Image: Illustration by Pat Kinsella
-
Gravity's Engines
We’ve long understood black holes to be the points at which the universe as we know it comes to an end. Often billions of times more massive than the Sun, they...
Read More »
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was the brilliant author of the wildly popular Sherlock Holmes detective stories, which celebrated the triumph of reason and logic over superstition and magical thinking. Unfortunately, the Scottish physician-turned-writer did not apply his creation’s cognitive skills when it came to the blossoming spiritualism movement of the early 1900s: he fell blindly for the crude hoax of the Cottingley Fairies photographs and regularly attended séances to make contact with family members who had died in the First World War, especially his son Kingsley. Perhaps fittingly, Conan Doyle’s fame brought him into company with the greatest magician of his age, Harry Houdini, who did not suffer fakes gladly.
In the spring of 1922 Conan Doyle visited Houdini in his New York City home, whereupon the magician set out to demonstrate that slate writing—a favorite method among mediums for receiving messages from the dead, who allegedly moved a piece of chalk across a slate—could be done by perfectly prosaic means. Houdini had Conan Doyle hang a slate from anywhere in the room so that it was free to swing in space. He presented the author with four cork balls, asking him to pick one and cut it open to prove that it had not been altered. He then had Conan Doyle pick another ball and dip it into a well of white ink. While it was soaking, Houdini asked his visitor to go down the street in any direction, take out a piece of paper and pencil, write a question or a sentence, put it back in his pocket and return to the house. Conan Doyle complied, scribbling, “Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin,” a riddle from the Bible’s book of Daniel, meaning, “It has been counted and counted, weighed and divided.”
How appropriate, for what happened next defied explanation, at least in Conan Doyle’s mind. Houdini had him scoop up the ink-soaked ball in a spoon and place it against the slate, where it momentarily stuck before slowly rolling across the face, spelling out “M,” “e,” “n,” “e,” and so forth until the entire phrase was completed, at which point the ball dropped to the ground. According to William Kalush and Larry Sloman in their 2006 biography The Secret Life of Houdini (Atria Books), the Master Mystifier then dealt Conan Doyle the lesson that he—and by implication anyone impressed by such mysteries—needed to hear:
Sir Arthur, I have devoted a lot of time and thought to this illusion ... I won’t tell you how it was done, but I can assure you it was pure trickery. I did it by perfectly normal means. I devised it to show you what can be done along these lines. Now, I beg of you, Sir Arthur, do not jump to the conclusion that certain things you see are necessarily “supernatural,” or the work of “spirits,” just because you cannot explain them....
Lamentably, Sir Arthur continued to believe that Houdini had psychic powers and spiritual connections that he employed in his famous escapes.
This problem is called the argument from ignorance (“it must be true because it has not been proven false”) or sometimes the argument from personal incredulity (“because I cannot imagine a natural explanation, there cannot be one”). Such fallacious reasoning comes up so often in my encounters with believers that I conclude it must be a product of a brain unsatisfied with doubt; as nature abhors a vacuum, so, too, does the brain abhor no explanation. It therefore fills in one, no matter how unlikely. Thus do normal anomalies become paranormal, natural phenomena become supernatural, unidentified flying objects become extraterrestrial spacecraft and chance events become conspiracies.
Houdini’s principle states that just because something is unexplained does not mean that it is paranormal, supernatural, extraterrestrial or conspiratorial. Before you say something is out of this world, first make sure that it is not in this world, for science is grounded in naturalism, not supernaturalism, paranormalism or any other unnecessarily complicated explanations.
This article was originally published with the title Houdini's Skeptical Advice.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
53 Comments
Add Commentthanks for this article it is good to know that there are those who concur with me that just because someone cannot explain something does not mean that there is some hopelessly complex explanation requiring multiple leaps of faith and questionable logic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have noticed recently that there seem to be a large number of individuals who do not understand that you cannot just make a claim and leave it for a skeptic to disprove when (with the notable exception of mathematics) it is impossible to fully disprove a wild off the wall claim no matter how large the pile of evidence against said claim is.
It is as far as I am concerned the job of the believer to prove that their belief is true rather than to state their belief and tell the skeptics that if the skeptics cannot disprove it it must be true. (argument from ignorance)
the above is based off of my personal experience it could just be that i run across a abnormally high density of these "true" believers i cannot remember where i first heard it but several people i have run across (on the internet and elsewhere have fit this quote: "So great is his certainty that mere facts cannot shake it"
This is a funny story. It seems from the story that if you were to apply Occam's razor, the logical conclusion is that Sir Arthur was correct - Houdini had psychic powers to pull off this trick.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI say this because it seems reasonable to assume that if Houdini could explain the trick in "normal" terms, he would have. Since he didn't, perhaps he couldn't. Hence, the simplest logical conclusion is that he did the trick using para-normal methods.
Certainly his stating that it could be done using "perfectly prosaic means" did nothing to provide evidence that it WAS done that way, or even that it could be done using "normal" techniques.
Houdini provided no evidence that the trick was done using normal techniques - therefore adding one more tiny piece of evidence that maybe these things are done spiritually. Apparently you used this example to dispel the notion that paranormal activities are plausible, but I see no hint that you have made your point. I don't adhere to the paranormal point of view, but from a purely logical and scientific point of view, your story added nothing to the side of the ledger that these things can be explained as "normal" events. Rather, you added another example for the opposite conclusion.
Does anyone know how Houdini accomplished this trick by "normal" means?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou left out part of the story. According to reports, Houdini asked Doyle to fold the paper after he'd written on it and then put it in his pocket. When Doyle returned, Houdini asked to see the folded paper. Doyle gave it to him. Houdini handed it back. And then asked for it again when the ball had finished writing to check on what Doyle had written. That gives us two events to think about: 1. The cork ball (remember that there were four of these) seems to stick on the board before it starts rolling. 2. Houdini had the opportunity to switch papers with Doyle - twice. We can figure the trick from here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It is as far as I am concerned the job of the believer to prove that their belief is true rather than to state their belief and tell the skeptics that if the skeptics cannot disprove it it must be true. (argument from ignorance)" you mean, like all religions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, no, no, no and no. Occam's razor never suggests hidden, unproven, unexplained, shown-to-be-faked or non-repeatable supernatural phenomenon. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of it if you see it that way. For exmaple, magic fairies could have been helping Houdini, but then again, no one has ever shown them to exist (ever).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReaders should be entitled to disappointment that Michael Shermer didn't offer a logical solution to the Mene trick--forcing us to logically conclude that it was indeed a display of supernatural powers. It's hard to imagine that ACD would fall for a simple envelope swap. Among the list of possible solutions (Houdini hired every resident of New York to spy/eavesdrop; HH had an intelligent & literate mouse in ACD's pocket, time travel, etc, etc--) I think the simplest is that HH hypnotized ACD and either planted the phrase as a hypnotic suggestion or did the entire stunt by hypnosis. The vulnerabilities of the human mind are indeed part of the physical world we live in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCHH
That is a great story. It is truly amazing how "I don't know" turns into "[Something supernatural] did it." That "explanation" is an investigation stopper. If it was supernaturally caused, there is no need to investigate the phenomenon. I like to say, "I don't know, but that's a good reason to start an investigation."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would indeed have been nice to hear the explanation of how the trick was performed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince ACD left the room to go write his 'secret' phrase, someone could easily have swapped the cork ball he had chosen for another one with a strong magnet inside; that might explain why the ball stuck before moving.. however if the board was free-hanging, I wonder how someone would have operated an opposing magnet from the back... any magicians out there willing to spill the beans on this trick?
I have always appreciated that Russian science is just different enough that it caused big problems for CIA technicians during the Cold War. They would find some new Russian device but not be readily able to figure out how it worked even though they were holding it in their hands!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is that high tech cultures tend to develop their preferred pathways of thinking and approaching certain challenges. Anything wildly outside of that can look like magic for a time.
However, had Houdini explained the trick in great detail to Sir Doyle, Sir Doyle would have known that Houdini performed a trick but would have likely gone on believing that "spiritualists" used supernatural powers. This happens all the time. It is extremely difficult to correct a belief system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike any professional sleight-of-hand artist, Houdini never explained his trick--especially after devoting "a lot of time and thought" to it. But notice the peculiar details of how the trick was set up:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--The paper had to be folded. Why? Then, handed (twice!) to Houdini to "check." A typical switching tactic.
--Why cork balls, not simply a stick of chalk?
--ACD had to leave the apartment to write the message, then return. Why?
--The slate could be hung "anywhere," but just what space in Houdini's (presumably) curio-crowded room was available?
I think the story has been embellished a little to say that the slate "hung free to swing in space." Houdini probably asked ACD to hang it anywhere, which meant on any available wall space. With plenty of time to prepare ahead Houdini could easily restrict where ACD could choose, while ACD thought he was freely deciding himself.
Wouldn't it be great if The Amazing Randi would step in and enlighten us with his opinion?
Houdini almost undoubtedly discovered what Doyle wrote by sleight of hand. If not, then by the old trick of making a tracing from the paper underneath the one used to write the message, but I say sleight of hand because he handled the message twice--once to switch, once to put it back. The real trick was getting the words to appear on the slate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoyle was down the street while the cork ball was soaking in white ink, so Houdini could have taken that opportunity to switch it with one that had a magnet embedded inside. Doyle never cut open the cork ball that had soaked in the ink, only one of the four before the trick. But I'm still at a loss to explain the mechanism for getting the ball to trace out the words, if the slate was truly suspended in mid-air by a string. Had the slate been hanging on a wall, Houdini could have employed an assistant with a powerful magnet on the other side of the wall to spell out the words. But hanging in mid-air? Either the story has been embellished or I've missed something.
This logic strikes me as being incredibly lopsided.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because something's unexplained doesn't mean it's NOT supernatural.
So you'd find the opposites of the flawed logic to be true? :
"It must be false because it has not been proven true."
"Because I cannot accept a supernatural explanation, there cannot be one."
Seems arrogant to me. ;)
And it seems to me that a brain dissatisfied with doubt is MORE likely to be the type to discount all possibilities of supernatural explanations.
What about dark matter? What about the fact that we have no idea what accounts for 80-94% of our universe? For all we know, it's all magic and fairies and dragons.
That's the point. WE DON'T KNOW.
So why not just let people think what they think? At least be open to exploring creative (and DIFFERENT) possibilities.
What is the definition of "supernatural?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoesn't it mean "outside of nature?" Yet, we can only use natural means to prove or disprove any claim, otherwise it's just my fantasy vs. your fantasy.
Saying you have a "supernatural explanation" is to state an oxymoron. You're not "explaining" anything at all, and instead are playing make-believe.
There's a great gulf of difference between finding a "creative" solution, and just pretending you have a solution--that has less to do with creativity than laziness.
That frame of mind opens one up to being victimized by swindlers, who are ever-present, and more than happy to take advantage of gullibility.
Correct, we don't know, but science does not deal with supernatural explanations. Thales of Miletus and the other Greek philosophers rejection supernatural explanations. That's why the precursor of modern science was natural philosophy, not supernatural philosophy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen looking to explain phenomena in nature, supernatural explanations are not acceptable, primarily because they are not falsifiable. Every scientific hypothesis must be testable and potentially proven false through further observation and experimentation. If it cannot be proven false, it falls into the realm of belief, not science.
I'm not sure how to take a "brain dissatisfied with doubt." Science is founded on doubt and seeks to verify through experimentation. If we didn't doubt, Kepler would not have pushed Tycho's data to arrive at elliptical orbits or Einstein would not have pushed the laws of motion and electromagnetism to arrive at theories of relativity. Even today scientists are tested the validity of general relativity. Scientists always question findings and seek to reproduce results. Dissatisfaction with doubt sounds more like faith than science.
Apparently 96% of the universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy. We don't know what it is YET, but the best approach we have today of finding out what it is involves modern astrophysical theory and not unskeptical belief or acceptance of untestable claims. As Carl Sagan often said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
His book "The Demon-Haunted World" has an excellent chapter "Science and Hope" that is well worth checking out. So is a later chapter called "The Dragon in My Garage."
Because letting people think different can be disastrous when that thinking is based on wishing something to be true or a willful ignorance/ignoring of facts (i.e. data.) Creative and different possibilities are welcome, but they must be subject to the same methods of science just as every other explanation must be.
There are four levels of knowledge. What we know, what we know that we do not know (on my desk is a copy of "The encyclopedia of ignorance"), what we do not know that we do not know, and what we know that is not so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not so long ago that water divining and acupuncture were unscientific. Recent advances in instrumentation have helped us understand that they really are scientific.
Science is always separated from some reality for one simple reason. Science is limited to the definable, and then the measurable. If it cannot be defined, if it cannot be measured, it is not scientific. This is totally independent of its reality.
Even with something as simple (or as complex?) as the human body, there is still much that is outside the realms of present science.
The spiritual realm is a major problem. It cannot be scientific, whether or not it is real, because there are no scientific definitions, and certainly no ways to measure within it.
William Shakespeare wrote about many things in this world that we ignore, someone else said "there are other worlds, but them all are inside this one". Besides this, I would greatly appreciate David Copperfield commenting on Houdini's tricks, an also on his own, for example the one where an empty folding translucent screen is placed, and you see the shadow of David descending out of nowhere at the speed of an elevator. When the descent is finished, they take away the screen and the magician is standing still on an stool. Marvelous ! Greatest show on Earth !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Houdini story is a good one, but one may wonder if Mr. Shermer can apply its lesson to modern science's increasingly bizarre theories of the cosmos, specifically the multiverse, the inflationary Big Bang and dark matter. Is the multiverse a "natural" explanation for the apparent fine-tuning of the cosmos? What is more likely, that an infinite number of hidden universes exist, or that at least one test of the paranormal (or psychic phenomena) is actually valid? Where do we draw the line between "nature" and "super-nature" in light of current cosmological thinking?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Houdini story is a good one, but one may wonder if Mr. Shermer can apply its lesson to modern science's increasingly bizarre theories of the cosmos, specifically the multiverse, the inflationary Big Bang and dark matter. Is the multiverse a "natural" explanation for the apparent fine-tuning of the cosmos? What is more likely, that an infinite number of hidden universes exist, or that at least one test of the paranormal (or psychic phenomena) is actually valid? Where do we draw the line between "nature" and "super-nature" in light of current cosmological thinking?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe accepted meaning of "Mene, mene, takel upharsin" , as Daniel solved it for the king of Babylon, is "you have been counted (weighed), found wanting and the Parsim (Persions) will therefore overrun you
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure, Jesus was crucified. But, you know, he got better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for your pithy, on topic, remarks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing Occam's razor or Hume's dictum, the more likely explanation to the apparent fine-tuning of the cosmos is it is not fine-tuned. It is merely an illusion. The constants of nature are intertwined with the laws of nature. A particular set of laws produces a particular set of constants. The exact relationship between laws and constants of nature may be implicit in a theory of everything, which is yet to be invented. (We don't discover theories, we invent them.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have some indirect evidence for big bang and dark matter. The untestable and unobservable multiverse IMO should be considered imaginary until proven otherwise.
The paranormal is unverified and violates the known laws of nature. Scientific hypotheses are either do not violate the known laws of nature or supported by some observation. The line between natural and supernatural is provisional bec. our knowledge of the laws of nature is changing as we invent new theories.
"what we do not know that we do not know" - How can this be knowledge? It is unknown. Unless we engage in semantics, knowledge is unknowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnlighten us how water divining and acupuncture work. I'm skeptical but open-minded.
How can something undefinable and unmeasurable be reality? It is indistinguishable from fantasy. Maybe it's just semantics, reality is fantasy.
"Thus do normal anomalies become paranormal, natural phenomena become supernatural, unidentified flying objects become extraterrestrial spacecraft and chance events become conspiracies."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow! This is almost a self-referential joke except the author is serious. He's just stated that people fill in an explanation for something they cannot conceive, and then implies that UFO's cannot be anything other than a person's imagination. His unwavering faith in conventional thought defies his ability maintain doubt one single sentence later. He cannot imagine conspiracies so therefore his faith in common opinion fills in that it must be coincidence. It has not been proven false that "all conspiracy is co-incidence" therefore it is? If demonstration was the purpose, then Bravo!
No faith is more dangerous than appeal to authority or consensus. No religion more insidious than one that denies its own existence. When will we learn to see ALL of our faith and belief?
When will "Conventionalism" finally be thrust from the shadows and identified as religion?
The problem is the presumptions and context that is never directly said but is part and parcel in symbolic communication.
While the author does err on the side of having a negative theory of aliens or the supernatural and this is a proper scientific method, he does not acknowledge the possibility of falsification. Any reader knows that the author believes all "paranormal" events to be hokum even though he does not directly say it. It is still communicated to you though. This is because communication is more than the sum of its parts.
While it may be true that there is nothing in the universe that cannot eventually be explained and therefore there is no magic. One must not get confused between personal ignorance: "I can't see that ever being explainable", and an extremely rare or complex phenomenon.
The problem is that he includes things which can be explained through utterly scientific means in his assumption of nonsense; in his list of leaps of faith. He confuses what he believes unlikely, with impossible. An argument from ignorance.
While he fairly criticizes assumptions, he then goes on to assume the opposite and makes the very same mistake.
But then again, perhaps I'm making some assumptions as well?
@CharlieHoes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"[Occam's Razor] is often incorrectly summarized as 'the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one'. This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions. That is, the Razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is often a less accurate explanation "
Sorry for the cut-paste from Wikipedia but it really can't be said better than that. I frequently hear Occam's Razor applied as some kind of rational law that upon invocation, guarantees validity and excludes people from having to prove their point. If the simplest answer were truly the right one, then every article on this website could be summed up in three words: "God Did It."
On the apparent fine-tuning of the cosmos, which is more likely:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) the constants of nature are random numbers thus a product of almost infinite number of unseen universes
2) the constants of nature are non-random numbers thus a product of a precise mathematical function
I pick 2. Take a dozen constants of nature. Plot them in one graph. I bet the graph can be described by a set of six equations at most since two points can be represented by a linear equation and three points by a quadratic equation.
But this is not a scientific theory. It is just a mathematical exercise to show that numbers that look random may not be random.
"God did it" is not the simplest answer. God is unobservable and inexplicable. The universe is observable and largely but not yet entirely explicable. You cannot use god to explain the universe bec. you will have more problems explaining god than the universe. Therefore, you have to cut god out of the explanation - Occam's razor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Apparently 96% of the universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis may or may not be the case,but for us to know that "96% of the universe...." we have to know what is 100%of the universe,and clearly we don't. So it's not possible to say "96% of the universe...."
Another example of urban(? Universal?)legend.
15. SteveinOG
"What is the definition of "supernatural?"
Doesn't it mean "outside of nature?"
No surely it means 'above' nature,(as in 'supervisor')
"Yet, we can only use natural means to prove or disprove any claim". Well what isn't "natural"?
The whole point of this articule is to point out that the so called "supernatural" is only so because we do not yet have the vision to see.
An unnecessarily complicated explanation may be just the amount of effort needed to politicise upon the unknown. For now, muons in the hydrogen exchange experiment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=artificial-hydrogen-tests-quan
could be by definition: "supernatural" but we can verify quantum theory with it!
What if ultimate reality -- the same reality science seeks -- turns out not to be measurable by the instruments of science? Should we then deny it because our instruments gave us no readings?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no such thing as supernatural, if it occurs, its natural. The government thinks there is some truth to UFOs possibly being of ET origin, otherwise they would not have redacted and how to handle possible ET contact with the public, along with redacting every strong case of UFO sightings reported by the military.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have never seen even a grainy video of a waterspout pick up a pond full of fish and frogs and drop them miles away, so does that make reports of that false because its not a fully documented experience? Most UFO reports are explainable as hoax, mental illness or mistaken identity, but there is that small minority reported by highly qualified and trusted people that defy manmade or natural phenomena. If humans don't even know what the most basic substance of the universe is made from, dark matter, dark energy, etc, then how can we summarily rule out that life on some other planet has not evolved superior intellect and figured out how to travel across interstellar distances at close to, or at light speed?
There is a big difference between keeping an open mind and being a zealot for either camp, every UFO story is ET, or anyone, including multiple military officers in charge of nuclear weapons are hoaxing UFO reports because you know how funny the military finds games regarding nuclear weapons security. Only people who have been in the military know the fear of lying on a security log regarding nuclear weapons, and know the military does not allow groups of co-hallucinating schizophrenics, politicians aside, to control the launching of nuclear weapons.
I take the reports of waterspouts lifting aquatic life out of ponds and depositing those animals in another locale as probably true. Maybe its mass hysteria, social pressure to conform to a religious experience, but most of the evidence supports waterspouts. Its the same thing with UFOs. Reliable witnesses, who are hired based on thier reliability, have reported things that manmade technology is incapable of performing, and have reported craft operating with obvious intelligence, avoiding missle lock, turning off fire control systems.
The evidence of ET visitation is strong enough to win a legal case, and though legal cases can be far from certain, they are usually far from uncertain. If your teen came stumbling in a 3am, smelling like sweet smoke, eyes extremely red, cottonmouth lisping, he/she would likely get in trouble for smoking pot. But the teen cries, "You have no proof. I call your claim exth-traordinary! What was I just talking about?"
"It is not so long ago that water divining and acupuncture were unscientific. Recent advances in instrumentation have helped us understand that they really are scientific."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf by 'scientific' you mean 'have been shown by science to be effective in some positive fashion', then no, they haven't. Telling lies on the Internet is just as naughty as telling lies in real life.
The most simplistic explanation is always going to be a naturalist one. Just as every past supernatural explanation has given way to a scientific one, without exception. The fact that a conjurer keeps his his skill set a guarded secret, hardly bolsters the notion that he is using paranormal abilities. Houdini could have made more money had he wished to fleece the credulous in this way. The thought process you are employing is cynical and disingenuous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What if ultimate reality -- the same reality science seeks -- turns out not to be measurable by the instruments of science? Should we then deny it because our instruments gave us no readings?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if I tell you that I am the omnipotent god but any attempt to measure and prove it will fail bec. my supernatural identity is impenetrable to scientific investigation. Would you believe me? Would you deny this ultimate reality?
Any fantasy is possible. But until we're verified it, it's still fantasy.
That's a good point. If that's the case, why are we not teaching in science classes that UFOs are ETs? The court could declare it as science like evolution or non-science like creationism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoctor Strangelove.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe acupuncture and water divining.
Accupuncture taps into an electrical flow in the human body. It actually requires quantum maths to explain in detail.
Briefly, the flow is ionic, and takes around 18 hours to pass around the body. It is accomplished by ionic transfer, not a regular electric current, so takes a much longer time than expected.
Water divining is done electronically by measuring very small changes in the earth's fields of magnetism and gravity. Apparently some, if not all, human bodies can detect such minute changes. I live in an area where gold prospecting is done from an aircraft flying overhead (actually, a helicopter). It has a drogue with such instruments on board. It, also, can detect the presence of water (among other things).
So far, using very sensitive electronic instruments, about 2000 acupuncture points have been verified (of over 4000 known such points).
Pmereton, thanks. My point exactly. To be scientific, it must be, FIRST, definable, SECOND, measurable. If something cannot be measured, let alone defined, by definition, it CANNOT be scientific. However, for many realities, the great quest of true science, is to measure, define, and then try to get at least some understanding of our realities, however defined.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUFOs? "Flying saucers from outer space", Donald E Keyhoe, 1955, before ISBNs. He wrote about the US Air Force "Blue Book" reports. Yes, I am quoting the book from in front of me. I live in New Zealand, and we have at least two major, unexplained incidents. However, I have also seen Venus in the daytime sky. (Day skies at 45 deg S are very dark here, so Venus is very visible). It is one of the scientific explanations for some sightings. Another case of real, but not always scientific.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou cited scientific theories on how acupuncture and water divining might work. But do they actually work? You need good empirical evidence for that. I don't know of any.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead this article on acupuncture.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-10-08/
If anybody can do water divining, I suggest you apply to the Randi Prize. There's a million dollars waiting for you and worldwide fame will surely follow.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
"how can we summarily rule out that life on some other planet has not evolved superior intellect and figured out how to travel across interstellar distances at close to, or at light speed?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists do not rule out interstellar travel and ETs but they are unconvinced that UFOs are ETs. SETI astronomers dedicated to the search for ETs are not impressed with the evidence that ETs are here.
Read this article of Seth Shostak of SETI.
http://www.space.com/1315-great-ufo-debate.html
"The evidence of ET visitation is strong enough to win a legal case, and though legal cases can be far from certain, they are usually far from uncertain."
With thousands of reported alien abductions, testimonies and witnesses, why no court had issued a warrant of arrest to ET for kidnapping? Ask the lawyers why the courts are not doing their job.
Since notions such as "perpetual motion", "a jet aircraft materializing from a junk yard by way of a tornado", the "Tooth Fairy", "monkeys writing Shakespeare on typewriters by dumb luck" are all clearly false, why would any serious scientist ever imagine the obviously foolish notion that the base 4 math code we have come to call DNA could ever self-assemble in an ancient, warm mud puddle from basic elements in order to direct the future assembly of all the proteins and enzymes that would be required for a future, but yet non-existent, viable living cell to exist and procreate? Sounds VERY wacky to me!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr Strangelove. The mining company using the aircraft for prospecting seem to have a different opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd another question. If DNA is a code, who designed it? It is my understanding that ALL codes are the result of intelligent design.
The scientific instrument used by the mining company can detect water underground. There's no good evidence that humans can do the same. Ask James Randi who investigated dowsing among other unusual claims for over 40 yrs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. DNA is not a result of intelligent design. It's a result of self-replicating principles. Scientists created a computer simulation called game of life that can replicate some patterns.
But if so, who designed the intelligent designer? I can see patterns emerging from unintelligence but I cannot see the intelligent designer much less explain how he came into being. You cannot explain the mysterious with something more mysterious and more inexplicable. Occam's razor - cut out the unnecessary complications.
"why would any serious scientist ever imagine the obviously foolish notion that the base 4 math code we have come to call DNA could ever self-assemble in an ancient, warm mud puddle from basic elements in order to direct the future assembly of all the proteins and enzymes that would be required for a future, but yet non-existent, viable living cell to exist and procreate?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause mathematicians had created hypothetical self-replicating machines (game of life) and scientists had created organic molecules (animo acids, the building blocks of life) out of inorganic compounds.
From Wikipedia:
"Conway's Game of Life has attracted much interest, because of the surprising ways in which the patterns can evolve. Life provides an example of emergence and self-organization. It is interesting for computer scientists, physicists, biologists, economists, mathematicians, philosophers, generative scientists and others to observe the way that complex patterns can emerge from the implementation of very simple rules. The game can also serve as a didactic analogy, used to convey the somewhat counter-intuitive notion that "design" and "organization" can spontaneously emerge in the absence of a designer."
Two points: First, where does that place the multiverse? Is it fantasy or science?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, although I think I partly agree with your point, one problem I see is defining "science" before we know what reality is. If we define "science" to only include things that are measurable then does science leave to other fields, such as philosophy or religion, the task of uncovering a truth that may not be measurable? In different words, there may be other methods to prove the truth of propositions that are not otherwise measurable by a ruler or scale. The question is it provable, not necessarily whether it's measurable.
Question: Where do you place the multiverse on your spectrum between science and fantasy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy point, as I mentioned to "Zebulon Joe," is that there may be other ways to prove a proposition (such as logic, experience, intuition) other than through the instruments of science. Science, I believe, limits itself when it takes the position that it only deals in propositions that are "measurable." Further, if we apply our criticism evenly, we must take aim at modern cosmologists who are, as we speak, dreaming any number of new universes to explain the one we know exists. How does one measure the multiverse?
Until physicists develop a way to empirically test the multiverse hypothesis, IMO it is science fiction. As Wolfgang Pauli once said "I don't like your theory. It isn't even false!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReality is a subject of metaphysics. Wittgenstein said "Most of metaphysics is nonsense. It is not nonsensical in itself but any statement about it must be."
Science deals with knowledge that can be gained through the scientific method. Reality outside of that is metaphysics and inherently speculative and probably nonsensical in Wittgenstein sense.
Truth of propositions is provable using mathematics. It is not necessarily measurable but provable. But mathematics is not science.
Just Because Something's Unexplained Doesn't Mean It's Supernatural, and it doesn't mean it isn't. No one knows what happened prior to the instant of cosmic inflation. What we do know is that what emerged is a "dependent dying universe" that is incapable of preventing itself from running down to an ultimate final state of heat death and maximum entropy, with no usable energy left to even tie up a scientists shoe laces. So,I'll go with the supernatural on this one, and give the infinite regress "dependent cause" option a miss.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU ALL seem to have missed a fundamental error in Mr. Schermer's article. He has taken -- at least by my observation -- a fairly universal phenomenon -- and chosen to apply it to a group he disagrees with. The human mind almost reflexively seeks cause and effect explanations for phenomena and also seems to resist simply saying "we don't know" -- preferring the creation of, shall we say, less-than-rigorous explanations. In doing so, we tend to prefer explanations consistent with our pre-existing view of the world. Mr. Schermer is correct in saying that less-than-rigorous "believers" may be more likely to incline toward less-than-rigorous explanations that involve the supernatural. It is, after all, consistent with their world view. But by suggesting, in his commentary, that this error is unique to believers -- as opposed to being a fairly universal phenomenon, he commits a grave error and likely skews the viewpoint of many readers. Many examples of this phenomenon exist that involve "skeptics" erroneously defaulting to their world view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do your readers assume that what Michael Shermer wrote is true, or contains all details? He may be tricking you!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing is supernatural.Each thing in our surroundings is a natural phenomena.I am very much concur with the line"Our mind abhors unexplainable thing.But this article creates a mark of skepticism on my mind that if there were any supernatural power in our surrounding ambiance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo I am going to read the biography of Conan Doyle.I hope it would provide some sort of explanation.