As promised, here's Part Two of the preliminary test of the Russian "psychic" that was carried out on January 31st in New York City. We expect lots of comments on this item, and I hope that this will satisfy those of you who rant that we don't report on what happens with the applicants for the prize.....

When we left the story of 10-year-old Natalia Lulova last week, she had breezed through the first part of the preliminary test for the JREF million-dollar prize. Blindfolded by her mother at first, she had been unable to determine either colors or words presented to her, for a period of 45 minutes that she tried. But as soon as she switched to the blindfold she customarily wore — two round sponges covered in black fabric, sewn onto a strip of elastic — she read easily and quickly, even small type.

(Now, I must tell you, I had tried on that same blindfold earlier in the day, when it was first shown to me. Not to my surprise, I found that I could have played tennis, wearing it; there were gaps along both sides of my nose. But I merely remarked, "Quite interesting," and said no more. I was well aware that Natalia could see as well as I could, were she wearing that device. And as we are about to see, she could.)

Natalia quickly donned the familiar blindfold, then in the same movement, with both hands, she jogged it a bit to her right, and immediately began to read from a book placed open on the table, as fast as she would have if she'd had no obstruction at all over her eyes. She also identified colors, read target slips correctly, and played tic-tac-toe with Mark Komissarov. Look at the accompanying photograph. Here, she was reading text from the upper left-hand (from her perspective) corner of the book. The blue arrow shows the path of the light to her right eye. In all other photos I have of the session — and I have 32 digital stills plus video — that same alignment of eye-to-target is seen.

Note that in the tic-tac-toe demonstration, shown here, Mark is looking directly at the target, not at Natalia. That was his regular practice, not to watch her, but to look at what she was also looking at! Being convinced that there was nothing to learn by trying to solve a trick, he was disarmed. In this photo, a yellow line shows the path of the light from target to her eye, and the blue line indicates where Mark's attention was directed.

That demonstration of reading, color identification, and tic-tac-toe, lasted 7 minutes and 20 seconds, Natalia smiling and laughing, quickly rattling off results with great assurance. Mark Komissarov and Boris Palant were now beaming, too, very pleased at her success.

(An aside here: several readers have suggested, after reading last week's posting, that since I insisted that the formal part of the test be done in English, the girl was at a disadvantage. Hardly. I told her — and this was understood in advance, before I even went to New York to conduct the test — that English would be used when necessary. With my agreement, they spoke Russian all through the preceding procedure described above, since Mark was a little unsure of his use of English. But for years now, Natalia has attended school in Brooklyn, and she is quite fluent in English. Only one word stumped her in her reading — that was "thoroughbred," a word over which I'm sure most 10-year-olds would stumble. Before preparing the single-word targets for her, I inquired if they should be in Russian or in English, and I was told to do them in English. I had mailed to Mr. Palant in advance, samples of those targets, printed in upper-case 1/2" letters, in English. At the time of the test in New York, when I specifically asked Natalia if she felt competent to use English during the test, she replied that she was "quite good in English." And she was.)

Beginning the second part of the test, when I would have the opportunity to assure myself that Natalia was not using her eyesight for her "second sight," I introduced a set of specially-prepared swim goggles. They were opaqued by a layer of aluminum foil, and very soft sponge rubber ovals were inserted. Swim goggles seal around the eyes, of course, but when I applied them to Natalia, I saw that her small face did not allow such a seal without the goggles being bound on very tightly, because the vinyl rings were designed for adult eye-orbits. When I tightened the retainer, she complained about the pressure, and I relaxed it enough that the oval vinyl rings did not quite close off vision at the sides of her nose. But after I applied tape in those critical areas, Natalia could not see — neither by second sight nor by first.

Something else got my attention. Though Natalia did not complain when the tape was applied down her nose, Mark and Palant did object. They said she could not breathe, though it was obvious to everyone else that she could, easily. I adjusted the tape slightly, and asked Natalia if she could breathe. She said yes, and we began the demonstration.

I noted at this point, that when Mark would place a piece of colored paper in her hands, Natalia would hold it away up over her head, and thinking that she might have developed a chink in the top of the arrangement, I applied one more piece of tape. You see the final setup here in this photo. Commented Mr. Palant, "If you keep adding tape, Mr. Randi, of course she won't be able to see!" I responded, "That's why I'm here, sir."

Natalia could not see. Nor perform. We removed that blindfold and the tape.

Now, we all know the story of Br'er Rabbit. Well, I was feeling my ears grow at this point in the test. I was sure that I knew how Natalia had been seeing with her familiar sponge-pad blindfold in place. For that reason, I offered to let her use that blindfold, the one with which she had enjoyed such success, just previously. I added that I would be putting an additional safeguard in place, and there was immediate acceptance. I took care to repeat that I would be adding something to the basic blindfold, and they were still ecstatic at my offer.

When the familiar blindfold was first in position, Natalia was all smiles — until I leaned forward and applied additional pieces of tape, so that any down-the-nose peek would be thwarted. Natalia changed her expression, and was evidently frustrated. She alternated between trying to guess the colored sheets of paper, read the book, and the printed target slips. Twisting her head in every direction, she mumbled in Russian. Then, at 18 minutes and 10 seconds into that attempt, she gave up.

She had failed the preliminary test for the JREF million-dollar-prize.

A closing note, on a manner referred to earlier. We told you that Natalia's handlers had informed us that she could not exhibit her powers if a simple hood were placed over her head, or if a piece of paper were to be inserted between her and the target, nor could any opaque material be placed over the target. Mr. Palant told me, concerning these limitations, "we don't know why." I think that I do. But I will tell you of a demonstration that was done during the previous aborted test of December 11th, 2001, at the JREF in Florida. That was conducted by Andrew Harter. A variation of Natalia's demonstration consisted of Mark Komissarov enclosing one sheet of the colored paper they used, in his briefcase. Though this had been said to be impossible for her to do, Natalia was always able to tell him what color it was! To Andrew it was of course obvious what was happening, though it was not at all obvious to Mark or Boris, it seems. Natalia was not "seeing" the sealed-away color — she was seeing the remaining colors, which had been left out on the table spread out before her, and she was simply calling out the one that was not still on the table!

Here we have again the burning question: are the adult actors here "in" on the act?

First, there were a dozen ways that they could have cheated in this test, and would have passed the preliminary stage without any trouble, but they didn't. Many different methods exist whereby Natalia could have been signaled, especially in the limited-choice color-identification test. For example, speaking a quick word in Russian would have been effective, though that would have been recorded on the videotape, and could have been discovered later. Electronic means are also applicable here, and many others.

Second, when Olga — a very glamorous and impressive woman — had first blindfolded her daughter, it had been effective. Had Olga been a confederate, she would not have been so thorough. She is not a duper; she's a dupee. And there were facial expressions shown by Olga that indicate to me that she has serious doubts about the nature of the demonstrations her daughter (and Natalia's 7-year-old sister, also!) do.

Mark Komissarov, I believe, is also innocently duped. I had written to Palant, in advance of meeting any of the principals in this drama, that I was sure Mark was the "Svengali" behind the matter. I opined that he had "amused himself" by teaching Natalia to do this act, which I'd seen so many other "instructors" do in the past. I simply could not believe that he, a well-educated chemical engineer would really be deceived in such a simple ruse. I was wrong — and I should have remembered Henriette!

More proof of Mark's naivety emerged when a friend of mine, a producer with a major TV network, chanced upon someone connected with the Lulovas, and was invited to see a demonstration by the two sisters, a couple of weeks before I conducted this test. The modus operandi used by Natalia was immediately transparent to him, and more as a joke than anything else, he offered to do the sealed-in-a-briefcase color test of which Mark was so proud. He simply stood with his back to the procedure, and called off every color correctly after it had been closed away from sight in the briefcase. But he used a different method. He'd noticed a mirror in the room, he turned to face that mirror, and he clearly saw, by reflection, each piece of colored paper as it was placed in the briefcase.... Mark was fooled by this trick.

Boris Palant is also a well-educated and intelligent man, but when Andrew Harter pointed out to him that Natalia was turning her head in such a way that a tiny peek-slit could be used (and that is glaringly evident in the videotape of the December session that the French TV team supplied to us), Palant said to Andrew

She always does like this (turning his head away from the target) . . . but what if she sees with her ear?

No, don't think that this is a preposterous idea for Mr. Palant to advance. I suspect that it was suggested by Mr. Komissarov, because that is the sort of possibility that a parapsychologist would gladly entertain. Mr. Palant, trying to assure Andrew that Natalia was not deceiving them, just after the girl had given up on the Florida test and had been seeking solace from Olga, said

That's why she's upset, because she's not used to any trickery at all, and there is no trickery here!

At another point in the procedure, after Natalia had failed to perform and had terminated the attempt, Palant pointed out to me:

She's a very honest girl. When she couldn't do it, she admitted it!

This was after 45 minutes of squirming, stretching, and guessing, and Palant decides that it's Natalia's basic honesty that has been demonstrated?

As I was applying some tape to Natalia's face, to block off the gaps in the blindfold, Mr. Palant objected, and I told him, "I'm making alterations in [the blindfold] so she cannot use vision." He had just said, "What we're claiming is, she does not use eyes." Surely it was clear that I was ensuring that she could not, but Palant complained:

Well, if you keep putting on more tape, sooner or later you will succeed!

Yes. That was exactly the idea, Mr. Palant!

Natalia, like so many children down through the years, has created a monster she now cannot dismiss. Encouraged by the adults, in a position where she is expected to produce results, and now faced with the possibility — and the obligation — of bringing home a million dollars if she can do what they believe she can do, she cannot back out. She's trapped by her hoax — which I'm sure seemed to her at first to be an innocent prank. But she was not aware of the overpowering need that the adults would have for her to succeed, in a task she now knows is not possible if she is confronted with experienced observers. She also could not have been aware of what I will now call the Henriette Syndrome — the overpowering need by some people to accept and believe something preposterous, and the ability to ignore and dismiss the contrary evidence, no matter what it's quantity, nor how strong it is. The adults involved in the Lulova case have exhibited this in full.

Natalia got drawn into this dilemma, willy-nilly. Both Andrew and I regret this situation, and we both wish it had never taken place. But it did, and we handled it as gently and as properly as we could.

Chicago Sun-Times reviewer Phil Rosenthal provided for his readers this preview of two of John Edward's recent shows that aired a couple of weeks ago:

"Crossing Over With John Edward": Let's talk about death, baby. Edward helps Pepa of Salt-N-Pepa get in touch with a departed loved one, which isn't nearly as amazing as the fact that she believes it.

and

Edward gives the illusion he's talking to Roma Downey's dead mom, Anne Rice's dead daughter and Ricki Lake's dead grandmother, and they buy it. Want to impress us, pal? Put Lake in touch with the remains of her dear departed dignity.

My thanks to Scott Adams, creator and director of the hapless Dilbert, for gracious permission to use this observation. It reflects the sad fact that far too many of us can depend upon hearsay and "accepted" lore concerning what's true and what's not true in The Real World. I was startled recently to hear my doctor announce to me that his office was now practicing "evidence-based" medicine — when I'd had every reason to believe that he'd always been doing just that. We need to have "evidence-based" opinions, folks, or we're going to be in a heap of trouble....

I'm happy to have verification here, once more, that to present a ludicrous notion to the public in a comic sense, brings home the true nature of the idea. Cartoonists, satirists, comedians, and other artists, have provided us with some valuable lessons by this means. Think Mark Twain.

The JREF Forum is just too full of provocative and important topics. I simply can't get to wade around in all the "threads" that are found there, but the faithful Linda does forward to me the occasional item that needs my attention. So, I try to respond.

Forum member Karl Paananen of Lansing, Michigan, made an important comment about how I objected recently to an astrologer being given a share of a reward for providing evidence leading to the conviction of a criminal. Says Karl:

Did I misunderstand something?

I read the Santa Rosa Press Democrat article about the astrologer who helped convict Rodney Blach, and so is eligible for a share of the reward. I don't understand why Randi is uncomfortable with this. My understanding of the article is that astrological charts were found that showed that Rodney Blach believed in astrology, and might be using astrology to plan his crimes.

Now I don't believe in astrology, and neither does Randi, and astrology does not work. However, there are people who still do believe, and evidently Rodney Blach is one of them. In attempting to catch and convict any criminal, isn't it important to study and try to understand the beliefs and thought processes of the criminal, even if the criminal has beliefs that are incorrect? And wouldn't consulting someone who knows a great deal about these beliefs be totally the correct thing to do in this case?

If you were a D.A. prosecuting a criminal who was a member of a strange religious group, you would want to consult with someone who could explain to you what the beliefs of the group are, so you could easier get your conviction. And it seems that this is what Vicki Hill provided in this case.

Or am I totally misunderstanding what happened?

What "happened," Karl, was that I rushed in without proper consideration. I erred in not thinking about these facts more carefully. You're quite correct. Mind you, I still don't think the astrologer should have received any part of the reward fund, but properly should have received only an "expert witness" or "consultant" fee. And I'll bet, had another astrologer been consulted, he/she might have provided a quite contrary interpretation of the attendant cosmic forces. Of course, my consternation arose from the fact that the astrologers will now chortle worldwide about "acceptance by the courts," but I was far too hasty in my comments. Mea culpa. Not a lot of culpa, but....

Also on this item, a concerned astrologer has written me:

You owe it to Ms. Hill [the rewarded astrologer], your readers, and the truth, to publish some of the positive comments made in support of her, and Integrity, and Ms. Hill, demand an apology for, and retraction of, the "wacko" insult.

That was "whacko," not "wacko," and I didn't make the published comment that used that term. My castigator calls on me to publish here "some of the positive comments made in support" of the astrologer. I'll go further. Here are all the comments made in support:

Haley Stokes of Upland, California, also on the JREF Forum, asked about a recent media report on the efficacy of prayer on recovery rates for coronary patients:

WHY AREN'T FRAUD AND/OR INCOMPETENCY LOOKED UPON AS REAL POSSIBILITIES IN SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURES?

I need to know because I want to read his [the publishing scientist's] analysis on the prayer tests. I have a crazy professor who is insisting that this is a real scientific test with positive results for prayer. I've already found one article on the SDMB [Skepdic.com message board] basically debunking this, but this article is all I could find here. It has this teaser at the end:

I'm cheered to note that Harvard University is presently conducting a test of "prayer power" with 1800 patients admitted for heart surgery. Results, according to Schafer, are to be expected later this year. I look forward to seeing those results, especially if the controls on information leakage can be tightened up.

Did Randi see these results? Did he talk about them? I've tried to search for it, but I'm not very good with a search engine...

Well, I can understand a lack of facility on a search engine, Haley; I'm similarly afflicted. But folks, there's not much to be gained by my doing an analysis of such things as reports of tests of the efficacy of prayer. First, these investigations are usually done by devout believers who, contrary to the proper scientific attitude, are trying to prove a point about which they're already convinced. If the test doesn't seem to be going the way they expect, they tend to abort (pardon the impertinence!) and start again. That way, they are bound to arrive at a "positive" result, eventually....

Second, every year there are dozens — if not hundreds — of such tests set in motion, all over the world. When the tests fail, they vanish from the view of interested persons, if they were ever visible in the first place. No journal — scientific or otherwise — is interested in publishing such results, which are seldom submitted for publication, anyway. And the "researchers" just quietly move on to other projects, often to another attempt to make the tests "work."

But — third — should any set of tests provide statistically interesting, positive, results, that information is immediately widely circulated, it's submitted to every journal and media outlet, and it is always snapped up for enthusiastic publication and celebration. Think of it. An editor receives two headings:

"No power in prayer indicated, study finds."
and
"Power of prayer is proven by scientist."

Which do you suppose leads to an article.....?

"Adolf Hitler is alive and well and living in Argentina" and "Adolf Hitler died in the Berlin bunker" are two similar examples. One is a big story, the other is what editors openly call, a "non-story." That's life.

Finally, some of these previous "positive" announcements of success in applying prayer to medical situations, have been looked into, found wanting in various ways, and then have been simply forgotten, after enough eventual castigation by responsible scientists. But no one gets to see the entire, overall, picture — because it's just not available.

Projects that call their shots in advance (which is what I always do with mine!) will get my attention, but I'm not going to spin my wheels doing in-depth investigations of items that are merely currently newsworthy. I prefer to let them wither away naturally.

Incidentally, please note that the scientist quoted above sees only that the "controls on information leakage [should] be tightened up." That's hardly the only source of possible error or fraud. Such problems as mis-reporting, voluntary aborting, data selecting, data altering, and changing of the statistical analysis methods, can often be found here, too. Science is not easily applied and carried out, where emotional and/or philosophical needs are present. In parapsychology, we have found that to be a serious problem.

I'll add that regular science, in all fields, is also subject to these flaws. We regularly hear that fraud and incompetence in research are being uncovered — to the credit and the progress of science itself.

Referring to last week's item about the Vatican declaring that illness is due to sinful behavior, a reader offers:

I just wondered if you noticed the same thing I did: The Pope isn't a well man! Does that signify something?

No comment.....

Okay. I can't keep this next item to myself any longer. If you want a real "hoot," make sure you're seated and have lots of time set aside for laughing duties. One of the most ludicrous, juvenile, inane, preposterous, websites that has ever been suggested to me (this time by Mogens Winther) is metatech.org/planet_x_nibiru_earth_changes.html. Take a look. You'll see the heading/question:

Planet X (Nibiru) due here Spring 2003?

Like everyone else, I've been wondering where Nibiru was, nowadays. Well, according to someone named Mark Hazlewood, his "research" indicates that Nibiru (also called Planet X, or the 10th planet) will be charging in here soon, causing massive Earth changes. Russian scientists, we're assured by Hazlewood, have predicted "a string of calamities" and "massive population shrinkage" at this visit, and they wonder whether Russia will still even exist as a country afterwards! The article assures us that

ALL OTHER NEWS PALES IN COMPARISON TO THIS IMPENDING MEGA WORLD WIDE EVENT OF BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS.

Insiders from NASA speculate two-thirds of the population of the planet will perish during the coming pole-shift caused by the passage of Planet X in 2003. Another two-thirds of those that survive initially will pass away to starvation and exposure to the elements within six months. Every secretive government agency in the USA is fully aware of what is expected in 2003 and are readying themselves. The Vatican is fully abreast of what is expected. The public is not being warned and given their chance to prepare.

But read it for yourself, after familiarizing yourself with a few of the different versions of the appearance of this renegade planet, then order up the disaster supplies and start pouring concrete for the underground shelter. Then, to learn even more of this suppressed information, go to www.relfe.com (a site highly recommended by the Nibiru folks!) and read "The untold story that explains why you are not a multi-millionaire,"among other enlightening items such as:

Hard Rock music creates killer (& stupid) mice!!! New scientific evidence suggests that exposure to certain music is a cause of anger and violence (and low IQ).

Miraculous Messages from Water! Astounding, important photographs! You know what they put in the water, don't you? Fluoride! Yeah, fluoride. On the pretext that it strengthens your teeth! That's ridiculous. You know what this stuff does to you? It actually weakens your will, takes away the capacity for free and creative thought. And makes you a slave to the state (True) — Mel Gibson, in "Conspiracy Theory."

New Bible Codes Discovered! Learn about the new musical scale which uplifts people's frequencies. This scale was recently discovered hidden in the bible by Dr. Puleo.

After all that, you'll need to return to Earth (the Real World) and reinvigorate and feast your brain on a site that I have up until now neglected to promote here, for which I offer apologies. I hereby remedy that deficit.

Bob Carroll is a 56-year-old professor at Sacramento City College, but more importantly he's the moving spirit behind the website Skepdic.com — which you must consult. It's titled "The Skeptic's Dictionary." A recent excellent article in the Sacramento Bee lists a few of Bob's targets: Amway, acupuncture, creationism, UFOs, ESP, NLP, and Feng Shui, among many others. Bob calls Amway a "legal pyramid scheme," and correctly defines the term "creation science" as an oxymoron. Werewolves, zombies, Nessie, and Big Foot are all dismembered and autopsied at Skepdic.com. There are 23,044 links on the site, including 13,093 links that take the visitor to another area within Skepdic.com.

I really like (make that, admire and envy) Bob's style. "There is nothing dull about a life without fairies, Easter bunnies, devils, ghosts, magic crystals, etc.," he writes, "Life is only boring to boring people." And under the heading "WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?)" he has an answer for that burning question:

Jesus would not ask anyone what to do. He would tell them. He would command them. And if they disobeyed, he would threaten them with eternal damnation."

Bob defines Feng Shui as

. . . another New Age "energy" scam with arrays of metaphysical products from paper cutouts of half-moons and planets, to octagonal mirrors to wooden flutes, offered for sale to help you improve your health, maximize your potential and guarantee fulfillment of some fortune cookie philosophy.

I was inspired to provide readers with this item because of the welcome news in The Sacramento Bee that there are plans to publish the material that appears on Skepdic.com in a hardcover book! But, as The Bee says, Bob Carroll knows full well that you can't get rich from writing about this stuff. Skeptics know there's much more money in fooling people, in getting them to suspend common sense, than there is in trying to set them straight.

Amen.

Reader Brad Tittle tells us of an adventure....

Almost Abducted by Aliens

Someone tried to abduct me last night. I was attempting to expose a ring of Multi-Level Marketeers who were using thought control devices to keep their down lines secure. I got home and lay me down to sleep.

As I hovered there between dreamland and awake, I heard them come to my door. They were there with their control collar ready to make me malleable to their malign manipulations. I struggled to get out of bed. My body wouldn't respond. I couldn't move. I tried to talk to my wife. No words would leave my lips. I tried to yell. Only a faint murmur trickled from my throat. I tried harder, a small whimper. If I didn't scare them away, they would get me. I tried screaming; out came a little wail, and I woke up. In a daze, I realized I was dreaming. I had once again experienced sleep paralysis.

If I am deeply asleep and dreaming, I can do just about anything. I control my surroundings. Water will stop flowing if I focus on it. When I jump over puddles, creeks, and ditches, I just think myself further. So much farther in fact that I feel like a Windows XP commercial. This all works well until I dream I am awake, trying to get to sleep. This puts a real crimp in my enjoyment of slumber.

When your dreams are of staring at the blinking LED of your alarm or that you are tossing in your bed, you don't feel like you have slept. I'd rather dream of Dinosaurs chasing me (à la Jurassic Park) or facing my classmates with nothing but my birthday suit. Anything that distinguishes the dream from reality makes it easier to remember and dismiss.

I have had many sleep paralysis episodes. Usually they don't involve evil Multi-level Marketeers, just anonymous people breaking into my home. I didn't recognize what was happening until after I read Sagan's A Demon Haunted World. After I read the section on alien abduction (and it's probable connection to sleep paralysis), I realized that I had experienced something similar. Now, when an episode occurs, I realize what is happening. I do, at least, after the third or fourth attempt to terrorize my assailants with my voice to no avail. I wake myself and with great relief ascertain that there is no one in the house.

If I had visited a Hypno-Therapist specializing in alien abductions instead of the rational seeking words of Carl Sagan, would I now be part of the ranks of Alien Abductees? I hope not, but I have demonstrated extreme gullibility more than once in my life, and listening to a "professional" credulously is well within my abilities.

Happily I discovered steadier foundations in Shermer, Sagan, and Simanek.

Remember the scandalous report here that the Department of Energy spent $409,000 of our tax money to test yet another dowsing rod, the "Passive Magnetic Resonance Anomaly Mapping Device"? I mentioned that Charles Downs, the company's founder, gave as a reason for the failure of those government field tests, that they had "inadequate calibrations and a lack of pure contaminant samples." But, he said, he had great success with finding gas and oil. Reader Jaime Arbona comments:

Well, if you need contaminants to be "pure" in order to be detected, you can only detect "pure" oil and gas, and there is no such thing. In fact, there is no "pure" anything in this world.

Yes, that makes sense. Are the contaminants that the Passive Magnetic Resonance Anomaly Mapping Device finds, all "pure" contaminants? Webster tells us that "to contaminate" means "to make impure." The mind boggles....

It may be that this marvelous invention needs "comparison" samples to "tune" it to be sensitive to what's being searched for. Dowsers who are pendulum-swingers often have screw-apart bobs into which "target" materials (gold, oil, water, etc.) are inserted to "sensitize" the pendulum. Even those who use forked sticks will sometimes fasten a sample of the sought material to the end of the stick. I recall that during the dowsing tests in Australia, years ago, one of the participants put a bit of gold on the tip of his forked stick, began twitching about, and then to his dismay lost the gold bit when the stick suddenly flipped up and shot the sample into the air. Of course, since they'd seen about where it landed, all the dowsers moved in, sticks, wires, and pendula on the alert and vibrating, to help him find the gold.

It's still out there, somewhere near Sydney, in a field.....

Dorion Sagan and Jessica Whiteside's heavy discussion on "complexity theory" here recently, earned a lot of attention, and I acquainted the authors with that fact, inviting them to respond. In the true spirit of science, they did just that:

Randi has forwarded to us some mail skeptical of our skepticism regarding complexity theory, and suggested we respond. The objections range from an argument that we practice what we preach against using long words or, shall we say, "obfuscating terminology" to the rather opposite point that complex phenomena — despite Ockham's razor and Einstein's advice to make things as simple as possible (but no simpler) — require complex explanations. We were criticized for lacking authority to speak as scientists. We were criticized for being pseudoscientific. Finally, we were taken to task for not understanding thermodynamics.

Our general responses are three: 1) Thinking critically is permissible by non-scientists — indeed, sometimes a relatively uneducated child may be required to point out that the emperor is not wearing any clothes. 2) Although the piece could have been written more elegantly, no attempt was made to confound, and 3) We presented some fascinating (and as yet virtually unknown — and certainly under-popularized) developments in thermodynamics. Thus, rather than just knocking something down, we also showed another, more scientifically grounded means of explanation.

Of course, since so much has been invested in "the sciences of complexity," there were some serious objections. Peter Weichman, for example, although he shares our "extreme skeptical view of the science of complexity," thinks we overreach when we apply thermodynamics beyond reaction-diffusion type phenomena such as those that may chemically underlie "zebra stripes, seashell patterns, and perhaps early cell differentiation." In fact, there is good evidence that energy flows (not just genetics) organize the rise of life as a stable system away from equilibrium, succession in ecosystems, and the rise in biodiversity over evolutionary time. Organisms reproduce their highly improbable forms not due to the second law directly, but because replicatory systems are active centers feeding on available energy to produce waste, heat, and entropy. The interested reader may consult Jeffrey Wicken's "Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Information: Extending the Darwinian Program"(London, Oxford University Press, 1987) for a detailed discussion.

We agree with Weichman that Kauffman's ideas at heart are not too complex, but too simple (although his style is too rococo for our tastes). Weichman points out that the second law only applies to isolated systems — yes, but Schneider's reformulation, that nature abhors a gradient, applies to open systems — a major point of our article. Weichman says his parents would be disappointed if they learned he were nothing but the gradient between the food in his stomach and the oxygen in his lungs. So would we — but we do not at all claim that thermodynamics can predict in detail, only that it gives us great insight into the general structure and function of complex systems, how they are linked to each other, and the universe.

Edward J. Armstrong takes us to task for using long words, offering alternative answers as "simple" even though they are outside the realm of "mainstream acceptability," and suggesting that "evolutionists, of all people, are open to misinterpreting natural processes as divine intervention." Of course, we do not think scientists have a lock on skepticism or critical thinking — or should be immune to lay attempts to practice the latter. We did not mean to imply that evolutionists were likely to invoke divine intervention — rather that they, like those who see "intelligent design" at work in complex structures, may be missing the big picture — that gradients organize complex structures including, ultimately, environments into selves. Of course "selves," as stable vehicles of energy degradation, continue to depend upon the external environment to which they are open. No man is an island.

Armstrong also lambasts us for "Taking good science from one sphere and us[ing] it in another unrelated sphere. For example when mixing biological and inorganic evolution." To our ears this is like saying, "Darwin takes good science from one sphere, animal breeding, and applies it to another unrelated sphere, human emotions." In fact, evolutionary theory is about connection, and gradient-based thermodynamics, we submit, links animate to inanimate nature as deeply and scientifically as natural selection links other organisms to ourselves. No good deed, it has often been said, goes unpunished. Part of the problem here is that we went beyond the call of duty, not just criticizing complexity theory (in admittedly breezy fashion — necessary, given space limitations) but leading readers toward new developments in thermodynamics, now daring to go (with its relationship of the link between equilibrium-seeking and purpose) where no science has gone before (at least not in public).

Finally, Steve Humphry, claiming we have not done our homework, quotes Eric Schneider and James Kay against our claim that "Complex structures are gradient-organized, not, as we so often hear, 'self-organized.'" In a paper Schneider and Kay write, "No longer is the emergence of coherent self-organizing structures a surprise, but rather it is an expected response of a system as it attempts to resist and dissipate externally applied gradients which would move the system away from equilibrium." Having spoken with Schneider directly, we can only say that this use of self-organization is one more of habit than of accuracy; and Schneider would also dispute Humphry's claim, we know (from having worked with him for the last six years), that Kauffman's and his work are complementary.

It is useful to remind oneself, in such situations, of the three phases of the reception of a scientific idea, which are, according to Arthur C. Clarke (we paraphrase): 1) It's not true, 2) It's true but trivial, 3) It's both true and important, and we knew it all along. With regard to pseudoscience, we did offer a materialistic explanation of the origin of the perception by people of what are mistaken as ghosts. And we attempted to show how such thermodynamic flow patterns have been perceived by others — out of context — as evidence of intelligence, will, purpose, and design. That seems to us a rather big step in the direction of materialistic explanation.

Dorion Sagan, Jessica Whiteside, Manhattan.

Our friend Brian Siano commented on the un-spoof, "Human Spontaneous Involuntary Invisibility" that you saw here:

That's one nice thing about kooks — just when you think you couldn't expect them to get any dumber, one of them comes up with something utterly flabbergasting. But there is a precedent for this "involuntary invisibility." There's an old Harlan Ellison short story called "Are You Listening," where a man living a very drab life more or less fades away into a realm where he can't be seen or heard by the people around him.

Then Brian came up with the actual Monty Python script which John Oswalt suggested might have given birth to this bizarre notion:

There's the following "Interesting People" sketch from Monty Python:

Compere: Well, you can't get much more interesting than that, or can you? With me now is Mr. Thomas Walters of West Hartlepool who is totally invisible. Good evening, Mr. Walters. (turns to empty chair)

Walters (Eric Idle): (off-screen) Over here, Hughie.

(Compere turns to find a boringly dressed man sitting by him.)

Compere: Mr Walters, are you sure you're invisible?

Walters: Oh yes, most certainly.

Compere: Well, Mr. Walters, what's it like being invisible?

Walters: (slowly and boringly) Well, for a start, at the office where I work I can be sitting at my desk all day and the others totally ignore me. At home, even though we are in the same room, my wife does not speak to me for hours, people pass me by in the street without a glance in my direction, and I can walk into a room without...

Compere: Well, whilst we've got interesting people, we met Mr. Oliver Cavendish who...

Walters: (droning on) Even now, you yourself, you hardly notice me...

My good friend Sid Rodrigues in the UK sends me, for our consideration, this interesting tidbit he was sent, unattributed. It is followed by his correction of the claim....

At 8:02 p.m. on February 20 this year it will be an historic moment in time. It will not be marked by the chiming of any clocks or the ringing of bells, but at that precise time, on that specific date, something will happen which has not occurred for 1,001 years and will never happen again.

As the clock ticks over from 8:01 p.m on Wednesday, February 20, time will, for sixty seconds only, read in perfect symmetry 2002, 2002, 2002, or to be more precise, 20:02, 20/02, 2002. The last occasion that time read in such a symmetrical pattern was long before the days of the digital watch and the 24-hour clock, at 10:01 a.m. on January 10, 1001. And because the clock only goes up to 23:59, it is something that will never happen again.

Sid described that last statement in a very colorful manner, and added:

It will happen again at 21:12, 21/12, 2112.

So there. Incidentally, the Brits express February 14th, 2002 for example, as 14/02/2002 — or the 14th day of the second month, of the two-thousand and second year. That the right way, in my opinion. Ducks in a row, don'tcha know?

Uri Geller (remember him?) noted this astounding 20:02, 20/02, 2002 configuration, assured his devoted fans that such an event was psychically, cosmically, fraught with significance, and assured all that if they would, at 11:11 that day, join him in wishing for what was most dear to them, they'd get it. Well, in the spirit of scientific research, I gave it a whirl.

Sophia did not appear.

Reader Bob Kegel, of Aberdeen, Washington, found even more significance here. He wrote:

I find the date auspicious because I own a BMW 2002. With other members of the cult, I mark the magic hour by honking my '02's horn, flashing the headlights, and other rituals not to be revealed to unbelievers.

I got a number of inquiries about my recent remarks on "The Shadow" character who was so popular in Detective Magazine and Shadow Detective Magazine, when I was a kid. I said that I knew where the author — Walter Brown Gibson — got his pen-name and the name Lamont Cranston. Walter's pen-name — Maxwell Grant — came from those of two of his friends who were magic dealers. They were Maxwell Holden, and "Gen" Grant — a nephew of the General Ulysses S. Grant. The Shadow's out-of-character name, Lamont Cranston, came from the caretaker at Cranston Manors, a residence where Walter and Litzka Raymond, his wife, lived in New York City. It was on 52nd Street, I believe, a few blocks away from my apartment on Ninth Avenue. The caretaker's first name was Lamont. Okay?

Says Daverman of his meeting with the interviewer:

There was no discussion of whether or not I was suited for the job. I didn't have to qualify or prove my ability in any way. She never asked if I had psychic abilities, or even if I believed in a psychic's ability to foretell the future.

So much for the adjectives "qualified" and "certified" that we hear describing those who take the phone calls on behalf of Miss Cleo. Referring to the significance of the Tarot cards that these "counselors" are told to use as props, Daverman said

Those meanings are generic, monumentally unspecific, and usually hopeful. For example, the number 3 card is "The Empress" and carries the following explanation: "A young fertile female. Can also represent material gifts. Maybe a mother having a baby or fertility in your financial situation. Gifts and money in progress. A good money card, or a female influence." A lot of ground covered here, a wealth of possibilities.

Daverman found that the subjects that most people are concerned about, were well represented, but that he was told to be encouraging, to paint a hopeful picture, and - of course - to get the victim to stay on the line as long as possible. The "free" initial three minutes were to be canceled out by tricks that made up for that loss to Miss Cleo.

Money and sex are two fairly consistent threads throughout the interpretations of the deck, with a sub-theme of addiction (drugs, alcohol, sex, tobacco) providing a negative area of discussion. But most — about 80 percent — of the cards are optimistic; wealth and happiness are the most common upshot. . . . To counter the three-minute giveaway, I was told to ask each caller for his or her name, address, and e-mail address, so that "we can send you a free, personalized tarot card in the mail." I assume some advertising must go along with that gift. I was also required to give out the company's 900 number, together with my personal five-digit ID number, so that the customer could call back "in case we get disconnected." All of that, of course, takes up most of the free three minutes.

The reporter's assessment of what he was doing? He concluded that he was "providing nothing for a very large sum of money."

After getting enough material for his story, he quit.

And, for this week, so do I......