The Transporter Problem

Most of you are probably familiar with the Transporter Problem.

The use of this low-resolution image for commentary purposes should qualify as fair use. Please don't sue me.

For those who aren't, here's the background: You step into a Star Trek-style teleportation device and are instantly transported from one place to another. This process involves scanning your body at high resolution, deconstructing it, transmitting the data (and potentially the original molecules) to the destination, and finally reconstructing your body according to the schematic.

So the problem is this: the transporter kills you.

Oh, sure, it makes a copy at the other end, and from the perspective of that copy nothing untoward occurred, but from the perspective of the original who is disintegrated, it's curtains. It doesn't matter whether the same molecules are used to reconstruct the copy at the other end: continuity of consciousness is disrupted (and when you get right down to it one carbon atom is as good as any other).

The main character in Cory Doctorow's excellent Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom muses over a similar problem*, so perhaps Bones was right to be wary of the device after all.

Regardless, it is clear that if such a device were possible, it would stand to reason that it should be equally possible to create a perfect copy without destroying the original. I was chatting with some coworkers about this a few weeks ago, and one raised the following question: If an exact copy of you were made, down to the molecule, but before it happened you were given a choice between having your leg sawed off (sans anesthetic) or to have the copy's leg sawed off, which would you choose? Does it make a difference?

I should think not. Taken together, we're down a leg either way, and since we're identical duplicates it doesn't matter whose leg it is. After the event, both the copy and the original will have the memory of choosing who will have the leg sawed off: one will remember choosing itself, and the other will remember choosing the other. I figure that it's best to choose randomly, to avoid any hard feelings.

Although one of my colleagues was in complete agreement, another thought that this was a blatant violation of my self-interest, and that my choice was irrational. But the fact remains that on the other side of "the event", both of them are you: What possible difference could it make?

---

* This book, incidentally, has one of my all-time favourite opening lines: "I lived long enough to see the cure for death; to see the rise of the Bitchun Society, to learn ten languages; to compose three symphonies; to realize my boyhood dream of taking up residence in Disney World; to see the death of the workplace and of work. I never thought I'd live to see the day when Keep A-Movin' Dan would decide to deadhead until the heat death of the Universe."

The book is available for free, so you have no excuse not to read it!

---

Addendum: Zach Weiner has apparently already covered this topic with some authority.

Stuff I Used to Believe: The Curse of Macbeth!

Yes, yes, actors and their superstitions.

My First Folio edition of The Tragedie of Macbeth.

Want to know a good way to freak an actor out? Say "Macbeth" in a theatre.

Many theatre folk would have you believe that simply uttering the word "Macbeth" in a theatre will bring ruin and misfortune upon the production and everyone involved in it. For this reason, it is the universal norm to say "The Scottish Play" (when referencing the work) or "The Scottish King" (when referencing the character).

Brian Dunning has previously covered this topic in some detail, but I figured that I might as well add a few personal touches.

I have a minor in theatre, and have performed in several amateur and semi-professional productions around Winnipeg. I have also taught drama to children at MTYP (briefly), the University of Manitoba's Mini-U, and during a summer program with the Evergreen School Division in Gimli. While I have never performed "The Scottish Play", I do have the "Dagger Speech" memorised, as I did a three-year stint at a local dinner theatre and one of the most popular characters that I played was an old thespian well into his dotage who would soliloquise at the drop of a hat.

If you're involved in any way with theatre, you're going to have to deal with superstitions. Many of my friends are actors, and they are by-and-large good folk, but in my personal experience* they are more superstitious than most. Although I used to be somewhat superstitious myself, I was always more amused than actually concerned by the putative Macbeth "curse". But, to avoid ruffling feathers, I avoided saying "Macbeth" all the same.

One particular friend of mine (I'll call her "Beth") has related the following story to me on several occasions. Beth was performing in a play with another actor (I'll call her "Macy") who refused to respect the beliefs (and superstitions) of others. Macy would name The Scottish King at every opportunity, and when asked politely to stop, first by Beth, then by other cast members, and finally by the director, Macy responded by childishly yelling the word over and over again. But by the time the run of the show was done, Macy, Beth, and the director had each broken a leg.

I don't recall ever believing that any curse was actually responsible for the events narrated in that story, however I repeated it often enough as an interesting anecdote.

I've heard poor ticket sales, accidents, and even traffic jams blamed on the curse, when it seems to me more likely that poor acting or promotion, carelessness, poor planning, and even the vagaries of chance were responsible. But the curse makes for a convenient scapegoat.

I play a popular collectible card game from time to time, and I see this sort of childish behaviour play itself out in that arena, too. When a player loses a game, it is always because "it was a bad shuffle", or it would have taken "just one more turn" to win. I even hear players say, "My deck hates me!" Few seem ready to take responsibility for the fact that they didn't play well.

I used to tell my students that you have to respect the superstitions of others, even if you don't believe in them yourself. Today, I would rephrase that: You have to deal with the superstitions of others, even if you don't believe in them yourself. As Richard Dawkins said (although he attributes it to Johann Hari), "I respect you too much to respect your ridiculous ideas."

---

* Logical fallacy alert!

Press Release: 10:23 Campaign

Consumers in Winnipeg stage homeopathic "overdose"

Consumer rights activists across Canada have today announced their intention to take a mass homeopathic "overdose" next month, as part of a major global protest against the alternative remedies.

Protesters in Winnipeg will swallow entire bottles of homeopathic pills at 10:23 AM on 5 February 2011 in Memorial Park, in a bid to raise public awareness of the fact that homeopathic "remedies" are ineffective, putting pressure on pharmacists and healthcare providers to ensure that products sold as medical treatments actually work.

Gem Newman, founder of the Winnipeg Skeptics, said: "Not only do homeopaths provide no plausible physiological explanation for how their remedies work, the evidence shows that they don't work to begin with. If you're ill, you deserve real medicine, not a sham or a placebo."

The demonstration is being organized by the Winnipeg Skeptics as part of the 10:23 Campaign, a global protest against homeopathic remedies originating in the United Kingdom. Similar events will be taking place in dozens of countries around the world, with protests announced in Germany, Hungary, Australia, and the United States.

Michael Marshall, co-ordinator of the international campaign, said: "Tens of billions of pounds are spent every year around the world on these ineffective remedies, and when told what they really are, and how they're made, most people are shocked these useless treatments are still able to be sold to an unsuspecting public."

The 10:23 Campaign launched a year ago in the UK, with almost 400 protestors taking part in "overdose" events across the country following an admission by Britain's leading pharmacy that the pills are only sold because consumers will buy them, not because they are effective. The campaign is named after Avogadro's Number, a scientific constant which can be used to show homeopathic potions contain no active ingredients.

Though some would argue dispensing sugar pills may seem harmless, the endorsement of homeopathic potions by pharmacists and healthcare providers has grave consequences. As well as undermining public trust in medicine and medical advice, patients with serious conditions can avoid seeking medical attention in the belief that homeopathy can treat their condition.

An investigation by the BBC in January 2011 revealed that homeopaths were willing to give travelers ineffective homeopathic "preparations" to use in place of real anti-malarial drugs, as well as ineffective homeopathic alternatives to vaccinations. A recent investigation by CBC's Marketplace turned up similar results.

The 10:23 Campaign is organising protests in more than twenty three cities across ten counties on 5 February 2011.

Local Contact: Gem Newman / spurll@gmail.com / +1 (204) 960-5025
International Contact: Michael Marshall / contact@1023.org.uk / +44 7841 134 309

Book Review: The Secret

Okay, so I've read Rhonda Byrne's The Secret. As you might imagine, I found myself spending a lot of time hurling epithets at the book. This review will codify those things that I said to the hardback, and will consequently contain an unusual amount of snark. You have been warned.

The Book

The Secret is quite possibly the worst book that I've ever read. And by "read", I don't simply mean "flipped through with a derisive sneer on my face": I mean "read, cover-to-cover". With a derisive sneer on my face.

So, if you're thinking of reading The Secret, don't. Read Robert Price's excellent Top Secret: The Truth Behind Today's Pop Mysticisms instead. Both books are funny books, but I find Bob Price funny in the way that Jon Stewart is funny, while Rhonda Byrne is more comparable with Steve Doocy.

My main quarrel with this blasted book is that it just goes on and on and on, saying the same thing over and over again, in hundreds of different ways. It's like reading an essay written by a tenth-grader: the font is huge, the margins are wide, and the student has repeated everything in as many ways as the human mind can conceive just to get the word-count up.

The entire book can be summed up in less than 50 words:

The universe is your friend, so if you think about something hard enough, it will happen. Why? Because of science. But sometimes it won't work. In those cases, don't blame me: blame yourself! It's your fault for not trying hard enough. Or for thinking bad thoughts. Don't do that.

While reading the book, I was struck repeatedly by Byrne's inability to distinguish metaphor from reality. Not only that, but (like most practitioners of woo) she posits a universal explanation for every complex phenomenon.

The Secret

Spoiler alert! "The Secret" is the ipse dixit "Law of Attraction" that we've already discussed. I'll let Rhonda Byrne summarise:

If you can think about what you want in your mind, and make that your dominant thought, you will it into your life. (The Secret, page 9)

For occasional commentary on Ms. Byrne's lunatic ramblings, I'll turn to Bob Price, my favourite audiobook reader, Cthulhu-enthusiast, and professor of Biblical Criticism. I'm serious: his dramatic reading of "The Dunwich Horror" is particularly superb.

But is all this a matter of shaping what happens, or what we notice? No one will deny that a fixation on a goal will alert us to opportunities and possibilities we should never otherwise have noticed. (Top Secret, page 39)

But what can "The Secret" really do for you? Can it get you happiness, wealth, and a really hot wife?

There isn't a single thing that you cannot do with this knowledge. It doesn't matter who you are or where you are, The Secret can give you whatever you want. (The Secret, page xi)

There you have it! I can't stress this enough, people. There is no such thing as hyperbole: you can have whatever you want. You want Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris to fight to the death, with Christopher Hitchens as commentator? Done. You want to see a three-way beard-off between Charles Darwin, Daniel Dennett, and Aristotle? No problem. You want Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis going at it like there's no tomorrow? I know it seems far-fetched, but this is magic we're talking about. There's nothing you can't do!

(You know what? In all honesty, I didn't really care for Black Swan.)

It is the law [of attraction] that determines the complete order in the Universe, every moment of your life, and every single thing you experience in your life. (The Secret, page 5)

So, with this "Law of Attraction" governing the whole of the known universe, you might imagine that Rhonda is a big fan of positive thinking. You wouldn't want anyone's "negative energy" gumming up the works.

In fact, Byrne calls negative thinking (or simply thinking about what you don't want) "[a]n epidemic worse than any plague that humankind has ever seen". Seriously. We're talking worse than the bubonic plague, worse than cholera, worse than polio, and worse than simple diarrhoea, which kills 2–3 million people each year.

Okay, I see her point. I find her hyperbole offensive, but I do see her point. Dwelling on negative things can be detrimental to your mental wellbeing. But you know what, Rhonda? You need to consider the potential consequences of every action that you take, positive and negative, in order to make good decisions. If you simply refuse to think about potential negative outcomes, you're likely to find yourself in deep trouble fairly quickly.

So when you are feeling bad it is communication from the Universe, and in effect it is saying, "Warning! Change thinking now. Negative frequency recording. Change frequency. Counting down to manifestation. Warning!" (The Secret, page 33)

Wow. So apparently the universe sounds like a computer from a cheap sci-fi show. Did anyone else imagine Majel Barrett-Roddenberry reading those words?

The Big Names

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Jesus were not only prosperity teachers, but also millionaires themselves, with more affluent lifestyles than many present-day millionaires could conceive of. (The Secret, page 109)

Throughout the book, Rhonda Byrne lists reams and reams of famous historical people who knew "The Secret", trotting them out one by one to make her case for her. I'm reminded of Sun Myung Moon's claims that Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Confucius, and Marx all supported his claim to be the messiah. It's easy to claim support from the dead.

Apparently da Vinci (The Secret, page 4) was in on "The Secret". Funny: I would have thought that he could have made his ornithopter fly. I guess he just wasn't thinking at it hard enough.

The Science

Like the talking heads in the fantasy movie What the Bleep Do We Know? Team Secret capitalizes, first, on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, trying to break down any strict cause-and-effect nexus, as if to reinstate an element of spontaneity into the fabric of existence. This indeterminacy is supposed to make miracles possible, since there would then be no ironclad "natural laws" to violate. (Top Secret, pages 27–28)

Rhonda Byrne really knows her science.

Quantum physicists tell us that the entire universe emerged from thought. (The Secret, page 15)

Really? I would like to know which quantum physicists you've been talking to, because that has the distinctive ring of something that you just made up. But alas, several pages later I discover that she's been talking to Dr. Fred Alan Wolf. Well, you can find kooks in any field, and Wolf's opinions on quantum consciousness do not by any means represent the scientific consensus on the matter.

I never studied science or physics at school, and yet when I read complex books on quantum physics I understood them perfectly because I wanted to understand them. (The Secret, page 156)

I'm reminded of the fact that, in light of a focus on self-esteem over substance, America's test scores in science and math continue to decline while students' confidence in their abilities remain high.

Bob Price's pithy reply?

This is why we don't let students grade their own papers. You don't need Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to doubt seriously whether Ms. Byrne has grasped the first thing about quantum physics—or, for that matter, any kind of physics. (Top Secret, page 26)

The Victim

The biggest problem with the Law of Attraction is the blame-the-victim in which it results. It would of course be a fallacious argument from final consequences to state that because it results in this particular negative outcome it is therefore false, but given that there is no reason to believe in the metaphysical powers of this so-called law, the negative consequences of believing it do bear mentioning, I think.

If your husband beats you, it's because you intend to be beaten: you are not concentrating enough on having a loving husband. If you are trapped under a collapsing building during an earthquake, you were somehow on the same "frequency" as the event. There are no accidents. It is all your fault.

But you can fix it. And we'll tell you how.

Bastards.

Often when people first hear this part of The Secret they recall events in history where masses of lives were lost, and they find it incomprehensible that so many people could have attracted themselves to the event. By the law of attraction, they had to be on the same frequency as the event. (The Secret, page 28)

Bob Price takes her to task.

It is because they confuse a wise rule of thumb with an overarching system of metaphysics that people like Rhonda Byrne wind up heartlessly blaming the victim. ... [Of] course she has in mind the Nazi Holocaust. Too bad those Jews didn't think happier thoughts, huh? And because they didn't, well, they asked for it! (Top Secret, pages 44–45)

And to top it all off, on the last page of the book, Rhonda writes you a moral blank cheque.

Whatever you choose is right. The power is all yours. (The Secret, page 184)

The Secret on Feelings

What if your feelings are actually communication from the Universe to let you know what you're thinking? (The Secret, page 33)

And what if the creaking in your knees is actually a communication from your neighbour reminding you to return that step-ladder you borrowed?

The Secret on Knowledge

If you do just a little research, it is going to become evident to you that anyone that ever accomplished anything, did not know how they were going to do it. They only knew they were going to do it. (The Secret, page 51)

I'm sure that this news comes as a delightful surprise to all of those aspiring medical doctors and structural engineers.

The Secret on Obesity

Whether people have been told they have a slow thyroid, a slow metabolism, or their body size is hereditary, these are all disguises for thinking "fat thoughts." If you accept any of those conditions as applicable to you, and you believe it, it must become your experience, and you will continue to attract being overweight. ... Food is not responsible for putting on weight. (The Secret, pages 58–59)

Being a dietitian, my wife was delighted to hear that Rhonda Byrne had rendered her profession obsolete.

The Secret on Time

Time is just an illusion. Einstein told us that. (The Secret, page 62)

Lunchtime doubly so.

Honestly? I wish I had the last four hours back. Also, I think that she may have misunderstood relativity.

The Secret on Money

Make it your intention to look at everything you like and say to yourself, "I can afford that. I can buy that." (The Secret, page 111)

I can totally get on-board with that. The fact that I can totally get on-board with that upsets my wife, for obvious and completely rational reasons.

The Secret on Medicine

You tell the patient that this is just as effective, and what happens is the placebo sometimes has the same effect, if not greater effect, than the medication that is supposed to be designed for that effect. They have found out that the human mind is the biggest factor in the healing arts... (The Secret, page 125)

Yeah, that happens all the time. That's called a negative trial. It happens when the medication doesn't work. Also, many doctors argue that there is no real placebo "effect". I recommend listening to episode 5 of Dr. Mark Crislip's excellent QuackCast for more details.

The Secret on Aging

Unfortunately, Western society has become fixated on age, and in reality there is no such thing. You can think your way to the perfect state of health, the perfect body, the perfect weight, and eternal youth. (The Secret, page 131)

I seem to recall that Deepak Chopra expressed a similar sentiment in his 1993 book Ageless Body, Timeless Mind: The Quantum Alternative to Growing Old, however I note that his hair is somewhat greyer of late. Strange.

The Secret on Disease

You cannot "catch" anything unless you think you can, and thinking you can is inviting it to you with your thought. (The Secret, page 132)

So the best thing that you can do is convince yourself that you are impervious to all disease. No need for vaccines, then! Good thing, too: I've heard they cause autism.*

The Secret on Science

In simple terms, all energy vibrates at a frequency. Being energy, you also vibrate at a frequency, and what determines your frequency at any time is whatever you are thinking and feeling. ... When you think about what you want, and you emit that frequency, you cause the energy of what you want to vibrate at that frequency and you bring it to You! (The Secret, pages 156–157)

I have no comment, and will only remind the reader of what Rhonda Byrne said on page 135: "Sometimes less information is better!"

The Secret on The Secret

If you are seeking an answer or guidance on something in your life, ask the question, believe you will receive, and then open this book randomly. At the exact place where the pages fall open will be the guidance and answer you are seeking. (The Secret, page 172)

Jesus. Such humility!

The Bottom Line

The Secret is a startle morass of insane balderdash. The words "quantum", "law", "magnetic", "frequency", and "science" come up frequently, and can apparently be used to mean whatever you want them to mean. The book is a wishy-washy, feel-good message wrapped in a loose-knit anecdote frock. (I don't even know what that means.)

One of the things that I like about Price, though, is that he doesn't lose sight of the fact that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

By now the reader may expect me to attack and deride such assurances, but I will not. This much is simply creative psychology. If repeated contemplation of a scientific formula, a historical fact, a new friend's name, or a sports score will eventually wear a groove in the gray matter of the brain, it is not hard to imagine that one's habits of expectation may be changed by the faithful repetition of an affirmation or a scriptural text. ... [I]t appears that much of New Thought's belief in visualization and manifestation does not really depend upon dubious metaphysics but may perhaps be backed up by recourse to more mundane, psychological conditions. (Top Secret, page 37)

Thinking positively may well make you happier. But again, those who propose that we can directly alter the state of the universe with our intentions seem, as Price puts it, "to confuse metaphor with metaphysics".

The Secret gets one star for being entertaining. I would have given it half a star, but I couldn't find an appropriate ASCII character.

Final Score: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆

---

* If you think that vaccines cause autism, fuck you. No, seriously. I reserve that sort of language only for those most deserving.

Crazy Watering Can

I really enjoyed this.



Tip o' the watering can to Robert McGregor, who said: "Let's focus on what we have in common rather than what divides us."

SoS: The Expanding Universe

Bravo, Symphony of Science.

I Don't Debate Science

Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

We recently received the following message at the Winnipeg Skeptics blog:

Hello,
This message is for Gem Newman.

Firstly, after reading about your visit to the Winnipeg creation museum I was impressed with your respectful critique of the ideas and artifacts presented. John Feakes had mentioned to me that you had recently taken a tour. I also appreciated after reading some of your other articles (and the Free Press article), your sincerity in discovering what is true rather than simply argueing against something for the sake of arguing. It also appears that you are no longer sceptical about evolution and that leads me to a request I hope you consider.

I am a part of the Manitoba Association of Christian Home Schoolers(www.machs.mb.ca). Each year we have a conference that has a youth (ages 12 – 18) trak which runs Friday afternoon and Saturday. This year we are thinking of perhaps having a creation/evolution presentation/dabate on the Friday evening March 25th from 7 til 9pm at Calvary Temple on Hargrave. John Feakes would most likely be the presenter for creation. The format would be that each person would have a 10 minute introduction, a 10 minute questioning/clarification of the other perspective and a 10 minute closing. Perhaps we would schedule a question time from the youth as well. Handouts would probably be a good idea. The goal is not so much to have a “winner/loser” but to have the evidences of each idea presented in a clear and concise manner.

This is in the planning stages so any changes or requests you might have would be welcome.

Let me know what you think and if you would be interested in being the presenter for evolution. If there is someone else you would like to suggest please do.

Thank you for considering this request and please let me know one way or the other by email [REDACTED] or phone [REDACTED].

Respectfully,
Eric Truijen
MACHS Youth Trak Coordinator

P.Z. Myers recently linked to an excellent and comprehensive guide to such debates, from AtheismResource.com:

Here is my reply.

Hello, Mr. Truijen.

Thank you for your inquiry. First of all, let me be clear: I am speaking only on my own behalf, and my remarks should not be taken as representative of the views of other members of the Winnipeg Skeptics.

You may be disappointed to learn that I am not willing to participate in a debate on the subject of evolution. Although I applaud your apparent willingness to expose the young people in your care to new ideas (something that I don't imagine they get very often), I believe that the proposed format would be inadequate for several reasons.

First of all, despite any gratification that I may have felt at being asked to present the evidence for evolution, I am a very poor choice. Much like Mr. Feakes, I am completely unqualified to speak publicly on the subject of evolution.

I find it troubling that, rather than contact an expert in the appropriate field—an evolutionary biologist, say, or perhaps even a palaeontologist—you chose to contact a computer scientist. That seems vaguely like stacking the deck. I am merely an interested layman and a science enthusiast. I would recommend contacting faculty members at the local universities in search of an appropriate speaker.

Second, a debate is not an appropriate format for discussing matters of science. Debates are more about scoring rhetorical points than about getting to the truth. It often takes far more time to refute a falsehood than it does to state it, and in cases where one participant uses a rapid-fire approach to present his or her arguments it can often take several minutes for his or her opponent to thoroughly address each piece of misinformation. This provides a significant handicap for any participant who is beholden to the truth. As Samuel Clemens is purported to have said, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes."

Third, to present creationism and evolution in such a manner is to promote a false equivalence. Evolution is a well-vetted scientific theory which makes testable predictions and is the basis for much of modern biology and medicine. It is independently validated by several fields of science, including (but not limited to) archaeology, geology, and genetics. Creationism, on the other hand, is an unfalsifiable religious position that ignores scientific evidence to advance a regressive, anti-intellectual agenda. It has yet to make any testable predictions that I'm aware of, and is scientifically worthless. I have no interest in legitimising the manufactured "controversy" between evolution and creationism any more than I have in legitimising the "controversy" between astronomy and astrology.

I was disappointed when you contended that I was "no longer sceptical about evolution", because this statement implies a serious misunderstanding of scientific skepticism. Modern skepticism is not simply doubt. When I talk about skepticism, I'm not talking about a position: I'm talking about a method which evaluates claims on the basis of their logical structure, their plausibility, their falsifiability, and the quality of the available evidence.

A person who expresses "skepticism" toward the germ theory of disease is either ignorant of the facts, unable to evaluate the evidence, or intellectually dishonest. I would put a person who expresses "skepticism" toward the theory of evolution in the same category.

With this in mind, then, you may wonder why The Winnipeg Skeptics visited Mr. Feakes' museum last year. We were honestly interested in discovering why Mr. Feakes and his people think the way that they do. Some of us visited a psychic fair last spring for a similar reason. Speaking for myself, I was not unwilling to be persuaded by what Mr. Feakes had to say, but I judged that outcome to be unlikely. I was also prepared to be convinced of the existence of psychic phenomena upon visiting the psychic fair, but was quickly disabused of the notion upon my arrival.

But in science, all conclusions are provisional.

In 1965, Sir Austin Bradford Hill wrote: "All scientific work is incomplete—whether it be observational or experimental. All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have or postpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time."

It is possible that the current theory of evolution does not provide a complete picture of the origin of species. But, as Stephen Jay Gould said, "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

And finally, let me be clear: I have absolutely no respect for creationism or for any concomitant dogmas. Please don't confuse politeness with respect. Although I believe that all people are deserving of respect, my respect for ideas is limited to those that have proven themselves worthy of such esteem.

Gem Newman

Myth of the Month: Positive Thinking, Part 3

Yeah, yeah, I know: Positive Thinking was December's Myth of the Month. I fell behind. It happens. I still haven't finished typing up my TAM 8 coverage, after all.

Here, watch this: I promise that you'll enjoy it!



This reminds me somewhat of the self-esteem movement that swept public schools in the 80s and 90s, in which student morale was seemingly deemed more important than ensuring that students actually learned the material, and teachers were strongly discouraged (or forbidden) from giving students failing grades or holding them back; it's more important that they stay with their friends than that they learn what they need to learn.

This story from the New York Daily News seems pertinent:

Based on a worldwide assessment of teens' math and science, the U.S. is currently ranked 29th in science and 35th in math compared with the rest of the world.

...

Ironically, according to the recent theatrical film "Waiting for Superman," the U.S. ranks No. 1 in confidence. Yet research shows many students here tend not to worry about school, so those who do are called nerds.

So it seems fairly clear to me that positive thinking isn't enough. You also need to be competent .

But with that in mind, let me emphasise something that I should have probably made more clear a while back: although I'm coming down fairly hard on the metaphysical claims made by some of these "positive thinking gurus", that doesn't mean that I'm against positive thinking. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I am certain that thinking positively will make you happier.

I am a much happier person, generally speaking, than I was five years ago, and that has a lot to do with an adjustment of outlook. I believe that if you're committed to enjoying your life, you're much more likely to do so.

In the future, I'm hoping to read David Rakoff's Half Empty, a book of essays on the subject of pessimism. I've heard positive things!

And coming up: I'll provide a skeptical look at Rhonda Byrne's bestselling The Secret. Stay tuned!

Buy Brian Dunning's New Book!

You can buy the new Skeptoid book here!

Pirates, Pyramids, and Papyrus is now available in paperback and e-book formats. With a foreword by Richard Saunders and illustrations by Nathan Bebb, this is the third in my series of books based on selected Skeptoid episodes adapted for print. Pirates, Pyramids, and Papyrus answers some of those questions you always wondered about, such as:

• Can frogs and fish really fall out of the sky?
• Is a vast pirate treasure buried in an elaborately engineered Money Pit on an island in Nova Scotia?
• Did an angel save the British Expeditionary Force from the Germans in WWI?
• Do the world’s elite secretly govern from the Bohemian Grove?
• Is the world’s largest ancient pyramid located in Bosnia?
• Does the Min Min Light actually chase travelers through the Australian outback?

If you have a friend or family member you’ve been wanting to introduce to critical thinking, Pirates, Pyramids and Papyrus may be just the way to do it. I hope you enjoy it. Get it here:
http://skeptoid.com/book.php

I would really, really appreciate any mentions you could give on blogs, podcasts, etc. Thanks!!

- Brian

You're welcome! That is all.

Stuff I Used to Believe: Caffeine is a Diuretic

Well, it is. Sometimes. For some people. In high doses.

Image courtesy of Robert Knapp. Used under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0.

A diuretic is a chemical substance that increases the rate of urination and thus dehydrating the subject. There is apparently a useful distinction to be made between diuresis and aquaresis (increasing water excretion without the attendant loss of electrolytes), however the information that I could find on the subject was scarce.

It's common knowledge that caffeine causes dehydration, however several recent studies have questioned this bit of popular wisdom. From the Wiki:

Caffeine has diuretic properties when administered in sufficient doses to subjects that do not have a tolerance for it. Regular users, however, develop a strong tolerance to this effect, and studies have generally failed to support the common notion that ordinary consumption of caffeinated beverages contributes significantly to dehydration.

And here are the references from the entry:
The Claim: Caffeine Causes Dehydration (The New York Times)
Fluid, electrolyte, and renal indices of hydration during 11 days of controlled caffeine consumption. (PubMed)
Caffeine ingestion and fluid balance: a review. (PubMed)
Caffeine, Fluid-Electrolyte Balance, Temperature Regulation, and Exercise-Heat Tolerance (Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews)

About a year ago, one of our employees asked me why coffee was said to cause dehydration. I replied that caffeine was a diuretic, and recommended that he look it up. He did, and to my surprise noted that recent research had questioned this assertion.

So it seems to me that if you consume enough caffeine to be worried about its diuretic effect, you don't need to worry about its diuretic effect.

You do, however, have to worry about the other effects of caffeine. I am under doctor's orders (and dietitian's orders, according to my lovely wife) to reduce my coffee intake from roughly two litres each day to no more than two cups each day, as I suffer from fairly aggressive gastroesophageal reflux which is apparently exacerbated by caffeine consumption. Bollocks.

The Ontological Argument

This morning, I received the following email from a friend of mine.

Hi Gem,

My friend claims the following is a proof of God's existence. What do you think? It's not convincing to me, but I don't have much experience in recognizing logical fallacies. Could you help me out?

***
God is defined as THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT.

THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT can be thought of as existing only in the understanding. [This means THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT does not exist outside of the understanding (reality for example)].
"THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT conceived as existing only in the understanding" can be thought as greater still, "THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT existing in reality."
This creates a contradiction, THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT by definition cannot be thought as greater. Therefore, THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT cannot exist only in the understanding.

If P (that which none greater can be thought existing only in the understanding) then Q (that which none greater can be thought existing not only in the understanding) is not Q [because that which none greater can be thought can be thought as greater). Therefore P is false.

Note: this does not prove the Christian God or any known deity. It simply proves the existence of THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT. Whether THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT created humans or even cares about us cannot be determined. We simply know that there is something of such greatness that cannot be exceeded.
This may require modal logic to distinguish from Necessary Truths and Contingent Truths.
***

[NAME REDACTED]

"THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT"? Good lord.

My reply follows.

Hi, [NAME REDACTED].

Your friend is presenting the Ontological Argument, first proposed by Anselm of Canterbury, championed by Réné Descartes, and recently revived by Alvin Plantinga. After Pascal's Wager, it is probably the most widely criticised (and even ridiculed) of the philosophical arguments for the existence of a deity, because it attempts to quite literally define God into existence.

Your friend's argument is phrased more along the lines of Anselm's original argument (although more awkwardly). In my reply, I'll refer to the following, more readable, ontological argument:

1. God is the greatest imaginable entity.
2. All else being equal, an entity that exists is greater than one that doesn't.
3. ∴ God exists.

The problems with this argument are legion. Although the applicability of some of these objections is dependent on the wording of the argument, I believe that every proposed ontological proof has been adequately dealt with.

We'll begin with a point originally raised by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers: an argument with the same logical structure can be repurposed to apply to just about anything. Take the following ontological proof, for example:

1. Atlantis is the greatest imaginable island.
2. All else being equal, an island that exists is greater than one that doesn't.
3. ∴ Atlantis exists.

Or this one:

1. The minotaur is the greatest imaginable animal.
2. All else being equal, an animal that exists is greater than one that doesn't.
3. ∴ The minotaur exists.

Other philosophers, such as Immanual Kant (the great pissant), have objected that existence and non-existence are not properties as such, and in any event no rationale is presented for the supposition that existence is "greater" than non-existence. Personally, I would add that the argument assumes that "greatness" can be quantified and that it exists objectively, rather than simply being a subjective assessment of value or worth. If you believe that greatness is objective, what is the greatest colour?

But let's look at this from another perspective: does God taste good on a sandwich?

For the sake of argument, let's say that "THAT [THAN] WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT" doesn't taste very good on a sandwich. But this presents a problem, because it would be greater still if it did taste good on a sandwich. Therefore, God is an excellent condiment.

Unfortunately, I can't take credit for this line of reasoning. While discussing this argument on The Atheist Experience, Russell Glasser had this to say: "I like Jeff Dee's comment on this argument... It's kind of silly to say that perfect things have every good quality. You know, by that logic, God should be an excellent floor polish, and putting him on your ribs should make them taste extra delicious."

This argument may also be guilty of begging the question: the first premise defines God as the greatest conceivable being; however, since the argument also states that the property of existence is required for the being to be of maximal greatness, the argument is actually in essence this:

1. God is defined as the greatest imaginable entity, which exists.
2. By premise 1, God exists.
3. ∴ God exists.

And finally, as your friend pointed out, the argument doesn't actually say anything about God. Other than that he is awesome, and that he exists.

I hope that this helps, [NAME REDACTED]. All the best.

Gem

Expurgation on the Mississippi

I am enormously fond of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (and of Sam Clemens in general), and so I was rather taken aback to hear that NewSouth Books intends to release an expurgated edition of both novels in February. This bowdlerisation will specifically remove the words "nigger" and "injun" from the text.

I hadn't read Huckleberry Finn until recently, and although I was initially alarmed by the language, I grew to welcome the bracing and gritty realism. I came away from the book with an appreciation for the subversiveness with which the author used the hated word, and I have a hard time believing that the altered text of the forthcoming edition will be help future readers appreciate the story. Jim's struggle against racism, and Huckleberry's internal conflict over helping Jim escape (which he initially and heartbreakingly thinks of as "stealing") can't help but grip the reader, and the way Clemens interwove the racist language of the time into Finn's internal monologue really drives these struggles home.

But don't listen to me: this fellow explains the intricacies of the case much better than I do. And I agree with him.

And I could be wrong. I have never, to my knowledge, been called anything worse than a "limey". What do you think?

---

Edit: Tom the Dancing Bug weighs in.

Power Balance, You Jackasses...

Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

So, remember how Power Balance was forced to repudiate their claims in Australia? Well, a statement recently went up at the main site* that says this:

Power Balance products work. The existing reports out there are fundamentally incorrect. Power Balance did not make any claims that our product does not perform.

FAIL.

The belief of thousands of consumers and athletes who wear our products are not wrong.

Say it with me, folks: argumentum ad populum.

A preliminary study recently conducted on the product's performance variables was commissioned and the findings have determined that the product does in fact provide a "statistically significant" result on the wearer's performance. We are committed to further evaluating the product's performance parameters so that we can continue to provide products that enhance the wearer's lifestyle.

A preliminary study? Whoop-de-freakin'-do.

I would like to see this study. Was it in-house or was it external? Was it properly double- or triple-blinded? Can it be independently replicated? How many participants were there? Was the control adequate? Were the metrics to tested (e.g., strength and flexibility) selected beforehand or after the trial had been conducted (post hoc theorising in keeping with the Texas sharpshooter fallacy)?

Numerous actual consumer testimonies supporting the wristbands' performance were provided to the ACCC by Power Balance. Despite that, they requested Power Balance remove marketing claims until it could provide them with their narrow criteria of randomized, double-blind scientific studies that supports the use of those marketing phrases.

Right. If you think that the plural of "anecdote" is "data", or that testimonials are sufficient evidence of efficacy, you are an idiot and you have no business selling anyone anything. And they impugn the "their narrow criteria of randomized, double-blind scientific studies"? To be fair, such studies do reek of Western scientific imperialism.

Power Balance, listen to me: you have demonstrated that either you are self-deluded morons or you are appallingly unethical scam-artists. You use deceptive and fraudulent marketing techniques to trick people into buying your products, taking advantage of a host of logical fallacies and cognitive biases.

Stop it.

Hat tip to Brian Dunning on Facebook.

---

Edit: As mentioned in the footnote, Power Balance's statement doesn't even link back to the retraction that it is talking about. Neurologica informs us that, in a further effort to hide their own honesty, Power Balance has removed links to their Australian site from their own main page at powerbalance.com! Does their blatant dishonesty know no bounds?

---

Edit: Power Balance has modified the statement on their site to make themselves seem a little less petulant. Unsuccessfully, in my opinion. Here's the original:

Here's the new one:

Huzzah for screencaps! (Click to embiggen.)

Yeah. You're still douchebags.

---

* You can find it at "www.powerbalance.com" in the "statement" directory. (Connect the two with a slash.) I won't link to it directly, as many of us still hope to Google Bomb "Power Balance" into linking to the retraction—not only that, but the "statement" refuses to link to their retraction, and two can play at that game!

Stuff I Used to Believe: Glass is a Liquid at STP

Yup.

Why did I believe that glass is a liquid at standard temperature and pressure? It's a common misconception that was imparted to me at a young age. I quickly incorporated into my understanding of how the world worked and it became one of those "facts" that I just knew.

From Wikipedia:

Glass is not a high-viscosity liquid at room temperature: it is an amorphous solid, although it does have some chemical properties normally associated with liquids. Panes of stained glass windows often have thicker glass at the bottom than at the top, and this has been cited as an example of the slow flow of glass over centuries. However, this unevenness is due to the window manufacturing processes used in earlier eras, which produced glass panes that were unevenly thick at the time of their installation. ... In fact, the lead frames of the windows are less viscous than the panes, and if glass was indeed a slow moving liquid, the panes would warp at a higher degree.

In fact, I believed that glass was a high-viscosity liquid until less than an hour ago. What made me look it up?

I do, too. In fact, I'm marking my calendar: the first Tuesday in February shall henceforth be Misconception Day!

Thanks, Randall!

Stuff I Used to Believe: Smart(fx)

Some of you may recall that I used to have chiropractic treatments regularly. Well, that's only the tip of the pseudoscience iceberg.

While listening to Mark Chrislip's excellent QuackCast podcast on herbal remedies (episode 13), I recalled that I used to also drink copious quantities of Smart(fx).

From the Wiki:

Smart(fx) is a brand of alternative beverage that originated in Toronto, Canada, in 1996. The various flavours of this beverage are made with juices and herbal extracts and contain no artificial flavours or added sugar. They are kosher and GMO-free and come in four flavours: Original, Cranberry, Raspberry-Green Tea, and Blueberry Hemp.

I used to pound back one of those babies before every high school exam. Just in case.

The "original" flavour (my favourite, although the cranberry variety was good too) tasted vaguely like orange juice mixed with licorice, and was an acquired taste. It seems that the drink has been unavailable for some time. (And, probably as a result, links to the official Smart(fx) website result in the message "Account for domain naturaldrink.com has been suspended".) If I recall correctly, it was a cocktail of fruit juices, Ginkgo biloba, Paullinia cupana (guarana), and Panax ginseng (although I'm sure that there were probably other "medicinal" ingredients).

Presumably, had I drunk more of it I would have remembered using it sooner, as it claimed to improve memory and implied (at the very least) other cognitive benefits. In fact, I was briefly concerned over the ethics of using this "performance enhancing drug" to ace my exams.

I wonder what other crazy things I used to believe.