We missed April Fool's Day. Drat! I was going to launch a surprise into your lives. You see, Martin Gardner used to always do a spoof column in Scientific American's April issue, and I'd intended to follow that tradition here, but I'm a bit late.... But I'll get ya, late or not. In any case, that 7.2 earthquake predicted by an applicant for March 27th in Los Angeles sure fooled us. It didn't happen. Or weren't you looking for it? Remarkable! And that Austalian prophet actually called us long-distance to warn us, so we could clear the city. A reader comments:
When I read of that prediction, that this applicant [for the JREF million-dollar prize] was fervently asking that a major earthquake hit a large metro area in California, I prayed just as fervently that it should not happen, and that the good people of LA would be spared. Lo, and behold, so it was!
Thank you, sir. Very thoughtful of you. But now I have a prediction from another applicant that on May 11th, I will collapse with intestinal cancer, at which point I am to telephone him and he will cure me instantly. Had me worried there, for just a moment.
Seriously, just how do people get these megalomanic notions? I sincerely hope that our work attracts these people in non-representational numbers.
Here are a few interesting Internet sites you might visit. These will demonstrate to you just how much crazy stuff is out there.
Joseph Newman is still promoting his "Energy Machine" on www.josephnewman.com and now has a video you can watch on-line in which he tries to prove that it works. Don't invest just yet. The perennial Dennis Lee is still promising "Free Electricity" to those who sign up, www.ucsofa.com (don't sign up!), and Bruce Perreault at www.nuenergy.org sells a "Glo_tube" that he says outputs four times the voltage that's put into it. Also not a good investment, in my opinion.
I appeared on Larry King Live last Tuesday. It's now been exactly one month since Sylvia accepted our million-dollar challenge on that show. That's 31 days, and no response. But she's probably too busy to make a million dollars....
At this point in time, I have some 80 postings made to me by Dr. Gary Schwartz, all unopened. Since I receive between 80 to 100 postings every day, and most require answers that we hope will assist the inquirers, I simply cannot open these very long harangues, which are not productive since they do not address the pivotal aspects of Dr. Schwartz's "research." I'm kept aware of the content by others who have the time to pursue such matters.
In fact, as I sit before my computer screen each morning and noon, I run down the list of messages that I can delete without reading. The fervent appeals from Nigerian government officials who want to make me rich, the Internet floozies who need my body — and my money, and the offers of cheap Viagra, are all highlighted and disintegrated with one touch of the "delete" button. Missives from "Wu," "Benneth" and a few others are already pre-vaporized automatically by my system before I ever get to see them. These are from obsessive/compulsive persons who insist on trying to fill my mailbox with their ravings, and who just won't take a polite "no, thanks" as an answer. Some items from "the proving" group get through from the homeopathic community, but they go bye-bye well before I settle in to answer the real messages. Such discrimination is necessary, or I'd never get out of my office.
Now after reading this, Dr. Schwartz may choose to begin crowing that I'm resisting communication with him, fearing his inevitable victory. I dropped out of his circle when he told me I had to be secretive about anything I observed of his operation. If and when he withdraws that injunction, and he begins to make good on the promises he made to the JREF and myself, then we can talk, but not until then. I just don't have the time to stroke his ego and listen to his evasive tactics. I have people out there who are serious about their work, and don't live in an Ivory Tower.
Dr. Schwartz is fond of making a comparison between his gifted mediums and basketball superstar Michael Jordan. He points out that Jordan's free throws didn't succeed 100% of the time. This, he says, means that his performers should not be expected to succeed in 100% of their guesses, either. I couldn't agree more with that last statement, but I've no idea where he got the notion that the skeptics ever expected such an unreasonable rate of "hits." No way. But we do expect that a success rate should be decided upon in advance, giving a margin of leeway to the performers, and then at least that figure should be attained in a test. What is so difficult to understand in that scenario? Comparing Michael Jordan's scores to the performance of a medium in a simple binary test is just not appropriate, and it gives a misleading picture of their comparative abilities. Mediums would score 50% in a binary test if they had no special ability. But athletes would average close to zero if they had no ability in their chosen sport. And according to Schwartz, his mediums are whizzes.... So let's do a whiz test.
My experience tells me that though Schwartz might actually want to put such a standard in place, his mediums won't allow it! In lab parlance (I speak a few words), that means the mice are designing the maze. The mediums much prefer generalities, broad statements, and vague hints, all of which can be "interpreted" generously. "I'm getting a male figure, an older person, an authority figure, standing over you" is vastly preferable, for them, to "This is your father." Or, "This is your uncle," or "This is your brother," or "This is a police officer," or "This is a surgeon," or "This is a teacher," or "This is a boxing coach." Those are simple, definitive, true-or-false statements, not at all popular with these folks. But for some reason, I like them, a lot.
A new evasion by Schwartz, just announced as a new provision in his game-show scenario, is this new rule: effective immediately, before he will correspond with anyone, he has to be sure that they're sufficiently well-informed on all the spooky stuff. They'll have to answer his "quiz," after which he'll judge whether they're smart enough to be able to talk to him. Well, that gets me off the hook, because I'll never take his quiz, and I'll be relegated to the ranks of the "unclean." Is the little bell called for, doctor? Please inform.
He'll question them on whether they know the history of the field (whatever field he means, parapsychology, spiritualism, or perhaps mysticism), contemporary research findings, methodological considerations, and "limitations in addressing alternative hypotheses." Folks, none of that is necessary when it comes to designing and conducting simple, direct, definitive, tests of such matters. I don't have to know how to make a violin in order to discover whether the violinist is competent. Put another way, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Note: I got that somewhere. It's not original. That's my contribution to being forthright, sharing, co-operative, compliant, supportive, honest, straightforward, and up-front, all qualities espoused and encouraged by the man whose lab motto is:
If it is real, it will be revealed. If it is fake, we'll catch the mistake.
Please note that the motto makes no provision for cheating, only for a "mistake".....
This new "required quiz" ploy from The Great Evader neatly writes off Marvin Minsky, Ph.D., Stanley Krippner, Ph.D., Ray Hyman, Ph.D., and Michael Shermer, Ph.D., as adequately-informed persons, since I'm of the opinion that they, too, will refuse to be quizzed. Those are the members of the committee that I proposed to supervise a "binary" test of Dr. Schwartz's sterling "mediums." Hey, doc, you slipped out of that one just fine!
Last week we saw that Cynthia Sue Larson, a writer and Geller-disciple who teaches "reality shifting workshops," has discovered that you have to ask spoons if they want to bend for you. A reader reports to me that he tried to talk to his nail-clipper in a friendly way, but it still didn't want to bend. Then he saw that it was made in Korea, and probably didn't understand English. Figures. See how you learn from reading this material?
A radio amateur, seeing the "free-energy-from-the-air" claim that was discussed here last week, writes:
I have seen a circuit that does indeed produce electrical energy by capturing free energy in the air. However, this energy does have a very real and man-made source. Radio transmissions from local AM broadcast stations can, if you're close enough to the transmitter, produce quite an electromagnetic field. A wire of a length close to the resonant frequency of the transmission will pick up an electrical charge from the radio frequency emission. All you need in the "magical" circuit, is an inductor and rectification circuit to produce a relatively substantial direct current.
Yes, and the closer you are to the transmitter, the better the results. (Law of Inverse Squares, y'know.) When I did my radio show for WOR AM/FM back in the 60's, at first they put me out in the wilds of New Jersey in a tiny room located right at the transmitter. The antenna that put out fifty thousand watts (!) on AM, was less than fifty feet from where I sat, and — the truth, I swear! — the fluorescent light fixtures we had in the studio were not wired into place. They weren't even connected to the mains. The RF field (we reached 38 states and parts of Canada!) was so strong that those fluorescent tubes glowed day and night, powered by the transmitter output.
I'm reminded that folks who live close to high-power transmission lines (don't get me started on the brain cancer conspiracy and such!) have been known to lay out on the ground, large coils of wire — a few turns only — that then pick up — by simple induction — 110 volts worth of electricity to power their needs — free. Of course, there are federal laws in place to forbid this, the same way the power-from-the-radio-transmission is covered. The latter can interfere with the transmitter's broadcast pattern.
Speaking of Geller, he is back suing someone, again. He's after BAE Systems Avionics, part of the old British Aerospace Corporation, because of comments someone made on the company's e-mail network. A legal notice has been issued, but the action is not yet served. The person who offended Geller was talking to the Internet newsgroup sci-sceptic, a chatroom for scientists who are disinclined to believe the claims of various paranormal types and the like.
But since nothing has happened with Geller's highly-advertised announced suit against Nintendo that was the buzz a few months ago, I think that BAE/BAC shouldn't get too excited. Remember the Aesop's Fable about The Boy Who Cried Wolf?
My, my. It's just one shattered myth after the other. Scientists in England, headed by Dr. Christopher French, a psychologist at Goldsmith's College, London, and Dr. Richard Wiseman, a parapsychologist/psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire in Hatfield and researcher into paranormal claims, conducted tests recently showing that claims by the New Agers — that a dangling crystal around the neck can raise "personal energy" levels, cure disease, alleviate stress, boost creativity, raise levels of consciousness, enhance psychic powers in areas such as divination and dowsing, and uplift the spirit — may be totally imaginary. Surprise!
Their study has shown that the sensations reported by believers in crystals — tingling, warmth, and feelings of well-being — come instead from the power of suggestion. There were eighty volunteers, all of whom were given, in advance, a sheet of paper explaining ten of the sensations that they might experience while handling a crystal. Half were given a genuine New Age-approved crystal for a few minutes while relaxing, and the other half were asked to handle a fake crystal made of expensive cut-and-polished glass, but all were told that they handled the genuine article. All but six of the volunteers reported mysterious sensations when they handled the crystals, real or not.
The subjects reported experiencing some of the wonders claimed for crystal-power, among which are: tingling, more focused attention, balanced emotions, a rise in hand temperature, increased energy levels, improved sense of well-being, relaxation of the forehead, stimulation of the brain, and "activation of all levels of consciousness." Dr. French told the British Psychological Society at a conference in Glasgow that the scientists found no difference in the sensations reported by those holding a real quartz crystal and those given a fake, and believers in crystals scored about twice as high on a "combined sensations index," than self-professed skeptics.
Dr. Wiseman said: "It is suggestive that the power of crystals is in the mind instead of in the crystals. Clearly there is an effect, but people are paying hundreds of pounds for a crystal and they might as well pay just a couple of quid." ("Quid" means "pound," currently about $1.43)
The belief that quartz and semi-precious stones contain a subtle power "unknown to science" is an essential tenet of the New Age industry. Three years ago, a well-known U.K. actress appeared at a film premiere wearing an expensive crystal pendant designed to shield her body from cell phone and computer radiations. A newspaper reported that the late Princess Diana carried an amethyst crystal at all times to treat "lead poisoning," and she told everyone that it worked quite well. She believed that she got the lead poisoning when a sharp pencil was poked into her cheek. I'll let you do the chemistry and pathology on that.
Well done, French/Wiseman team! And I must wonder, as I always do, why more simple, direct, definitive, testing of this sort is not being done by scientists.
There's been much to-do about the hints that the "Crossing Over" TV show might owe it's success to hidden microphones that pick up conversations among those about to enter the studio to have their deceased relatives contacted by John Edward, the performer who says he talks to and hears from, dead people. I've never taken that electronic eavesdropping possibility seriously, simply because it's not a needed gimmick. It would certainly be nice, a means of fluffing up the show, but such technological advantages are not at all necessary, or even probable. The "cold-reading" process is all that Edward — or any of the others — needs to succeed, and it is obviously the method he uses. A half-hour of observing the show reveals that fact.
I've received a posting from a person who is closely acquainted with a member of the production staff for the "Crossing Over" show. This staff member has made it very clear that no tricks other than Edward's stage performance are used. There are, she states, no hidden microphones, no assistants listening in before the show and funneling information to Edwards, and neither Edwards nor his handlers have knowledge of who is going to be the celebrity guest prior to taping. Everything he does, she says, he does "on the fly," and although the sessions are edited, they are edited for time rather than for content. She is often in the booth while they do it.
I've no idea how expert an observer this person is, but in view of this, and my own experience with such acts, I consider this "hidden microphones" claim to be a "straw man" set up to bring in the eavesdropping possibility. It's simply not needed, and the claim can be rather easily shown to be a frivolous bit of reasoning. And, Edward's handlers have been proclaiming lately to the media that his studio audiences are now being strictly cautioned not to discuss family matters. I suggest that since we've eliminated that rather unlikely cheating possibility, we can ask John Edward to do readings:
a. Without asking questions and giving hints and suggestions
b. Without requiring people to tell him who the guesses might apply to.
He's still throwing out guesses and hints, asking questions, and requiring his audience to fill in the gaps — which they happily do. Hey! Wait a minute! Isn't that the very definition of "cold reading"?
Yep.
Gracious me! It seems that all the "hereafter" fans are chortling themselves silly over a million-dollar offer just made in Australia by a chap who obviously doesn't want to "go" unless he's sure there's somewhere to "go to"! Unfortunately, he's got it all backward.
One Victor Zammit, former Attorney of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and High Court of Australia, trumpets that four litigation lawyers from Sydney, Australia, will be offering a million dollars (Australian, of course, now about half that in U.S. dollars) to any skeptic who can prove that the afterlife does not exist and can rebut all existing evidence for the afterlife. To quote Mr. Zammit:
The skeptics put it on record that they have the professional skills to rebut the afterlife evidence — we'll see about that.
Well, I know of no skeptic who has ever stated that "the afterlife does not exist." I certainly have never made such a statement. I have never claimed that I could prove there isn't a hereafter. That's like trying to prove that there is not a Barbie doll on the Moon. I have, however, stated that there exists no adequate proof — by any scientific standards — that there is a hereafter, or a Barbie doll on the Moon. Yes, we see lots of "mediums" uttering twaddle and bad guesses, and there exists a plethora of "evidence" for the afterlife (as well as for the existence of fairies, for levitation, for homeopathy) but all of it is either anecdotal or of bad quality — which is to say that there is no evidence at all. An inflated balloon with a small hole in it will last for a short while, then fail. It can be re-inflated, but must inevitably fail once more. I am not making the claim; it is the believers who make the claim. I only challenge them to prove their claim.
I've asked for the source of this claim — that skeptics have said that they can prove the non-existence of an afterlife and can rebut the afterlife "evidence" — and I've met only silence. Such claims are easily and freely made, but not as easily substantiated.
Theirs is a very safe (half)million dollars. Such a demand to prove a negative cannot be met, and I suspect that those offering it are well aware of that fact. However, in contrast, the JREF million-dollar challenge can be met — if supported by evidence. If there are paranormal powers, we can lose our million.
That's a big difference, in my opinion.
From an interested reader we get this observation:
"[Belief in] astrology, sorcery, oaths, lucky charms, demons, forecasting the future, and talking to the dead — all these are the essence of idol worship, and are lies that fools believe to be both true and wise, or were lies made up by the rulers to cheat the public. All these things are based on false beliefs, which have no point or use. He who believes that these are true practices — but forbidden by the Torah — is nothing but a fool. . . . the only person who will use these beliefs is one who is a gullible person who will believe anything, or a fraud who wishes to cheat the public."
The Rambam (Rabbi Moshe, the son of Maymon) was a 12th-century Jewish rabbi who was perhaps the most important rabbi, in his influence and wide-ranging work, in the entire Jewish history of the Middle Ages. His opinion on astrology, etc., is:
Hmm. It appears that spoon-bending is not as old as I thought, or the Rabbi Moshe would surely have mentioned it. But, notice, he did include "talking to the dead."
Another reader forwarded this to me....
Hey there... I enjoy the general fare the SciFi channel offers. . . . but where did you
get the idea that John Edward is either science fiction, or entertainment? He's a huckster, like the Psychic Friends Network. I wouldn't pay to see them either. Most of us interested in science fiction are also interested in hard science, to some degree. Edward is heavily edited (you can see the jumps sometimes!), and doing the same old scam that's been used by every cheap fortuneteller in history. It has no place alongside the other well-produced, imaginative shows you offer. Lose him, before he gets discredited publicly (he's on the edge), and you along with him. If you're interested, I've got some material showing him for the charlatan he is. And I hate those guys in particular, because they're playing with people's memories of their dead family members, etc. All for ratings. Otherwise, fine work. But I've tuned out Edward, after seeing the first episode.
On Wednesday, 7 March, 2001, I wrote to the SciFi channel via e-mail:
— 42-year-old professional in Chicago
This chap says he received an unsigned response from someone at the network saying:
Interesting email. I wish there was something that could be done, but while J E pulls in the $$ he undoubtedly does, the higherups here will be loath to do anything like — [cough] — take him off the air.
You mean it's a matter of money? Astonishing!
Back in 1991, I did a TV Series — "James Randi: Psychic Investigator" — for Granada Television in the U.K. One of the claims we tested was "Financial Astrology." Astrologer Roy Gillet and orthodox financial advisor John Piper were each given a theoretical £10,000 to invest in the stock market over a 5-week period. Piper made a profit of £1,800, and Gillet lost £4,000. This very limited-scope test proves nothing, but had the astrologer been a winner, I'm sure he would have crowed over the fact, and believers would now be claiming this as a resounding validation of astrology.
Earlier this month, also in the U.K., as part of a National Science week experiment, four-year-old Tia Laverne Roberts "invested" along with a financial advisor and financial astrologer in a week-long contest to see who could make the most (or lose the least) money — theoretically — on the London Stock Exchange. The three were each given a fictional £5,000 to invest. When the competition closed, Tia had lost £231, as against £498 for the financial astrologer and £360 for the expert.
Again, too small a database, by far, but if we were to get a lot of these tests going, we could really begin to have a clearer picture of whether Financial Astrology works. I think you know my expectations.
David Bryant writes:
You flatter me again by mentioning me in your web page today. Keep this up and none of my hats will fit anymore.
Hmm. We can do an experiment. Go try your hats on, now that I've just mentioned you again. Inquiring minds want to know....
Last week's notice of the death of the president of the International Flat Earth Research Society brought a suggestion that perhaps he didn't really die, he just fell of the edge of the Earth while doing research. I'll have to think about that one.
The five-match-stick giraffe problem was tough, though many of you got it right away. Tom Salinsky was the first to give us the correct answer, though he said it took him just 2 minutes...... Just move one match, as shown....
This puzzle was shown to Martin Gardner years ago by a magician/puzzler named Mel Stover, who lived in Winnipeg, Canada. He was a fiend, though he admitted that this wasn't original with him. He didn't know where it had come from. A neat puzzle.
This week, we have another Gardner "match" contribution. Using only ten matches, how can you make a Maltese cross? No breaking any of the matches, adding matches, or splitting any of them. But — you may use a mirror, for this one, and you may light one of them, if you need to....
