RovoR

Not shown to actually be safe.

2009-06-17T06:02:00.003-04:00

The FDA exists to insure that our medicines are safe and effective, but not (for some inexplicable reason) if they are classified as "alternative" medicines such as homeopathic remedies. Now the FDA is raising a warning flag concerning Zicam cold remedies, as the product can apparently permanently destroy a user's sense of smell.

Lest we forget, "alternative medicine" does not only mean "not shown to actually work." It also means "not shown to actually be safe."

sig

2009-06-17T05:49:00.004-04:00

My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.

Snickery Lyrics

2009-06-16T18:31:00.003-04:00

The Digital Cuttlefish penned some snarky verses regarding a bizarre WingNutDaily report. "Bizarre" is of course redundant vis-a-vis WND.

Freedom.

2009-06-12T20:25:00.002-04:00

Freedom ain't free. It requires unemployment, but at least I no longer have to take it from the man. Now maybe I'll have the time to start this project, unless another annoying employment opportunity interferes.

It could happen.

Dembski et al Joke About Common Descent

2008-08-04T20:19:00.000-04:00

But they do know what it means, right?

Some sort of partially decayed raccoon washed up a few miles away in the Hamptons this week and was enthusiastically mistaken for a crytozoological specimen. Perhaps a true chimera. Thus I found it amusing that Uncommon Descent cited a news story on the dubious chimera without addressing the fact that the lack of biological chimeras is main line of evidence for biological evolution. All a creation "scientist" or design proponent (or even a cdesign proponenstist) has to do to dethrone biological evolution is locate and identify a chimeric organism and common descent is falsified. So why aren't they even looking?
__

Phil Plait Inherits Super-Hero Mantle

2008-08-04T19:49:00.000-04:00

No word on whether or not the beard is part of the costume.
__

The Randi Prize is Unwinnable

2008-08-04T19:36:00.000-04:00

Randi's Unwinnable Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge

For many years James "The Amazing" Randi has offered a million-dollar award to anyone who could offer convincing proof of paranormal phenomena. Despite the winging claims of many of the purveyors of woo who have failed to get past the initial screening, the money does in fact exist and must be paid out to anyone who meets the---admittedly difficult---conditions of the prize. Why does Randi do this? In contrast to the charlatans who do everything for good publicity and the money it brings in, Randi's big stunt is essentially educational. It draws attention to the fact that no one has ever come close to winning it, or of even meeting the simplest conditions of entry. Anyone susceptible to the claims of the astrologers, palmists, diviners and vague psychics will think twice when considering that none of these people has been able to claim Randi's proffered prize. But there is an additional lesson in Randy's bank vault beyond the fecklessness of the vampires of gullibility.

When I first heard of Randi's prize, I often wondered at the risk he was taking. What if someone actually won? That's a lot of money to have to fork over to your enemy, and it would probably hurt a lot more than having to fend off a vacuous libel suit from a soulless charlatan like Uri Geller. It made Randi seem quixotic, and perhaps truly reckless. Fortunately for Randi the money is very safe, for as long as the strict protocols are observed the prize is essentially unwinnable, almost by definition.

Here is why. In order to win the money you have to demonstrate a "paranormal" effect or ability in such a way---agreed to in advance by Randi and the contestant---that any other cause can be ruled out. For example, it has been easy to demonstrate divination skills when the contestant knows where the treasure is buried in advance, but in a carefully controlled environment where foreknowledge is not possible no one has been able to demonstrate the ability to find hidden resources with a twitching stick. Randi has left a few sincere strivers scratching their heads wondering where the powers they were so confident of had suddenly disappeared to when the strict protocols were enforced. Randi will not award you the money just because you claim to be psychic; you have to show him some proof. You must generate an observable effect than can only spring from your claimed paranormal ability. An effect that can only be demonstrated when no one is looking, or cannot be demonstrated when anyone is observing cannot win the prize. This is the catch that most people miss.

Most practitioners of woo like to think that scientists (or, amusingly, "big science") have arbitrarily segregated out certain fields of inquiry from the domain of grant-worthiness. This idea is virtually baseless. The principle that filters out the woo from valid avenues of scientific inquiry is the naturalistic methodology that requires such things as reproduceablility and observeability. Therein lies the catch in Randi's Prize. Any phenomenon, whether it be palmistry, the audible voices of ghosts, or impossible rocks from the sky, so long as it produces a measurable effect---a prediction about your future, information from the departed, or strange bright trails in the constellations---can be tested and studied. Scientifically. In effect, anything that leaves rigorously measurable---not to mention unfaked or misidentified---traces ceases to be paranormal. If the use of a divining rod actually worked then scientists would be studying its mechanism. There would be theories as to how the forces were transmitted and sensations detected and experiments would be performed to test those theories. Sooner or later, through a process of creativity, intuition and above all demonstration, the secret mechanisms of the divining rod would make themselves understood by mankind. If objects created some sort of hitherto unrecognized field that could be detected with an instrument as simple as a whittled stick in sensitive hands, it would be a remarkable and epoch-defining discovery. It would then be possible to construct a much more sensitive device using modern technology that performs the same task with much greater efficiency. But since no one has ever convincingly demonstrated the efficacy of this sort of divination no one has bothered to research it, except for the first step: (dis)confirming its existence. That experiment is easy enough to perform by school children, and occasionally is. I tried it myself when I was eight years old, but even in my highly suggestible state I soon found that either the phenomenon did not exist or I was insensitive to it. Besides, my grandfather's metal detector worked for everyone and was much more fun to play with. Of the other phenomenae I mentioned, palmistry, as is true for all the fortune-telling professions, is more the role of telling your client what they want to hear than what---if anything---is written in the creases of their hand. The practice of recording the "voices of ghosts" has more to do with turning microphone amplifiers up beyond their normal operating range (the effect disappears when you use equipment designed specifically to record faint sounds.) Meteorites, on the other hand, were once doubted by philosophers for contradicting their long established models of the universe. And yet meteorites clearly exist. Couldn't this be true of other seemingly poorly-studied effects now considered paranormal? Yes it could, at least in principle, and that is the provenance of my "almost" in "unwinnable, almost by definition."

It is one of the duties of scientists to explore the fringes of natural knowledge (the other duties being to tie that knowledge together in a consistent whole and to explain their findings to engineers.) In order maintain some reasonableness, it is expected and demanded that all new discoveries fit into the commonly understood framework of how the universe works. Scientists check this all the time. Experimental result that do not quite fit, or are surprising, must be carefully checked because they are probably wrong. It might be a great new discovery that overturns the standing paradigm the way classical mechanics was overturned at the end of the nineteenth century, but it is far more likely that someone has just made a mistake. So scientists (should) check and re-check, and try very hard to figure out what they might have done wrong before they publish unexpected results. If they publish prematurely they will be seen as fools, as Pons and Fleischmann were when they failed to practice due diligence before presenting their extraordinary claims concerning cold fusion. A claim that cannot seem to fit into the established framework might lead to a powerful new discovery, but more than likely it is bunk. A healthy skepticism always serves well in this case. And yet it sometimes does misfire. When the claim was made that Helicobacter pylori was responsible for most stomach ulcers doctors almost universally scoffed, but Robin Warren eventually proved his case and ultimately shared a Nobel Prize for his efforts.

It is noteworthy that in neither case did Messrs. Warren or Pons ever claim they were exhibiting some paranormal phenomenon. They did their best to make all their methods as public as possible and invited others to test them. Eventually, H. pylori was connected convincingly to gastric illness, while cold fusion remains unreproduceable. Perhaps one day some huckster will claim to have a special engine powerd by the secret cold fusion recipe (and the donations of his gullible investors) but that would then be a form of surrender. Having joined the ranks of pseudo-science, cold fusion would have become useful only for extracting money from the credulous. It would not win the Randi Prize. But couldn't Robin Warren win? His work was once dismissed as pseudo-science, but has since been extraordinarily vindicated. Doesn't that alone qualify for victory? Had he claimed that stomach ulcers were caused by a mysterious, hitherto undetected "morphic" ulcer field then he might try for Randi's Prize, but he did not (and would have been wrong if he had.) Warren claimed that a bacterium, and not spicy food, was the cause of gastric illness. His claim was initially discounted because most scientists doubted that anything could live in such an acidic environment as the human stomach, but the idea was readily testable and was shown to be correct.

Scientific endeavors involve repeatedly confirming assertions through observation. Paranormal phenomenon, on the other hand, are consistently falsified. The practitioners of the paranormal routinely sidestep or ignore this falsification. This is what paranormal means. If they could actually be tested and confirmed then they would no longer be paranormal phenomenon, they would be valid topics for scientific inquiry. Calling something paranormal, then, is a way of admitting that it cannot possibly meet Randi's criteria, and thus all such attempts to take the prize are stillborn.
__

J. K. Rowling Is Pulling Your Leg

2007-10-26T00:45:00.000-04:00

LOS ANGELES - Mayberry fans, the rumors are true. Andy Taylor, sage, widower father and sheriff of Mayberry, is gay. Leonard Sheldon, creator of the hit television series that ran for eight seasons in the 1960's outed the character at a charity ball for impoverished former child stars.

After discussing Ron Howard, a successful director and former child star who played the sheriff's son on the sitcom, Sheldon was asked by a guest why Sheriff Taylor had never remarried. "Andy Taylor is gay," the writer and executive producer of the show responded to gasps and applause.

---okay, I was wrong, and Rowling was serious. I really should not comment on books that I have not actually read.
__

LOLCAT

2007-07-02T13:59:00.000-04:00

Has it been a month? Looks like I was busier than I thought. Here's something I worked up as a background detail.

The Professor of ID---Part 1: Unexplainable

2007-05-31T18:38:00.000-04:00

Trying something new, here: The Professor of ID. Click on the thumbnail to expand it for your viewing pleasure.

I have a half-dozen scripted and I'm using a new drawing application: Sodipodi (pronounced "so'ipo'i" ...whatever). The initial drawing is difficult because a) it's a new application using vector graphics and b) I don't know how to draw. But the really cool thing is that once you draw something to your satisfaction it is extremely reusable, so when I come up with a completely different idea you will probably be seeing these characters being reused. Professor Bradley here, or example, will probably be recycled into a mad alien scientist ...who inexplicably looks like a human wearing a shirt and tie and is standing in front of some monumental Greek architecture.

Not by Chance, Indeed

2007-05-24T14:07:00.000-04:00

Ronald C. Dressman, a retired chemist formerly of the EPA, has written a book describing his own "theory" of theistic evolution:

Not By Chance: A Theory of Evolution Governed by Essential Law and Driven By Natural Effectuation: A Truly Scientific Theory of Evolution, and Darwinism Debunked

Mr. Dressman believes that it is important for children to be taught a theory of theistic evolution, but acknowledges that there has never been one before--until now.

Unfortunately Dressman's displayed knowledge of both the scientific process and biological evolution via natural selection are too woefully rudimentary to qualify him to make any such claims. To begin with, it should be blazingly obvious to anyone familiar with how scientific theories are developed that they have nothing whatsoever to say about metaphysics.

For those not so familiar with the scientific method, a theory is an explanatory framework that accurately describes (within useful limits) what is seen in the natural world. Theories must be testable, and by the time a concept earns the label "theory" it is assumed that it has already passed some major tests and does a better job of explaining things--at least in some ways--than any theories they are intended to replace. However, you will probably have noticed that there is no scientific "theory of God" or a theory that explains what purpose we serve in the universe. The reason for this vacuum is that there are no experiments that one can perform--even in principle--to test whether ideas like the Buddhist concept of reincarnation or the Christian notion of resurrection are correct. Religious concepts, such as the answer to the question "Why am I here?" and "Who is this God person, anyway?" are not explorable by science, and thus any idea that tried to answer those questions could not be a scientific theory.

When the great Isaac Newton developed his Theory of Gravitation to explain the observed motions of the planets, which hitherto had been assumed to move by Divine Will, Newton made an important distinction: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion." Newton was probably assuming that the planets had existed unchanged in their present orbits since the time they were created. We now know this isn't true but the basic gist of his comment is the same. Newton's theory could say nothing about the Creator, who defines and defies the laws of nature and set the whole universe in motion.

So where does this leave Dressman? By positing a theistic explanation for evolution he has left science behind and entered the realm of religion. Why does he think he can do this? Because he misunderstands Darwin's Theory of Biological Evolution. The three cornerstones of Darwin's theory are

reproduction of biological organisms with modification (mutation)
selection (natural, artificial)
repeat

Darwin did not understand genetics or mutations, so the first step was acknowledged to be a weak point in his theory, but people were willing to overlook that difficulty because of the power of the selection process (step 2) to explain how a system with the appearance of design could be achieved through purely mindless naturalistic means. Dressman refers to natural selection as a "pseudophenomenon" and a "tautology." He spends a couple of paragraphs dismissing natural selection but then completely ignores it, preferring to invoke "chance" as the sole ingredient of Darwin's theory. He also wastes a lot of time describing how wildly improbable life is. This was known in the years before Darwin published Origins but was quite readily explained within that book's pages. I only wish Dressman had bothered to read it (or even a short summary of it) before he had mounted an attack on it.

As to Dressman's dismissive canard that natural selection is a tautology, I will not waste my time refuting it (John Wilkins does an excellent job covering the bizarre argument here). Suffice to say that anyone making that claim today displays a breathtaking ignorance of Darwin's theory.

Dressman might be surprised to hear that in pharmaceutical chemistry, where the pressure to succeed is intense, chemists have taken to using evolutionary computation to find what they need. In "An Introduction to Evolutionary Computations and Evolutionary Algorithms," (2004) W. H. Cartwright writes "To identify compounds of potential therapeutic interest, the relatively tiny proportion of molecules which meet the specific criteria need to be pinpointed among the unsuitable molecules." The fractional scale difference between the molecules of interest and molecules that exist is huge, and is precisely the same sort of needle-in-a-haystack search that Dressman ridicules as being impossible in Darwin's theory, yet chemists have conquered the problem by adopting the following procedure:

simulated reproduction of biological chemicals with modification (mutations)
selection (artificial)
repeat

In this manner it is possible to more effectively search the enormous "solution space" that might contain chemicals of interest. It doesn't find every chemical that might meet the final criteria but it does a much better job than a brute force search which might take hundreds of years to complete on the fastest computers. This is the power of selection, in which the tiny improvements in every generation are leveraged step by step in an evolutionary manner to keep a species as optimized as possible. It is like pitching a haystack into a corn drier with a big magnet stuck at one end. Every time that barrel rotates the needle will get a little closer to the magnet until it finally sticks. Dressman, not understanding how the magnet (selection) works, claims that finding the needle is impossible.

=Sources=
Cartwright, H. M. (2004) An Introduction to Evolutionary Computation and Evolutionary Algorithms. In Johnston, R. L. Applications of Evolutionary Computation in Chemistry Berlin: Springer

Dressman, Ronald C. (2007) Not By Chance: A Theory of Evolution Governed by Essential Law and Driven By Natural Effectuation. West Conshohocken, PA: Infinity.

BROSTA XRISTOS

2007-05-23T22:52:00.000-04:00

Long before the Interweb appeared I had a habit of drawing (poorly) various little comic strips for my friends. It was hard work, and they sucked, but technology has now made everything far too simple for me to ignore. Now my friends still suck, but my work is a heck of a lot easier to produce.

The Internet is a wonderful tool. Just think: without it, you would never get to see this. Click on the image to expand it in a new window.