Category: Here’s Why

Here’s why, part 6: Psychic abilities

Al Denelsbeck

This is a rather broad topic with no real consensus on what it includes, so it’s likely that anyone could either fault me for not covering something, or accuse me of lumping disparate concepts together. Overall, however, the same factors will apply to most or all of them, so let’s dive into, “Why doesn’t science take psychic powers seriously?”

The short answer is, such things have been tested repeatedly and extensively, and have come up sadly lacking in any actual impact. There are two key factors in such tests, however, which are double-blind testing and functionally-defined results. We’ll do these one at a time.

Double-blind testing is a common method of determining results of tests that can be influenced too easily by human perception and/or desired results. It’s been used in testing medicines, in that even the doctors prescribing the medications don’t know whether they’re issuing the actual medicine or an inert substance, and the patients don’t know the same; only those tabulating the results have access to the guide that reveals the truth. In this way, the subjectivity of either patients or doctors in evaluating the results is reduced to a minimum. With psychic powers, this method is often used by refusing to reveal what, for instance, the actual cards have on them that the test subject is attempting to guess, or even that the proctor of the tests doesn’t even know what they’re trying to find. Without this, the possibility arises that someone who wants to believe in psychic powers can interpret the results with bias, or even influence this – which leads to the second bit.

Functionally-defined results refers to an unambiguous and distinct set of goals, with little room for creative interpretation or ‘close’ results. One example that comes to mind is a test subject, asked to determine the target held in the mind of another subject, naming a ‘parade’ when the target subject was, ‘July 4th.’ There are a lot of reasons for a parade, and July 4th doesn’t rank as one of the more prevalent examples of such, but more to the point, where’s the value in having a perhaps-close-but-not-very-specific answer when resorting to psychic abilities? If I can’t remember ‘July 4th’ in conversation and say instead, “You know, parade day,” how many guesses would anyone have to provide to get it correct? And if I fail to confirm any answer, what then?

[A small side note that came from some of my researching on the topic: useful scientific results aren’t demonstrated just by the publication of a paper – initial results can easily overturned, papers retracted, to say nothing of the ‘pay to publish’ journals that exist. Confidence comes from peer-review, and especially replication; can someone duplicate the results with the same conditions and standards? This reflects the bit above regarding bias in researchers. Always look for review and replication before putting any confidence in any scientific studies.]

Other factors come into play, such as leading the test subject, usually unconsciously, sometimes not so much. The classic case of Clever Hans, many decades ago, revealed that a horse that could supposedly do advanced arithmetic was actually only reading the subtle physical cues of the owner and those running the tests – a horse, mind you. Unable to see the person posing the math problems, or worse, presented with problems that the person did not know the answer to, produced a sudden case of typical horse intelligence. Anyone experienced at reading the body language, the “tells,” of someone running the test can produce results well above random chance, especially when such tests often have very narrow choices that are already known to both. Inexperienced testers often inadvertently help the testees along, by answering questions that they shouldn’t or prompting for more details only at key times.

This of course leads to cold-reading, an extremely well-known, and well-understood, tool of countless public psychics. The field is broad with a lot of aspects and I would encourage anyone to look into it deeper if they want a full treatment, but in essence it is a method of allowing those seeking answers to actually provide them to the psychic. For instance, the psychic may ask if someone in the room knows someone whose name begins with “J.” A moment’s thought reveals this doesn’t narrow things down very far – we all know someone, usually in our immediate family, whose name starts with “J.” With a positive answer from an eager audience member, already primed to believe, the psychic then begins to narrow things down by guessing at names: James, John, Jack, Jerry, and so on, with the audience member virtually always confirming it when the psychic finds a match among these ridiculously common names. Once the reader has a ‘match,’ they can then proceed with providing vague, feelgood assurances that the recipient and audience somehow never notice is nonetheless more specific than “a name that begins with ‘J’.”

But with the common tricks of the psychic out of the way, let’s talk about the issues from the scientific side:

Somehow, the psychic lacks knowledge of matters that could be truly informative, lucrative, or life-saving. Any true psychic could make millions with no effort simply on the stock market, no clients necessary. They also would be remarkably invaluable when it comes to warnings about natural disasters or violent attacks – it’s actually hard to imagine that such abilities wouldn’t be utilized in thousands of ways in thousands of different functions, military and law enforcement being the prime candidates. And while it’s true that some psychics do occasionally offer their services to local police to help locate a missing person, it’s also quite easy to see how infrequently this has the slightest effect – not to mention that their input before the person went missing would have been hundreds of times more useful.

Psychic predictions demonstrate causality. This is a big one, because at the barest minimum it suggests that events are, for want of a better word, ‘planned.’ Whether this is through the determinism of physics or the will of some god(s), it’s still a earth-shattering thing to know about our universe. And it also raises the biggest issue with causality: is this fixed or is this changeable? Science fiction writers have examined the ramifications of this ad nauseum, including the number of flaws, but somehow this is glossed over entirely by psychics. I mean, forget which goddamn card I’m holding up – which treatment is going to be effective for my cancer? Shit, when’s the best time to travel this holiday? Where and when are the criminals going to strike next? C’mon, Aunt Agnes, let us know something important.

Moreover, how, exactly, are these future events recorded, and thus able to be read/sensed/divined/whatever? Videotape? Clay tablets? Radio transmissions? The implication is that events that have not even come to pass somehow emanate something detectable and specific, able to be discerned among the literally infinite events that the future holds. That sounds like a damn noisy environment. And what about the past? Do these records fade when they happen or something, because I have yet to see a psychic clarifying all those sketchy details about past historic events.

Communicating with the dead proves an afterlife, but who cares about who’s at peace there? Religion is one of the biggest contentions on the globe, and has been for centuries. Let’s have some solid answers about all this. Which religion is correct, and what can we expect after we die? How are you sensing anything without physical sensory organs, and what are the parameters? How boring is it? Have you talked to the folks in charge, and if so, what do they say? Seriously.

[I’ve already tackled the idea of non-corporeal souls earlier, so go there for a more in-depth treatment.]

The physics isn’t kind. [I know, switching back and forth so often between ‘psychics’ and ‘physics’ is cruel, and I’m one of those that can miss the distinction from reading too fast.] Brains are simple fats and proteins and a lot of water, and the energy with which they operate is remarkably tiny; this is the source of the ‘green jello’ problem with electro-encephalograms. Yet somehow, they can both send and receive distinct patterns of ‘thought’ across vast distances including, apparently, from brains that are no longer operational – that’s how psychics are supposed to find dead bodies, right? I mean, even if they ‘see’ them they have to know where to look in the first place? Yeah. But if this were indeed the case, the entire environment would be absolutely jam-packed with the emanating thoughts of everyone else in the detectable radius, and we’re all familiar with how rapidly thoughts progress and vary – to call this ‘noise’ would be a vast understatement.

We have the senses that we do because they’re what won the evolutionary lottery. And certainly, being able to sense the intentions of any living being in the immediate vicinity could be extremely useful – but the vast majority of us don’t have that, do we? Even if psychics are a genetic mutation, it would imply that they could come to virtually no harm whatsoever. Weakly supportable, perhaps, for the living psychics, not so much for the dead ones, but note that this should also prevent simple accidents and injuries, ‘bad luck’ and crummy days, and of course, all of the negative press that’s ever received. Any time a psychic makes an incorrect prediction – more on this in a second – they should have already known it was incorrect and how bad the repercussions would be, and avoided all that entirely. Yeah.

There’s this thing called ‘confirmation bias.’ The internet has not been kind to psychics. Before, someone would have to root through newspaper archives and perhaps even tapes of morning talk shows to find the various predictions that psychics made that were dead wrong, but now finding such things is easy. And such mistakes are plentiful – it’s almost as if psychics ascribe to the idea that if you throw enough shit at the wall, some of it will stick. Those sticky bits are the ones that are referred to as evidence of the psychic’s prowess, somehow ignoring all of the stuff that they should have known was wrong in the first place. Anyone can be right 100% of the time with such methods, but the real world (and especially the scientific community) takes into account all of it – no cherry-picking. When these are counted, the amazing results fade very quickly.

Oh, the excuses. One could disprove psychic ability just by listing all of the excuses for incorrect predictions and failures to operate, and realizing that there is no pattern, rhyme, nor reason to them. Again, why didn’t you see that ‘negative energy’ coming? Even if you can’t play the market because ‘your powers can only be used to help people’ (and who told you that?), we’re still looking at a lot of disasters and terrible events that were missed entirely, when they should have had a remarkable impact on that pre-recording of events. Even if we consider that such powers or properties are sporadic and capricious, this means that they have exceptionally little use to anyone.

If you look, you’ll also notice that the caveat, “For entertainment purposes only,” appears an awful lot in regards to published psychics (and astrology, and so on.) It would appear that a lot of psychics attest to their remarkable abilities, but not to the point where they’ll legally stand behind them. No guarantees, no money back, let the buyer beware, you were the sucker that bought into it.

But what about the police using psychics? A legitimate question, but one with a lot of baggage. ‘The police’ is/are not a single entity, but a collection of law enforcement agencies for individual districts, guided by individual officials. The vast majority have nothing whatsoever to do with psychics, and I have yet to come across any that routinely utilizes such. Psychics often volunteer their services in high-profile cases, with often terrible results, and officers that don’t automatically dismiss them are considered to have some confidence in their abilities – you see the flaw in thinking here. On occasion, police departments let the psychics do their thing from a) there being no harm in it (they’re not being charged for the services,) and b) they may get accused of not using ‘all available resources’ when trying to find a missing person or something. And one more, that’s come up more than a couple of times: so-called ‘psychic information’ is occasionally from someone who actually knows something about the case, such as a witness or relative thereof, but wishes not to testify or be named. It’s more prudent to pay attention to such ‘readings’ on the chance that this may be the case, than to dismiss them regardless of how badly psychic powers have been proven.

[There was a prominent missing person case where I used to live in central NY, and a psychic popped up with information – the details were incredibly vague of course, mostly attesting that the body could be found “near water,” which it actually was. But not for many years, because depending on your definition of “near,” this applies to the entire state and indeed everywhere in the country that’s not actually a fucking desert. It should also be noted that the missing woman’s purse and driver’s license had already been found within a park bordering the major lake, which had been reported in the news so, yeah, wild shot in the dark there. The body was only discovered by accident, as I said, many years later.]

People believe what they want to believe. This is how psychics still abound, because far too many people want to believe in mystical powers and properties, and listen uncritically to the accounts. They go on the defensive the instant that anyone raises the slightest question, and never, ever raise any questions themselves. Any positive aspect is grasped lovingly, any negative aspect is ignored. The biggest issue with this is, naturally, that anyone who recognizes this kind of behavior and has no scruples can exploit it easily – and routinely do. It must be said here: it takes a special brand of shithead to twist the emotions of the grieving for personal gain.

Moreover, such beliefs contribute to the too-prevalent distrust of science – the old, “Science can’t explain this,” and, “We don’t know everything,” which is true, but doesn’t actually increase the probability of any given concept in any manner. Those who spout such weak little proverbs may be prone to dismissing intelligent evaluations regardless, for myriad reasons, but the number of people who profess to have some kind of extra-special mystical powers, as well as the number who want to believe them, contribute to the idea that ‘there must be something to it’ – while the solid results that we should reasonably expect if there were remain elusive still.

Note, too, that it hardly requires recognition or testing from the scientific community, however you might define that, to establish the usefulness of psychic powers – anyone with such should be quite capable of making their own amazing progress in the world, at a distinct advantage over everyone that lacks it. Doctors didn’t need the investigations or recognition of priests, shamans, or really anyone to actually start healing people.

Or, you know, we could simply ask ourselves where the phrase, “parlor tricks” originated…

Here’s why, part 5: G-g-g-ghosts!

Al Denelsbeck

Once again we delve into the question of why science doesn’t seem to take a particular subject seriously, and this one was appropriate for the month. Countless websites – some frivolously, some seriously – are featuring and soliciting their own selections of ghost stories, and of course there are (or were) various video series showing intrepid investigators sussing out the spirits inhabiting the creepy locales of choice; I admit to never watching any of them and only catching their antics peripherally. Personally, I consider the belief in ghosts – not just the delight in stories, mind you, but the actual standpoint that they’re indicative of something else – to be a strong evidence that critical thinking capabilities are sadly lacking. Nonetheless, we’ll take a look at this from the more scientific approach, because that’s what the topic is intended to address. So let’s see why these stories are not treated as something worth investigating.

The mind/soul aspect. The entire premise relies upon the concept that the mind, or soul or life force or what-have-you, exists beyond the point of physical death, coherently and with deliberate actions of varying degrees. This is multi-layered all on its own, but to be brief, there remains no evidence whatsoever that this could possibly be the case. Where the idea came from could be endlessly speculated upon (which we’ll touch on below,) but it’s no secret that religion hypes this aspect as a principle trait, though the nature of it, and the reasons behind why this would be a trait, vary from religion to religion. Given the cultural emphasis on souls and life after death, though, it’s easy to see why so many people feel that it’s a plausible concept.

Physically, though, the ‘mind’ is entwined with the brain, and cannot even be defined dependably. It suffers from damages or even temporary chemical alterations to the tissue, it degrades over time, and it changes constantly – even with the bare act of ‘remembering’ past events. Life experiences can vanish entirely through trauma, and there even remains the idea that we don’t ‘record’ or ‘experience’ events, but interpret them according to our own particular inclinations – amusingly, the reaction to strange occurrences like a creaking house is a prime example. So by what method or physical force is this supposed to suddenly transcend the physical limitations at death?

There’s more to this too. The brain collates the input from all of our senses – indeed, this is entirely what ‘memory’ is made up of – and gives these appropriate weights and importance according to the biological imperative: we find someone attractive, we like this smell because it indicates good sustenance, we dislike this person because they threaten us in some way, real or imagined. The brain improves the function of the body, which is mostly concerned with survival and reproduction, and virtually all of our senses, desires, and bare thought processes are at least colored by these, but very often driven entirely to those ends. Without a physical body, the brain/mind really has nothing to so. Moreover, it has no method of interpreting the ‘outside’ world at all – is a ghost supposed to see without eyes, hear without ears? How, and why? Do they need to be aware of some supernatural threat, like the ghosts of wolves or something? Should they find someone attractive, or even annoying?

Then there’s basic physics. Our bodies only function with the constant metabolism of chemical energy, and our brains convert this into electrical impulses – without these, the whole edifice crashes irretrievably. Again, we can see the effects of this easily, even to the point of noticing that poor nutrition is linked to poor cognitive development. Yet after death, this input suddenly isn’t needed, and the mind can continue to function in some way, up to and including in a completely human manner? If this was possible, why would the living body be so constrained and crippled by the necessity of this sustenance?

Which brings up the supernatural ‘intentions’ aspect: it must be god that’s doing it, for reasons that we can’t fathom but continue to insist are there anyway (so many arguments in such situations aren’t reasoned explanations, but mere clutching at straws.) This is where the whole afterlife thing comes in – except that ghosts specifically depart this entire plan, regardless of what it is, and continue to function with no apparent end in sight. Does it make sense that whatever deity we want to name imbues the soul with this self-motive function, outside of physics, but then allows it to thwart the rules? We often hear the phrases, “unfinished business,” or, “interrupted life,” in regards to hauntings, but without the ability to complete these, it’s a self-defeating idea, and more than a little sadistic from a creator that leaves things hanging in that manner.

The appearance. Lots of fun with this one. Even if we cavalierly accept the idea that these disembodied minds are functioning for unknown reasons in unknown methods, why are they even human looking? Why do they appear in ‘period dress’ so often? Does a ghost even have need of arms, much less an apron or boots? The immediate argument is often along the lines of, “That’s what they’re used to,” but are they also used to vanishing to unknown places or walking through walls? Not eating, not sleeping, basically ‘existing’ in this manner for a few seconds at a time and then spending the rest of it, what? But despite these distinct factors, ghosts still feel obligated to put the waistcoats on? Is it supposed to make the living feel more at ease for those periods between their sudden inexplicable appearances and disappearances? Pay attention to the various stories, and see if you can determine the rules of engagement.

This says nothing of the various ghost ships and buses and whatnot, which demonstrate that no one has made the slightest effort to critically examine these phenomena. Does the merchant vessel have a soul, based upon its memories of being an inanimate wood structure? Hey, at least trees are living, but I have yet to find a story of those ghosts, much less cows and beetles. And what kind of unfinished business does the bus have? Is it tormented by not completing that one particular run to Ixtapan de la Sal? Should I be worrying that my keyboard can feel anxiety?

The bare physics of appearance is problematic as well. What we see is light – that’s it; we know how our eyes work, and they’re specific to a pretty narrow portion of the spectrum as well. To see an apparition – especially one with specific details and capable of fooling us that it’s real – it would have to have a physical existence to reflect this light in perfectly normal ways, including colors and textures. Which most people don’t even fully understand, much less could consciously or unconsciously duplicate faithfully. Worse, most of the ghost photos and recordings that exist fail to correspond with a great many of the stories, where witnesses could dependably and in great detail describe the appearance and dress of the ghost, yet what’s captured on film/video are more often blobs and shadows and other such incredibly vague shapes, as well as whispery indistinct noises. Why the disparity? Film and video also work in very distinct ways that we’re intimately familiar with, and so their ability to capture things that were, “not visible by anyone standing there,” is entirely backwards – film and video typically capture less than we can see, not more, and only in narrow circumstances can they capture portions of the spectrum that we cannot detect ourselves – this ability was certainly lacking in print films from even the last couple of decades, and films that could capture near-infrared, for example, render their images in visibly different ways. And while audio recording can be capable of capturing levels that we struggle with, they still rely on air pressure, plain ol’ physical vibrations, somehow produced without benefit of vocal cords or even lungs.

But what if it’s all in the mind? Yeah, that’s kind of my point.

No, what we mean is, what if the appearance and sound of ghosts is simply ‘implanted’ in the witnesses’ minds by the ghostly life force, instead of being physical? This has been suggested from time to time when believers are confronted with the contradictions, but it requires a) the development of this ability after death, and b) the intention and/or activation of the property for those interactions with the witness, generally briefly and to no apparent purpose. The whole Obi-Wan force ghost thing is a nice concept, manifesting for a specific and important goal, but 99% of ghost stories are fleeting glimpses, on rare occasions involving trivial vocal statements – but the ghost still has to get dressed to do this? And let me tell you, if I’m going to make a conscious ‘appearance’ in someone’s mind, I would not look like I do now – one lifetime is enough.

The weakness of the evidence. Despite the plethora of ghost stories that abound, throughout centuries and cultures and so on, there remains very little in the form of incontrovertible evidence. The vast majority are, naturally, stories, folklore handed down within cultures, often very specific subcultures, and there remains nothing that you can do with a story – it may be true, it may be false, it may be an honest mistake, it may be a hallucination. Just the bare fact that there is no way to determine if something is entirely made up makes all of them worthless – you can’t winnow down to the ‘useful’ ones. Like with UFOs, it is often argued that they can’t all be fake/hoaxes/et cetera – but it’s impossible to prove this. Moreover, such stories don’t even have to be fake, and can easily be simple mistakes blown out of proportion by suggestibility and wishful thinking – more on this below.

Little else exists, really. There are photos and video, but as indicated above, most of those are so vague that they’re not corroborative in any way, and it remains remarkably easy to fake such a thing, to say nothing of the myriad ways to record something not exactly physical – I can demonstrate this simply by aiming a camera into the sun, or capturing something well out of focus. As I said above, I don’t watch ghost hunter programs, but what little I’ve seen peripherally has been laughably inept, easy to fake and far too often a ridiculous misinterpretation of the ‘evidence.’ Waving an EMF meter around is good theater but execrable science, since we’re surrounded constantly by electromagnetic fields – it’s how our smutphones can be used anywhere, and is even emitted by a simple electrical outlet. That, in and of itself, is enough to force anyone with a basic understanding of science to roll their eyes and change channels.

Plenty of this ‘evidence’ is never examined by anyone with even a passing knowledge of investigation, or of the media involved – I’ve seen spiderwebs, drifting in front of the camera and illuminated by infra-red LEDS, passed off as ghosts, to say nothing of those that have no idea how easy it is to make an ‘orb.’ Industry techs know that magnetic tape (such as audio and video tapes) can never be fully erased, so reused tapes can easily contain traces of previous recordings, a major shortcoming of security cameras that keep recycling the same media. Even bugs on a lens, well out of focus, can create a mysterious shadow. If any investigator doesn’t know about these and much more besides, they shouldn’t call themselves an investigator. At all.

Moreover, people really do hallucinate, hear voices, see things, have waking dreams, and so on. Most of these are trivial, some are indications of health issues, and a few are serious mental illness. They often seem real enough to the witness, as our dreams do until we wake up. The way that we differentiate these, and demonstrate the creative and capricious nature of our minds? With a lack of physical, corroborative evidence…

It’s unclear what there is to investigate. Accounts are sporadic and random, even when numerous locales are considered, “most haunted.” Most accounts are only of an apparition, and impart no information beyond a visual phenomena which may not actually exist (more below.) In those rare accounts when a ghost speaks, it reveals no esoteric information – many consider ghosts to be unaware that they’re even dead, which makes interviewing them about the afterlife rather pointless, if not actually cruel. Countless rigs of recording equipment and long-term observations have revealed nothing noteworthy beyond a glimmer of something. Few even of the original eyewitnesses are alive anymore, nor seem inclined to present themselves for interviews from beyond the grave, and folklorish accounts cannot be mined for dependable data – it would be hard enough to even determine the original account. In terms of making an actual, controlled study, much less a replicable one, where should anyone start? And it’s unclear what information could be gained from this anyway, considering that witnesses rarely report anything of even trivial value, much less prescience or extra-mortal knowledge.

Even if we managed to prove that life or mental activity in some manner continues after death (and best of luck with that endeavor,) this doesn’t even support the religious doctrine that anyone might suppose, because far too many religions assert that this occurs, so narrowing it down to the correct one would take a lot more effort.

But there are so many accounts, and witnesses are so sure of themselves! Usually considered strong evidence, neither of these even comes close. Folklore can instill anything in people’s minds, and the simple idea that more than one person or source recounts it is enough for most people to believe that it’s therefore valid. Slenderman? J. Edgar Hoover’s sartorial choices? Hell, anyone can identify jesus on sight – yet there isn’t one single mention of his appearance anywhere. More specifically, stories get repeated based on how extraordinary they are, and quickly take on a life of their own (ah ha ha.)

As for witness confidence, there’s a vast difference between how sure someone is and how accurate they may be; one’s a mere emotion, while the other requires supporting facts. Those that have studied eyewitness accounts find that they usually have a distinct degree of inaccuracy to them, even to the point of being completely false – not necessarily through any conscious intention (hoaxing,) but through suggestibility and the mere desire for events to be a certain way. When someone complains that science doesn’t investigate ghost stories, they miss the overwhelming evidence that such things have indeed been researched, extensively, and the weakness of eyewitness accounts is a major stumbling block – see link at bottom. And as indicated above, they’re stories, with the minuscule weight that these have. Which leads to the next bit:

The psychological aspect. I am nowhere near qualified to speak at length on such matters, yet what little I do know could take several more paragraphs. We’ve already touched on suggestibility and the desire to relate extraordinary stories, which are significant factors that should always be considered right from the start. There is also the tendency for people to find human faces, shapes, and behavior in the slightest circumstances; moreover, a human shape is the thing that scares us the most, on a par with snakes and spiders to those with such phobias. We can get a huge startle reaction from a coat hung at shoulder level, if we’re not expecting it. Not only do horror movies exploit this routinely, it’s been an aspect of our fiction for centuries, and could well go much further back than that. Explanations for this are only speculative, to the best of my knowledge, but it’s safe to say that we’ll find a human shape with only the barest suggestion.

It’s also safe to say that those enamored of ghost stories will interpret countless experiences as supportive, far more than anyone who isn’t so inclined. Years back when my last cat passed away and the apartment was empty except for myself, I was surprised to hear how many creaks and thumps there were, which I had previously put down to the cats moving around. It should be noted that this was a duplex townhouse less than two decades old, and was extremely unlikely to have any history of deaths – naturally, a much older and more worn building is exponentially more likely to be making noise. At another point, I had also been staying in a truly old house for several days when a friend stopped by, and avowed that the place gave them the creeps. I’d noticed nothing at all, and found the place quite cozy. It might have been making extensive creaking and groaning noises the entire time, and I never noticed because it was fully expected from a house so old.

We, as a species, suffer from weak and unfocused peripheral vision, as well as optical phenomena like ‘floaters’ and merely seeing a reflection from the corner of an eye. If we’re already on edge from being in a ‘creepy’ place, how much effort do you think it takes to believe these are somehow not normal?

Hallucinations and dreams/nightmares cannot be discounted; we’re well aware that these are common, and while believers may find the mere mention of these to be disparaging, it’s a poor investigator that dismisses them automatically, especially when we have healthy documentation of things like sleep paralysis (virtually always recounted as not occurring during sleep, even when all the hallmarks are there) and the ‘third man factor.‘ Having our senses altered chemically is also a consideration, especially when we, as a species, are particularly enamored with doing so, whether it be a mere glass of wine or taking twice as many painkillers as recommended because, “they’ll work faster” (no they won’t.) We all know people who go a lot farther than that, as well. Should these dismiss any such ghost stories? No. Should we then treat them as perfectly accurate? Also no. The wise choice is to examine the accounts critically, but we should recognize that we already know countless mundane explanations; to call something paranormal, all of the potential normal causes should be effectively ruled out first.

We fear death, which is unsurprising; any species that didn’t probably wouldn’t (didn’t) last long. But curiously, we deny death, unwilling to accept that everything about a person vanishes when they die. We mourn, and feel that unmistakable empty feeling whenever we realize that can never see them or hear them again. It’s not hard to see that any claim that death is not a complete end eases this pain, and is accepted uncritically because we really want to hear it. I’ve been in countless religious discussions and the importance of the afterlife was not just a common theme, it rated among the most important, a clear factor against atheism – even when everyone understood why it’s hard to believe in. Ghost stories are that ‘proof’ of an afterlife that so many seek, even when they don’t tie in with any religious claims of what happens therein.

But what about the appearance of grandma, from someone who never met her before she died? Those are certainly damning, aren’t they? (Sorry.) But again, they’re stories, and, ‘story’ can still mean, ‘hoax.’ If we intend to treat the topic seriously, this means that interviewing the witness should be done as meticulously as police officers during interrogation – probably even stronger. First off, are we to believe that someone giving their accounts provided aspects of appearance in such detail that they couldn’t be mistaken about anyone else? Can you describe someone you met for ten seconds or so well enough to pin them down? Because this is a routine stumbling block with eyewitnesses to crimes – again, we’re well aware of these traits – so accepting any ghost story without such efforts is simply not taking the idea seriously. Can we be sure that the witness had no other source of information? Did others provide clues or details, inadvertently or by feeding the witness? (“Did she have little wire-rim glasses?”) There are, naturally, no pictures of grandma sitting on the mantlepiece or in a photo album on the coffee table, correct?

Very, very few so-called ‘investigators’ ever put this kind of effort into their work. Probably with good reason: most of their remarkable evidence would therefore vanish into thin air. There are a few that actually do – and they’re roundly disparaged because they’ve called too many accounts into serious question. But isn’t that what they were supposed to do?

The answer is actually, “No.” When someone has a favored idea, when someone loves reading and recounting ghost stories, they’re very frequently not at all welcoming to facts that diminish or dismiss such stories. We’re far too prone, as a species, to wanting indulgence, not accuracy; we’ll give extraordinary weight to ‘eyewitness confidence,’ and completely ignore inconsistencies or missing details. These are also well known, revealed by scientific studies – and part of the reason why those astounding ghost stories are far less impressive to those that understand human nature better.


If you want to know how a real investigation is performed, this paper and this paper go into specific detail and produce better answers than any paranormal investigator out there. Especially in the first, note how the investigator, who is also the witness, carefully analyzes what is being experienced without jumping to conclusions.

And anyone that deals even passingly with eyewitness accounts should be intimately familiar with the work of Dr Elizabeth Loftus, and while this video deals only peripherally with the kind of accounts that we’re addressing here, the overall message is crucial. I believe it was one of her earlier experiments, featured in a science magazine in the 80s, that helped foster my interest in [obsession with] critical thinking.

Here’s why, part 4: Alternative Medicine

Al Denelsbeck

In this ongoing series answering the question of why ‘mainstream science’ doesn’t take certain topics ‘seriously,’ we get to Alternative Medicine, or alt-med as it is often abbreviated. This term actually doesn’t have a firm definition, except for specifically being not something that a qualified physician would recommend (or alternately, would often recommend against,) and encompasses such approaches as holistic healing, aromatherapy, herbalism, acupuncture, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM,) and even organic foods (a topic in itself that may be tackled later on.) Really, there are a lot of approaches that could conceivably fit into the huge umbrella of ‘alt-med,’ which can be anything that someone proposes could benefit your health while not actually having been prescribed by someone with an education in, you know, health. I’m not going to try and tackle even the top ten or anything, just give an overview that explains why ‘science’ isn’t taking this seriously.

First off, science does take it seriously. We spent quite a few hundred years figuring out how our bodies work and what chemicals do and so on, and while we are centuries away from a complete understanding, if this is even possible, we are also centuries into the investigations, using the best methods we’ve ever developed for determining good, solid information. One of the more important aspects of science is the testing and the examination of alternative explanations: was this the cause of the observed effect, or was something else? Our bodies continue to function without any input from us whatsoever, and of course we have immune systems (among many others.) So, chew on a leaf or whatever, and my headache went away? Maybe. Maybe not – it could have been the mere introduction of food or water that I was lacking, the reduction of tension or allergens, the cessation of background noise, or the mere fact that headaches are transitory in nature anyway – they go away on their own, 99% of the time. So to determine that the leaf actually has some worthwhile properties, we have to test it, repeatedly and with as few other variables as possible, to eliminate the other possibilities. This is the scientific method, and it’s proven its effectiveness for the past few centuries as well.

On the flip side of this is anecdotal evidence, which is exactly the same as superstition. I wore these red socks and my favorite sports team won a game? Wow, that’s compelling! And the same may be said for the average consumer review of just about anything – we’re a species that seeks patterns and correlations, and so we’ll see them very frequently when there’s actually no connection whatsoever between factors; it takes diligence to avoid the false positives and weed out the mistakes and wishful thinking, something that alt-med specifically avoids.

Modern, ‘mainstream’ medicine naturally got its start in the folk-remedy treatments handed down through the ages, with the addition of being able to pin down the exact ingredients that produced the beneficial effect, isolate them, and in some cases enhance or improve them; the biochemistry involved is stunning in its scope, and extends far beyond, “many people have reported feeling better.” But at the same time, we’ve also realized that subjectivity is hugely influential, and not in a good way – the concept of the placebo arose because we really have numerous people who report feeling better when they take or do something known to be entirely inert, simply because they believed it was efficacious and beneficial. Self-reporting is remarkably inexact and next to worthless, which is why most medical studies are “double-blind,” meaning that neither the patients receiving nor the doctors administering/recording any tested product know if they’re dealing with the actual product or a fake, inert one, so the bias in reporting can be weeded out – it really is that prevalent.

In that regard, many of the more common alt-med ‘remedies’ have been tested, quite thoroughly, and found to produce no worthwhile result when the self-reporting bias is removed. Many others are known to have no active ingredient, or something so common that no one would be susceptible to the illness it was supposed to treat anyway since most people receive it routinely.

So to understand the alt-med influence, we have to examine the common arguments and a bit of the psychology within.

The human body is healthy by default. This is so far from the truth that it’s criminal. Life and evolution exist because there’s a constant struggle to survive, whether it’s by us or by the pathogens that developed naturally all around us, ones that evolve a lot quicker than we do by dint of having far shorter reproduction cycles. It’s amazing how many advocates of this approach seem to conveniently forget the much shorter life expectancy of humans until very recently, or the fact that the youth mortality rate remained close to 45% until the past century. They’re apparently never seen the skeletons of those ravaged by disease, or recognized that few can ever be found older than 45 years. While our immune system is astoundingly good and adaptive, it received its biggest boost through our expanding knowledge of pathogens and our medical procedures and drugs. The evidence is simple to find, and mostly well-known anyway – it takes a concerted effort to ignore or deny it, really. More on that below.

Chemicals are bad. This is perhaps the largest example of the slippery-slope, failure-to-comprehend approach so prevalent in much of the health advice spouted anymore. Everything is ‘chemicals.’ No, really – it just refers to substances that have changed, and since we’re not dealing with subatomic particles, that’s everything else. But even the thought of stuff that is not ‘naturally-produced’ doesn’t help us any, because separating it from its natural source doesn’t change it, unless we intend to. Meanwhile, countless naturally-occurring chemicals are extremely bad for us. We can’t make any kind of blanket statements like this and achieve anything at all, and those that do aren’t looking for solutions, only excuses.

Natural is good. Same thing, and just as stupid. A significant percentage of the alt-med advocates are also organic food, no additives, no processing, etc. types as well. Again, the slippery-slope approach based on how many foods have lost nutritional value when prepared to have more flavor and appeal, but there’s a distinction in here that usually isn’t even recognized: some processed foods may not be as good for our health as their raw constituents, but this does not make them actively harmful – they’re just not optimal. Virtually none of this translates over to medicine in any way, though the association is made constantly.

There is a common belief that nature will provide everything that we need, as if there’s a plan being enacted or something. You’d think the countless species that went extinct, or the enormous child mortality rates before the last century, would put an end to this blather, wouldn’t you? ‘Nature’ just doesn’t work that way. Life develops and occupies a niche when the conditions are right, but conditions change constantly, and any living organism adapts to keep up. The various illnesses that can befall us, from rapidly-evolving bacteria and viruses to cancerous cells developing, do not provoke ‘nature’ into providing anything at all to counter them – we’re on our own. And while it is true that no species will develop a need for something that is not available within the environment, it is enormously easy to have a need for something that becomes unavailable.

By the way, the most significant way that our own species adapted to cope with the changing environment is by developing complicated brains that solve problems. That’s why we’re the only species that actually has medicine in the first place.

Big Pharma/Big Medicine/The Illuminati et al are conspiring to make us sick. Sure. This is why our life expectancy is the best it’s ever been, and we’re going through a population explosion. Makes perfect sense [I’d better explain that this is sarcasm, since the ones that it’s aimed at aren’t likely to snag it.] It’s funny how anyone can coin a term or phrase and it automatically becomes legitimate, like it’s been proven to exist. It would be nice if the standards of evidence for people believing something actually extended farther than hearing a rumor from an unsubstantiated source, but people find Truth™ with consummate ease when it’s something that they want to hear, regardless of how ludicrous it might be. While it’s certainly true that pharmaceutical companies are just as profit-driven as anything else in this country, they’re also regulated out the ass, requiring FDA approval after a battery of extensive tests for anything, and this usually takes years. Had ‘Big Pharma’ the power that most alt-med advocates seem to believe, the FDA wouldn’t even exist, and neither would health inspections.

Those that believe that, for instance, inoculations and vaccinations are methods of making people depend on drugs never seem to notice how infrequently these are given, much less required by any governing body – pretty much when a child enters school, and that’s about it. For nearly everything else, they’re suggested, and made readily available, but never required. Yeah, that sure sounds like the work of controlling overlords [sarcasm again.]

Science is untrustworthy. This one is perhaps the most hypocritical of them all. Alt-med advocates are quick to denigrate any study, any medical recommendation, that fails to agree with their preconceived notions, implying and openly stating that science/medicine isn’t dependable – though, how would they know? How, exactly, does one determine that something does or does not work if they won’t trust studies and tests? What would their source be for dependable information in that case? Psychic intuition? Chicken entrails? Product reviews that read, in their entirety, “I swear by this product, whatever it is!”? Alt-med advocates – the same ones that complain that science isn’t taking their interests seriously – seem to feel that there’s another ‘science’ that takes place somehow, without any quotable studies, without tests, without standards, and without controls. These are the apparent sources of their info about how well beetlejuice or crystal extracts work, and they never seem to notice how infrequently a name is even attached, much less a source that they can find for themselves.

*     *     *     *     *

There are probably more claims made regarding alternative medicine, but these are the biggest that come to mind right at the moment. Now, we’ll talk about the various problems with alt-med:

Tests actually show little to no effect. Clinical trials have already been undertaken regarding a great many remedies claimed by alt-med advocates, with proper double-blinding, and the vast majority came up sorely lacking in notable effect. As skeptical comedian Dara Ó Briain noted, those that actually showed usefulness simply became ‘medicine’ – it’s where pharmaceuticals began in the first place. Despite opinions, ‘science’ (and society as a whole) would be delighted to find effective medications that didn’t require extensive lab development, didn’t cost significantly to produce, and didn’t require a doctor’s prescription to prevent the abuse and misuse of – but it rarely happens, and we’ll touch on this below.

Anecdotal evidence is next to worthless. Time and time again, we’re fooled by hearing someone’s claims, for a variety of reasons. The first is, correlation is not causation: because B follows A does not mean that A caused B – it could be countless other things. Second, confirmation bias comes into play, counting all of the ‘successes’ while ignoring the much larger number of ‘misses’ – we can have perfect five-star reviews of any product if we ignore all of the lower reviews, but what good is that? There’s also the placebo effect, a clinically-proven psychological trait of humans where we feel better if we think we should, partially because how we feel is wildly subjective, partially because our bodies really do have a limited ability to control how we feel. Without careful procedures to reduce these factors as much as possible, no claims about efficacy are worth anything – which is where double-blind testing and very large sample sizes come into play; we call these, “clinical trials.” It’s also where we find out that some test drugs have nasty side-effects, and in what percentage of the subjects.

We have a long and ugly history of folk remedies. ‘Snake Oil Salesman’ is a derogatory phrase for a very distinct reason, because before careful regulations, anyone could make any claim for remedies and ‘patent medicines’ and receive no legal action – many, many of these contained actively harmful substances. We developed regulatory agencies in direct response, and now, no one can market anything that we consume without strict controls – which means that those items that aren’t under strict FDA regulations are pretty much known to contain only inert ingredients.

Along the same lines, people are notoriously bad about dosages. A large percentage of the public believes that, if one pill works this fast and has this effect, two pills works twice as fast and has twice the effect, which simply isn’t how our bodies work – chemical reactions and their distribution throughout the bloodstream take place at their own pace, and increasing the dosage can result in everything from our bodies simply discarding the unusable surfeit to having significant negative impact. Active ingredients in painkillers are calculated to account for the tendency of some people to overmedicate while others actually follow directions, and the drugs that are more detrimental when overdosed are prescribed by one physician, and distributed by another. It doesn’t solve the problem, but it helps. Any claimed remedies that have no restrictions and no calculations for things like body weight obviously aren’t producing much, if any, effect in the first place.

Nature doesn’t tend to gather useful medications. Any plant, any collection of minerals, any complex compound, develops solely by what has evolved as effective for the plant, or simply happenstance (for instance, inert minerals from the environment,) and this can happen for anything. We ourselves developed in such environments, and so, most of the vitamins and minerals that we require to thrive are available through our diet. Concentrations of, for instance, compounds that can ward off specific viruses simply don’t happen, since plants don’t have a reason nor method to produce them. It would even be detrimental to them, since it would mean the death of the plant, usually before its reproductive cycle – not something that evolution favors. Let’s be real: we have fruits simply because animals eating them spread the seeds around, which is why the seeds are indigestible to anything that favors the fruit. In fact, there is an ongoing competition between predators and prey, natural defenses versus how to thwart them, so a natural remedy would typically only arise if it was beneficial for the plant to do so – and it takes thousands of years, untold generations. Hell, virtually all of our foodstuffs (plant and animal) were specifically bred by our efforts into the form we now know them within, having developed nowhere near as useful to us on their own. Which leads to…

Medicine and pharmacology take up where nature leaves off. It’s hard to say what most alt-med advocates imagine the medical fields to be, but in short, the goal with medicinal research is to isolate the active compound, determine the effective dosage, and find a way for the body to make use of it. In some cases, this is recognizing that compound n will have such-and-such effect on human cells or processes, even when n doesn’t exist in a natural form (or exists, but extremely weakly.) In the process, all extraneous stuff is left out, while occasionally other compounds that assist the effect are added. If, of course, someone has an inherent fear of ‘chemicals’ or the scientific process, this is where they feel the rot sets in, but that’s their own little bugaboos, and not supportable by any real studies. Side effects still occur, as well as aberrant reactions, since humans are not homogeneous; what works for you may not work the same for me. But overall, the greatest benefit with the least detriment is the goal, and achieved remarkably often.

And yes, on occasion (generally pretty rare,) some folk remedy or alternative medicine has a grain of truth to it, an actual beneficial effect – and these are taken and distilled down to the most efficient and effective manner possible. Aspirin is one such example, naturally obtained by chewing willow leaves – which would perforce require everyone to have easy access to a willow tree all year round (they are deciduous, so winter becomes an issue,) as well as dealing with the adverse effects of the high cellulose content that’s hard for us to digest. Or we can go to the store and get a bottle of pills and eliminate all the difficulties. That’s what medicine does.

We don't need to do a clinical trial of this change because the standard of care is to adopt new ideas without doing clinical trials.
xkcd by Randall Munroe
Alternative medicine is rife with weasel words, hedging, vague claims, and a distinct lack of sources. This is another of the hypocritical practices in alt-med, because purveyors make frequent attempts to imply that their product/remedy has undergone plenty of testing and examination – you know, like we rely on from real medicine – but can never produce any evidence of it. Meanwhile, their descriptions of effects are couched in careful, vague terms, mostly because distinctive claims require them by law to support such claims or be guilty of fraud; this is why you hear such chestnuts as, “Can help boost your immune system,” which is true for anything that has calories, or, “Millions of happy customers,” which is only a sentence fragment and literally applies to nothing. Most of us are aware of the common practice of review-bombing, where people are paid to write positive reviews of a product, and most times these are remarkably easy to spot. Alt-med reviews and claims tend to be a little harder, but careful consideration of the claims will usually reveal the attempt to mislead.

If in doubt, contact the purveyor or representative and ask for the supporting documentation, or do a simple web search. Compare it against a search for any common ‘mainstream’ medication, such as ibuprofen or whatever. Note the distinctive differences.

Toxins! There really is no such thing. Toxicity is a matter of dosage, not ingredient – anything at all can be toxic in enough quantity, so the word ‘toxin’ is nigh-meaningless, and you’ll never see a doctor or biologist use it, except in the sense that a species administers a defensive chemical, and even then, biologists tend to be more specific (like ‘hemotoxin’ for various snake venoms.) “Ridding the body of toxins,” a phrase alt-med is absolutely enamored with, is unsupported by any branch of biology and any study you care to look for. Unused portions of food simply get excreted (which some alt-med proponents insist that we should drink back in!) While some compounds such as lead are capable of being retained within the body to detrimental effect, these tend to be rare, and no amount of juice or kale is going to shift them; such contaminants generally require chelation, targeted solely towards the contaminant and in specific and regulated doses. The thought, however, that we are under a constant barrage of ‘toxins.’ that can all be cleared with one magical potion or practice, is ludicrous, and another example of the vague wordplay adored by advocates.

Alt-med purveyors and practitioners need few to no qualifications. Far too many of the qualifications that practitioners and purveyors list don’t require any serious or extensive schooling, if they have any meaning at all. Among these are Doctors of Natural Medicine, Homeopaths, Herbalists, and Nutritionists, which have limited to nonexistent regulation and oversight – see the bit about weasel words, above. Simply adding a title or abbreviation to one’s name fools far too many people, and coupled with grandiose yet still vague claims, alt-med puts on quite a show for those who aren’t critical of the meanings (and of course, those already predisposed towards disliking mainstream medicine in the first place.) In most cases, there is no such thing as malpractice because no regulatory body is in place, so one’s recourse in any cases of failed treatment or failing health is through civil actions, and in a lot of cases the courts have an overriding attitude of, “You shouldn’t have listened to that idiot in the first place.” Let the buyer beware, which should be a standard practice anyway, but doing a modicum of research is beyond the efforts of far too many people.

But it gets much worse. Practices like acupuncture, chiropractic, and Traditional Chinese Medicine are regulated and defined, and can be practiced by a licensed MD/PhD, and yet still be horseshit. Chiropractors in particular fall into two camps: those that alleviate pain from muscular and spinal stresses, especially following an injury, and those that claim that muscular/spinal manipulation affects the health of other areas of the body, and/or can ‘contribute’ to cures – the latter, of course, remains completely unproven in most clinical studies undertaken (and there have been plenty.) Acupuncture has been proven, hundreds of times, to be no better than placebo, yet it’s still allowed to be considered ‘legitimate.’ And Traditional Chinese Medicine was actually promoted by Mao Zedong, despite the knowledge that it was mostly folklore and ineffective, because it helped alleviate the shortage of qualified physicians within the country, while also serving as unifying propaganda. Fantastic.

There’s big money in it. Many of the complaints about ‘Big Pharma’ revolve around the profit motive, and the idea that ‘they’ (as if there’s one consolidated entity and not, you know, a collection of competing companies like those that exist everywhere) are happy for people to be sick just to make a buck. Yet somehow, the advocates never seem to think this applies to alt-med purveyors, who have no regulations, no development, no tests, no clinical trials, and very often, no expensive ingredients. As long as they avoid specific claims, and as long as they don’t cross over into regulated territory, practitioners can blather at will about “holistic healing” and “natural wellness” and “like cures like,” et al, because none of these are actionable or even have a meaning. 95% or better of alt-med remedies is marketing, and nothing more – grandiose claims that random herbs, a copper bracelet, or specially shaken water has the ability to do something beneficial for us. But there’s the more insidious aspect of it all too. While there are countless claims that ‘Big Pharma’ and the AMA and all that want you to be sick (so you keep buying their products of course,) alt-med is notorious for telling you that you’re already sick, from toxins in prepared foods and cellphone towers and everything else in your environment, so you need their products all the time to fight off this pervasive threat. The human body isn’t going to feel tip-top 100% of the time – it’s a system with lots of variables, and at times you’ll feel ratty. Alt-med wants you to believe that any such times are indications of dire threats and need to be treated, rather than the body compensating for them in a day or so, and the only recourse is a regular regimen of their products. You’ll notice the difference here, in that very few drugs recommended by licensed physicians need to be taken regularly, and those are, almost without exception, things that will cause a serious crash in the human system without (like insulin.) Physicians are usually trying to prevent routine use and addiction, because there are no constant threats to the human system. Does your physician tell you to come back every two weeks to keep things in order? How about your chiropractor?

Of course, it’s dangerous. In many cases, alt-med remedies have little to no effect, positive or negative, to the human body, which is why they’re not regulated. This is a distinction that’s been allowed to exist (more so in this country than many others) because free enterprise and all that. But the claims are something else, and even when not claiming anything specific because of their careful phrasing, they may induce people to believe that there is a distinct efficacy involved, that the alt-med remedies will not only work well, but better than medicine. In such cases (and there are millions,) people end up counting on their herbal supplements and TCM and not actually getting qualified help. That’s no big deal if the ‘malady’ is the alt-med wolf-at-the-door, the typical aches and pains we have routinely, that go away on their own – not so much when there’s a real illness involved that should be receiving real treatment. My poster child of choice is Steve Jobs, whose entire business model relied on marketing and convincing buyers that Apple products were unparalleled, and thus three times the cost of the competition that did the exact same thing. Yet he failed to recognize the same bullshit when he saw it, and treated his mild pancreatic cancer (that has a high success rate through mainstream medicine) with juices and ‘cleanses,’ until it was no longer mild and had passed the point where mainstream medicine could treat it. Yeah, fucking genius.

There’s also a curious trait of marketing, in that the people who failed to recognize the hedging claims and the weasel words happily and enthusiastically promote their interpretations of the claims, as well as their own uncritical experiences, as actual efficacy. These are legally actionable, but only if someone brings a suit directly against the individuals, and half the time that wouldn’t even work, because such things are often considered ‘opinion’ despite distinct claims of medical effect – and of course, what would be gained would only be a cease-and-desist order anyway. Listening to your average Joe is done at your own risk.

[Yes, I’m aware that I say this, personally, on a blog, and in fact stand behind the sentiment. Go ahead and do the legwork yourself – that’s what I espouse anyway.]

Most insidious about this is the mindset that’s fostered, the barrage of sources that encourage people to be, not just distrustful, but outright dismissive of mainstream medicine, and often by extension, the scientific process in itself. Being distrustful is almost commendable – skeptical, as in, “prove your claims,” is what’s encouraged and most useful. Too many people, however, will concentrate on the failures of medicine that they see, yet never count the successes, or apply the exact same standards to their alternate choices. They skip merrily down the slippery slope of Unwarranted Association and Rampant Extrapolation, convinced that there’s some sinister cabal afoot throughout all of mainstream medicine, as if the vast majority of practitioners and suppliers, the world over, would happily accept such affairs, and the only people really looking out for their health and welfare are the scantily-educated holistic healers et al (who also just happen to be hucking their own remedies, imagine that.) Sure, it sounds silly when it’s laid out like this, but enough people really have this mindset even though they’ve never actually laid it out to themselves in this manner.

Listen, I’ll be the first, and the loudest, in saying that the US healthcare system needs major renovations (actually, outright trashing and rebuilding from scratch) – but that’s in fees and costs. What it accomplishes (not just in the US) remains stunning, and undeniably the most advanced healthcare that we’ve possessed throughout our history. It’s not perfect, and nothing ever is, nor should it be expected. But we’ve spent centuries combining the best knowledge and methods that we have to reach our current state, which is advanced over what it was only yesterday, and be more advanced tomorrow. Our investigations into the biology and functions of our organs, the chemical processes taking place within, and the various factors affecting their operation amount to billions of hours of research, by millions of people; it’s intricate and convoluted, and we’ve barely scratched the surface. But to believe that inert crystals or simple herbs are the secret to correcting any issues with this apparatus is, quite simply, ludicrous. A little learning is a remarkable thing.

Here’s why, part 3: Bigfoot and related

Al Denelsbeck

I haven’t followed through on this category of posts for a while, and now is as good a time as any, so let’s delve into why science doesn’t take Bigfoot/Yeti/Skunk Ape et al seriously. And while I focused on the giant humanoid accounts here, a lot of this will be equally applicable to other cryptids such as the Loch Ness Monster and Chupacabra and so on. So let’s see, where to begin?

Basic biology. In order for any species to keep going, it needs a population, a larger number of individuals to breed with in order to prevent the genetic crashes of inbreeding; this is a constant vigil of biologists among endangered species, because once a population drops too low, it’s likely doomed without intervention. Low populations also make a species susceptible to even minor climate and environmental changes, viruses, habitat loss, and so on – it becomes a knife edge situation. There’s also the question of food sources of an appropriate type to sustain massive humanoids with, for instance, the protein demands of a large-brained species. What, exactly, is this supposed to be, especially among the Himalayan counterparts which have extremely limited plant life available for at least six months out of every year, which means the other critters that might form part of a food chain also have nothing to eat at those times (which is where the idea of hibernation came from in the first place.)

Then we have the anatomy. An upright stance evolved for active hunting purposes, running down ungulates across a prairie; compare a gorilla skeleton against a human one to see the drastic differences from a sedentary, largely herbivorous primate settled deep within an extremely lush environment. Humans maintained their active, running-hunter existence until very recently (especially in the Americas,) when farming and domestication of stock animals could fill in, something that no humanoid cryptid is claimed to be capable of, and we’ll touch on this aspect in a moment.

Traces. For all of the stories, we have shit-all in the way of evidence: no distinct remains, no shelters or sleeping areas, no paths, no tools, no feces, no evidence of food foraging (much less hunting, and forget about fire usage) – add anything you like to the list, because we don’t have that either. Game trail cameras turn up nothing. Cleared woods turn up nothing. We don’t even have a tooth, and they last an incredibly long time (as I can attest personally, having found teeth from both Native Americans and a long extinct ungulate species with only casual efforts.) Somehow, the only thing we have are sporadic eyewitness accounts and the occasional shitty pic or film clip. How can that be possible?

Except, of course, the footprints, or to be more specific, the casts thereof. And they’re all the same, aren’t they? No smaller/female/child examples, no partial prints, no running prints, no wounded prints. Next time you’re at a beach (or running around barefoot in semi-soft mud,) examine your footprints. Are they all nice and neat, full foot flat impressions? No digging, no twisting, no pronation, no toe spread, no forefoot only? You see, that’s what real footprints are like, because feet flex and twist. What we have as evidence of these giant humanoids are only what someone that hasn’t a clue about real footprints would imagine a footprint to always look like…

Folklore. We have accounts, the world over, of mysterious humanoids, and the list is remarkably long. About the only thing they have in common is two arms, two legs, and a head – all else is up for grabs, including size, hairiness, capabilities, habitat, and so on (and note how this even holds true for supposed aliens, despite the idea that they wouldn’t have the same ancestral stock that would have sparked that body plan in the first place.) Virtually all of the gods, the demons, and the spirits are humanoid. Also worth noting is that, by a wide margin, human shapes fill our nightmares more than anything else, widely reflected in the bulk of horror films and even in the creation of Slender Man (and note how very recent this is, with a firmly-documented origin, and then the disturbing number of people who consider this potentially real.) We have a tendency to not only see humanoids everywhere, but to find them the most threatening as well, a very telling trait.

One can point to the various Native American accounts/legends that supposedly give support to the North American Sasquatch, but examination shows that they differ drastically in size and appearance and locale. Moreover, Native American folklore has stories for just about everything, from the origins of landmarks to the spirits that inhabit or guide all of the animal species they encountered – and these all varied widely between tribes, as well. These can be considered ‘evidence’ only with a great deal of selectivity; no rational criteria can be applied that would not then also allow stories about pixies, dragons, giants, leprechauns, cyclops, and a few thousand other legends to be considered evidence. Not to mention that we actually have good documentation of when the Bigfoot stories began to be popular in the US.

Media. It’s surprising how few people understand that media exists to make money, and while the more reputable news sources at least try to avoid lawsuits, they still have no issues with presenting things selectively and with a bias towards what’s going to be more popular, which often is synonymous with ‘controversial.’ They’re under no obligations whatsoever, and thus have no reason to seek a consensus on whether their interview subject is a loon or not, much less that they have no clue what a mountain lion sounds like. Are they gonna diminish the impact of their story by finding a podiatrist that can ascertain quite firmly that this is not a real footprint? Why, when the lack thereof will produce more witnesses and accounts of some shadowy figure seen fifteen years ago? And the bandwagon effect is quite distinctive, both from other media outlets and from members of the public, because we adore our stories. There are times when there was an explosion of new books regarding Bigfoot, not from a huge upsurge in sightings, but because they sold well. Most of them repeated the exact same stories, often decades old. The funniest ones combined all of the most popular folklore and beliefs all together, tying humanoids into pyramids, UFOs, and the Bermuda Triangle (I’m perfectly serious.) And if you have any doubts about either media skewing perception, or our overriding desire to retain favored concepts, you should know that the Bermuda Triangle was entirely created with a handful of magazine articles, which were effectively blasted as nonsense by a book only a few years later, this being 1972. That took care of that silly idea, didn’t it?

Ancestry. While some dates remain in dispute, we still have more than adequate evidence that humans first populated the American continents between fifteen and twenty thousand years ago – and by that time, they were full, modern humans: tools and fire had been in routine use for perhaps over a million years by then, while we were still different species. And no, the various Sasquatch/Yeti descriptions don’t even come close to Neanderthals, either; in fact, they come close to no species of hominin ever found. So when did they split off, and how did they evolve so quickly? Moreover, why did they evolve into giant, slow, lumbering bipeds in an environment far more suited to agility, nomadism, and tribal cooperation? There remains a slim chance that, given a much longer history in Asia and colder conditions, that something vaguely like that kind of body plan could evolve, though our evidence and simple biology show that shorter, thicker torsos are much better at conserving heat and making the most out of available food. But there yet remains no evidence of their lineage, and/or an apparent very rapid development into the typical description. Note that in hominin history, body fur evolved away in the interests of shedding heat on the savannah, some millions of years ago, and despite the cold climate across most of Asia and the Siberian land bridge, the route that the American peoples took to populate the Western Hemisphere, this fur cover never came back; we made do with clothes instead. Except, somehow, for this one curious species…

Additionally, by the time of this migration into the western hemisphere, humans were making tools, building shelters, making fires, farming, creating artworks, and certainly had more than a rudimentary language – but all of that is supposed to have vanished for a closely-related species? How, and more importantly, why? All of these were the factors that assured our competition and survival, that catapulted us into our advancements as a species; losing any one of them could easily spell extinction, and lacking all of them would almost guarantee being wiped out (intentionally or consequentially) by the humans that still retained them.

Possibilities versus Probabilities. Most of those who favor and support the idea of the various humanoids are quick to wield that it could be possible, often followed by something like, “science doesn’t know everything.” But that’s resorting to wishful thinking, pure and simple, which is something that most scientists have steered away from. Instead, it’s the weight of the evidence (shitty pictures and plaster casts) and the probability of such a species yet remaining unknown, by example, remains, or spoor, that guide their focus. Weighing all of the factors above (and more not listed, such as the power of suggestion, the gullibility of people, the poor track record of observations, and of course the wishful thinking just mentioned,) the chances of such reports being anywhere near accurate drop abysmally low. If there’s one thing that’s almost universal in science, it’s the emphasis on reasonable expectations and the avoidance of biasing one’s certainty with emotions or, “Wouldn’t it be cool if?” ideas.

Naturalists, biologists, paleontologists, and any other professionals who might still have the faintest interest in researching a new class of hominin don’t just do whatever they want; they have bills to pay, just like everyone else, as well as research projects often well in hand. Far too many of them struggle to obtain funding for studies of known benefit and return to even consider chasing little more than rumors, out of their own pockets as well. Plus, where would any research begin? The most anyone has pinned down for a locale to start within are regions like, “the Pacific Northwest,” or, “the Himalayas.” And when was the last report of a sighting anyway?

Species research starts with gathering as much info as possible: frequency/location/currency of sightings, the collection of physical evidence, and the knowledge of habitat/habits/food. With this, researchers can then place trail cameras or mount expeditions to prime locales and see how much more evidence can be obtained. Most of these we don’t have, and what we do is so sporadic and separated by such vast distances that there’s no pattern to discern, and thus no place to begin. It’d be a fool’s errand to even propose research with that kind of background info.

Nothing is stopping the independent investigator, of course – anyone is welcome to do their own research, since it’s not like getting evidence of a land-based mammal takes special training or equipment. Maybe someday we’ll even find a witness that can follow their departing quarry, or some elaborate technique of that nature. Naturally, it would help if anyone inclined to such pursuits gained at least a little familiarity with the common species that inhabit the same region, so we don’t have screech owl calls and raccoon hair brought back triumphantly as ‘evidence,’ but since what we’d really like to see would be clear, steady, focused images or, even better, some decent remains, the bar is not set impossibly high here. By all means, go for it.

As for scientific investigation? It’s probably going to remain more focused on research that is not rife with inconsistencies, improbabilities, and a dearth of unambiguous evidence; stories are far too easy to come by and have a poor track record of reliability. That’s just the way it is.

Here’s why, part 2: religion

Al Denelsbeck

As I said in the first post of the series, the question that comes up in these topics, far too often, is, “Why doesn’t science takes these seriously?” And the answer usually is, “It does,” but serious does not equate with, “Finding that it has any merit whatsoever.” In the case of this part’s topic of religion, science, or to be more specific, a significant number of scientists, have given it way more attention and examination than it ever deserved. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

First off, it is the avowal of numerous religious leaders or figures that science specifically excludes religion, as if there’s some set of rules, or a list of forbidden topics, or some such rot, which is quite simply not the case; anyone that says otherwise is either lying or stupid, possibly both. In fact, religions of countless kinds were well-established while the present scientific methods were nascent, and the sciences grew in an atmosphere of assumption that at least some aspect of creation was fact. Countless religious orders were responsible for much of the research from times past, and quite a few of the biggest names in scientific circles were religious, to one degree or another. As the present scientific method was established (or to be more specific, the structure of degree programs and most higher education facilities,) no one bothered to include anything that exempted any aspect of our lives, or any given topic, from examination; the structures are only there to try and ensure that we’re as correct as possible. This does, however, conflict with some typical aspects of religions, as we’ll come to shortly.

Most religions do indeed fall outside of consideration of scientific investigation anymore, though, and there are more than a few reasons why.

Too many. There are countless religions in existence the world over right now, and many times more that existed in some point in the past and are now considered mythology. They can’t all be correct, because there are far too many outright contradictions, to say nothing of the hugely different worldviews and, for instance, origin stories. Worse, every last one of them has changed significantly over time, showing them to be culturally flexible rather than, as is often claimed, distinct and everlasting since the origin of any given scripture. We could, should reasonably expect that any lore provided by a supernatural being would not only hold up very well, but be consistent throughout both time and cultures, or at the very least, bearing some basic resemblance to one another.

Given all of the different religions practiced throughout history, the very first question remains, which one? Which should gain the distinction of being the one that bears close examination? It doesn’t really matter, because all of them have been examined, and none hold up very well. Moreover, there’s a rather telling factor that comes into play, and that is the distinction between religion and mythology. While we dismiss countless stories from past cultures as fables, the only difference between them and religions now, any given faith that people embrace as their primary worldview, is how many people believe them; nothing else can be demonstrated, no other factor useful for defining the difference. Culturally, we consider there to be a huge divide between the religion and mythology, but there’s no measurement that supports this.

Poor coordination with expanding knowledge. This is by far the biggest aspect that causes religion to fall by the wayside in regards to scientific inquiry, and easily contains the most numerous conflicts. While all religions provide creation stories, and most provide accounts of historical events, none of them coincide in even small ways with what we’ve been finding out about our world, from very early on. At present, we have overwhelming evidence of a 13.77 billion-year-old universe, a 4.5 billion-year-old planet, and the development of species from very rudimentary beginnings, and each of these is not only supported by countless converging points of evidence, they all fit neatly into the laws of physics that we have discovered, which themselves dictate and predict what is going to happen given any particular set of circumstances – which is, of course, why we use them constantly. The majority of religions present circumstances that contravene these laws in sometimes egregious ways, which would be acceptable to all of the sciences – if we ever saw such examples rather than simply hearing about them in scripture. But when we’re finding our laws of physics holding solid from as far away as light can carry to as small as we can distinguish, it seems rather odd that they, far too often, vanished entirely when it comes to scriptural events.

There’s only so much weight that can be given to a story. And that’s all that scriptural accounts are: stories. Just like in our courts of law, personal accounts are a starting point, but in order to find them believable, we need to have some form of corroboration, preferably physical – especially when humans are so ridiculously prone to fabrication, exaggeration, and embellishment. And when it comes to large-scale events, it’s hard to even imagine something that somehow does not leave any trace of itself behind. Even an overnight rainstorm leaves evidence for us to see in the morning – but virtually nothing related in scripture, far larger in scope than rain, has ever been found, anywhere.

And then there’s the obvious editing. Detailed examinations of scripture have existed since earliest recorded history and continue to this day, with comparisons among not only numerous examples and copies from around the globe, but even the writing styles and meticulous determinations of age from documents. One thing that has become very evident is that countless forms of editing have taken place among far too much of it, putting the lie to anything being “as god intended.” Some are certainly simple mistakes and transcription errors, but a lot more are attributed to religious leaders deciding on their own agenda, and any religious scholar can outline these in detail, especially when we have distinct records of when and where they took place. It is often claimed (but only by the devout) that these efforts were restoring the scripture to the original forms that it had drifted from through previous edits, but this has two distinct problems right off the bat: that anyone could edit scripture away from the original sacrosanct messages, and that none of these restorations managed to bring scripture in line with physics anyway.

[There’s a curious assumption within this sub-topic as well, which is that, despite the countless variations and changes throughout the centuries for any given sect, what we have at present is exactly right, with no consideration given to the idea that we may be as far afield as the previous cultures were in their interpretations.]

Among the many aspects of scientific investigation sits the examination of alternatives: are we sure we’re considering every possibility? And of course, one possibility that bears inclusion, among all of the proposed explanations for these kind of things, is that all of it, every last page of scripture, every ancient account handed down through the ages, is simply made up – as fictional as every other religion and every past mythology. When scripture shows ample evidence of alterations, additions, subtractions, and radical changes, with cultural influences and distinctive adaptations from other sources, that’s pretty much what we expect to find from fables and folklore, and not at all what we should expect from a supernaturally-invoked guide for humankind. And as yet, no one has even come close to ruling out this possibility.

Religions aren’t a very good guide towards behavior, understanding, or growth. Let’s face it – we have to ignore huge aspects of any given scripture to even get by in the world, partially because it’s contradictory, but also because it’s incredibly anti-social and unacceptable to so many people. The same holds true for countless sects and variations, even within the narrower confines of judaism, islam, or christianity; it takes no effort whatsoever to find a church, among anyone’s own faith, that they consider drastically wrong. We try to excuse or ignore numerous aspects of our past cultures that were religiously-invoked or supported, as well as just some really odd restrictions or advice, but let’s be real: these are pathetically bad excuses for guidance from a supreme being, or even from a village elder. It comes up again and again, to the chagrin of countless religious folk, but very large swaths of our history are religiously-supported bloodbaths, so much so that were have special vocabulary that defines it. Yet even the minor proscriptions or advice are almost always demonstrably useless, when they fail to be actively harmful. While there have been plenty of instances where religious leaders blame this on the fallibility of man, we have to recognize that a) a supreme being should have been more than capable of taking such into account, and b) an awful lot of this would never have existed without the religious provocation in the first place.

Meanwhile, as cultures have been reducing the emphasis on religious guidance and classism, and instead concentrating on simple empathy and human rights, our societies have taken radical leaps forward in terms of quality of life, reduction of tribalism, and just about every measure of well-being that exists – this is a serious condemnation of religious value and guidance. Even today, here in this country, the greatest threats to human rights and progressive culture are often religiously-provoked.

There is a fundamental clash in methodology, functionality, and evaluation of effectiveness. This is perhaps the second biggest stumbling block in having the sciences, any sciences, treat religion with consideration, and the reason why so many argue that science and faith are not compatible. Religion relies on things like dogma, authority, and the abject denial of having to prove either factuality or value; faith is a huge factor, as well as deference to religious authority. But faith is a remarkably stupid thing to have, in any circumstance, and countless aspects of our cultures the world over have been adopted because of this simple fact – we have contracts and consumer laws, audits and oversight committees, health departments and drug tests, and it takes little effort to imagine how incredibly dangerous it would be to dismiss any of these. Because of this, the scientific method revolves around producing as much support as possible for any given conclusion, and there’s no such thing as authority; despite advanced degrees or a history of dependable results, any given scientist still has to demonstrate that their pronouncements are backed by solid evidence, and at any time may be countermanded by evidence to the contrary. And the reason that we’ve adopted such practices is simply because it’s the most effective way that we’ve found of ensuring useful, dependable results.

Meanwhile, overblown pronouncements of certainty from any religious figure, without any supporting evidence or demonstrable results, are de rigueur; this includes the ‘proper’ interpretations of scripture and even the idea that scripture is “the word of god.” This kind of behavior is what defines a dictatorship, actually, and the failures of that approach are voluminous and damning all by themselves. Without the concept of unquestionable authority, religion dies quickly – but nothing should ever be unquestionable.

Very often, you will hear people repeat the adage that science tells us how, but religion tells us why, or some such variation – the idea is that science is useful only for physical effects but we need something else for moral guidance or origin explanations. Except, of course, that religion never does tell us why in any manner, and ridiculously often, falls back on variations of, “we can’t understand what god intended.” Meanwhile, a majority of religions interpret morality as, “doing what we’re told by the supreme being, ” which isn’t morality at all, simply self-absorbed obeisance; morality directly involves doing what’s best for other people and for society as a whole. If you ever want to see how badly religion answers the why question, ask any ten devout people, even from the same church, how their god allowed any horrific historical event to occur.

On the other hand, science can be quite adept at answering the why questions as well, especially as we develop a greater understanding of human minds and motivations, and can trace back the evolution of various organisms. Some of the most complicated things that we see can still come about through very basic physical laws, and in many cases we have the variations that demonstrate stages of this development. And while ethics and morality are still largely considered the realm of the humanities rather than the ‘hard’ sciences, we’ve been discovering that adopting more of the methods of the hard sciences can work a lot better than the philosophical approaches ever did. Morality isn’t actually difficult to understand, but we very often run into clashes with emotional influences and justifications – which we’re understanding better and better now, thanks to more studies and with no useful contributions from religion whatsoever.

Religion offers no explanatory or predictive function. Let’s face it, this is what we use science for in the first place, and in fact, our whole lives revolve around figuring out how things work – that’s why we consider ourselves the most advanced species on the planet. We learned how to bake cakes by observing what happens with each variation of ingredient; we figure out the best ways to deal with people in our lives by noting what they respond to, both positively and negatively. The scientific method just puts a structure to this learning process to help keep us from jumping to conclusions (like superstitions, or the belief that trends must continue.) And as mentioned above, this process has helped us understand that our desire for social cohesiveness, evolved into us as a necessity for our survival, is what produces morality in the first place.

Religions, however, are terrible at explanations, and abject failures at predictions. First off, if we want to posit that anything that happens might be because of the whims of an omnipotent being, then what’s to predict? Or even explain? Should we believe that we can have intensely negative affects on our environment, to the point where we put our entire species in danger, or is somebody, something, playing around behind the scenes? And while countless devotees seem to believe that such supernatural manipulations are ultimately beneficial, we still have numerous accounts right within these scriptural guidelines for humanity that demonstrate otherwise; in fact, in far too many examples, this being was capricious, vindictive and, hard as this would be to believe if more people actually thought about it, petty, jealous, and insecure! How would any omnipotent being even come to be this way? And more importantly, why worship such a being when we ourselves are driven (and even admonished) to overcome such traits?

The explanatory parts, far too often, aren’t; they’re either excuses over why things simply make no sense, or pronouncements that we’re not even supposed to question them in the first place. Ignoring for just a moment that, if we were indeed created, we were created to question things, we cannot rationally deny the fact that such questioning is supremely functional in our lives and provides untold value and advancement. Being told not to, or having some excuse foisted onto us, isn’t of any value whatsoever, and actually has a negative effect, as most parents can attest to.

As for the predictions, anyone is welcome to point to any prediction in scripture that actually came true. Bearing in mind, of course, that even if they find something that might, by some stretch, be interpreted as such, a diligent reader will find at least ten times as many, from the same set of scripture, that obviously did not. And as noted above, even considering such accounts as potentially historical, few portions have proven to be factual in the first place, mostly involving whether there was indeed a city in some location (for all the inordinate value that has.) But again, worldwide cataclysms or even influential events? The examples are far too lacking to find value in such.

The boldest claims from any religion are about what happens after we die, which is naturally a bit hard to demonstrate, yet it is these aspects that perhaps the majority of devotees latch onto. These claims virtually always revolve around some form of justice, of getting what one ‘deserves,’ which is gratifying to us in the face of either capriciousness or indifference – at least this has a distinct rule. Except that so few actually believe it that we have criminal justice systems that deal with what happens in our brief mortal stays, rather than leaving it up to any supernatural consequences, and that extensive efforts are put forth by the religious to have others conform to their way of thinking, and yes, this still involves bloodshed very, very frequently. And we cannot ignore the fact that this supernatural justice structure is abysmally bad at provoking people towards good behavior, as is demonstrated constantly, especially among the religious leaders that are so often caught actively flouting it.

When it comes down to it, most of the reason why anyone embraces any form of religion in the first place is self-indulgence – the ‘answers’ that it provides are what they want to hear, and the authority that it promotes is only obeyed when it coincides with their own attitudes in the first place. And while there can be some small value to indulgence, there can also be a large detrimental affect as well, while neither of these has anything to do with science, or even whether or not religions should be ‘taken more seriously.’ There are plenty of ways to indulge oneself without resorting to ridiculous concepts of unquestionable and unsupportable properties, and much more value to finding something more useful to society as a whole than being self-absorbed.

Even the concepts of vague supernatural powers or actions are nothing more than sophistry. First off, let’s face it: no one arguing for any value from religion is thinking of a vague power or a force that ‘started it all,’ or any of the typical theological suggestions of this nature, because these provide nothing to guide us, or explain anything, or reward us for whatever actions we take; most are simply attempts to dodge the failures of organized, defined religions that have been revealed over the centuries. But addressing the arguments at face value for the moment, we still find that nearly all of them revolve around unproven assumptions such as ‘everything must have a beginning’ and ‘so many people being religious means something.’ The few that don’t, that actually try to transcend philosophy and breach the realm of scientific (more or less) conjecture, still offer nothing that could be tested or falsified, and thus no path to take for advancement of knowledge, no ‘next step’ or publishable treatise. Stoned people have produced more profound thoughts than this.

Scientists have actually been far more accommodating to religion than the situation warrants. Because of the huge cultural influence, and the vast number of people that take offense at simple facts that run counter to their desired worldviews, scientists have been remarkably circumspect about religion as a whole, though this varies from culture to culture, country to country. But given the inordinate number of failures that religion has openly, repeatedly, and undeniably demonstrated throughout history, there really have been far too few scientists or authority figures outright calling it worthless bullshit. Religious leaders can, very frequently, gain a public forum to proclaim that Harry Potter books are works of the devil, and nobody ever steps forward and calls them a brain-damaged asshat diddlyfucking around with worse fairy tales than any work of admitted fiction – at least most fiction attempts coherence. Far too many scientists will aver that religion is outside of their purview or some such dodge, rather than openly admitting that nothing about religion is the slightest bit supportable in a rational world. It’s a shame, really, because we need more people to be blunt in the face of the utter nonsense that religion can provoke someone to, but it should be said that religion as a whole has been treated a hell of a lot better than it ever deserved.

The sciences will continue to examine all of that which actually has an effect in our world, regardless of apparent source or ideological bias, but those items found lacking in effect or even accuracy will be dismissed as unimportant. Science wouldn’t, couldn’t work any other way.

Here’s why, part 1: Alien visitation

Al Denelsbeck

[Just a brief opening note here. I originally started this topic quite some time ago and had it sitting in the folders in draft form while I tackled other subjects. In the meantime, the whole ‘Area 51’ hoohah started, and so I decided to finish it off and post it to take advantage of the huge boost it will provide to the website visits. Or something…]

Many years back I started the “But how?” series of posts to demonstrate how a secular approach could not only explain all of the aspects of a religious worldview, it usually did a much better job. Eventually, I found that the format of that initial question didn’t always work for some of the topics, but I plowed ahead anyway. The same might happen here, as I start a new topic format that already has three topics in the lineup. We’ll just have to see how it goes.

The premise is simple. Very often in certain circles, a question arises something along the lines of, “Why doesn’t science take this seriously?” And it’s often not even a question, but a left-handed (or direct) accusation that scientists are in some form of cabal that intentionally dismisses or ignores some particular theory/hypothesis/speculation/wild-ass idea. My goal here is to show that there are usually very distinct reasons why such ideas don’t deserve much, if any, attention, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with ulterior motives – it’s just science itself.

That said, let’s look at the idea of alien visitation, UFOs and abductions and all of the related subtopics. Why don’t scientists pay more attention to these accounts?

The physics. There are two distinct aspects of this, closely intertwined.

We already know what our solar system is like, and that there is no evidence whatsoever of any kind of advanced life anywhere to be seen. And in fact, even rudimentary life is likely not present, though we’re still looking for evidence in a few interesting locales, like under the ice crusts of Enceladus and Europa, as well as seeking evidence of past life on Mars. But intelligent species capable of space travel? There isn’t the faintest evidence of such – not on any surfaces, not in radar traces, not in energy emissions, nothing that we would expect to find. And given what we know about life itself, the exchange of energy needed between cells and the supporting ecosystems, there isn’t any place that’s actually hospitable. While it’s easy to speculate that there could be some society, like, buried well beneath a surface, does this even make any sense? It’d be much harder to live there (having no solar radiation to begin with) and even the radar mapping of terrain hasn’t turned up any evidence of cavern systems.

Once we go outside of our solar system, the distance to even the nearest neighbor is, to put it technically, fucking huge – light takes over four years to make the journey, and we all know how fast that travels. So, the likelihood of any intelligent species making the jaunt is extremely low, and even less so when we think they might be doing so in small undetectable craft.

The very next arguments that come up are how, for instance, an advanced species could have overcome physical constraints to travel faster than light, or use energy really efficiently, and so on. Yet the amount that we know about physics right now is far from insignificant, and we’ve been doing experiments in these fields for well over a hundred years, as well as observing the stellar neighbors for a hell of a long ways out. There are some very basic laws, ones we have defined very specifically – it’s all, in fact, boiling down to just four physical forces, and they’re enough to explain damn near everything that we see, from star formation and the fusion of new elements down to the interactions of electrons around a nucleus. Those big particle colliders are part of how we know all of this, and our attempts to produce anything different. Very very long story short: those four physical forces are holding firm. Don’t trust me on this – feel free to look into it yourself. It’s not a field that’s ignored or unexplored in any way.

Next invariably come the protests of something outside of physics – extra-dimensional travel, or hyperspace, or wormholes, and so on. And true enough, these had their origins in speculative physics, and the nature of space-time itself. But they’re not only speculative, we’ve found no evidence of such things occurring at all, despite our careful examinations of the universe. But much worse, if you depart space-time and those four physical laws, you also depart the very rules that keep us as atoms and molecules and, you know, whole bodies. All such scientific speculation revolves around subatomic particles and things like vacuum energy – not anything ‘solid.’ And I’ll be blunt – there is no scientific speculation about such wormholes or whatever that also allow the basic four forces to selectively exist so that a craft of any kind could remain intact. That’s science fiction – authors like finding creative ways to have alien contact beyond radio messages, but science isn’t supporting it at all.

The expectations. There are a few small groups of scientists, astrophysicists and radio astronomers and so on, that actually are looking for any evidence of extra-terrestrial life. But they’re looking for the most efficient manners that we might find such. Physical visitation is not efficient – far from it. It takes a lot of energy to make such a trip, all the life support and all the fuel and so on, while it would be thousands of times easier just to send a message, should any species be so inclined (and who can say if they would be? We can’t use our own social curiosity as an example, because it’s far from given that this is a necessary aspect of intelligence.) But even without such overt messages, there’s still just the idea that any species would leave some kind of externally observable traces – stray radio emissions just from surface communication, or heat signatures from industrialization, and so on. And as yet, we’ve seen no sign. So why would we come up short on that, and somehow have spacecraft flying around in our atmosphere?

Moreover, it’s dangerous. The moment that you initiate close contact with another species, you’re within easy range of their reactions, whatever they might be – and the possibility that they’d be hostile is distinct enough. Plus the very idea of putting life forms out into this environment is risky all by itself, and for what purpose? Is there some kind of information that has to be garnered personally that could not be done remotely? Think about this: if we encounter another species ourselves, are we going to go straight for anatomical exams, or try to determine just how intelligent they are first? Is it better to set up communication, perhaps, before we go zooming around in the sky over their populated regions? Even if we’re confident that their defensive measures could not affect us, how irresponsible would it be to flout those, and to what useful end?

[By the way, the myriad accounts of aliens that somehow know our language are a bit suspect in and of themselves; how do you learn an entirely alien language? Hell, it’d be ridiculously difficult to even take our TV transmissions and determine that they’re intended for a visual image that’s coded for an electron gun aimed at phosphors on a glass plate…]

The evidence. Science needs evidence. It isn’t about making pronouncements, saying something like, “Yep, there must be aliens.” We need things to measure, and analyze, and compare – something more than stories. But unfortunately, that’s just about all that we have. For the thousands of accounts, ranging from distant observations to actual physical contact, the amount of testable artifacts or traces is damn near zilch; the amount that could not easily be explained is even lower than that. For instance, there isn’t any kind or shape of scar that could not be produced in an ordinary manner. Which will introduce a criterion often used in such investigations, outlined further down.

Sure, we have lots of photos, and even a few videos. Except, photos are remarkably easy to fake, and can only provide so much information no matter what – it’s simply the nature of lenses and recording media. Claims that someone “wouldn’t know how to fake a photo” are ludicrous, considering that it’s been done since the dawn of photography, and doesn’t need anything more than a basic understanding of lens properties anyway. An aperture of f22 gives a high depth of field? There you go – there’s no way to determine if this object is ten or five hundred meters away. Moreover, when it comes down to it, a photo isn’t very much information at all – it consists of contrasts within a chosen medium, and not only can this be produced in countless ways, in and of itself it shows nothing; such images need to be interpreted, and all too often they’re interpreted incorrectly, even with known subjects. What we have an impression of is not necessarily what we’re actually seeing, and is biased by what we want to see. As ‘proof’ of an extra-terrestrial airborne craft, well, no – especially when we have no physical examples of such craft to compare the images to in the first place.

Eyewitness accounts are so pathetically weak it’s laughable, and in fact, they’re the weak point of any court case. Even if we assume, rather rashly, that someone must be telling the truth, they’re only telling what they think they saw, not necessarily what they did. There are very real limits to human perception, and beyond certain points (like less than twenty meters,) there is no active depth perception, and no method to accurately judge size. Even in everyday occurrences, people can be remarkably bad at getting the details right, and in circumstances where they’re not even sure of what they’re seeing, the chance of their account being accurate drops to disturbingly low numbers. And while we’re on the subject, pilots do not receive any training at all regarding observation of objects in the air, except to actually watch for them. But even if they did receive specific training, it still wouldn’t overcome the limits of perception, especially without distinct measurements of angle and position. Air traffic control exists for a reason, as does radar.

Yes, there are lots of accounts, which many people take to mean there must be something to them. But a few hundred years ago, there were lots of accounts of demonic visitation and possession, as well as various odd critters. Two principle things come into play here: suggestibility and notoriety. Anyone that says they spotted a coyote in their neighborhood will spawn numerous follow-up sightings from others, most of whom couldn’t distinguish a coyote from a fox or stray dog. Once introduced into the mind, it is often the first thing that springs up as an explanation in any circumstance that seems to warrant it, especially so among people who favor the idea. And then there’s notoriety, because there still exists media solely concerned with making a buck, imagine that, that will gladly hype any story no matter how insubstantial – and once it’s been featured, there’s that suggestibility again. When Project Blue Book announced that it was receiving UFO reports from the general public, the number of those reports exploded; are we to assume that at that very moment the visiting aliens drastically increased their numbers? Or that there were thousands of people beforehand who simply never reported what they’d been seeing? Or could it simply have been a bandwagon effect? Considering how few remained unidentified following the investigations, it doesn’t bode well for such accounts being accurate or useful.

Much worse are the large number of singular accounts with no corroboration, which are virtually worthless. How inaccurate are they? There’s no way to determine. Are they outright lies? Again, who knows? Can we follow up in some way? No, it happened three days ago – the UFO is probably not still hovering there. So what can anyone actually do with this, even if they’re so inclined?

Most scientific studies have a distinct element, which is not just recording the results, but determining, as well as possible, what else may have affected them; this is the heart of clinical trials. Lots of test subjects take a sample drug, while others take a completely inert drug, and neither the subject nor the tester recording the results knows which is which, called a double-blind study. If the results favor the real drug, then a tentative conclusion is drawn – still with the idea that maybe something else might have produced the results. Maybe a lot of people that live near nuclear power plants get headaches – but how’s the air quality? Is it allergy season? Is the region prone to loud noises, or stressful work conditions? Were the people even told why they were being asked? How bad does your head hurt, right now?

With, of course, a singular account and no further background, any report really isn’t much in the way of useful data, given all of the above. Again, what can be measured or tested? Is there a trend that can be observed, perhaps making a prediction? Has the person reporting been influenced in some way? Believe it or not, most of these questions have already been asked, and indeed measured – which is why there isn’t much emphasis placed on alien visitation. The results didn’t point to aliens.

And one further factor comes into play, especially when interpreting such accounts. It has a little to do with the concept of Occam’s Razor, the idea that the simplest explanation is usually the most accurate, but probability also plays a key role. Essentially, consider all of the potential explanations for any given account – and consider how often each may have occurred. Mistaken identification? Unfamiliarity with night sky? Inability to tell distance, size, or speed, just from human limits, but also because at least one of those has to be fixed and known to determine the other two? Any use of decent reference points? Any proper timing of event? And so on, and so on, with “real live honest injun alien spacecraft” coming in there somewhere – except that we still have no solid examples of such, so the probability falls well below everything else on the list. And if we can’t determine a solid speed or vector, and we can’t trust the impression simply because of human limits, and we can’t even rule out hoaxes because there’s no corroboration or physical evidence… what, then do we have?

Scars were mentioned above as one example of physical evidence, or so proponents like to claim, anyway. I personally have countless scars, some of which I don’t even remember causing, but if I were to tell you that this one came from a near-abduction by aliens (instead of, you know, the much-less-fascinating slipped knife,) in what way could you determine this was truthful or not? Are scars so rare that, if we come across one, it must be from some exotic circumstances? And since aliens are purported to have such advanced travel technology, how come they haven’t mastered not leaving such clumsy traces behind?

[By the way, how many people go shopping for a used car, or even a house, and simply accept everything that the seller tells them – without poking around or test driving, without checking history, without a professional evaluation? Why the hell not? Naturally, there’s the overriding idea that the seller has enough incentive to fudge the details a bit to close the sale, if not outright lying. Now, if there were no way to check the item itself, or the history or anything else, would you go ahead and buy it anyway? Because that’s what most people are asked to do with UFO accounts, and believe me, lots of proponents get quite snippy when this trust isn’t automatically extended towards their favorite topic.]

It’s not part of the job. Believe it or not, scientists are not free to pursue whatever topic comes along, and all of them have to make a living. Practically no one funds UFO research in any manner. Why not? Because without any measurable or physical aspects, there’s virtually nothing to research in the first place, but more distinctly, there’s no indication that it could lead anywhere. There are millions of enthusiasts, ranging from the anxious believer of everything to the critical amateur researcher, and this state of affairs has been in place for decades now – with nothing whatsoever to show for it. The explosion of handheld cameras and recording devices among the greater populace should have exponentially expanded our accounts and evidence, but instead they’re no better than they were twenty, thirty, forty years ago. So, what’s the incredible breakthrough that’s going to make the funding well spent? Where does the investment pay off?

There’s plenty of money in the field itself, mind you, just like there’s plenty of money in gossip rags – people will readily pay to have their desires validated, and we’ve had organizations that promised to “blow the lid off” of UFO information for decades, always soliciting (and receiving) funds. Overall, however, people are far less enthusiastic to fund dedicated, professional research with the idea of accepting the answer, even when it’s negative. And when the answer is negative – when the astounding evidence turns out to be mundane and unsupportive of alien life – the reaction is not often thankfulness, or even stoic acceptance; it usually ranges from dismissive to hostile. Meanwhile, we’re still sitting here with the lid firmly on…

So in light of all that, it’s not hard to fathom why this isn’t an active field of scientific study. Which is not to say that it should solely be up to scientists (however you choose to define that title) at all.

Independent research. This takes place more than anything else, and it’s primarily because of enthusiasm about the topic – which means that it’s usually done for free. And while most topics have large grey areas, those that examine the idea of alien visitation usually fall into two camps: those that find huge promise in most of the reports, and those that find virtually nothing of merit whatsoever. It would be easy to believe that both camps are driven by personal desires and bias, but there are telling differences. Those that usually pronounce that their findings are evidence of extraterrestrial life have, for decades, shown no advancement whatsoever in the field; we are no closer to knowing who or what or where than we were in the sixties – and these are the same folk who continually lament the lack of organized scientific interest. Solid evaluations of video, or careful diagramming of lines of sight, comparisons to known aircraft in the area, or even a working knowledge of equipment used? These are rarely ever presented by the believers, either the individuals or the organizations, while unnamed sources and vague ‘professionals’ abound. Meanwhile, those that find no evidence of alien life are often meticulous and very forthright with their findings and methods. Most of these (usually considered skeptics) are more than happy to present their findings in great detail – diagrams, sources, figures, and so on. Any researcher, especially anyone in the sciences, knows that their work should be vetted and examined; no true professional would actually rely on their pronouncements and/or reputation being ‘enough.’ Also helpful: few if any professionals promise something astounding to come at a later date – there really isn’t a point to that, is there? If you found something compelling, it doesn’t have to ripen. Building hype is what film studios do to try and bulk up opening weekend numbers…

It is this drastic difference in behavior and approach that usually defines the subject in the first place – and the reason why many people find it not worth pursuing. I personally went from enthusiastic over the accounts to openly skeptical, from my youth to my adulthood, because of this lack of critical evaluations and the desperate attempts from believers to deny any and all mundane explanations. It did not help finding out how many cases were shamelessly misreported, embellished, or opportunistically edited; if this is a topic worthy of serious consideration and investigation, why then are so many cases altered, especially by the very sources that promote them? Shouldn’t ‘meticulous accuracy’ be the primary criterion when presenting any evidence?

Hopefully, this explains why scientists aren’t anywhere near as enthusiastic about the prospect of alien visitation as a great deal of the proponents, and as I’ve remarked before, most of it seems to come down to whether someone wants to believe, or if they’re motivated by producing useful information that will advance our knowledge. One is self-absorption, the other is beneficial to just about everyone.