Whatever Happened To The LHC-Will-Destroy-The-World Nutcases?

Remember way back when the LHC was about to start up and a couple of nutcases decided to file a lawsuit in the US to stop it? If you missed the fun, read a couple of my earlier posts here and here, and the dismissal of the lawsuit here.

So now that the LHC has run for many years, had gone through an upgrade, and will probably continue to do so for the next few years, what do these wackos have to say for themselves? I know that going back and asking them will probably be fruitless because we are giving them more airtime than they deserve, but I'm always curious to see how someone like this react to the clear demonstration of how wrong he is.

But then again, if something like the Jan 6th insurrection can be called a "legitimate political discourse" despite the most obvious evidence, then there's no convincing some people of how wrong they are.

Zz.

Bringing Current News Into A Physics Lesson

I chat often with my colleagues from the English and other departments. I often envy them because many of their assignments have the ability to incorporate the hot topics of the day. They often assign tasks such as essay writing that involves subject matter that are relevant for the current times, such as writing about Black Lives Matter movement, the pandemic, etc.

While I always want to do the same, it is less obvious and not so straight-forward in bringing the same thing into a physics lesson. I had managed to incorporate some over the years (direct observation of blackhole in an IR image while we were studying EM waves as an example). But to incorporate topic-of-the-day to match the topic of the lesson is not that easy.

But this time, I managed to do it, and it was a doozy. We were about to dive into the topic of magnetism and electromagnetic field when I stumbled upon a goldmine. It is the claim that the COVID vaccine can cause one to become magnetized!

Now, my class is still being done remotely, so I make extensive use of the discussion forum as one means of student engagement. When the subject of magnetism comes up, the topic of discussion that I created was for the student to read a couple of news reports on this claim being made. The task is not to either belittle or make fun the claim or the people who made them. Rather, it is to rationally examine the claim and use well-established scientific facts to analyze the validity of such a claim. The students had to do this based on what they have learned about magnetic field, the type of magnetism in a material, and what type of materials are attracted to a magnet.

They were encouraged to make their own at-home observation. Everyone had refrigerator magnets, and I asked them to try and stick various items to the magnet, especially the ones that had been used in the testimony reported in the news article. A student also had the bright idea to use a compass that she had and see if the compass needle changes direction if she brought it against her skin (she's fully vaccinated) or her parents' skin. She cleverly argued that if something has a strong enough magnetic field to attract a spoon, it should cause a noticeable deflection in the compass needed.

This ended up being a lively discussion topic in the discussion forum, with students posting pictures, videos, etc. either one something they found, or something they did. It forced them to sift through what they read in the news to find the details that they can analyze and compare with what they learned about magnetism. They studied the validity of the claim only from the scientific point of view without passing any judgement on politics or personal beliefs.

The whole thing went better than I expected. The students were engaged because this was a current and relevant topic, and they get to see first hand how something that they just learned was actually useful enough to be used to analyze a news item. They get to see that a physics topic is not just something esoteric with little direct practical use in everyday life.

Oh, I should also mention that this is an algebra-based General Physics course that is tailored to life-science/pre-med/biology/kinesiology major. Many of the students are quite familiar with the human body and biological functions, so their discussion included several possible explanations on why something would or would not stick to a human skin without any consideration about magnetism.

It is on days like these that I get great joy in being a teacher.

Zz.

Flat-Earth Believers Are IDIOTS!

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad, and scary because these people presumably vote!

I read about this Flat Earth International Conference (honest!), and I can't believe the idiotic stuff that was written in the article. I'm going to ignore the paranoid claims about conspiracy and stuff. I'm not here to deal with their psychotic problems. However, I can deal with the science, and in particular, when idiots try to use physics to justify their stupidity.

Many flat-Earthers believe in testing the theory.

Darryle Marble said he conducted his own in-flight experiment using a leveler to test if the plane was flying parallel to a flat Earth.

"If it were a sphere then the surface of the Earth still would have been curving underneath the airplane while it's flying level," he reasoned. "It’s so simple it'll go right over your head," he said adding that people who have flown planes allegedly told him they "haven’t seen any curvature."

First of all, they don't believe astronauts who have gone into space when they said that the earth is a sphere, but yet, they want to use human observation from airplane rides! This is an example of pick-and-choose. 

Secondly, a leveler? Seriously?

Assuming that the plane is moving at a constant speed and at a constant altitude, this means that the plane is moving parallel to the earth's surface all the time. That's the definition of constant altitude. If the plane were to fly "straight with respect to the spatial coordinates", then it would be increasing in altitude! If that were to happen, the leveler will indicate several things (i) the acceleration due to the plan having to increase its altitude and (ii) gravity will act not straight down anymore. Any of these will affect the leveler.

But really, does the fact that if one head east continuously and end up at the same position later while in the plane, means nothing to these people?

There are many evidence that the earth is a sphere, and many of these are  plain obvious. The fact that different parts of the earth having opposite seasons at a given time of the year is one clear example. A flat earth will not result in different parts of the earth having different daylight hours and different seasons.

But there is another clear test here that have been too obvious: using a Faucault pendulum. How would these idiots explain not only the change in the plane of oscillation of the Faucault pendulum over a period of 24 hrs, but also the fact that (i) the change in the plane of oscillation is in the OPPOSITE direction for those having the opposite season (i.e. northern hemisphere versus southern hemisphere) and (ii) there is no change in the plane of oscillation at the equator.

Of course, to understand the significance of this observation, one actually must know the physics involved in a Faucault pendulum, and the conservation of angular momentum. But hey, maybe physics and all these conservation laws are also more conspiracies.

Again, to paraphrase Kathy Griffin: "These people are proud of their aggressive ignorance."

Zz.

"Intersectional Quantum Physics" To Fight The Oppression of Newton?!

I've seen many crap being passed as scholarly works, but this one might take the cake.

Whitney Stark argues in support of “combining intersectionality and quantum physics” to better understand “marginalized people” and to create “safer spaces” for them, in the latest issue of The Minnesota Review.

Because traditional quantum physics theory has influenced humanity’s understanding of the world, it has also helped lend credence to the ongoing regime of racism, sexism and classism that hurts minorities, Stark writes in “Assembled Bodies: Reconfiguring Quantum Identities.”

And here's the best part:

Stark did not respond to multiple email and Facebook requests for comment from The College Fix. While she does not have any academic training in physics or quantum physics, she did complete a master’s degree in “Cyborg and Post Colonial Theory” at the University of Utrecht.

And that somehow makes her an expert in not only physics, but quantum physics and classical mechanics.

This is no different than the snake oil being peddled by the likes of Deepak Chopra. And the sad thing is, this is not new. Alan Sokal has battled this sort of thing in his attack on postmodernism philosophy. It included attacks in which the Theory of Relativity was considered to be male-biased!

But what is troubling here is that people who have only a superficial knowledge of something seem to think that they have the authority and expertise to criticize something, and all out of ignorance. And this seems to be a common practice nowadays, especially in the world of politics.

Zz.

"Germany's Wildly Complex Fusion Reactor Is Actually Working" - Fake News?

Does qualify as "Fake news", or are they just being stupid?

I posted yesterday about the successful test of the Wendelstein 7-X Stellerator magnetic field. It definitely should deserve the media publicity, because the topology of the magnetic field is very complex and very crucial to how they intend to hold the plasma that they will generate. But this is simply just ONE STEP towards the operation of this machine. They still haven't achieve yet what they intend to do.

So it is with a bit of a dismay that I read news reports that somehow indicated that this "fusion reactor" is "actually working"! Now, I wouldn't have paid much attention had this come from some obscure site, but this one actually came from Popular Mechanics!

However, the stellerator design is still relatively untested, so a group of researchers spent the past year studying the W7-X reactor to ensure that it was working the way it was supposed to. They found an incredibly small error rate, less than 1 in 100,000, which the researchers characterized as "unprecedented accuracy."

This is good news for the W7-X reactor, which was intended as a proof-of-concept for the stellerator design. Now that the researchers know the accuracy of the reactor's magnetic fields, they can begin building new reactors that focus on efficiency.

I'm sorry, but if you don't know any better, you'd think that this darn thing is now working, and they're now going to design "new reactors" with better performance. 

Bullcrap!

How dense can one be to get this report wrong? The actual paper, which one can read freely online, clearly indicated that this was a test of the complicated magnetic field, not the actual working of the reactor.

I would not be surprised if this is nothing more than a wrong piece of information that got passed around. I see Science Alert having the same type of headlines in their report.

All of these are misleading, and worst still, they are misleading the public who do not have the awareness of what is going on. And this is sad because the public often relies on these type of news sources, and yet, they are being given, at best, a misleading information.

Zz.

If The Laws Of Physics Don't Apply....

"... what would the law of physics say about such-and-such?"

I've heard of many dumb and stupid things online over the many, MANY years I've been on the 'net (since 1989, if you have to ask!), but somehow, this one caught my eyes more than others.

I'm not going to point out where I recently read it, but this issue is not about physics, but rather with how irrational certain things are, and how irrational people can be without realizing it. If you are in the US and being immersed in the General Election fever, I'm sure you'll understand this. But it doesn't lessen the impact and the surprise for me, because many of these things are so obviously ridiculous. But yet, the people who muttered them don't seem to care how foolish they sounded.

BTW, when this person in question was told that since he is discarding the laws of physics in the first place, why not make up any kind of rules that he wants? And guess what? He didn't want to. He still wanted a "rational" explanation on how physics would explain something that doesn't follow the laws of physics.

Precious!

Zz.

Slowing Down Sound So That You May Hear It?

Sometime you just have to shake your head at how badly science is mangled.

This is a "verdict" on the latest Godzilla movie. Of course, one doesn't expect accurate science reporting when it is an article on such a movie. Still, read this passage at the very end and tell me if you can't find, in this single paragraph, a couple of really glaring and puzzling errors.

But what you think you are hearing with that Godzilla roar may be deceiving. The roar is actually a decibel beyond the human range of hearing, so the design duo used special Japanese microphones to slow the sound so it falls within audience's hearing range.

REALLY!

A "decibel" measures the sound "loudness" or intensity. A sound may be too loud for a human being to hear comfortably, but it certainly isn't outside a human range. So to say that the roar is "a decibel beyond the human range of hearing" is rather puzzling.

But the kicker comes next where you can actually use these "Japanese microphones" to slow the sound, and thus, make it fall within the hearing range! I can understand the microphones picking up these ultra or sub-sonic sounds and then alter the frequency so that it falls within the hearing range. But slowing down the sound so that you can hear it?

I suppose if the microphone itself is filled with some dense medium that actually changes the speed of the incoming sound. But if we use our understanding of light going from one medium to the next, we see that the frequency remains constant even when its group velocity and wavelength change from one medium to the next. So I don't see even via such a picture, how one would "slow down" sound and make it fall within the hearing range.

After the earlier mistake being made on what a "decibel" is, I suppose it is hard to take anything written down after that seriously. So I am definitely making a big deal out of a mole hill.

Zz.

Can You Find The Current In This Circuit?

A father of a high-school freshman is puzzled by this assignment given to his daughter. Can you find Ix in that circuit, or is there something wrong in this picture?

He also asked what you would do if you were the teacher responsible for this.

Zz.

"It Is Not Acceptable To Promote Bad Science"

This is a wonderful video of Brian Cox that you should sit down and spend some time watching and listening.



Zz.

You Want Us To "Consider" The Creator Hypothesis?

It seems that there's a delicious fight going on between Rabbi Lurie on Huffington Post, and U. of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne. I will let you read it for yourself.

What I will address is the tired plea from many of these people, and also a common tactic done by crackpots. They want us to spend time and effort to "consider" their position. "Why don't you consider such-and-such?" "Why don't you try to understand my theory?" Yet, all this while, THEY refused to do the same to OUR position. If this Rabbi wants us to ".. at least consider that there could be a Designer... ", then I'd say that it is fair to ask this Rabbi to ".. at least consider that there could be NO Designer"! How about them apples, huh? Has he done it? Has he read AND UNDERSTOOD Hawking's argument? Has he read and understood Lawrence Krauss's argument?

It seems that it is always the scientists that have been asked to "disprove" of something, rather than these people showing ample validity for things they believe in. And do you want to know why? Because the physical characteristics of this "designer" can't be defined and agreed upon by all those who believe in it! There's no science that can consider testing for something that is so shifty and vague! So far, the most common argument for the "apparent" existence of one is in the form of the "god of the gaps". And we all know what happens to such a concept - the "gaps" get smaller as we know more and more about things. The anthropic principle, for example, has a lot of detractors and many arguments against such a thing. Using it as one of your supporting argument (all without knowing the intimate physics of what it is) is a risky practice and could fall right into your face.

So for this Rabbi to insist that we should "consider" such possibility is laughable, because the concept of a "designer" is unfalsifiable and "not even wrong"! If he wants us to consider the possibility, then it is only fair that he consider the opposite possibility. That is, of course, assuming that he has the ability to understand the physics with his "post-graduate level" physics courses, whatever those are.

Zz.

Art Is Like Science? NOT!

Why do people want to "justify" something by equating it to science or physics in particular? We have seen this "physics envy" in economics, and we have seen many crackpottery and pseudosciences that try to validate themselves by claiming that physics "explains" whatever it is that they believe in. Now along comes the practice of art!

This "practicing artist" is equating what she is doing as being similar to being a scientist.

As a practicing artist I see a lot in common with my scientific counterparts. My studio is my laboratory where I'm constantly experimenting with new materials and subjects. I wear a really messy version of a lab coat splattered with paint. I 'publish' my findings in the form of exhibitions. I even conducted an experiment on myself while painting to dissect the the creative process, which I determined to have eight stages, in one my earliest essays for HuffPost. Of course whether or not my art is predicting the next major breakthrough in physics remains to be seen.

Of course, she's only making a comparison at the superficial level here because she doesn't see things underneath that. Let's dissect this carefully, shall we?

1. My studio is my laboratory where I'm constantly experimenting with new materials and subjects. The artist is experimenting using new materials and subjects. That's the extent of it. A scientist is performing an experiment to figure out what Nature is trying to say. A scientist's experiment must produce a set of results that are REPRODUCIBLE, meaning the result is not subjective. And practically ALL scientific experiments are subjected to not only the accuracy of the instruments, but the accuracy/statistics of the results. When was the last time one sees such criteria being imposed on art?

2. I wear a really messy version of a lab coat splattered with paint.
Ignoring the really stupid statement being made here, I could also easily say that she has a lot in common to a butcher (messy coat, splattered with blood). So how come she doesn't make that comparison? And how many experimental physicists do you see wearing lab coats anyway? I don't even own one, much less, wear one!

3. I 'publish' my findings in the form of exhibitions.
This is laughable, that she would compare an art exhibitions to a scientific publication. Just think of (i) the refereeing process, (ii) the reason for a science publication (scrutiny, reproducibility by independent sources, etc..) is way different than having an art exhibition.

4. I even conducted an experiment on myself while painting to dissect the the creative process, 
How is this even similar to what scientists do is anyone's guess. We don't do an experiment on ourselves. This is not a common practice.

5. Of course whether or not my art is predicting the next major breakthrough in physics remains to be seen.
Oh, I can answer that easily. There won't be, and I'm 100% certain of that.

All of the above comparison done by the artist is based on a superficial appearance of what she thinks a scientist does. There is no attempt at understanding the what, why, and how. It is like she can't tell the difference between a mallard duck and Sesame Street's Big Bird ("oh, they both have what looks like feathers!").

People should not try to piggyback on top of science to justify what they are doing, especially when there's no justification for such comparison.

Zz.

Publishing A Turd Is Still A Turd

OK, I've made wholesale judgement of something that I haven't read, and something I don't have a very good knowledge of. In other words, I'm doing exactly what I've criticized crackpots for doing. I fully admit it, and I'm fully owning it! So there!

But really, as I've mentioned earlier, you can only counter crackpottery with another crackpottery. And I'm going to judge this with the same level of superficial knowledge as this person is doing by invoking his superficial level of knowledge of quantum mechanics. I think that is a fair deal, no?

This article out of Cornell highlights a series of publication on ESP and other paranormal phenomena. Oh yes, that again! Supposedly, this series of publication is based on new research that somehow shows "convincing" evidence for it. But just in reading this article, are you truly convinced?

In one experiment, Bem asked students to pick one of two curtains as the one they thought contained a picture behind it. Although the students correctly chose the correct curtain 53.1 percent of the time, which appears to not be too different from the expected 50 percent, Bem believes this value is, in fact, statistically significant and unlikely to appear by chance.

A paper published by researchers at the University of Amsterdam suggests that Bem uses incorrect statistical methodology by using one-tailed tests instead of two-tailed tests, which would be more difficult to prove significance for. By re-analyzing Bem’s data using a different set of statistical analysis tools, however, the researchs show that Bem’s data is not statistically significant. Bem believes this claim is “an absolutely ridiculous argument to be making” and that the assumptions used by the University of Amsterdam researchers are “unrealistic.”

Er... yeah! Of course!

But it gets better when physics is invoked.

It is Bem’s belief that there is “nothing in physics that is contradicted” because although ESP might not be in line with Newtonian physics, it is in line with quantum physics.

He added, “The fact that we do not have a mechanism to explain it is a major deterrent. But almost every theory first started out as an unexplainable phenomenon.”

Er... what is it with "quantum physics" that is consistent with this cra... er ... study? Let me guess. He's invoking quantum entanglement? Superposition? The Cat? If he is, he is barking up the wrong tree, very much like Deepak Chopra. And thus, my point about superficial understanding of something. But what is funny is the gall he had to say that " ... almost every theory first started out as an unexplainable phenomenon.. " Since when is this something new to be "first started out"? Claims of ESP and such have been made for decades, even longer! In all of those years, they still can't get out of first base, out of the "discovery" mode. Other legitimate phenomena have gone beyond the discovery/confirmation phase and now have proper theoretical descriptions.

This thing cannot get beyond the fact that they can't differentiate their signal from random noise. The statistical analysis of such a thing is suspect. It is why the effect is not convincing.

Zz.

One Clear Difference Between a "Myth" and "Science"

I initially dismissed this news article because it doesn't report on anything new about homeopathy. But then, a passage in there caught my eye, and I see the same cracpottery tactics that many try to pass when they can't stand on their own body of evidence (mainly because they lack such evidence). When you have no evidence to support you, what do you do? You either piggy-back onto well-verified science (Deepak Chopra's tactics), or you point out "similarities in situation" to science. The latter is what is going on here.

Regardless, proponents say it shouldn’t be discounted simply because it can’t be explained. For years, no one knew how aspirin worked. And scientists still don’t fully understand the mechanism behind a conventional drug such as Ritalin, argued Dr. Tim Fior, director of the Center for Integral Health in Lombard, Ill.

I've described a similar situation before during my report of my attendance at a public talk on "The Science of Spooky", when the person tried to justify Psi research by claiming that we don't know anything about gravity. This was my rebuttal to that claim:

While it is true that at the very fundamental level, we do not know what gravity is, it doesn't mean that we do not understand it or have no clue on what it is. There is a HUGE difference between our understanding of gravity, and our understanding (or lack thereof) of psi. We understand gravity well enough to be able to describe it not just qualitatively, but also QUANTITATIVELY! That's very important, because when you can predict something by putting numbers, it implies that you have understood its behavior very well. However, the most important difference between psi and gravity is the FACT that our knowledge of gravity has continue to GROW. The boundary of our knowledge on gravity, ever since mankind first realize what it is, and ever since Newton and Kepler formulated it, have continued to expand. Einstein's description of gravity via his General Relativity is one prime example of how we know MORE and MORE about gravity, and the fact that we can send space craft to meet up with various celestial bodies and objects is ample proof that we know A LOT about gravity and continue to refine our knowledge of it.

The same can't be said about psi phenomena, and paranormal phenomena in general. After hundreds of years since its purported "discovery" and years and years of study, the field is trying to prove the existence of these phenomena. It is still stuck in first base in trying to show that these things truly are there. All that have been done (and this is certainly the message that I got out of the evening) is that there are now more varied and different ways to try to find it. That's it. After so many years, it is still trying to show that these phenomena truly are there and valid. They still are stuck in the "discovery" phase. This is not even remotely close to resembling what we know about gravity!

So in my rebuttal, replace Psi phenomenon with homeopathy, and replace gravity with "aspirin and conventional medicine", and you have the exact response I would put out here again. It is a tired, old argument, and those who continue to make such arguments never bothered to look BEYOND their claims and the fact that in valid science, there is this series of PROGRESSION. Such progression results in our increasing knowledge of what we are studying. This means we no longer get stuck on the discovery phase for years and years (and some, even for hundreds of years).

It is the same shortsighted argument that crackpot makes. When you criticize their "theories", they will then claim that both Einstein and Galileo also were faced with such skepticism when they produced either "new" ideas. Of course, they neglected a very important fact that Einstein and Galileo were masters of the subject they were working in (i.e. they weren't ignorant of the subject matter). Einstein had to understand classical E&M extremely well to be aware of the problem with its non-covariant nature under Galilean transformation. You can't say the same about the overwhelming majority of crackpots who don't even understand basic physics. Yet, they think they're Einsteins.

So here's a "friendly advice" to crackpots and others trying to promote your pseudoscience. If you can't stand on your OWN body of evidence, don't try to shift the focus onto something else! Just because you found something similar being done in conventional science, doesn't mean the comparison is valid. That tactic doesn't work because it will reveal the ugly shortcoming of what you believe in when we looks closely at the comparison beyond the superficial level.

Zz.

Astrology Is A Science ...... In India

Yes folk. The Bombay High Court has ruled that Astrology is a science and recommended that it is taught in schools and universities.

"So far as prayer related to astrology is concerned, the Supreme Court has already considered the issue and ruled that astrology is science. The court had in 2004 also directed the universities to consider if astrology science can be added to the syllabus. The decision of the apex court is binding on this court," observed the judges.

The judges also took on record an affidavit submitted by the Union government. The Centre had in its affidavit stated that astrology is 4000 years old 'trusted science' and the same does not fall under the preview of The Drugs and Megical Remedies Act (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.

It will be interesting to know on what basis does such a court has used to rule that it is a science, other than simply based on its "history". If we use that twisted logic, all religions should also be ruled as "science" as well.

Too bad the fact that predictions of major disaster from the last eclipse event didn't count as counter evidence that these things are often glaringly wrong.

Zz.

More Evidence The Public Can't Tell The Difference Between Scientific and Anecdotal Evidence

If you've wanted any considerable length of TV (especially in the US), you might have encountered the commercial by a company called Power Balance. The commercial claims that wearing the bracelet made by the company (which somehow has a "frequency" that matches your body), you could improve your health, your balance, your well-being, etc. It showed several sport and entertainment celebrities wearing such bracelet and several "ordinary" people who swore by them.

Well of course, none of these claims have any scientific backing. In fact, the company itself admitted that it has no scientific evidence to support its claim!

It may be for him, but Australian authorities say the California-based company behind the wildly popular wristbands and pendants has no business claiming that they improve balance, strength and flexibility.

And they even got Power Balance to admit it.

The company wrote: "We admit that there is no credible scientific evidence that supports our claims." It also agreed to give refunds to customers who believe they were cheated.

But yet, they get people who would swear by them:

The company unleashed a torrent of its own tweets, playing off the word "admit."

In one, it said: "Power Balance Admits products have been worn during the last world series, nba finals and super bowl champions!"

Fans insist the bands have helped their game.

"Our trainers swear by it," Phoenix Suns forward Jared Dudley wrote in a message posted on his Twitter page.

The company began selling bracelets in 2007 embedded with holograms that were purportedly designed to interact with the body's natural energy flow.

Since then, the colorful wristbands, which sell for $29.95, have become ubiquitous, donned by Los Angeles Lakers' Lamar Odom and English celebrity soccer star David Beckham.

They have also been worn by celebrities, including actors Robert De Niro and Gerard Butler.

Well, first of all, let's get this out of the way. Just because some celebrity wears it, it is completely irrelevant on evidence that it works. In fact, it has totally nothing to do with it. Having celebrities wearing it isn't evidence - it is a PROMOTION! So why should we be impressed by it? We shouldn't, but unfortunately, many are, and that's why these celebrities are used, or even paid, to wear such things.

Secondly, what if I give them some fake ones? Will it still work the same way they THINK it should work?

A Wisconsin professor ran similar tests comparing the performance of 42 athletes wearing Power Balance wristbands and silicon versions from Wal-Mart and said he found no difference.

Athletes were more likely to perform better wearing the second bracelet they put on, largely because they knew what to expect from the trial, said John Porcari, professor of exercise and sport science at University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.

"I think it is a scam," he said. "It has absolutely nothing to do with the bracelets. It is all in people's heads."

This, of course, is the infamous placebo effect! It is why when there is a proper clinical trial study, one always do a control group with placebo to see if the effect of the real thing is significantly above the placebo group! If not, one cannot tell if the positive effect is actually due to the real thing itself, or the placebo. This is the main test in which homeopathy drugs have trouble overcoming.

It takes a lot of testing for something to be considered to be valid. Anecdotal evidence such as this does NOT indicate that the product's claim is valid. The public needs to learn such difference and not be taken in by the same snake-oil scam. But then again, how much can you do to save the public from themselves?

Zz.

Politics And Ignorance Make For A Bad Dating Service

It is often unfair to make over-generalized statement about a particular political/social persuasion. But when things like this keep coming up, it is hard to look away. It also reinforced what I've said repeatedly, and it is an anecdotal evidence for the study that just got published recently.

We have a Tea Party candidate here that won a nomination for the Republican party, and who is going around and denouncing the present US government. However, do you want this person to be in the Senate? It appears that she not only is ignorant of science, but also is does not care of showing off such ignorance. Her denial about Carbon 14 dating is now making its rounds.

Holy crap!

Kathy Griffin once came up with a phrase that best describe such a person : They are proud of their aggressive ignorance.

Yet, there are people who apparently can overlook a candidate that not only have very little knowledge of what they talk about, but also does not mind propagating false information! Again, this is another clear example that when the public is made to choose between facts and beliefs or political persuasion, facts often lose!

Zz.

Science Fights Back Against A Homeopath Fight-Back

I read this blog entry, and I find the same fight that I've been waging against physics quacks. And since this is a truly wonderful argument against a pseudoscience, I am more than happy to give this blog entry ample air time on here.

This is a response to a response. The author had thoroughly argued against a peer-reviewed paper that purportedly claimed to have seen a positive impact of homeopathy. Both the author, and another, have severely criticized the paper for several shortcomings. But it appears that these criticisms irked a writer at a homeopathy website (surprise!). What you can read is not only a rebuttal, but also a very pointed attack against pseudoscience in general.

The issue that keeps coming back is the fact that many people cannot tell the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence. They also cannot reason why an anecdotal evidence is insufficient to claim validity of something. To me, that is the fundamental reason why we are having this discussion, and on why pseudoscience flourishes.

It would be interesting to see if this paper will get a ton of rebuttals in the coming months.

Zz.

"Misconception About Science" Seminars

The public often complains that they do not have access to many scientists, and are not given proper guidance and education about science issues. This actually isn't true unless one expect things like this to be spoon-fed. A little bit of effort is involved, including finding proper resources on the web.

Still, there are efforts to educate the public, and this is one just respectable endeavor. A series of seminars on popular misconception about science will be held at the Appalachian State University campus in North Carolina, starting from Sept. 14 and will run till Dec. 9. A look at some of the topics that will be presented makes this sounds very interesting:

Sept. 14—“Hypotheses, Theories, Laws and Facts in Science: What’s the Big Deal and Why Should You Care?”
Sept. 30-“Science, Pseudoscience and Junk Science: How Knowing the Difference Between Good and Bad Science is Important for Maintaining a Scientifically Literate and Democratic Society,”

If you are in the neighborhood, this would be a good thing to attend.

Can Science And Religion Exist Side-By-Side?

The more I read this article, the more annoyed I got. The writer is arguing that science and religion can co-exist because (i) they are both "religions" and (ii) they should stick to within their own boundaries where each of them works best.

He listed what he called as the "similarities" between religion and science:

Both have ubiquitous entities that permeate everything. In religion it is called a god, in science a force. If one wants to know the entity, in religion one prays to find out the "will" of god, while in science, one does experiments to discover the "properties" of the force.

When I read this, I scrolled to the bottom of the page to see if it listed the credential of the writer, and it did. "Wolfgang Baer teaches graduate-level courses in Monterey and received his doctorate in physics from the UC Berkeley...." No! He has a Ph.D in physics and still thinks that science cares more about discovering the properties of "the force"? What force? In QM, there's no "force". In fact, in classical mechanics, one can use the Hamiltonian/Lagrangian approach and not deal with forces at all!


And oh, let's not forget one GLARING fact here. In religion, there is no one unique god! In fact, there could also be multiple gods in the same religion! In physics, when a concept is accepted, no matter what religion, society, economic background, social standing, etc. you come from, you use the SAME, IDENTICAL principle! In other words, we all agree on the physical formalism!

Both have the nasty habit of defending embarrassing facts by turning them into features.

How embarrassing is Mary's conception until it is turned into further proof of God's divine intervention? How embarrassing is our inability to predict the trajectory of an individual electron until uncertainty is elevated to become the cornerstone of modern physics by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

This is puzzling. The fact that we have particle accelerators clearly shows that we CAN predict the trajectory of an individual electron. That's how we can design such accelerators. But if the writer is invoking QM and the superposition principle that's inherent in phenomena such as the double slit, then he has it all wrong. This is NOT a matter of physics not being able to predict such a trajectory. It is rather that this is what nature is! Unless he is claiming that there is an underlying description of the physical world that physics either does not understand or have no access to, then he is making an a priori assumption that is based on no physical evidence.

Not only that, since when is the HUP become the "cornerstone of modern physics"? The HUP, despite its name, isn't a "principle". It is a CONSEQUENCE of how we define observable operators and wavefunctions in QM. In other words, many of us use it as a back-of-the-envelope type calculation and very seldom (I don't know of any) use it as a starting point. It isn't that important as far as day-to-day "operations".

In religion, a divine intervention is called a miracle; in science it is called a singularity or an emergent property.

Er.. how is this even the same? A miracle has never been verified. Emergent properties have! Emergent properties just doesn't come out nowhere. Superconductivity didn't just appear for not apparent reason. We can also create those ON DEMAND. So when was the last time one can call in for a miracle?



He then described the "differences" between science and religion. I'll pick just one example here:

The logic of science and religion have opposite starting points, but neither is right nor wrong. The differing starting points are tailored to serve specific domains of applicability. Science has clear advantages in supporting engineers to build and control machines, while religion has advantages when dealing with the human experience of feelings and emotions.


When we apply these belief systems beyond their domain of applicability we run into trouble. Few would seriously pray to God to direct the trajectory of a bullet instead of taking careful aim along the sights. Science clearly dominates in this application.

However, consider a priest who is called to the bedside of a dying patient to provide comfort and hope with a tale of everlasting life. Compare this with a medical establishment that plasters the patients with tubes, needles, and an irrational fear of dying when there is not a shred of scientific evidence that the "first person I" ceases to exist simply because body functions stop. This is like concluding the radio station is dead because one's receiver box quit.

Wow! Where should I even start?

He seems to think that there's a clear boundary between issues that are within the domain of religion, and issues within the domain of science. This is obviously wrong! Religion cannot help but describe the physical and natural world and offer explanations for them. The Genesis is nothing but the creation of the universe and human beings! So he wants cosmology and physics and biology to stay out of such topics? Or does he want the Genesis to be removed completely from the Bible? After all, there is a clear overlap here!

Secondly, he is implicitly invoking the "god of the gaps" here. Here's arguing that where science broke down and offers no explanation, this is where religion comes in. Baloney! Back in the dark ages, there are many phenomena that science and rational understanding could not explain. Various gods and spiritual explanations were used to explain those things, ranging from eclipses, the flooding of the Nile, the explosions of volcanoes, etc. If we buy into this writer's argument, since religion is already the explanation for such things, science has no business going into such areas. But it did and showed why and how these things have a natural and rational explanation. The "god of the gaps" has been shrunk, and continues to shrink. Science may not have any "tale of everlasting life", but this is not a criticism about science. It is more of a criticism about religion for perpetuating such Santa Clause-equivalent to the dying. If all we care about is sedating a dying patient, I hear that morphine can do as good of a job without lying to the patient.

The one thing about science is that we ACKNOWLEDGE the deficiencies and things we do not fully understand. In fact, that is why we continue to have employment in science. Scientists, by definition, studies things that we do not understand, look into new things, and tries to find explanations for things we don't know about. No such thing exists in religion. Scientific knowledge expands and changes as we know more and more. This is not true for religions. Religion, by definition, is "perfect"! When was the last time you hear any preacher preaching things about the various things that his/her religion can't do, or don't have an understanding of, or can't explain? There are so many things stated as FACTS in religions, and even when there's contradiction between religion and science, many still cling to the religious description even when there isn't any shred of evidence to support that.

I don't know what his definition of existing "side-by-side" really means, but I can see both of them existing in separate, parallel universe! :)

Zz.

Another Sokal Hoax?

This is a rather fun (or frustrating) op-ed piece. The writer gave a good brief introduction to the infamous Sokal Hoax. This was done in context to a letter-to-the-editor that he came across which he humorously imagine as being Alan Sokal writing another of his hoax, but this time, as a letter to the editor.

All this came back to me the other day on reading the letters column of the simple daily newspaper I write for, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, which is much too workaday to be confused with a highfalutin academic journal. This letter, too, seemed to view reality, facts, and all that objective folderol as a mere historical construct that needs to be brushed away so the young can be properly educated/indoctrinated. Or as the writer explained:

"Indeed, science is not an objective enterprise. It is greatly influenced by power, culture, race, gender and ethnicity. Biologist Ruth Hubbard says that facts are invented, not discovered; facts are not necessarily facts forever, as shown by the constant change in dogma in biology as new data are obtained."

Beautiful. This guff is still widespread, apparently, having spread far beyond the ivory tower, like so much smog. Two plus two equals four only because we’re told so. The germ theory of disease is but a philosophical construct. It all depends on what we’re taught, and since there are fashions in science as in all human endeavors, then science itself is only fashion — a culturally agreed-upon illusion, a bourgeois plot, as ever changeable as mere fact.

Precious!

Of course, on the serious side of it, it is sad that there are now part of the general public that somehow holds that silly view. I often wonder if these people have ever done a proper science experiment. They don't realize that a subjective idea cannot make reproducible results consistently. This is one reason why many do not think that economics is a science. I often want to ask them to cite an example the last time they put their lives on something that is based on a subjective, social construct. After all, that's what they do everyday with science.

Zz.