims: A Crit-ical Analysis. Lanham, MD: university Pressof america, pp. 115–129.

Dean, G., and I.W. Kelly. 2003. Is astrology rele-vant to consciousness and psi? Journal of Con-sciousness Studies 10(6–7): 175–198.

Dean, G., a. Mather, and I.W. Kelly. 1995. as-trology. In G. Stein, editor, Encyclopedia of theParanormal, Prometheus Books.

Dudley, J. 1995. an attempt to predict accidentaldeath with Vedic astrology. Correlation 14(2):7–11. (Twenty road deaths vs controls gave11 hits vs 10 expected by chance.)

Joseph, R.a. 1975. a Vernon Clark-model exper-iment distinguishing exceptionally giftedhigh performance from profoundly retardedlow performance children. Journal of Geocos-mic Research 1(3): 55–72.

Komath, M. 2009. Testing astrology. Current Sci-ence 96(12): 1568–1572.

Premanand, B., M. Bhatty, and M.S. Risbud(eds). 1993. Astrology: Science or Ego-Trip?Published by Indian Skeptics. (The best sin-gle survey of both Indian and Western astrol-ogy, impressively thorough, many anecdotes,but very few tests, none of them Indian.)

Raman, B.V. 1992. Planetary Influences on HumanAffairs. New Delhi: uBSD.

Rao, S.B. 2000. Astrology Believe It or Not? Ban-galore: Navakarnataka Publications.

Siddhanta, K. 2001. Some questions concerningthe uGC course in astrology. Breakthrough9(2): 1–36.




We, being social animals, thrive andcrave this interaction with other like-minded individuals. The reality, though,is that we must live in a world of believ-ers of superstition, religion, and pseu-doscience. We interact with these be-lievers all the time and, for the mostpart, their beliefs do not come into playin the interactions we have. Instancesoccur, however, when we find ourselveshaving to deal with someone whose be-liefs cross swords with our skepticism.Perhaps it comes up in a conversationat a party or social gathering. Maybethis person is a friend and the conver-sation has strayed into uncharted terri-tory, and we are surprised to find thatthe friend holds a superstitious or pseu-doscientific belief.

We have different kinds of relation-ships with believers, from casual to in-timate. How we deal with believers de -pends, to some degree, on the depthand importance of our relationshipswith them.

Before going further, we need to un -derstand what a believer is. Wiki pediahas a nice definition of belief that Ihappen to like and that I think servesmy purposes well here:

To “believe in” someone or some-thing is a distinct concept from “be-lieve that.” There are two types of be-lief in:

Commendatory: an expression ofconfidence in a person or entity, as in,“I believe in his ability to do the job.”

Existential claim: to claim belief inthe existence of an entity or phenom-enon with the implied need to justifyits claim to existence. It is often usedwhen the entity is not real or its exis-tence is in doubt. “He believes inwitches and ghosts” or “many childrenbelieve in fairies” are typical examples.

The difference between to believe inand to believe that is relevant in thiscontext. We all have things that we be-lieve that might be, usually based on ourknowledge, experience, and evidence. Ican believe that the sun rises in the eastbecause my knowledge (knowing howEarth rotates), my experience (havingseen countless sunrises), and the evi-dence (I can test this by using a com-pass to show that the sun does, indeed,rise in the east) tells me this is true. al-ternatively, I might believe that my sonwill be successful in a career as a sales-man because he has shown a particu-lar talent in persuading people to do

things he wants them to do.People who believe in things are the

ones I am discussing here. In particular,I am referring to people whose world-view and sense of identity are deeplytied to their belief in something, be itreligion, pseudoscience, or superstition.

What makes many believers sostaunch in their beliefs? Why do theypersist in their beliefs, even in the faceof reason, logic, and evidence? The rea-son I discuss here is cognitive disso-nance.

Cognitive dissonance is a theory firstproposed by Leon Festinger in the 1950s.Festinger theorized that when an indi-vidual holds two or more ideas that arerelated but inconsistent with each an-other, the inconsistency creates a state ofdiscomfort (Harmon-Jones and Har-mon-Jones 2007). “Because dissonance isuncomfortable, people will try to reduceit by changing one or both cognitions tomake them more consonant with eachother” (Festinger et al. 1956).

Festinger famously tested his theoryby studying a uFO cult that believedthat there would be a great flood on De-cember 21, 1954, and that a flyingsaucer would save them. When theprophecy failed to transpire and De -cem ber 21 passed with no flood and noflying saucer, the members of the groupbecame even more dedicated to theirbeliefs. The reasons were that most ofthem had gotten rid of all their posses-sions and had surrendered everything to

Understanding Believers’ Cognitive Dissonance Dealing with believers of superstition, pseudoscience, and religion can be difficult for skeptics because it is hardto understand why intelligent people believe in irrational things. Understanding cognitive dissonance theory canhelp skeptics understand the psychology of irrational belief and perhaps better deal with believers.

JAMES WALKER

Skeptics take great pleasure in talking and debatingwith each other. We spend hours every day on onlineskeptical forums, blogs, and websites. We meet to -

gether at the pub, at meetings with our local skepticalgroups, and at conferences.



their belief in the prophecy. They ra-tionalized the truth away by tellingthemselves that their sincere commit-ment stopped the flood from happen-ing, and that this proved that they wereright to believe.

Festinger gave five conditions underwhich we expect to observe increasedfervor following the disconfirmation ofa belief:

1. a belief must be held with deepconviction, and it must have somerelevance to action, that is, to whatthe believer does or how he be-haves.

2. The person holding the beliefmust have committed himself toit; that is, for the sake of his belief,he must have taken some impor-tant action that is difficult to undo.In general, the more importantsuch actions are, and the more dif-ficult they are to undo, the greateris the individual’s commitment tothe belief.

3. The belief must be sufficientlyspecific and sufficiently concernedwith the real world so that eventsmay unequivocally refute the be-lief.

4. Such undeniable disconfirmatoryevidence must occur and must berecognized by the individual hold-ing the belief.

5. The individual believer must havesocial support. It is unlikely thatone isolated believer could with-stand the kind of disconfirmingevidence we have specified. If,however, the believer were a mem-ber of a group of convinced per-sons who can support one another,we would expect the belief to bemaintained and the believers to at-tempt to proselytize or to persuadenonmembers that the belief is cor-rect.

Throughout history, there have beenmany examples of groups of people en-countering the above five conditions withthe same results. Most we are un able toconfirm with any certainty given the lackof record keeping and unwillingness ofthe participants of these groups to admitto failed prophecy. How ever, Festingergave several examples in his book WhenProphecy Fails, pro viding evidence to sup-port his theory.

One of these groups was the Miller -ites during the nineteenth century in

the united States. They believed, basedon a specific reading of the Bible, thatthe second coming of Jesus would occursometime between March 21, 1843,and March 21, 1844. Thousands ofpeople came to believe this prophecy,and many gave away everything theyowned in preparation for the coming oftheir Lord. after the March 21, 1844,date passed, most of the Millerites losttheir faith, but some searched the Bibleand found passages that they felt ex-plained why the original dates were in-accurate.

Some Millerites concluded thatMiller’s interpretation was flawed andthat it instead foretold of Christ’s en-trance into the heavenly sanctuaryrather than his second coming. Thisgroup came to be called The adventistsand they continued to believe thatChrist’s second coming was imminent,but they refused to set further dates forthe event.

another fascinating example is thatof Sabbatai zevi, a Jew in Smyrna in theseventeenth century who claimed to bethe messiah and had thousands of Jew-ish followers throughout Europe. Whenhe proclaimed he would soon fulfill hispurpose and lead the Jews of the worldback to the Holy Land, “The Jews ac-cordingly prepared seriously to return totheir original home. In Hun gary theybegan to unroof their houses. In largecommercial cities, where Jews took thelead in wholesale business, such as am-

sterdam, Leghorn, and Ham burg, stag-nation of trade ensued” (Festinger et al.1956).

The Sultan finally imprisoned Sab -batai in Constantinople because he hadarrived there in an effort to force thebeginning of his messianic missionwhere thousands of people hailed himas the messiah.

Finally, in an effort to cope with theproblem, without making a martyr ofSabbatai, the Sultan attempted toconvert him to Islam. astonishinglyenough, the plan succeeded and Sab -batai donned the turban. Many of theJews of the Near East still kept faithin him. Explanations were in ventedfor his conversion and many contin-ued their proselyting, usually in placeswhere the movement had not previ-ously been strong. a considerablenumber of Jews even followed hislead and became Moslems. His con-version proved to be too much formost of his followers in Europe, how-ever, and the movement there sooncollapsed. (Festinger, et al. 1956)

We can see by these examples howeasily people can surrender everythingthey have, giving up possessions, rela-tionships, and family to pursue their be-liefs. The more they sacrifice, thegreater the cognitive dissonance andthe stronger their belief becomes, evenafter failure of the prophecy is obvious.They become so invested in their be-liefs that they will latch onto any expla-nation, no matter how far-fetched, thatreinforces their beliefs to which theyhave surrendered so much.

We have seen modern examples of this phenomenon in groups such as Heaven’s Gate and Reverend Jim Jones’s Peoples Temple, where people willingly killed themselves andtheir children because they had literally invested everything—including their very beings—into their belief system.


We have seen modern examples ofthis phenomenon in groups such asHeaven’s Gate and Reverend JimJones’s Peoples Temple, where peoplewillingly killed themselves and theirchildren because they had literally in-vested everything—including their verybeings—into their belief system. Noteven the idea of death was enough todissuade them; to the contrary, they sawdeath as part of God’s plan for themand their eternal salvation.

For the religious beliefs of the aver-age person, cognitive dissonance—while not nearly as strong as it may bein the above situations—is very strong.People who believe deeply or peopleraised in certain belief systems havemuch of their sense of self invested inthose beliefs.

The reactions of believers whentheir beliefs are questioned are varied,but often the knee-jerk reaction is tobecome defensive. They may engage inad hominem attacks on the person ques-tioning their beliefs, or they may attackthe questioner’s beliefs instead of ad-dressing the questions raised abouttheir beliefs. They often engage inevangelistic activities with questioners,attempting to convince them of their

beliefs by quoting scripture or appeal-ing to the authority of the Bible, thechurch and its leaders, or God himself.all of these arguments are, of course,common logical fallacies that use circu-lar reasoning to make their arguments:“My belief in God must be right be-cause the Bible says so, and God wrotethe Bible,” is one such example.

To engage a believer in a productivediscussion about their beliefs, it helps tounderstand that the person may be suf-fering from significant cognitive disso-nance. I believe letting the person knowthat while I do not agree with their be-lief, I respect their right to say and be-lieve as they choose is very important. Ido not mean that we, as skeptics, haveto respect their ideas, thoughts, or ac-tions, but we need to respect their rightsto free expression and belief, and weshould express to them our respect ofthose rights.

In When Prophecy Fails, Festinger says:“. . . through the mocking and scoffing ofnonbelievers there is usually establisheda heavy commitment on the part of be-lievers . . . the jeering of nonbelieverssimply makes it far more difficult for theadherents to withdraw from the move-ment and admit that they were wrong.”

If we merely mock or make light ofa believer’s beliefs, without also ex -pressing our respect for their right tohold those beliefs—no matter how ab-surd the beliefs may be—we will mostlikely drive them deeper into theirmindset. While we say that we wantothers to respect our beliefs, what wereally mean is that we want them to re-spect us as individuals. The reality isthat the only thing we need to respectin our dealings with anyone, includingbelievers, is respect for their rights tohold and express their beliefs. Otherthan that, we should not feel bound tohold back on criticizing their beliefs. If,however, we show that we have respectfor their rights to believe and expresstheir beliefs, then we have the begin-nings of a meaningful discussion. n

ReferencesFestinger, L., H.W. Riecken, S. Schachter, et al.

1956. When Prophecy Fails. Minneapolis: uni-versity of Minnesota Press.

Harmon-Jones, E., and C. Harmon-Jones. 2007.Cognitive dissonance theory after 50 years ofdevelopment. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie38: 7–16.

James Walker currently works in the IT fieldbut is pursuing a career as a writer. He is theauthor of the Freethinking for Dummies blog athttp://freethinkingfordummies.com.


over characters who take them and runaway (Hamlin and Wynn 2011).

More recently, Hamlin’s new teamclaimed to demonstrate that, like adults,babies interpret others’ actions as positiveor negative depending on context (Ham-lin et al. in press). In this particularlychilling report, infants were found to pre-fer both individuals who helped otherswith attitudes (tastes in food) similar totheir own, and individuals who hinderedothers with different attitudes.

Scarf stands firm, however. He findsit implausible, for example, that ten-month-olds would consider such smalldifferences between stimuli significant.Regardless, his team had also replicatedHamlin’s 2007 results when the climberwas made to bounce at the top of the

hill—an unlikely outcome, Scarf chides,if their stimuli were—as Hamlin claims—somehow deficient.

He argues as well that Hamlin et al.’smore recent experiments, though admit-tedly altered in design, suffer from thesame general confound as the originals.In one case, the protagonist was made todive toward a rattle in helping trials—an“interesting” event, according to Scarf,while the hinderer was made to slam abox closed in hindering trials—an “aver-sive” event.

ough already extensive, Hamlin’sexplorations into infant prosociality willcontinue. For his part, Scarf intends toauthor a review of the existing literature.Defending parsimony is an honorablecause, of course, and the New zealanders

have succeeded in raising importantquestions for further research. are we in-nately moral, or is prosociality primarilylearned? are we naturally discriminatoryand intolerant, or must those behaviors betaught and learned as well? n

References:Hamlin, J.K., N. Mahagan, z. Liberman, et al. (in

press). Not like me = bad: Infants prefer thosewho harm dissimilar others. Psychological Sci-ence.

Hamlin, J.K., and K. Wynn. 2011. Young infantsprefer prosocial to antisocial others. CognitiveDevelopment 26(1): 30–39.

Hamlin, J.K., K. Wynn, and P. Bloom. 2007. Socialevaluation by preverbal infants. Nature 450:557–560.

Scarf, D., K. Imuta, M. Colombo, et al. 2012. Socialevaluation or simple association? Simple asso-ciations may explain moral reasoning in infants.PLoS One 7(8): e42698.

[ SCIENCE WATCH KENNE TH W. K R AUS E Innate Morality? Babies Weigh In

(Continued from page 31)



FORUM]

Closing the Book on ‘Open-Mindedness’KATJA PETROVIC

defend this by saying that it must betrue because her grandmother said so).That aside, I decided to delve furtherinto this notion—because I would hateto be too closed-minded to consider thepossibility of being closed-minded (getyour head around that one!).

I should mention that I am a skepticand an atheist. I am also a psychologistand as such am well aware of the placeboeffect, confirmation bias, and other phe-nomena with which I work every day. Ithink science is wonderful because it’s agreat way of getting to the truth andlearning new things about ourselves andthe world in which we live. My motheris also a psychologist, but this is whereour mentalities part ways: she is into as-trology, alternative therapies, life energy,feng shui, and womb colds. She believesthat science is a faith, just like religion.Her method of determining the truthbehind these disciplines is not based onevidence because she does not trust “re-search” or “science” but rather on whatsounds good to her. Or perhaps thingsher grandmother used to say. In hermind, I am closed-minded and she isopen-minded. Could this be true?

at least my mom and I can agree onone thing: being open-minded is some-thing worth striving for. But what ex-actly does being “open-minded” mean?Generally it means being open to con-sidering new and different ideas. This, Isuppose, is where people get confusedabout being “open-minded” and being“gullible.” Open-mindedness is not be-lieving everything you hear; it is having ahealthy middle-ground of acceptingsome things and rejecting others. Buthow do we determine which claims weshould believe and which we shouldthrow on the proverbial rubbish heap?The simplest way is to ask, “How likely isthis to be true?” This is where science canhelp us gather enough evidence to decidewhether to accept or reject an idea.

Without evidence, there is only theblind belief that something is true eventhough there is no proof to show that itis. But surely this is the very definition ofgullibility—believing something withoutany good reason to do so. The more Ithought about it, the more being gullibleseemed closed-minded, as there is noth-ing that can change your belief. Com-pared to this, science is the more flexible

option—if there is good evidence to con-tradict your view, then you must take onthe new way of thinking. History is fullof examples of people collectively chang-ing their beliefs due to scientific findings:think evolution, the big bang theory, andclimate change to name a few. The Bron-tosaurus is now the apato saurus, andwho can forget saying goodbye to Pluto’splanetary status? We used to treat chil-dren’s ailments with morphine, believedthat sick people needed to be bled, andthought that women became hystericalbecause their wombs were movingaround in their bodies. and scientific ev-idence against these beliefs is the reasonwe changed our minds. Now comparethis to people’s faith in alternative reme-dies, astrology, or feng shui. My mother’sbelief in these practices will never budgebecause it is not based on any reliablefoundation and thus cannot be disproved.

Let me clarify one more thing. I stillremember trying to predict my day byreading horoscopes. I also used to thinkthat walking around barefoot mightjeopardize my childbearing chances, andI even good-naturedly tried a few dropsof homeopathic solution here and there.I wasn’t always averse to these ideas; Iconsidered them, tried them, and thendecided to reject them for lack of evi-dence that they worked.

So who is the open-minded one? n

Has this accusation ever been leveled at you? I foundmyself at the receiving end of this comment during aheated conversation with my dear mother (the subject ofthe conversation, by the way, was astrology). I reeled—thiswas coming from someone who thinks that walkingaround the house barefoot will cause you to get a “wombcold” and not be able to have children (and who will

“You’re just closed-minded.”

Katja Petrovic lives in Mel-bourne, Australia, and is cur-rently undertaking a mas-ter’s degree in psychology atMonash University.



as a result, I was more than a littlesurprised during a recent visit when atour group approached, huffing andpuffing up the trail to the site. I waseven more surprised when one of thepeople in the group walked up to me asI was admiring one of the beautiful an-cient rock art panels and said: “Hey! Irecognize you! You’re an archaeologyprofessor, aren’t you? I’ve seen you onTV.”

Imagine my reaction. I’m six milesup a dirt road in the middle of arizona,and my television fame precedes me! Ireplied politely, even enthusiastically,“Yup. That’s me.”

“Wow! How wonderful running intoyou here. I just saw you on a show aboutthat scientist who believes in ancient as-tronauts. What’s his name?”

“Do you mean Erich von Däniken?”I asked.

“Yeah, that’s the guy. Von Däniken.”“Von Däniken isn’t a scientist. He’s a

fantasy writer as far as I’m concerned.”“Well, you really should reconsider

your skepticism. after all, there’s some

very good evidence for those ancient as-tronauts visiting Earth. First of all, howdo you explain the fact that the Mayahad a base-12 number system? Doesn’tthat prove that the Maya were an alienrace with six fingers on each hand?”

“actually that’s not the case,” Ipointed out, “the Maya didn’t have abase-12 system. Theirs was a base-20system.”

“Okay, base-12, base-20. Whatever.It’s just that the Maya system allowedthem to count so high, so much higherthan would be necessary for a simplefarming people. It just doesn’t make anysense.”

“Look,” I patiently explained, “theMaya developed an impressive numeri-cal system. So what? The fact that theycould count high is in keeping withtheir brilliant architectural, artistic, en-

[FORUM

Help! I’m Being Followed by Ancient Aliens!

KENNETH L . FEDER

The Palatki site is located in the Coconino NationalForest, just west of Sedona, arizona. In a region wherepeople can visit the massive cliff dwellings of Mesa

Verde, few bother making the trip to this tiny jewel of aplace with its swirl of massive red rocks enveloping the liv-ing space of the ancient Sinagua people. Only about fiftyor sixty tourists visit the site each day, so at any particulartime you have the place pretty much to yourself and theone or two volunteer docents who monitor it.

Imagine my reaction. I’m six miles up a dirt road in the middle of Arizona, and my televisionfame precedes me! I replied politely, even enthusiastically, “Yup. That’s me.”


gineering, and calendrical achievements.The Maya were smart. That proves theywere, well, smart. That doesn’t provethey were extraterrestrials.”

“Oh, okay. Well, I just think you needto keep an open mind.”

“My mind is open, always; I justhaven’t seen any evidence to support theancient astronaut hypothesis.”

We shook hands and, grinning, mynew friend walked away.

My encounter exemplifies so much ofwhat is wrong about the ancient astro-naut belief. Let’s ignore the inconvenientfact that there is absolutely no material,archaeological evidence for it: no laserguns found in neat stratigraphic contextnext to the bones of woolly mammoths,no light sabers secreted in Egyptiantombs, and no Star Trek–style communi-cators reverentially placed in Hopewellburial mounds. There’s another thing justas fundamentally wrong here: There is noneed for a hypothesis of technologicallysophisticated aliens dispensing knowl-edge to ancient human beings.

The archaeological record showsclearly that our human ancestors wereenormously intelligent and resourceful.They were more than capable of devel-oping sophisticated technologies ontheir own. Rather than exhibiting a pat-tern of new ideas appearing magicallyand without antecedents at ancient sites,the actual record shows lengthy devel-opmental sequences—in the domestica-tion of plants and animals, the evolutionof Egyptian pyramids, metallurgy, andso on. The development of these thingsdidn’t occur overnight; they weren’t “air-lifted” to Earth from another planet. In-stead, the stories of these accomplish-ments are filled with the very humanpattern of trial and error, fits and starts,missteps and leaps forward.

To assume that the achievements ofancient humanity were made possible

by visitors from outer space is to grosslyunderestimate the intelligence and ca-pabilities of our ancestors and to ignorethe enormously fascinating actual ar-chaeological record.

and you don’t need six fingers oneach hand to understand that. n


A dwelling of the ancient Sinagua people in the CoconinoNational Forest (top). Ancient rock art panel of theSinagua people (bottom).

Kenneth L. Feder is authorof The Encyclopedia of Dubi-ous Archaeology andFrauds, Myths, and Myster-ies: Science and Pseudo-science in Archaeology. Heis professor of anthropology

at Central Connecticut State University and aCommittee for Skeptical Inquiry fellow andSKEPTICAL INqUIRER consulting editor. This firstappeared on the Ohio Archaeology Blog, ohio-archaeology.blogspot.com.



When clients who seem normal inevery other respect describe their per-petual motion machines with a view to-ward obtaining a patent, they invariablygrow animated, defensive, and, ofcourse, possessive. Curiously, this by it-self is not an unusual occurrence in apatent attorney’s office. a certain degreeof paranoia is actually healthy for an in-ventor, since an inventor cannot obtaina patent if the inventive idea was dis-closed more than one year prior to filingthe patent application. I often say myclients come in one of two flavors: para-noid and very paranoid.

In the eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies inventors tried to work withsimple machines—levers, weights,counterweights, wheels, pendulums,

magnets, and liquids—todo more work than couldnormally be performedwith the energy providedto the system.

although the unitedStates Patent and Trade -mark Office is obligatedto reject patent applications that violatelaws of nature, occasionally patent ex-aminers make mistakes. Consider u.S.Patent No. 257,103 (Figure 1), issued onapril 25, 1882, to John Sutliff Sr. for“Motor.” a water tank, B, has a pivotingtubular lever, a. The long, hollow armof the lever, a, terminates in a bulb orhollow vessel, C. The other, shorter arm,D, of the lever is connected by means ofa connecting rod, E. Rod E has a cog

wheel, F, engaging with a pinion, G,mounted on a shaft, H, which is to bedriven. a pivoted box, K, is connectedboth to the connecting rod, E, and to apivot point (unlabeled). Disposed onthe upper surface of the box, K, is aheavy ball, L, that is free to roll fromside to side. The underside of the box,K, is attached to a bellows, M, fromwhich a flexible tube, N, leads to a hol-low shaft of tubular lever, a.

[FORUM

Perpetual Discussion!MARK LEVY

A s a patent attorney, I am occasionally ap-proached by a client with an idea for an ap-paratus or method to achieve perpetual

motion. Writer Dimitry Rotstein recently stated(“The Perpetual quest,” SKEPTICAL INQUIRER,September/October 2011) perpetual motion devices are intended to generate persistent mo-tion with no energy source. They are expected torun forever. This, of course, is a violation of theFirst Law of Thermodynamics, which states thatenergy cannot be created but may only be con-verted from one form to another. True, Einsteinmodified the First Law by proving that energycan be converted from mass, but, as far as physi-cists know, neither mass nor energy can be created ab initio.

Figure 1. Design for a perpetual motor granted a patent in 1882



In operation, the bulb or vessel, C, isfilled with air and naturally floats in thewater tank, B. This lowers the shorterarm of the lever, D. Cog wheel, F, andpinion, G, are rotated, while the rightside of box, K, is lowered, so the ball, L,rolls to the right side of the box, K, in-creasing the weight on that right side ofthe box, K. as one end of the box, K, islowered, the left side of the box attachedto the bellows, M, is raised, whereby allof the air is removed from the bulb, C,and lever tube, a, causing the bulb, C,to sink. The shorter arm, D, of the lever,a, is thereby raised, and the wheel, F,which has made a half revolution whenthe lever, a, and bulb, C, were raised,will now complete its revolution. Thebox, K, is tilted again, the ball, L, restingon it rolls to the left, compressing thebellows, M, and forcing the air into thebulb, C, and tubular lever, a, causing thesame to rise, etc. In this way, the bulb,C, continues to rise and fall; ball, L, con-tinues to reciprocate between the ex-tremes of box, K; bellows, M, continuesto expand and compress; cog wheel, F,continues to rotate; and shaft, H, con-tinues to turn in one direction. all ofthis supposedly goes on for an indefinitetime, without applying further energy tothe system. Needless to say, an actual,working motor was never built.

By the twentieth century, inventorsgraduated from mechanical devices totheories for conserving or creating en-ergy that relied on electricity and evennuclear power. In the last few years, forexample, I have seen a proposed systemfor operating an electric car indefinitelywithout a battery charge, a symbioticelectric motor/generator system thatwill never run down, and a nuclear gen-erator that the inventor believed wouldlast as long as its electrically conductivewires could be maintained at absolutezero, with zero resistance.

On May 19, 1959, once again thePatent and Trademark Office granted a

patent, No. 2,886,976 (Figure 2), for aperpetual motion machine. The inven-tor was Norman L. Dean and thepatent title was “System for Convert ingRotary Motion into unidirectionalMotion.” Through an elaborate systemof gears, clutches, counterweights—and, oh yes, electromagnets—Deanconvinced the Patent Office examinerthat his sky hook was patentable.

Simply stated, Dean’s invention in-cluded

an oscillatory movement of a freelysuspended inertia mass or of a plu-rality of such masses . . . produced bythe rotation of a mass or massesaround an axis or axes and by limit-ing the degrees of freedom of move-ment of said freely suspended massor masses, and in which the oscilla-tory movement of the system pro-duces a continuous series of unidirec-tional impulses which may betransmitted to a suitable load deviceor which may act on the carrier of the

system itself, without however react-ing on or otherwise influencing thefrequency or amplitude of the saidoscillatory movement.

Dean’s patent is not a testament tothe principle that perpetual motion ma-chines work, but that, with enoughelectromechanical legerdemain, evenpeople trained in technical fields can befooled.

The best way to handle an inventorwho is convinced that his or her perpet-ual motion machine will work is for thepatent attorney to request a workingprototype. The next step is for the at-torney not to be surprised when the in-ventor doesn’t return. n

Mark Levy is a patent attorneywith Hin man, Howard and Kat-tell in Bingham ton, New York.He has degrees in physics,law, and creative writing.

Figure 2. Design for a perpetual motion machine granted a patent in 1959



Skeptics often say they are tryingto expose pseudoscience, but inreality we tend to use this term

loosely. Creationism, homeopathy, al -ternative medicine, and cold fusion areclearly pseudoscientific, but what aboutancient aliens, uFOs, alien abductions,Bigfoot, crystals, the Moon hoax, andmany other claims investigated in thepages of the SKEPTICaL INquIRER? arethese examples of pseudoscience, justbad science, or perhaps not related toscience at all?

One definition of pseudosciencepresents it as claims that are presentedas scientific but do not adhere to validscientific method. another describespseudoscience as the misuse of methodsthat seem scientific in order to undercutreal science. In his excellent new bookThe Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Ve-likovsky and the Birth of the ModernFringe, Princeton historian Michael D.Gordin asserts that scientists only applythe label of pseudoscience—which hedefines as “doctrines that are non-sci-ence but pretend to be, or aspire to be,or are simply mistaken for scientific”—to ideas that they feel are threateningbecause of their public appeal. It is theway pseudoscience masquerades as realscience and is used to attack real sciencethat sets it apart from the easily dis-missed claims of cranks and charlatans.

No advocate for an unorthodox per-spective ever calls his or her work pseu-doscience. This is a term of oppro-brium, assigned by scientists who aredefending the consensus. Gordin notesthat in practice, the term pseudoscienceis generally reserved for ideas that areperceived as major challenges to sci-ence—especially in the eyes of the pub-lic. Less threatening ideas are simply la-

beled as bad science or non-science, onthe assumption that they will self-de-struct and be quickly forgotten.

Gordin’s highly readable book ex -amines in detail several twentieth-cen-tury examples of pseudoscience. Majoremphasis is on the pseudocosmologistImmanuel Velikovsky. His other primeexamples are Trofim Lysenko, whonearly destroyed mid-century Russiangenetics, and the advocates for Biblicalcreationism who attempted to establisha scientific basis for a planet less thanten thousand years old. Lysenkoism wasa threat be cause of the personal supportgiven by Stalin and the Soviet Commu-nist Party, which virtually outlawed re-search that challenged Lysenko andthereby had a strong negative impact onSoviet agriculture. In a sense, Lysenkocould be held responsible for the deathof millions in the u.S.S.R. The cre-ationist authors who developed “floodgeology,” primarily George McCreadyPrice, Henry Morris, and John Whit-comb, have been (and continue to be) athreat because of support by Christianfundamentalists who use these ideas toattack evolutionary biology in particu-lar and science in general. Velikovsky isdifferent, in that he achieved substantialfame and influence on his own merits

without the support of any organizedreligious or political institutions.

Many readers of the SKEPTICaL IN-quIRER are familiar with the outlines ofVelikovsky’s rise and fall. Gordin hadaccess to the complete Velikovskyarchives held by Princeton university,which he used to document many de-tails of this story. He places in contextthe “Velikovsky affair,” which dealt withthe opposition to his 1950 book Worldsin Collision. One of many controversieshe illuminates is the question whetherVelikovsky’s book was reviewed (or ref-ereed) before publication. The fact isthat it was reviewed by several scientistswho said, in effect, even though it wasbunk as science, the book was still likelyto be popular enough that its publica-tion would be a sound business deci-sion.

That is exactly what happened.Scien tists excoriated the book for itsobvious failings, but many non-scientistreviewers lavished praise upon it. Thisdeep division between the “two cul-tures” of science and the humanitiescame as a shock to many scientists. Ve-likovsky, while of course pleased thathis book rose to the top of the bestsellerlists, was also stung by its unanimouscondemnation by scientists. He never

[BOOK REVIEWS

The Parameters of PseudoscienceDAVID MORRISON

The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birthof the Modern Fringe.By Michael D. Gordin. University of Chicago Press, Illinois, 2012.ISBN: 978-0226304427. 304 pp. Hardcover, $29.00



Phil Senter is a vertebrate paleontolo-gist with a specialty in dinosaur paleo-biology. He received his PhD in biologi-cal sciences from Northern Illinois University in 2003 and teachesbiology courses at Fayetteville StateUniversity in North Carolina. He has published forty-plus articles on di-nosaur paleontology, the natural his-

tory of West African snakes, and the creation-evolution debate. Email:[email protected].

As it happens, insistencethat tyrannosaurs and

ziphodont theropods wereherbivores is not neces-sary for the creationistdoctrine of original her-

bivory.

understood their criticism of planets rap-idly shifting orbits within historic time,and he sought their recognition as a bonafide scholar. He did not do this by pub-lishing papers or making presentations atscientific conferences, but rather by court-ing individual scientists—especially hisPrinceton neighbor albert Einstein.These efforts at personal diplomacy werenot successful. Scientists immediately rec-ognized that his planetary collisions, andhis suggestion that electromagnetismrather than gravitation dominated plane-tary motions, were (in Einstein’s terms)“crazy.” Velikovsky was simply not speak-ing the same language as the scientificcommunity.

But this is only half the story. Itseemed likely that for all the immediatepopularity of his book, he would quicklybe forgotten. What makes this story sointeresting, what elevates Velikovsky tothe rank of true pseudoscientist, was theresurrection of interest in his work duringthe Vietnam War years, when he becamea darling of the counterculture, gainingsupport among humanist scholars as wellas rebellious students. He was invited tospeak on campuses, conferences were heldto discuss his ideas, and his books againascended the best-seller charts. Preciselybecause of his rejection by the scientificcommunity, he became the symbol of thelone scholar defying the conservative es-tablishment.

Gordin also explores the relationshipsbetween different pseudoscientists. Su-perficially, there were striking similarities

ALL WE HAVE TO FEAR: Psychiatry’s Transfor mation of Natu-ral Anxieties into Mental Disorders. Allan Horwitz and JeromeWakefield. Two sociologists (and coauthors of The Loss ofSadness) discuss the ever-increasing professional diagnosisof anxiety disorders in America (up from 5 percent of the pop-ulation in 1970 to 50 percent today) and suggest that the rootcause is over-medicalization of normal and common anxiety.Oxford University Press, 2012, 320 pp., $29.95.

THE DATA GAME: Controversies in Social Science Statistics(Fourth Ed.). Mark H. Maier and Jennifer Imazeki. Intendedas a supplement to college and university courses in statis-tics and social sciences, this readable book provides an in-teresting and well-referenced discussion of the uses (andabuses) of statistics in controversial social issues, includingcrime, education, economy, wealth, and public opinion polls.With an index, summaries, and case studies in each chapter,this book is a useful addition to popular statistics books byauthors such as John Allen Paulos and Joel Best. M.E. Sharpe,Inc., 2012, 328 pp., $29.95.

THE ENLIGHTENMENT VISION: Science, Rea son, and thePromise of a Better Future. Stuart Jordan. A retired NASAphysicist and a CSI Fellow, Jordan argues that the historicalWestern Enlightenment remains the right vision for a highercivilization but that we have fallen short; and, more broadly,that sometime in the future, enlightenment values will ex-pand and take hold in currently unpredictable ways. The bookis dedicated to Paul Kurtz. Prome theus Books, 2013, 295 pp.,$26.00.

REAL WOLFMEN: True Encounters in Modern America. Linda S.Godfrey. The author, who claims to be “America’s foremost au-thority on modern-day werewolves,” collects dozens of (pre-sumably infallible) eyewitness reports to argue that were-wolves may roam the country; though far too credulous, thisskepticism-free book provides an interesting cryptozoologicalsurvey and discussion of modern werewolf reports.Tarcher/Penguin, 2012, 333 pp., $15.95.

THE UNTOLD STORY OF CHAMP: A Social History of America’sLoch Ness Monster. Robert Bar tholomew. New York-born his-torian Bartholo mew tells the full story of the alleged LakeChamplain monster’s rich, colorful history—separating fact,fiction, and speculation—and the equally colorful actions andpersonalities of modern-day monster hunters. State Univer-sity of New York Press, 2012, 253 pp., $24.95.

—Benjamin Radford and Kendrick Frazier

No advocate for an unorthodox perspective ever calls his or her workpseudoscience. This is a term of opprobrium, assignedby scientists who are defending the consensus.

[NEW AND NOTABLE



The intent of Medusa’s Gaze and Vam-pire’s Bite is to provide scientific ex-planations for various monsters

found in historical legend and literatureup through the monsters of today as seen,mostly, in film. Had Kaplan succeeded inthis task, he would have produced an ex-citing and interesting book. Instead, thebook is filled with over-explanations, just-so stories, and college-level film criticism,all leavened by one howling error.

e topics covered are arranged inrough chronological order. us, the firsthalf of the book deals with monsters fromancient myths and legends such as theNemean lion, chimeras, the Minotaur,Medusa, Charybdis, and the like. Butmodern monsters are tossed in too—King Kong and the giant squid (the latter

doesn’t really belong since it does exist).e explanations for ancient beasts are

often fairly reasonable. For example,monsters that are giant versions of alreadyscary animals are scary because, well, agiant version of something already scary(e.g., a lion) is even scarier. Snakelikemonsters are scary because snakes are

scary in the first place. Why do snakes, tothis day, generate fear? Kaplan argues,convincingly, that the fear of snakes ispart of human’s evolutionary heritage.ey posed real danger as proto-humansevolved. So there is an advantage toavoiding snakes even if one has not had adirect scary experience with them.

Flawed Look at MonstersTERENCE HINES

between Velikovsky and the creationistpositions of Price in The New Geology(1923) and Whitcomb and Morris inThe Genesis Flood (1961). all rejectedthe uniformitarian geology of theirtime. all sought to explain many geo-logical features in terms of recent cata-strophic events. and both sides soughtevidence to support or verify events inthe Old Testament, such as Noah’sflood and the escape of the Israelitesfrom Egypt. Velikovsky began corre-spondence with Price in 1951, and hesent the manuscript of his second book,Earth in Upheaval, to Price for his com-ments. Price replied that “While I havenot always been able to agree with someof the details. I have admired the hand-some way in which you have demol-ished Charles Lyell as well as [CharlesDarwin].” Later in a review, Price de-scribed “Earth in Upheaval as one of themost thought-provoking books ofmodern times.” However, Velikovskyand the creationists soon fell into dis-pute. Velikovsky sought naturalistic ex-planations for the Bible stories, while

the creationists preferred direct attribu-tion to acts of God. In the end, eachside ostracized the other and went itsown way, not acknowledging any com-monality of ideas.

In his final chapter, Gordin turns tothe new phase of pseudoscience, prac-ticed by a few rogue scientists them-selves. Climate change denialism is theprime example, where a handful of sci-entists, allied with an effective PR ma-chine, are publicly challenging the sci-entific consensus that global warmingis real and is due primarily to humanconsumption of fossil fuels. Scientistshave watched in disbelief that as the ev-idence for global warming has becomeever more solid, the deniers have beenincreasingly successful in the public andpolitical arena. One has only to attenda meeting of atmospheric and climatescientists, such as the December 2012american Geophysical union, to ap-preciate the overwhelming support andincreasing sophistication of our under-stating of human-caused global warm-ing. at this gathering, thousands of sci-

entists made hundreds of presentationsof research results, ranging from theminutia of modeling the feedback ofcloud formation on the greenhouse ef-fect to documenting the incredible rateof loss of arctic ice. Leaders of the sci-entific community made impassionedstatements about the threat we face andthe necessity for action. Yet outside thehalls of science, polls show that half ofamericans deny the reality of climatechange, while Senator Jim Inhofe re-cently announced not only that humaninduced climate change is a hoax, butalso boasted, “we have won” in the courtof public opinion. Today pseudoscienceis still with us, and is as dangerous achallenge to science as it ever was in thepast. n

David Morrison is a planetary scientist and di-rector of the Carl Sagan Center for the Study ofLife in the Universe at the SETI Institute. He is aCommittee for Skeptical Inquiry Fellow and SKEP-TICAL INqUIRER Con tributing Editor and has receivedawards for science popular writing.

[REVIEWS

Medusa’s Gaze and Vampire’s Bite: The Science of MonstersBy Matt Kaplan. Scribners, New York, 2012. ISBN 978-1-4516-6798-1. 244 pp. Hardcover, $26.00



REVIEWS]

ere is, however, a bit of a problemwith this explanation of the commonalityof snakes as ancient monsters. Spiders,like snakes, continue to generate fear. Spi-ders, like snakes, posed a hazard to hu-mans while we were evolving. However,spiders, unlike snakes, did not serve as thebasis for legends of any ancient monsters,as far as I know.

Kaplan does occasionally go over-board by trying to come up with a specificexplanation for every little variation in amyth. For example, on pages 54 and 55there is a discussion of the possible factualbasis of the “cruel bellowing” of theMinotaur. ere is much discussion ofcaves and other geologic phenomena. Butisn’t it just simpler to explain the detailsof this, and other, myths as devices tomake them scarier? Or, as amazon re-viewer sonabeta pointed out in a Novem-ber 20, 2012, review, “People sometimesjust make things up.”

Similarly, on page 102 the discussionturns to dragons. e question is whydragon myths are not consistent acrosstime and place—some with wings andsome without, some breathing fire andsome not. Well, dragons aren’t real so whyshould all stories about them be consis-tent? Still, Kaplan’s explanation for thefire-breathing part is plausible and I won’tspoil it for the reader by giving it awayhere.

Chapter 6 on “Hauntings—Demons,Ghosts, Spirits” is long on description ofthese phenomena and short on explana-tions. Hypnogogic and hypnopompichallucinations go unmentioned, althoughthere is a brief discussion of sleep atoniaand sleep paralysis. But the full power ofhypnogogia—with all of its attendanthallucinations—to convince people thatghosts are real is not made clear at all.is is a serious omission.

e book does contain one major andinexcusable howler in Chapter 7, a chap-ter dealing with vampires, zombies, andwerewolves. Kaplan swallows hook, line,and sinker the long-refuted claim ofWade Davis that zombies are real andthat they can be created by witch doctorsusing the poison tetrodotoxin (TTX),found, among other places, in the skin

and internal organs of puffer fish nativeto Haiti. In accepting Davis’s claims Ka-plan ignores the overwhelming scientificliterature that shows that 1) the “zombiepowder” that Davis claims had TTX in itdidn’t and 2) even if it did, TTX in anyquantity cannot produce zombies. TTXis a nerve poison that does not get intothe brain. In terms of motor control, it af-

fects only the skeletal musculature. Itsspecific effect is to render victims para-lyzed, but it is not the stiff (rigid) paralysisof zombie legend but a flaccid paralysiswhere muscles lose their tone. In addi-tion, in nonlethal doses TTX causes nau-sea and vomiting. e idea that just theright dose of TTX could transform a per-son into a zombie and keep them thatway while they were walking aroundbeing productive slaves is absurd. and itsabsurdity has been known since the late1980s. Sadly, Kaplan obviously didn’t getthe memo. For a more detailed discussionwith appropriate references, see my article“zombies and Tetrodotoxin” in theMay/June 2008 SKEPTICaL INquIRER(vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 60–62).

e last few chapters change focusfrom creatures of ancient myth and leg-end to more recent creations, especiallyalien abductions and movie monsters. ediscussions here are quite poor, almostsophomoric, especially where moviemonsters are concerned. e first topic inChapter 8, “e Created,” is the golem.Here either through bad writing or igno-rance (or maybe both) Kaplan seems tostate that there was only one golem, inPrague, and the whole golem legenddates only from 1909. In fact, there isample evidence that the golem legend is

much, much older. e New StandardJewish Encyclopedia (Facts on File, 1992)notes that the legend dates from at leastthe fifteenth century. e Jewish Encyclo-pedia, vol. 6 (Ktav Publishing, 1964,reprint of the 1901–1906 edition) statesthat “In the Middle ages arose the beliefin the possibility of infusing life into aclay or wooden figure of a human being,which figure was termed a ‘golem’ bywriters of the eighteenth century” (p. 37).Sadly, missing from this chapter is anydiscussion of that most modern of myth-ical creatures, the chupacabra. e cre-ation of the myth of this creature was ablytold by Ben Radford in his 2011 bookTracking the Chupacabra.

Chapter 9 is devoted to “Terror Res-urrected—Dinosaurs.” Here Kaplan dis-cusses the recreation of our old thunderlizard friends in the movies and the pos-sibility for real recreation through use ofdinosaur DNa, which, of course, is thetheme of the movie Jurassic Park. e dis-cussions of both the film and dinosaurDNa leave much to be desired. Kaplan’scritique of the problems with using DNato recreate a dinosaur does not come closeto that of Desalle and Lindley in their1997 book Science of Jurassic Park. Kaplandoes nicely discuss the problems of recre-ating a species that would find itself with-out its natural ecosystem to live in andwould thus be confined to some sort ofenclosures. However, even here he stum-bles by an embarrassing acceptance of thecharacterization of chaos theory taken di-rectly from the movie—a characteriza-tion that is typical Hollywood fantasy. Inthe film the character Dr. Ian Malcolm(played by Jeff Goldblum) says that chaostheory means that “biological systems areuncontrollable by [their] nature andtherefore inherently threatening” (p. 187).us, no matter what protective measuresare taken, any recreated dinosaurs willbreak free and terrorize the world. Or atleast the local natives. is is Hollywoodnonsense. It bears about as much rela-tionship to actual chaos theory as theview of quantum mechanics espoused byNew age proponents does to actualquantum mechanics. In fact, chaos theorydeals with systems in which tiny changes

Kaplan swallows hook, line,and sinker the long-refutedclaim of Wade Davis thatzombies are real and thatthey can be created by witch doctors.



Phrenology and Polygraph Tests

Geoffrey Dean’s article on phre- n ology (SI, November/December2012) is an excellent cautionarytale about pseudoscience that isbased on experience, not con-trolled scientific studies. as I readthis article, I realized that phren -

ology has been replaced with itsmodern-day version, the use ofthe polygraph as a “lie-detecting”machine. The parallels are over-whelming. Both are based on experience, not science. Both usu-ally work to verify the practition-ers’ preconceptions. Both are usedto determine criminality. Bothhave been required for employ-

ment. Both give results that areir reproducible and subject to in-terpretation. Both have beenshown by controlled studies to beunreliable. and both are fashion-able and satisfying in their owntime period.

I was first alerted to the fraudof the “lie-detector” by two cases:a county assistant treasurer whowas falsely accused of embezzle-ment, and a distraught widowerwho was falsely accused of mur-dering his wife. Both of these ac-cused “failed” a polygraph exam(whatever that means) and wereimmediately convicted in thenewspapers, with their reputa-tions destroyed. They were bothsubsequently exonerated. Thepolygraph measures indicators ofstress, and honest people who arefalsely accused of heinous crimesare likely to “fail” the exam. Onthe other hand, hardened crimi-nals show little stress when theyare asked about their crimes.

unlike phrenology, polygraphtests are still used and acceptedby law-enforcement and govern-ment, and they are absolutely re-quired for a range of governmentjobs (FBI, CIa, and police agen-cies). What should you do whenyou are asked to take a “poly-graph exam” for a job or to proveyour innocence of a crime? If youagree to take one, you are placingyour reputation in the hands of acharlatan who can proclaim youto be guilty or innocent. If you

refuse, you are assumed to beguilty. I would like to see the CSIdo a careful study and expose ofthe use of polygraphs as “lie-de-tectors.” The government shouldbe pressured to abandon thismodern-day form of phrenologyand use more reliable methods toevaluate the honesty of suspectsand job applicants.

L.G. Wade Jr., PhDWalla Walla, Washington

Regarding Dr. Wade’s suggestion toCSI, see the feature article “Explor-ing Controversies in the Art andScience of Polygraph Testing” byJohn Ruscio in our January/Febru-ary 2005 issue, plus our News &Comment article “NAS Report SaysPolygraph Testing Too Flawed forSecurity Screening” (SI, Jan -uary/February 2003) and theCommentary “Polygraphs and theNational Labs: Dangerous RuseUnder mines National Security” byAlan P. Zelicoff, SI, July/August2001. Several of these, plus others,are available on our website(www.csicop.org/si). — Editor

Herbert Spencer did take phre -nology seriously for some time,but he was not an “americanpsychologist.” He was a Britishphilosopher, a dabbler in biology,psychology, and sociology, theman who coined the phrase “sur-vival of the fittest” and is widelyregarded as the last serious

in initial conditions can have very largeeffects on the state of these systems atlater times. e theory does not allow theimpossible to happen or even predict thatthe very unlikely will.

e final chapter, “Extraterrestrialreat—aliens,” suffers from much thesame problem as the section on ghosts:long on description but short on expla-nation. e chapter starts with a descrip-tion of the Betty and Barney Hill abduc-tion case. It then states that: “Countlesstales of abductions and bizarre sightingsfollowed” (p. 198). Kaplan then asks why

aliens are visiting Earth but not being de-tected by “all the space scanning technol-ogy that has been developed during thepast decades” (p. 199). His answer? “It isan enigma.” No, it’s not, as even a slightfamiliarity with the skeptical literature onuFOs and alien abduction would havemade clear. e rest of the chapter wan-ders in sort of a haze through variousalien-themed science-fiction movies, in-cluding an interesting digression on par-asites and how they can change animalbehavior. and then it stops. It doesn’t end.It just stops.

Perhaps this review should just stopas well. In summary, the book does con-tain a few interesting insights into thefactual backgrounds of several legendarycreatures. But in general it is poorly re-searched and written. Is it good enoughfor me to recommend that my univer-sity library purchase a copy? No. I makethe same recommendation for the read-ers of this review.

Terence Hines is professor of psychology atPace University and author of Pseudoscienceand the Paranormal. He is a Committee forSkeptical Inquiry Fellow.

[INBOX



philosopher who tried to organ-ize all of philosophy around asingle concept—his being Dar -win ian evolution. as an early “so-cial Darwinist,” he is more an ob-ject of scorn than of serious studytoday, which is perhaps a pity.

arthur M. ShapiroDept. of Evolution andEcologyuniversity of California Davis, California

Home-Grown Homeopathy

Edzard Ernst’s “Homeopathy: a Critique of Current ClinicalResearch” (SI, November/De c -ember 2012) is an excellent review of the poor quality of re-search on homeopathic treat -ment outcomes. How ever, I don’tenvy him the task he had of wad-ing through the quagmire of thisEuropean research to warn itsreaders of being sucked in by it.

Closer to home, there is anew homeopathic remedy beingtouted on TV and even in pop-up adds on the New York Timeswebsite. It is Tag away ($19.95plus S&H), which claims to re-move skin tags. Plenty of testi-monials can be found with a websearch, but I have yet to find a le-gitimate medical evaluation ofthis product. My family physi-cian tells me, “It doesn’t work.Only surgery removes skin tags.”

Tag away’s active ingredientis reported to be “thuja occiden-talis” (Eastern white cedar),which Wikipedia says was usedmedicinally by american Indiansand used in the nineteenth cen-tury to treat warts, ringworm,and thrush. Since homeopathicmedicines are produced by mul-tiple dilutions of the active ingre-dient, I asked the Tag away web-site for information on thehomeopathic dilution of its in-gredients, but the reply only re-peated the list of ingredientswithout further information.

If Tag away is truly “homeo-pathic,” its active ingredient hasbeen diluted to a point that it canhave no possible effect. If the ac-tive ingredient is in a concentra-tion strong enough to have some

effect, Tag away is being falselyadvertised as “homeopathic.” Ineither case, I expect we will beseeing more Tag away ads andneed to be wary.

David W. Briggs, PhDMarion, Massachusetts

Medieval Islamic Maps

The article on an Islamic “goldenera” of science (“a Golden age ofHarmony? Mis representing Sci-ence . . .,” SI, November/De -cember 2012) includes a photo-graph of a map produced duringthat era. The article said nothingabout the map. as shown, themap made no sense to me, butturned 180 degrees to the orien-tation we are familiar with, withNorth as up, it makes perfectsense.

I can clearly make out thePersian Gulf, the Red Sea, thearabian Peninsula and the Nile,and moving north, the Mediter -ranean, Crete, the Bosporus, theBlack Sea, and the Caspian Sea.Moving westward across theMediter ranean the features areless familiar, but you can makeout Sicily, Italy, Sardinia, and theGates of Hercules.

It seems a fairly remarkableplacement of the border betweenland and sea for a time when dis-tances, sizes, and directions wereknown only approximately.

Lance BensonMilton, Nova Scotia

Taner Edis responds:

Most medieval Arab maps havesouth at the top. For that matter, alot of medieval Christian mapshave east at the top.

Singularity: Pseudoscience…or Not?

It’s gratifying to see Mas -simo Pigliucci (SI, Nov em -ber/December 2012) taking onRay Kurzweil’s singularity theory.The idea de pends on the compu-tational theory of mind, withits mistaken assumption thathuman intelligence is nothingother than computation. Com-

putational ability is certainly anecessary, but not a sufficient, con-dition for intelligence. It is espe-cially gratifying to see Pigliuccipoint to the inherent dualism inthis theory (with Descartes’smind/body replaced by soft-ware/hardware). He goes on tosay, “There is no reason to believethat that’s the way consciousnessarises, and there are good reasonsto think that it is instead a bio-logical process, tightly linked toother biological processes andsubstrates typical of the kind ofanimal we are.” aristotle couldhardly have said it better. He ar-gued that psychology, the studyof what makes us human, is apart of biology. and what makesus human is our soul (psyche),which is not something immate-rial (like mind for Descartes), butis rather the sum of capacities ofthe body: it is our ability to growand take in nutrients (likeplants), move and perceive (likeanimals) and understand andreason (as only we can). The re-alization that living bodies havecapacities beyond the mere ex-tension of matter gives this bio-logical account of human intelli-gence a decided advantage overany kind of dualist account.Pigliucci has shown once morethat aristotle still lives.

George EnglebretsenProfessor of PhilosophyBishop’s universitySherbrooke, quebec

Massimo Pigliucci’s “Singularityas Pseu do science” is marred byinaccuracies and pseudoskepticalrhetorical devices. He resorts toad hominem attacks, ridicule,and ideological posturing tosidestep some important ques-tions. So what if Pigliucci finds it“obscene” for “rich white men” to“salivate after their own mortal-ity.” That’s like arguing thatglobal warming is a fraud be-cause al Gore flies around inprivate jets and makes millions ofdollars from green energy com-panies. In both cases, the validityof the ideas is independent of themotivations of the advocates.Many things that critics havecalled obscene have come to pass,

for better or for worse.It doesn’t happen to be true

that singulatarians as a group arerich white men. Many are impe-cunious students and strugglingthird-world programmers. Someof the women whose well-known work I find intriguing areLisa Rein, Natasha Vita-More,anna Salamon, and HeatherKnight. Seminars led by Getnetaseffa, a singulatarian of color, inaddis ababa, Ethiopia, have at-tracted as many as 700 partici-pants with scarcely a white facein the room. But why should thatmatter? White men from SiliconValley have contributed a greatdeal to many fields and the ben-efits have spread to the rest of theworld.

Why should we care if RayKurzweil takes 150 vitamintablets a day? This is just a per-sonal eccentricity not shared byother singularity researchers, andit is irrelevant to the scientific is-sues. and why does the fact thathuman intelligence is a biologicalprocess mean that computerscan’t achieve intelligence? Birds’and insects’ wings are biologicalstructures, tightly linked to otherbiological processes in their bod-ies, but that doesn’t mean thatairplanes need biological wings.and what’s wrong with scientiststrying to build something thathas been anticipated in sciencefiction? Many important inven-tions were anticipated in fictionbefore they became reality.

If Pigliucci wants to arguethat superhuman computer in-telligence is a bad thing and weshouldn’t build it, fair enough.Many singularitarians share hisconcern about the risks. Hugo deGaris has written a book aboutwhat he fears will be a war of ar-tificial intelligences. But it isdoubtful that there is any author-ity in the world that could effec-tively stifle scientific progress inthis area. The same issue wasraised about the atomic bomb,but that doesn’t mean the sciencebehind it was wrong.

If Pigliucci believes thathuman intelligence is a universalultimate that can never be sur-passed, that is more like a reli-gious or metaphysical convictionthan a scientific conclusion. Do



skeptics really want to use meta-physical assumptions such asDes cartes’s distinction betweenrex extensa and rex cogitans to re-solve scientific questions? Veryfew singulatarians anticipate apurely symbolic mind anyway,many speculate about making thehuman body immortal, addingimplants, or uploading the brainto robots.

Future study is a risky busi-ness, not amenable to the rigorsof laboratory science. There is thetemptation to ridicule and rejectscenarios we don’t like, while giv-ing the benefit of the doubt tothose that appeal to us. Trueskepticism needs to take a moreobjective stance. Trend extrapola-tion is an important tool for fu-turist analysis, and Ray Kurzweilhas collected the best evidence hecould find on many importanttime series and published it in de-tail for others to criticize. He haspointed out the exponential na-ture of many of the trends andmade some thoughtful projec-tions. They have been extensivelycriticized by a great many seriousthinkers. If Gordon Moore hassome disagreements with Kurz -weil about the application of“Moore’s Law,” they deserve seri-ous consideration. But Pigliuccidoesn’t tell us what the differ-ences are, let alone why we shouldaccept one view over the other.He just argues from authority.That shouldn’t be good enoughfor the SKEPTICaL INquIRER.

Readers looking for a seriousexamination of the questionsPigliucci has raised might be in-terested in these articles: 1) D.Chalmers, “The Singularity: aPhilo sophical analysis,” Journalof Consciousness Studies 17:7–65,2010 and 2) S. Baum, B. Go-ertzel, and T. Goertzel, “HowLong until Human-Level aI?Results from an Expert assess-ment,” Technological Forecast ingand Social Change, Vol 78, No 1,January 2011, pages 185–195.

Ted [email protected](Ted Goertzel recently re-tired as a sociology professorat Rutgers university.)

Massimo Pigliucci’s article aboutthe Singularity seemed more likethe author’s personal beliefsrather than an in depth study ofthe alleged future event. WhereasI agree that there are people outthere who go off the deep end,the likelihood of nonhuman in-telligence surpassing ours isn’tthat far fetched.

Pigliucci and I differ regard-ing the limits of technology. Ihave been designing integratedcircuits for over thirty years andhave seen Moore’s law in action.While this can’t continue end-lessly, we still have a way to gobefore we hit fundamental limits.Meanwhile, smart phones andother devices get “smarter” everyyear and, I would argue, theirusers get dumber.

Historically, computers havebeen pursuing two main goals:more processing power and morememory. Nothing here suggestsintelligence. When I was ateenager (in the 1950s), it wasbelieved that a computer wouldbe as intelligent as a human if itcould beat a human at chess.That is now history. Of coursethe “intelligence bar” was thenraised to favor humans. Cogni-tive science, combined withsemiconductor technology, mayyet give us super-human intelli-gence.

Those who say that “artificial”intelligence is impossible couldargue the same for biological in-telligence: we evolved from one-celled animals that couldn’t thinkor reason. By logical extrapola-tion, neither can we. (Probablytrue!)

Gregory L. SchafferSenior IC Design EngineerCupertino, California

Massimo Pigliucci objects tomany of Ray Kurzweil’s projec-tions related to the Singularity.Pigliucci objects to the idea ofhuman immortality, not becauseof some logical or scientific rea-sons (many of which have beengiven by others), but because itviolates the plot of a particularscience fiction series! That’s just

silly, if not completely absurd! Doyou really think science fiction isa completely accurate predictorof the future? You must be awarethat there is a lot of science fic-tion where the robots do not tryto take over the world and arehelpers of humanity. RememberData from Star Trek? In one ofthe Trek movies, Data had theopportunity to become a Borg,but he declined. There are even anumber of movies where robotswant to become human!

Pigliucci also objects to up-loading one’s mind or conscious-ness into another body. again,this has happened in many sci-ence fiction stories, so, it must bepossible, right? Did you seeAvatar? His particular objection,“. . . they would likely find them-selves in a self-made hell.Human psychology evolvedalong side a body capable of sen-sations, emotions and so on—notjust pure thought.” This makesme wonder if Pigliucci even readKurzweil’s books! Kurzweilspends much time discussing theparts and functions of a humanbody we would likely want tokeep as well as those we would bewilling to discard. Emotions andsensations are definitely amongthose he thinks we will want tokeep.

Not to say that Mr. Kurz -weil’s predictions are necessarilybetter than any particular sciencefiction story, they’re just not nec-essarily any less.

Richard “Gilligan” uschold Port Orange, Florida

Massimo Pigliucci responds:

Predictably, my column on RayKurzweil and the (not likely tocome) Singularity has generated anumber of passionate responses. Itseems to me, however, that severalof these are off the mark. For in-stance, I did not argue on the basisof a sci-fi television series, I usedsaid series to make fun of certainSingularitarian views. And speak-ing of making fun, clearly somereaders of SI could use a bit more ofa light-hearted spirit, since they ob-viously missed the difference be-

tween arguments against the ideaof a Singularity (several of whichare briefly sketched in the column)and ridicule directed to Kurzweilqua guru of what I regard as apseudoscientific movement. Thesame readers very likely would notobject to such ridicule were it di-rected to a purveyor of pseudo-science, which is what I regardKurzweil to be, in this respect. Also,to ask for an in-depth analysis in asingle column seems to me to be rais-ing the bar ridiculously high, direct-ing criticism to a straw man (a log-ical fallacy, as you know).

I never said that Singularitar-ianism is only the toy of rich whiteguys; I was referring in particularto the Singularity Institute gather-ings in Silicon Valley, which are thenerve center of the movement. Andyes, skeptics should be interested alsoin the social aspects of the move-ments they criticize, just like—forinstance—it helps realizing theconnection between climate changedenial and libertarian political po-sitions, without which one would bepuzzled by why so many smart andscientifically literate people (includ-ing a good number of SI readers!)reject a notion backed by plenty ofempirical evidence and accepted bythe overwhelming majority of therelevant scientific community.

Finally, I never said that AI isimpossible, only that it needs to takeseriously the organic nature of theonly type of intelligence we know of,our own. It is fine to gesture towardembodying intelligence in a robot,but talk of “uploading” one’s ownmind inside said robot is still fun-damentally dualistic, and as far asI can tell is based on a seriously mis-guided concept of what intelligenceis. Computers have gotten muchfaster and their memory has in-creased dramatically, but there isnot a shred of evidence that theyhave gotten anywhere near humanintelligence because the latter isn’t(simply) a function of speed of cal-culation and storage capacity. Skep-tics should pay attention to evi-dence, and Singularitarians—sofar—have only wishful thinkingand (some) science fiction on theirside of the argument.

[LETTERS TO THE EDITOR



Curse That Painting!

I believe Polidoro is incorrect inhis explanation of the smilingportrait of Teresa Rovere (“CurseThat Painting!” SI, Novem -ber/December 2012). almost allof us look through cameraviewfinders and we know fromexperience that they do not dis-tort the image significantly. Thetrue explanation is related to thelevel of detail or frequency ofchanges in detail, primarily lumi-nance, we have available. Whenlooking at the picture of theimage we have a lot of detail andcan see the shape of the mouth.However, when looking at theimage seen through theviewfinder, the detail is lost andthe coarse shading is perceiveddifferently. You can get the sameeffect by simply backing awayfrom the picture: as the detaildisappears the smile appears. Youcan find examples on the Inter-net and my favorite is of a picturethat changes from Einstein toMarilyn Monroe as you moveaway; search the web for “albertEinstein Marilyn Monroe” andyou’ll soon find it.

You can confirm that theviewfinder is not distorting theimage by pointing it at graphpaper; it will not be significantlydistorted.

Richard TurnockToronto, Ontario, Canada

I was living in South Yorkshirewhen the Curse of the CryingBoy story blew up in 1985, and Iremember stories that copies ofthe painting had defied attemptsto burn them. I came home oneday and found my mother hadbeen given a painting by a neigh-bor—yes, it was the Crying Boy!I soon had it on a backyard bon-fire—because I thought it wasghastly kitsch, not because I be-lieve in curses—and had no trou-ble at all in burning it!

Ray WardLondon, u.K.

Poll Data Alarming

Kendrick Frazier’s assessment ofthe Gallup Poll’s survey aboutu.S. beliefs on evolution (Newsand Comment, SI, Septem ber/Octo ber 2012) is a good exam-ple of the old saw “there are lies,damnable lies, and statistics.”While it is true that the surveyindicated little change in the per-centage of americans who rejectevolution, bad as that is, over aperiod of thirty years, it also re-flected an alarming developmentbetween 2011 and 2012, with thepercentage of creationists jump-ing from 40 percent to 46 per-cent, while the believers in theis-tic evolution fell from 38 percentto 32 percent and the advocatesof evolution without God drop -ped from 16 percent to 15 per-cent, re versing a rising trendgoing back eleven years. Giventhe increased importance of sci-entific literacy in a world con-fronted by a myriad of complexproblems ranging from globalwarming to overpopulation, thefact that after the improve-ments seen in 2011 we are backto the dismal levels of thirtyyears ago is hardly grounds forcelebration.

Dennis MiddlebrooksBrooklyn, New York

Race Real

I was dismayed at KennethKrause’s dogmatic statementsabout race (SI, July/au gust2012), which I find not typical ofthe otherwise excellent articles inyour fine magazine. He says, inessence, that one cannot distin-guish a black african from ablond Swede because intermar-riage can create intermediatepoints. Because one cannot findany particular point of demarca-tion, the end points are identical.This is absurd.

Mr. Krause, do you like friedchicken? (Probably yes.) Do youlike to eat raw chicken? (Proba-bly no.) Can you point to theprecise instant when a rawchicken be comes a fried chicken?

(Not likely.) There fore, accordingto Mr. Krause, the end points areidentical because you cannotdraw a line anywhere. If you re-ally believe that, Mr. Krause, Iwant to see you eat a raw chickenon camera.

Don [email protected]

The Shroud of Turin: AnArtist’s Perspective

I am a professional artist who hasstudied human anatomy andpainted several portraits. I do notbelieve that the face of Jesus onthe Shroud of Turin is ananatomically accurate depictionof a real person. Several years ago,I met and spoke with Joe Nickell.Joe is an artist and skeptical in-vestigator who has studied theShroud of Turin extensively,wrote a book on the subject[which used anatomical, icono-graphic, and historical evidence toconclude that the elongated figureon the shroud was a work of Frenchgothic art—supported by a four-teenth-century bishop’s report thatsuch an artist confessed—Editors],and appeared on numerous tele-vision programs.

I told Joe that to me theimage of Jesus’s head on the clothresembles a common medieval toearly Renaissance stylized depic-tion of a person. Jesus’s face ap-pears too large for the surround-ing size of the head, and his eyesare located too high. In additionto making faces too large, ama-teur artists tend to place the eyesabout 2/3 to 3/4 up from thebase of the chin to the top of thehead. Human eyes are actuallylocated close to the middle of thehead. Check this out for yourselfnext time you look in a mirror!These common amateur andmedieval artists’ characterizationsare based upon idealistic percep-tions, not upon an attempt to-ward anatomical accuracy or re-alism.

also, a popular artistic styl-ization in the Middle ages toearly Renaissance was the exag-geration of long, thin, European

noses. Observe the similarity ofmedieval paintings to that of theface on the shroud: long thinnoses, disproportionately largefaces compared to head size, andeyes placed high on the heads.These similarities clearly showthat the face of Jesus on theshroud more closely resemblesthe stylized and anatomically in-accurate faces of medieval paint-ings than that of a real person.

My observations are consis-tent with the hypothesis that theShroud of Turin is the work of amedieval artist.

Robert a. RichertRichertart.com

Ouch! That Stings

as many readers noticed, the un-captioned illustration with the“Skeptical Inquiree” column“The Mysterious Bee Deaths” inour January/February 2013 issuewas not of a bee but of a wasp. —EDITOR

[FEEDBACKThe letters column is a forum on mat -ters raised in previous issues. Lettersshould be no longer than 225 words.Due to the volume of letters we receive,not all can be published. Send lettersas email text (not attachments) to letters@csicop. org. In the subject line,provide your surname and informativeidenti fication, e.g.: “Smith Letter onJones evolution art icle.” In clude yourname and ad dress at the end of the let-ter. You may also mail your letter to theeditor to 944 Deer Dr. NE, Albuquerque,NM 87122.


[ THE LAST LAUGH BENJAMIN R A DFORD , E D I T OR


SKEPTICAL ANNIVERSARIESby Tim Farley

March 3, 1978: David Rorvik claims to have been in-volved in the first human cloning. A court later rules thestory a hoax.

March 12, 1973: Timemagazine first documents howStanford Research Institute had researched Uri Geller’sabilities, believing them to be paranormal.

March 18, 1913: Kansas becomes the first U.S. state toenact a law licensing chiropractors. The first licenseunder this law was issued two years later.

March 21, 1988: CSICOP’s delegation to China (to inves-tigate belief in the paranormal in that country) began.

April 5, 1923: Lord Carnarvon’s death in a Cairo hotel (afew months after the Tutankhamun excavation) givesrise to a belief in a “mummy’s curse.”

April 16, 1843: The hoaxed “Kinderhook plates,” al-leged to be Mormon artifacts, were discovered. Theyweren’t fully disavowed by the church until 1981.

April 21, 1988: Samples were taken of the Shroud ofTurin for carbon dating. The resulting paper concluded itdates from the medieval era.

Tim Farley is a research fellow with the James Randi Educational Foundation and created the website whatstheharm.net.

SKEPTIC TRUMP CARDS


ALABAMA Alabama Skeptics, Alabama. EmoryKimbrough. Tel.: 205-759-2624. 3550Water melon Road, Apt. 28A, Northport,AL 35476

ARIZONATucson Skeptics Inc. Tucson, AZ. JamesMc Gaha. Email:[email protected] N. Sabino Foot hills Dr., Tucson, AZ85715

Phoenix Area Skeptics Society (PASS)http://phoenixskeptics.orgEmail: [email protected]

Phoenix Skeptics, Phoenix, AZ.MichaelStack pole, P.O. Box 60333, Phoenix, AZ85082

CALIFORNIA Sacramento Organization for RationalThink ing (SORT) Sacramento, CA. Ray Span-genburg, co-foun der. Tel.: 916-978-0321; Email: [email protected]. PO Box 2215,Carmichael, CA 95609-2215http://home.comcast.net/~kitray2/site/

Bay Area Skeptics (BAS) San Francisco—Bay Area. Eugenie C. Scott, President. 1218Miluia St., Berkeley, CA 94709. Email:[email protected]. www.BASkeptics.org

Independent Investi gations Group (IIG),Center for In quiry–West, 4773 Holly woodBlvd, Los Angeles, CA 90027. Tel.: 323-666-9797. www.iigwest.com

Sacramento Skeptics Society, Sacramento.Terry Sandbek, Presi dent. 4300 Au burnBlvd. Suite 206, Sacramento CA 95841.Tel.: 916 489-1774. Email: [email protected]

San Diego Asso ciation for Rational Inquiry(SDARI) President: Paul Wenger. Tel.: 858-292-5635. Program/general information619-421-5844. www.sdari.org. Postal ad dress: PO Box 623, La Jolla, CA92038-0623

CONNECTICUTNew England Skeptical Society (NESS)New England. Steven Novella M.D., Presi-dent. Tel.: 203-281-6277; Email:[email protected]. 64 CobblestoneDr., Hamden, CT 06518www.theness.com

D.C./MARYLANDNational Capital Area Skeptics NCAS,Maryland, D.C., Virginia. D.W. “Chip” Denman. Tel.: 301-587-3827. Email:[email protected]. PO Box 8428, Silver Spring,MD 20907-8428http://www.ncas.org

FLORIDATampa Bay Skeptics (TBS) Tampa Bay,Florida. Gary Posner, Executive Director.Tel.: 813-505-7013; Email:[email protected]. c/o O’Keefe,4011 S. Manhattan Ave. #139, Tampa,FL 33611-1277. www.tampabayskeptics.org

The James Randi Educational Foun dation. James Randi, Director. Tel:(954)467-1112; Email [email protected] S.E. 12th St. (E. Davie Blvd.), FortLauderdale, FL 33316-1815.www.randi.org

ILLINOISRational Examination Association of Lincoln Land (REALL) Illinois. BobLadendorf, Chairman. Tel.: 217-546-3475; Email: [email protected]. PO Box20302, Springfield, IL 62708www.reall.org

Chicago Skeptics Jennifer Newport, contact person. Email: [email protected]

LOUISIANABaton Rouge Proponents of Rational Inquiry and Scientific Methods (BR-PRISM) Louisiana. Marge Schroth.Tel.: 225-766-4747. 425 Carriage Way,Baton Rouge, LA 70808

MICHIGANGreat Lakes Skeptics (GLS) SE Michi-gan. Lorna J. Simmons, Contact person.Tel.: 734-525-5731; Email: [email protected]. 31710 Cowan Road, Apt.103, West land, MI 48185-2366

Tri-Cities Skeptics, Michi gan. GaryBarker. Tel.: 517-799-4502; Email: [email protected]. 3596 Butternut St., Saginaw, MI 48604

MINNESOTASt. Kloud Extraordinary Claim PsychicTeaching Investigating Community(SKEPTIC) St. Cloud, Minne sota. JerryMertens. Tel.: 320-255-2138; Email:[email protected]. JerryMertens, Psychology Department, 7204th Ave. S, St. Cloud State Univ., St.Cloud, MN 56301

MISSOURISkeptical Society of St. Louis (SSSL)St. Louis, Missouri. Michael Blanford,President. Email: [email protected] Ann Ave., St. Louis, MO 63104www.skepticalstl.org

St. Joseph SkepticsP.O. Box 8908St. Joseph MO, 64508-8908

NEVADAReno Skeptical Society, Inc.,Brad Lutts, President. Tel.: (775) 335-5505; Email: [email protected]. 18124Wedge Parkway #1052 Reno, Nevada89511. www.RenoSkeptics.org

NEW MEXICONew Mexicans for Science and Reason(NMSR) New Mexico. David E. Thomas,President. Tel.: 505-869-9250; Email:nmsrdave @swcp.com. PO Box 1017,Peralta, NM 87042. www.nmsr.org

NEW YORKNew York City Skeptics Michael Feldman,president. PO Box 5122 New York, NY10185. www.nycskeptics.org

Central New York Skeptics (CNY Skeptics)Syracuse. Lisa Goodlin, President. Tel:(315) 636-6533; Email: [email protected], cnyskeptics.org PO Box 417,Fayettville, NY 13066

OHIOCentral Ohioans for Rational Inquiry(CORI) Central Ohio. Charlie Hazlett,President. Tel.: 614-878-2742; Email:[email protected]. PO Box 282069,Columbus, OH 43228

Cleveland Skeptics Joshua Hunt, Co-Organizer, www.clevelandskeptics.org

South Shore Skeptics (SSS) Clevelandand counties. Jim Kutz. Tel.: 440 942-5543; Email: [email protected]. POBox 5083, Cleveland, OH 44101www.southshoreskeptics.org

Association for Rational Thought (ART)Cincinnati. Roy Auerbach, president. Tel:(513)-731-2774, Email:[email protected]. PO Box 12896, Cin cinnati, OH 45212. www.cincinnatiskeptics.org

OREGONOregonians for Science and Reason(O4SR) Oregon. Jeanine DeNoma, presi-dent. Tel.: (541) 745-5026; Email:[email protected]; 39105 Military Rd.,Monmouth, OR 97361. www.04SR.org

PENNSYLVANIAPhiladelphia Association for CriticalThink ing (PhACT), much of Pennsylvania.Eric Krieg, Presi dent. Tel.: 215-885-2089; Email: [email protected]. By mail c/o Ray Haupt, 639 W. Ellet St.,Philadelphia PA 19119

TENNESSEERationalists of East Tennessee, EastTen nessee. Carl Ledenbecker. Tel.: (865)-982-8687; Email: [email protected]. 2123Stony brook Rd., Louis ville, TN 37777

TEXASNorth Texas Skeptics NTS Dallas/FtWorth area, John Blanton, Secretary. Tel.: (972)-306-3187; Email:[email protected]. PO Box 111794,Carrollton, TX 75011-1794. www.ntskeptics.org

VIRGINIAScience & Reason, Hampton Rds., Virginia. Lawrence Weinstein, Old Dominion Univ.-Physics Dept., Norfolk, VA 23529

WASHINGTONSeattle Skepticswww.seattleskeptics.com

Gary Bauslaugh, writer and editor, Victoria, B.C., Canada

Richard E. Berendzen, astronomer, Washington, DC

Martin Bridgstock, senior lecturer, School of Science, Griffith Univ., Brisbane, Australia

Richard Busch, magician/mentalist, Pittsburgh, PA

Shawn Carlson, Society for Amateur Scientists, East Greenwich, RI

Roger B. Culver, prof. of astronomy, Colorado State Univ.

Felix Ares de Blas, prof. of computer science, Univ. of Basque, San Sebastian, Spain

J. Dommanget, astronomer, Royale Observatory, Brussels, Belgium

Nahum J. Duker, assistant prof. of pathology, Temple Univ.

Taner Edis, Division of Science/Physics Truman State Univ.

Barbara Eisenstadt, psychologist, educator, clinician, East Greenbush, NY

William Evans, prof. of communication,Center for Creative Media

Bryan Farha, prof. of behavioral studies in education, Oklahoma City Univ.

John F. Fischer, forensic analyst, Orlando, FL

Eileen Gambrill, prof. of social welfare, Univ. of California at Berkeley

Luis Alfonso Gámez, science journalist, Bilbao, Spain

Sylvio Garattini, director, Mario Negri Pharma cology Institute, Milan, Italy

Laurie Godfrey, anthropologist, Univ. of Massachusetts

Gerald Goldin, mathematician, Rutgers Univ., NJ

Donald Goldsmith, astronomer; president, Interstellar Media

Alan Hale, astronomer, Southwest Institute for Space Research, Alamogordo, NM

Clyde F. Herreid, prof. of biology, SUNY Buffalo

Sharon Hill, geologist, writer, researcher, creator and editor of the Doubful News blog

Michael Hutchinson, author; SKEPTICAL INQUIRER

representative, Europe

Philip A. Ianna, assoc. prof. of astronomy, Univ. of Virginia

William Jarvis, prof. of health promotion and public health,Loma Linda Univ., School of Public Health

I.W. Kelly, prof. of psychology, Univ. of Saskatch ewan,Canada

Richard H. Lange, MD, Mohawk Valley Physician Health Plan, Schenectady, NY

Gerald A. Larue, prof. of biblical history and archaeology, Univ. of So. California

William M. London, California State Univ., Los Angeles

Rebecca Long, nuclear engineer, president of Geor gia Council Against Health Fraud, Atlanta, GA

Thomas R. McDonough, lecturer in engineering, Caltech, and SETI Coordinator of the Planetary Society

James E. McGaha, astronomer, USAF pilot (ret.)

Chris Mooney,journalist, author, host of Point of Inquiry

Joel A. Moskowitz,director of medical psychiatry, CalabasasMental Health Services, Los Angeles

Matthew C. Nisbet,assistant professor, School of Communication, American Univ.

John W. Patterson, prof. of materials science and en gineering, Iowa State Univ.

James R. Pomerantz, prof. of psychology, Rice Univ.

Tim Printy, amateur astronomer, UFO skeptic, formerNavy nuclear reactor operator/division chief,Manchester, NH

Gary P. Posner, MD, Tampa, FL

Daisie Radner, prof. of philosophy, SUNY Buffalo

Robert H. Romer, prof. of physics, Amherst College

Karl Sabbagh,journalist, Richmond, Surrey, England

Robert J. Samp, assistant prof. of education and medicine, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison

Steven D. Schafersman, asst. prof. of geology, Miami Univ., OH

Chris Scott, statistician, London, England

Stuart D. Scott Jr.,associate prof. of anthropology, SUNY Buffalo

Erwin M. Segal, prof. of psychology, SUNY Buffalo

Carla Selby,anthropologist /archaeologist

Steven N. Shore, prof. of astrophysics, Univ. of Pisa, Italy

Waclaw Szybalski, professor, McArdle Laboratory, Univ. of Wisconsin–Madison

Sarah G. Thomason, prof. of linguistics, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA

Tim Trachet, journalist and science writer, honorary chairman of SKEPP, Belgium

David Willey,physics instructor, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA

The organizations listed above have aims similar to those of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry but are independent and autonomous. Representatives of these organizations cannot speak on behalf of CSI. Please send updates to Barry Karr, P.O. Box 703, Amherst NY 14226-0703.

International affiliated organizations listed at www.csicop.org.

TRANSNATIONAL3965 Rensch Road, Amherst, NY 14228Tel.: (716) 636-4869AUSTINPO Box 202164, Austin, TX 78720-2164Tel.: (512) 919-4115CHICAGOPO Box 7951, Chicago, IL 60680-7951Tel.: (312) 226-0420INDIANAPOLIS350 Canal Walk, Suite A, Indianapolis, IN 46202Tel.: (317) 423-0710LOS ANGELES4773 Hollywood Blvd., Hollywood, CA 90027Tel.: (323) 666-9797MICHIGAN3777 44th Street SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49512Tel.: (616) 698-2342NEW YORK CITYPO Box 26241, Brooklyn, NY 11202Tel.: (347) 699-0234SAN FRANCISCOemail: [email protected] BAY4011 S. Manhattan Ave. #139, Tampa, FL 33611-1277Tel.: (813) 505-7013WASHINGTON, DC921 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20003Tel.: (202) 543-0960ARGENTINABuenos Aires, Argentina Tel.: +54-11-4704-9437www.cfiargentina.orgCANADA2 College Street, Suite 214 Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1K3, CanadaCHINAChina Research Institute for Science Popularization, NO. 86, Xueyuan Nanlu Haidian Dist., Beijing,100081 ChinaTel.: +86-10-62170515EGYPT44 Gol Gamal St., Agouza, Giza, EgyptFRANCEDr. Henri Broch, Universite of Nice, Faculte des Sciences, Parc Valrose, 06108, Nice cedex 2, France Tel.: +33-492-07-63-12GERMANYArheilger Weg 11, 64380 Rossdorf, GermanyTel.: +49-6154-695023INDIA46 Masi garh, New Friends ColonyNew Delhi 110025Tel.: 91-9868010950LONDONConway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL, EnglandNEPALHumanist Association of Nepal, PO Box 5284, Kathmandu NepalTel.: +977-1-4413-345NEW ZEALANDemail: [email protected] Box 25269, Mapo, Ibadan, Oyo State, NigeriaTel.: +234-2-2313699PERUD. Casanova 430, Lima 14, Peruemail: [email protected] Biurowy No. 8, 8 Sapiezynska Sr., 00-215, Warsaw, PolandROMANIAFundatia Centrul pentru Constiinta Critica Tel.: (40)-(O)744-67-67-94email: [email protected]. Valerii A. Kuvakin, 119899 Russia, Moscow,Vorobevy Gory, Moscow State Univ., Philosophy DepartmentSENEGALPO Box 15376, Dakar – Fann, SenegalTel.: +221-501-13-00

CENTERS FOR INQUIRYwww.centerforinquiry.net/about/branches

Scientific and Technical Consultants

CE

NTER F O R INQUIR

Y

CE

NT

ER

FO

R IN

QUIRY

Affiliated Organizations | United States


on invisible beings

Documents