March 4, 2005 |
|||||||||||||||
A Better Performance From ABC-TV, More U.S. Navy TT Complaints, Another Nail-In-the-Head, Desert Illusions, A Reader Is Needled, Fishy Business, Education Barnes & Nobel Style, There's Magic Everywhere, Dump That Girl, A Manifesting Capsule, Demons Are Back in Vogue, Speling Problems, My Failure at the Polls, and In Conclusion....
Table of Contents:
A BETTER PERFORMANCE FROM ABC-TV (I'm going into an in-depth discussion of this matter this week, much as I did two weeks back with the earlier ABC-TV presentation. Forgive me for this, but I believe it's important.) Last Thursday, ABC-TV News presented Peter Jennings hosting "The UFO Phenomenon Seeing Is Believing." I was looking forward to this with mixed expectations to see if the network could produce a valid coverage of the subject; the recent "John of God" episode indicated a strong possibility that they were probably not going to attain that ideal. I was pleasantly surprised. Michael Shermer, Frank Drake, and James McGaha, among other skeptics, appeared on the show to have their say. The segment dealing with the "Roswell Incident" was rather well done. In fact, their coverage of this subject so popular with the UFO addicts could serve as a good example of a proper examination by a TV outlet on a highly controversial subject. Mind you, finding evidence to dispel the Roswell myth is not all that hard to accomplish, but we must give credit where it's due. One aspect that I feel ABC missed examining adequately is the Confirmed Believer Syndrome, and I'll go into this in detail. The early part of this two-hour program threw at us a number of gee-whiz "abductees" and UFO witnesses, without going into the angle of just why these people are so absolutely dead certain either that they've been kidnapped and taken aboard a space craft, or have seen something in the night sky that is unquestionably from outer space. When it comes to witness reliability, I have a very specialized expertise, and I'll spend some time here explaining that talent. As a magician (more correctly, a conjuror but that's a matter for discussion elsewhere) I am well aware of two important facets of human experience: how people are fooled by others, and how they fool themselves. That last angle enters in here strongly. With some individuals it appears to be easy to not only ignore that their perception has departed from what they should expect of the real world, but that their memory and interpretation of a perceived set of sensory inputs is infallible and certainly represents actuality. Let me share with you two of my personal experiences with such individuals that illustrate the fallacy of that conviction. Before I go into these examples, I'll say that by-and-large our sensory input is reliable; otherwise we'd find survival a much more difficult job. However, we're not always aware of just how inaccurate our perceptions can be, and for very good reasons. We can't handle more than a certain amount of data at any given time. Think of the computer analogy: some tasks we assign to the device slow it down or will not be carried out when the RAM or processor speed are insufficient. Software is often designed to cut corners or otherwise bypass unimportant steps in order to get the job done in the same way that the marvelous computer located just behind our eyes that 1,300-gram (46-ounce) lump of grey jelly known as the encephalon the brain does. The sense of sight is a good example of this. Though we take in with the eye a view some 170 degrees wide, only about one degree of that view is sharply focused. Moving the eye about, scanning the field of view, provides sufficiently more data to us but if all that field were in focus, and we were to have all that data available to us at any given moment and at every moment, we'd have sensory overload and perhaps revert to catatonia. Next, consider the sense of hearing. We've all noted that a mother will automatically tune out a screeching child whose performance hammers on the ears of bystanders, because through experience the mother has learned to evaluate the significance of the sensory input, and has decided that it can be safely ignored. Also, in noisily-conversing crowds we can sort out the words of the one speaking to us, particularly if we can see the speakers mouth to match lip movements with the sounds we're searching for. My point is that our senses (a) don't provide the accuracy or volume of data we think they do, and (b) we censor/edit/trim the sensory input so that we can handle it. The witnesses featured on the ABC UFO show were unshakeable, resolute in their certainty about what they'd reported, unable to imagine that their personal sensory input did not exactly represent reality. They defied anyone to suggest that they were mistaken. Consider these two examples I offer here from my own experience and at the same time, remember that my life has been very much involved in studying how humans deceive themselves, and how they can arrive at and remain in that condition. Example one: I performed often on the NBC-TV "Today" show, particularly in the show's early days with Dave Garroway in the '50s, to the present. One of the show's directors who I will refer to as "Paul C." in case he is still alive was present when I did a stunt at the swimming pool of the Shelton Hotel in NYC, replicating Harry Houdini's survival demo in a sealed metal coffin underwater. Later, when Paul recounted that episode to a colleague at NBC with me present, he enthusiastically described how I'd been handcuffed and then tied into a straitjacket before being placed in the coffin and lowered beneath the water. At this point some of my more astute readers will see a major problem with this description. It is impossible topologically and anatomically to be handcuffed and in a straitjacket. See the illustration (me in a straitjacket hanging over Niagara Falls many moons ago) for verification of that fact. I told Paul C. that there were no straitjackets or handcuffs involved in that performance, at all. He demurred, insisting that his memory of details of the show which had taken place only a few months previously was correct. He insisted vehemently that he remembered the clicking of the handcuff ratchets, and the heaving actions of those who had strapped me into the jacket! No amount of explanation about the impossibility of the account would shake him, because, as he said, he had a very firm memory of the event. He recalled that he'd jumped into the shallow end of the pool holding his microphone, and had received a nasty shock due to a poor grounding-connection in the circuitry; that was quite true, and I agreed with that recollection. With some trepidation, I invited him to take us to a room in NBC where we could view the archival record of that show, at that time, in the form of a "kinescope" recording, a black-and-white film. He agreed, and was in for a devastating experience. Paul ordered the viewing in a small room at NBC, and we watched the program on a projection screen. Of course, no handcuffs nor straitjacket showed up. As we watched, Paul became increasingly agitated, and was astonished that his memory could have played him so falsely, he being an experienced and intelligent observer. We finally worked out that he had recalled another set of appearances by me that he'd seen, and he'd melded them all together. It was very difficult for him to have to admit that he'd not only so badly mis-related the event, but had also persisted in his error despite the clear logic I'd offered him of the impossibility of his account. His faith that his memory truly represented the actual event had overwhelmed any common sense that he could have applied to the situation. Most importantly: if that kinescope of the show had not been available, he would have I'm sure continued to maintain his delusions. And the fact that he'd gladly agreed to view the film when I made the suggestion, showed his honest error in giving his account! My second example: At a videotaping some years ago by CBS-TV of a performance of Peter Popoff, the evangelist "healer" who I later effectively blew away on one of my Johnny Carson appearances, the video team approached a woman who had earlier been summoned out of a wheelchair by Popoff to be healed, and was now leaving the auditorium. She'd exhibited to the audience evidence of having been healed of arthritis by arising from the wheelchair at Popoff's command, and walking straight across the stage waving her hands over her head. Popoff had told the audience that the woman had been unable to walk or to raise her hands in that way, until "Jeeesus!" had brought her a miracle cure. That had been a very convincing demonstration of the evangelist's connection with heaven, yet we now found the woman doubled over in pain, making her way out of the auditorium slowly and with great difficulty. We asked her if that had been her own wheelchair; she said that she'd never been in a wheelchair before, and that Popoff's handlers had brought it to her before the show and told her to sit in it. We asked if her discomfort was gone, and she admitted that it was now even worse that it had been before; we attributed that to her holding herself in an unnatural erect position and walking during the show despite the agony she was experiencing. When she'd raised and waved her hands, she admitted, she was aware that it was no miracle at all; she'd always been able to do that. Naturally, we asked this woman if she felt that it had been misleading for her to have risen from a wheelchair she'd never been in before, and dishonest for Popoff to invent an inability for her to move her arms and to walk erect. She nodded that, yes, it probably was. "But," she firmly avowed, "I still believe that I've been healed!" and she laboriously shuffled to the exit of the building, head down, helped by a volunteer posted there. That woman knew that it was all a farce. She was fully aware that she had not been healed, and had in fact been further damaged. She now knew for certain that Peter Popoff was a fake. But she also knew that if those facts really got through to her, that if she had to acknowledge that she'd been swindled and lied to, she would have to recognize that her conviction that a healing could be given to her by supernatural means, was actually a delusion; she was unwilling for that to become part of her reality. She stuck with her original belief, despite the overwhelming evidence against it that she'd just experienced and I'm sure she still maintains that certainty to this day. The facts had became inconvenient and a threat to her delusion. I recount these two examples of my experience there are many more I could give you to illustrate how honest people simply cannot believe that they could be wrong, that their memories and perceptions just must be true and must represent how things really are, and that they can and will stretch their accounts and embellish them, because they believe that's the way it could or should have been. Those eager persons appearing on the ABC-TV show "The UFO Phenomenon Seeing Is Believing" who confidently recounted their encounters with strange phenomena and gave their sensory impressions of events and circumstances, were not necessarily lying, at all. I remind you of what Francis Bacon wrote:
Our friend Teller translates the Latin Tacitus quote as: "They make (it) up, and at the same time, they believe (it)." I define lying as the purposeful mis-telling of an event or circumstance, which does not include errors of description or exact qualities, though augmenting accounts must be looked upon as at least "little white lies." The abductees and UFO-visited witnesses on the ABC show insisted that they "knew" they were taken aboard spaceships, and/or that what they saw were really visitors from outer space. I believe that they were not lying, but where is the evidence that the events they described were actually real and of the nature they insisted was true? The NBC director Paul, described above, was in every way as absolutely certain that he was telling us the truth. He was not lying. The Popoff victim had deceived that audience because she believed it was the better thing to do, and she easily dismissed clear evidence of Popoff's perfidy so as to make her case better. Not handling that aspect of the fallibility of witness testimony was a failing of the "The UFO Phenomenon Seeing is Believing" show. Reader Mark Dotson has an observation on this same phenomenon, in a note he sent to me before the show aired:
Mark, bear in mind that the sensory systems of other animals have access to other areas of the electromagnetic spectrum that are not within the reach of humans through their built-in senses. Some animals can pick up electrical discharges in their environment sharks, for example while others can see in the ultra-violet or infra-red parts of the spectrum. Elephants "read" ultra-low-frequency vibrations in the ground, and bats and dogs hear ultrasonic sounds of which we remain unaware. Besides, we conjurors are never more amused than when we hear that canard, "Seeing is believing." We, above all others, know well that such a claim is not necessarily true...! Our buddy Bob Park commented on the ABC show in his weekly website update. (To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: join-whatsnew@lists.apsmsgs.org and enjoy it's free!):
Well, Bob, to give ABC the credit due, you must admit that Dr. Kaku provided a provocative illustration of the "folding space" concept that provides the woo-woo contingent with ammunition against the more down-to-Earth of us who are rooted in reality. After all, he's one of the String Theory originators, and that's a pretty heavy bona fides. Going to Arcturus by "folding" there, is hardly just around the corner, but it's an exciting view of our universe, and serves to get young folks interested in science. I can't bomb Kaku on that, really. However, I agree with you that there's no mystery at all about the Roswell matter except why anyone ever believed it to be a mystery, and ABC could have introduced more compelling evidence that it was farcical. We also received a few authoritative comments from USAF Captain Michael McNeill:
As an Air Force member who works on special projects, I know that the Air Force is not covering up crashed alien craft or hiding alien bodies. I also must say that the government has been pretty poor at handing out explanations for pilots or the public on what those UFOs could be. The B-52 pilots who were told that they were seeing stars, was a good example of that. I would highly suspect that the craft witnessed by the pilots was a secret reconnaissance blimp of some sort that the pilots were not at liberty to know about.
However, I must commend Peter Jennings for presenting a realistic take on what UFO sightings probably are. He also appeared on John Stewart's "Daily Show" the night before and said that he "entered the show skeptical, and came out skeptical." I was also VERY impressed to see some relativity and wormhole theory discussed, as well as the mention of just how difficult space travel actually is. All in all, I give ABC-TV an "okay" rating on this program, and I congratulate them on having called in adequate representation in the form of real scientists. Thank you, ABC.
USAF Captain Michael McNeill, heard from above, had an added comment on a different subject:
Reader Commander Bob Vernon, Medical Service Corps, U.S. Navy Reserve, retired, also had a comment on this matter, and he did receive a reply. Commander Vernon has a background as both an RN and laboratory technologist, and has completed graduate study in health care management and public health. Over the past 30+ years, he's held various health care positions in intensive care and emergency nursing, laboratory management, quality data analysis, performance improvement, physician peer review, risk management and is currently involved in information systems. He's no amateur.
The same "canned letter"? Interesting indeed. We wonder how many complaints of this sort Captain Wilson receives, that she has to use a form letter....?
Reader Susan C. Mitchell has a comment about the "John of God" infomercial, and sends us to see Geoffrey Cobb, who does a sword-swallowing-and-comedy act under the stage name "Thom Sellectomy," at www.swordswallowing.com/Business%20Side/index.html, where you can see him doing the "Blockhead" demo as in this photo. And she adds:
It's baffling. Could the producers at ABC possibly have been ignorant and gullible enough to genuinely believe that "John of God" has some magical-mystical powers? Or did they know the reality, but think it didn't matter as long as the viewing audience was impressed and those all-important ratings stayed up?
Reader Jeff Trapp tells us:
The article Jeff sent us was titled, "How To Photograph a Ghost," and had some interesting aspects not usually found in such accounts. It quoted Debe Branning, director of MVD Ghost Chasers, a group founded in 1995 and based out of Mesa, Arizona. The majority of the members are either employees or past employees of the State of Arizona Motor Vehicle Division, thus the "MVD" designation. Debe had recently taught a class in "Spirit Photography" in Scottsdale. She told her students that it doesn't take any special equipment to catch a ghost on film:
She warned that a poorly-adjusted shutter speed on a video camera can contribute to streaks of light in your pictures, which are sometimes mistaken for spirit activity, and that the overuse of a single memory card in a digital camera can create double images. Well I don't know about that memory-card problem, but she correctly suggested that while out on a shoot, students should take notes on the weather conditions:
Excellent! At this point, I'd have to give Debe high marks for providing proper precautions and items of protocol. But then it falls apart; the article says that she considers certain "round orbs" that show up in her photos to be spirits, and wisps of fog-like nature to be "ectoplasm." Well, Jeff, funny you should mention "orbs." Look at this photo, and count the ghosts, will you? I was just sent this by a lady friend up north. This is a room that she and her husband are re-doing in their home, and we can plainly see that the former dead inhabitants of the place are either frightened or annoyed, since they show up in this flash photo taken with a digital camera. Now, if any of you tend to think that that makes sense, I ask you to first examine this photo carefully, then look at the one at the very end of this page, "Orbs #2," and the explanation. Then go to www.randi.org/jr/051002a.html.
Reader Dan Simon writes:
I am thinking specifically of a good friend, in her mid-30s, who, due to her long-time job with cheapskate employer who wouldn't invest in ergonomically decent computer furniture, was stricken with carpal tunnel syndrome as well as other repetitive motion disorders, causing severe wrist pain and inability to use her hands for work. Because she was dissatisfied with the treatment recommendations by the company-appointed doctor (whom I suspect had incentive to provide the lowest-cost treatments possible) she took the advice of her tarot-card-reading sister to visit an acupuncturist.
Well, here we are two years of three-times-weekly acupuncture sessions later and she is still suffering and facing continued unemployment due to her disability. During times of less pain she is quick to give all the credit to this quack who harmonized her qi with his magic needles. And when it flares again of course the blame lies elsewhere with her diet, failure to appropriately "center" herself, lack of sleep, or whatever. Her continued participation reminds me of those Nigerian "419" scams that are based upon our all-to-human inability to admit that we have made a mistake, that we have been scammed. So we keep throwing money into the scammers burgeoning bank accounts and innocently write testimonials to lure our friends into it too, to subconsciously assure ourselves that we haven't blown all this money and time and energy and hope on a hoax. Some victims, as is clear from your weekly column, wake up while they still have the energy, health and financial means to seek more sensible alternatives. Sadly, many do not.
So thank you Mr. Randi. It is truly hard to know how to encourage her to seek science, not faith as the best approach to her problems (though of course there are no guarantees.) Efforts such as yours go a long way toward shining light into the dark corners of the demon-haunted world we live in. At the very least they provide great moral support to those of us on your team.
On the off chance you aren't aware of it, I wanted to draw your (and your readers') attention to an excellent online resource devoted to all sorts of medical flummery, www.quackwatch.org. It is an extremely comprehensive reference to all sorts of health and medicine-related pseudoscience and scams, and (though not nearly as entertaining as your column) has become a regular stop for me in my meandering Internet journeys to find hope and comrades in these Dark Ages. Dan, readers of this page are thoroughly familiar with Dr. Stephen Barrett's excellent Quackwatch page, and we refer to it regularly. I wish your friend would also go there and read www.quackwatch.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=acupuncture in particular....
Reader Kevin Thurston alerts us:
Agreed, but it's a bit out of the way for us. We have a hard enough time trying to protect humans, and fish will have to learn not to take any bad worms....
EDUCATION BARNES & NOBLE STYLE Reader Brian Gregory is disappointed in his bookstore....
The description read:
We mailed out our blue "Critical Thinker" wristbands to each of the TAM3 attendees, since the bands had arrived too late for inclusion in the Meeting kit. Now attendee/reader Jim Sanborn provides us with a quite unexpected angle....
An unintended effect, Jim. Readers who want to test this attribute, or merely declare their status to the world, can have their very own wristband from the JREF for just $2.50, postpaid. No guarantee of enhanced randiness, but certainly you'll think even more critically!
Here's some fine advice written by columnist Amy Alkon of the St. Paul, Minnesota Pioneer Press in response to a reader who wrote her asking what he should do about his lady friend's dependence on a local palmist. You can read the entire item at www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/10935329.htm. This is an excerpt:
Amy's my kinda gal!
The blurb for this item tells it all:
Well, I'm happy to see that the "lost cubit" has been found, and that the "Zohar" is so easily available, and I want you to know that one of the celebrities "who study Kabbalah" is Madonna, so there! If you can stand any more of this drivel, click here see full item description and get crazy....
Reader and colleague Tony Youens, in the UK, writes:
Tony says we can see the full scary story at: http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=613481
This was forwarded to me as an example of how difficult it is to get information from the Internet:
I searched for Patton Pending, I got an American Page. I search Patton pending.canada and got junk, I searched How to patton, I searched patton,how. I searched paton idea.and patton idea, canada. I put as many things I could think of to find a page that would give me information on how to patton an idea. The only one I found was an American, patton agent who only did American pattons. I wish you would make searched easier. I rarely find what I search for. I alway get inappropriate material or material that is for the US only. A search is not much use if you fail to find everything but what you want. I should have been able to put down "patton pending" and get items that dealt with patton information. even if it was information on how to find the right page I want. I am just about ready to get rid of my internet connection. If I'm not going to get the answers I want, then I might as well go to the liberary. Seems like the only solusion....
At the "Most Annoying Web Page" I found a list of the "Most Annoying Psychics and Magicians" showing this ranking:
Gee! Rasputin dead for 89 years outranked Geller! And I guess I'll just have to try harder next year....
This is the same room, only the carpenter is still there, and the dust-motes have not yet settled down, so they're much more evident. Or, perhaps, the ghosts are all out in force to fight off this man.... Your choice...
|