After reading Richard Feynman's book a year or two ago, I learned about Cargo Cults, an incredibly interesting topic. A lot of people use the following example in relation to modern religion, but I tend to stay away from bashing religion.
It started off in WWII, when the US is island-hopping to Japan (The Japanese are planting soldiers on the hundreds of small islands to slow the US advance). On some islands that the Japanese haven't occupied, there are tribes of people, who are foreign to modern advances in technology and language. These people see the magic and gigantic ships carrying supplies to the islands, creating outposts and air strips, and the people guarding them. The idea of post hoc ergo propter hoc is foreign to them, so they believe that the food and magic supplies come from the massive religious structures and the way the people pray with rifles. Not helping, a person identified as John Frum tells them that if they pray to him, he will give them "Radios, TVs, trucks, boats, watches, iceboxes, medicine, Coca-Cola and many other wonderful things."
To this day, the denizens of the island have built recreations of the American structures entirely out of wood, including a radio, where the elder/shaman converses with John Frum in a mysterious language.
The cargo cult phenomonon isn't new. Many of the primitive cultures that have been touched by more modern ones have been affected similarly. Another popular case is one in the early 1900s russia, where an explorer found a tribe. After some time, they settled a new island, gathering funds to purchase Lyndon Johnson from America, believing that he would bring them supplies.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
NASA's New Lifeform
Recently, NASA uncovered a new form of life that has the alien trait of using Arsenic instead of phosphorus. If true, this would show an incredible breakthrough in understanding what could happen on earth. In a similar venue, we know that different forms of life evolved independently throughout the history of earth, giving rise to different species. There is a difference however; so far, all the life we know evolved using the same basic chemicals- Oxygen, Carbon, Phosphorus, Nitrogen, Sulfur, and Hydrogen. The enormity of this is kind of easy to see once you look at it closely.
On the other hand, the scientific review process is kicking in, and at least one person has sent in a letter about flaws in the design. The basic design is that they replaced the two elements in it, until they could have the organism immersed in water, as arsenic dissolves in water.
There are many criticisms of the research, but most is entirely jargon. The major theme of them seems to be an issue of contamination.
On the other hand, the scientific review process is kicking in, and at least one person has sent in a letter about flaws in the design. The basic design is that they replaced the two elements in it, until they could have the organism immersed in water, as arsenic dissolves in water.
There are many criticisms of the research, but most is entirely jargon. The major theme of them seems to be an issue of contamination.
Wikileaks
Recently, in the news, there's been a large commotion over wikileaks. To sum it up, wikileaks is an organization that publishes leaked documents (Almost entirely about the US).
Here's a sample of the titles of news articles relating to the good side wikileaks-
Pope refused to cooperate in sex abuse investigation
Wikileaks Reveals U.S. Tax Dollars Fund Child Sex Slavery in Afghanistan
The above are things I can pretty much agree with leaking. However, there was a recent leak with the content being buildings that were classed as vital to US internal communications. Something tells me that people who want only government transparency wouldn't be interested in getting this out. The something also tells me that the only people who would be interested in this information is either an enemy nation or a terrorist.
Other than that specific article, there have been numerous examples of leaks I consider incredibly stupid, unnecessary, or both. Information that endangers lives types of information. To date, wikileaks has turned from "Hey, let's leak documents that the US is hiding to make themselves look good" to "Hey, let's leak documents that the US is hiding."
The main reason this is a large issue to me is because the arguments I hear for and against wikileaks' existence. Examples include
Pro-
1. The government is run by the people, so everyone should know
2. If the government doing nothing wrong, then it shouldn't have problems with transparency
3. There's no reason for having secrets from the people
The rest are the sayings of paranoid tin-foil-hat wearers, without much reason behind them.
The arguments I have against these are pretty short
1. You run the government by voting those people you want into power. If the majority of people want something, they vote for the people who (they think) can make it happen
2. Change "the government" to "you". As they say, turn the tables.
3. Hiding the locations of refugees or the plans for nuclear bombs or the locations of missile silos seems like good reasons for me.
On the other hand, I hear equally stupid/terrible remarks in opposition to wikileaks.
Here's a sample of the titles of news articles relating to the good side wikileaks-
Pope refused to cooperate in sex abuse investigation
Wikileaks Reveals U.S. Tax Dollars Fund Child Sex Slavery in Afghanistan
The above are things I can pretty much agree with leaking. However, there was a recent leak with the content being buildings that were classed as vital to US internal communications. Something tells me that people who want only government transparency wouldn't be interested in getting this out. The something also tells me that the only people who would be interested in this information is either an enemy nation or a terrorist.
Other than that specific article, there have been numerous examples of leaks I consider incredibly stupid, unnecessary, or both. Information that endangers lives types of information. To date, wikileaks has turned from "Hey, let's leak documents that the US is hiding to make themselves look good" to "Hey, let's leak documents that the US is hiding."
The main reason this is a large issue to me is because the arguments I hear for and against wikileaks' existence. Examples include
Pro-
1. The government is run by the people, so everyone should know
2. If the government doing nothing wrong, then it shouldn't have problems with transparency
3. There's no reason for having secrets from the people
The rest are the sayings of paranoid tin-foil-hat wearers, without much reason behind them.
The arguments I have against these are pretty short
1. You run the government by voting those people you want into power. If the majority of people want something, they vote for the people who (they think) can make it happen
2. Change "the government" to "you". As they say, turn the tables.
3. Hiding the locations of refugees or the plans for nuclear bombs or the locations of missile silos seems like good reasons for me.
On the other hand, I hear equally stupid/terrible remarks in opposition to wikileaks.
The Process of Science
This is something I'm writing about because I keep seeing people ignoring the scientific process in the news, intentionally or not.
Step 1: Actual science
This is where everything is usually fine and well. See what effect gravity has on a watermelon at 10 meters, whatever hypothesis you feel like testing. Then you repeat the tests, and make sure everything is actually correct
Step 2: Have others arrive at the same result
This is where a lot of people mess up. The idea is that your study has little to no credibility if the results aren't reproducable. The other scientists that want to do what you did also want to make sure you're right before you push your study to the general public.
Step 3: Publish
This is where you put your results into a journal and have them commend you for you excellent study on the splash patterns of various size watermelons dropped from various heights. Then you let the people use your findings to do other studies, or even have your study used as a basis for a revolutionary watermelon delivery system.
In step 3, there starts the news cycle on particuarly interesting articles. Or at least, those that can be intentionally misunderstood. This only applies to less-than-credible news sources *cough* Fox *cough* that aren't much based in scientific thinking.
Step 3.1: See the article, misunderstand it
"Woah, this study says that watermelons have a 73% chance of injuring those it falls on to!"
Step 3.2: Report on the article
"Scientists determine watermelons have a 73% chance of killing you! Cont. on page A3"
Step 3.3: Inspire grassroots movements
"Let's protest the White House! Ban Watermelons! They kill adults and give children brain damage!"
Ideally, the next step is that people tell those who believe this stuff why they're wrong, and then they realize they're wrong and then use the rest of the day to work in a soup kitchen or help build an animal shelter.
Ideally.
Step 1: Actual science
This is where everything is usually fine and well. See what effect gravity has on a watermelon at 10 meters, whatever hypothesis you feel like testing. Then you repeat the tests, and make sure everything is actually correct
Step 2: Have others arrive at the same result
This is where a lot of people mess up. The idea is that your study has little to no credibility if the results aren't reproducable. The other scientists that want to do what you did also want to make sure you're right before you push your study to the general public.
Step 3: Publish
This is where you put your results into a journal and have them commend you for you excellent study on the splash patterns of various size watermelons dropped from various heights. Then you let the people use your findings to do other studies, or even have your study used as a basis for a revolutionary watermelon delivery system.
In step 3, there starts the news cycle on particuarly interesting articles. Or at least, those that can be intentionally misunderstood. This only applies to less-than-credible news sources *cough* Fox *cough* that aren't much based in scientific thinking.
Step 3.1: See the article, misunderstand it
"Woah, this study says that watermelons have a 73% chance of injuring those it falls on to!"
Step 3.2: Report on the article
"Scientists determine watermelons have a 73% chance of killing you! Cont. on page A3"
Step 3.3: Inspire grassroots movements
"Let's protest the White House! Ban Watermelons! They kill adults and give children brain damage!"
Ideally, the next step is that people tell those who believe this stuff why they're wrong, and then they realize they're wrong and then use the rest of the day to work in a soup kitchen or help build an animal shelter.
Ideally.
IQ testing
We all know what IQ is. It's a supposed measure of how smart we are, and a lot of people are fine with it. We tend to like how we can give a specific number to how smart we are. It may be a semi-useful tool today, but it was inspired by and used for a negative purpose during its infancy.
It all started with the eugenics movement back in the early 1900s. Eugenics in this context is basically only letting the very best have the ability to reproduce, hypothetically moving towards a better population. Those in the eugenics movement needed a good way to quantitatively identify mental retardation, which started the path for IQ testing.
Now we're into the early days of IQ testing. The test wasn't as we know it today. In those days, it consisted of some tasks memory testing. The tests were designed to give your mental age, a term that's becomming increasingly common again. Your IQ was your mental age/physical age*100, so if you're 20 and your mental age is 20, you would have an IQ of 100.
Nowadays, we have a different method of determining it. Now we have a written test, which determines our knowledge in different areas, then we are scored based on how correct we are. Then, all the scores are put into a program, and this does the math such that the average of all the scores is exactly 100, and the standard deviation is 15. The major problem with this is that by definition, exactly half of the people who take the test are below average intelligence. This may not seem much of a problem, but when coupled with the fact that the scores are constantly in flux, they never remain constant. If you had an IQ of 60 in 1970, you could have the exact same test scores give you an IQ of 150, depending on who takes the test.
The way I look at IQ tests is that they can be useful in estimating what is usually painfully obvious. After researching the test, I'm in the camp that believes IQ testing belongs with the "What kind of toaster are you?" personality tests.
It all started with the eugenics movement back in the early 1900s. Eugenics in this context is basically only letting the very best have the ability to reproduce, hypothetically moving towards a better population. Those in the eugenics movement needed a good way to quantitatively identify mental retardation, which started the path for IQ testing.
Now we're into the early days of IQ testing. The test wasn't as we know it today. In those days, it consisted of some tasks memory testing. The tests were designed to give your mental age, a term that's becomming increasingly common again. Your IQ was your mental age/physical age*100, so if you're 20 and your mental age is 20, you would have an IQ of 100.
Nowadays, we have a different method of determining it. Now we have a written test, which determines our knowledge in different areas, then we are scored based on how correct we are. Then, all the scores are put into a program, and this does the math such that the average of all the scores is exactly 100, and the standard deviation is 15. The major problem with this is that by definition, exactly half of the people who take the test are below average intelligence. This may not seem much of a problem, but when coupled with the fact that the scores are constantly in flux, they never remain constant. If you had an IQ of 60 in 1970, you could have the exact same test scores give you an IQ of 150, depending on who takes the test.
The way I look at IQ tests is that they can be useful in estimating what is usually painfully obvious. After researching the test, I'm in the camp that believes IQ testing belongs with the "What kind of toaster are you?" personality tests.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Charlie Chaplin's Time Traveler
In Charlie Chaplin's movie "The Circus", it was recently shown that a woman in a part of the film was holding something near her head, much like a cell phone, and talking near the end of the clip she is in. Following this, people have claimed that she is a time traveler from some present or future time, and it seems people believe it. First, the video. Now, my reasons why it is not a time traveler.
1. The most obvious part is where there's a guy before the clip is even shown, giving his films and movie company a little poke from the promotion stick. A bit odd, seeing that a large chunk of the video only serves to hear him talk.
2. Under the assumption that she is holding a cell phone, the most obvious thing to ask is "How is she getting reception?" Not many cell phone towers in 1928.
3. Now on to the part about why it isn't a cell phone she's holding. At first, I had to get an explanation from someone who believed it on how it looked like a cell phone in her hand. From what I was told, the shadows of her hand and the shine on her hair was supposed to be a cell phone.
4. Granted, the way she is holding her hand seems to say she's holding something, and since we in the cell-phone era automatically see that gesture as holding a cell phone. But when she turns her head toward the camera, it seems her hand is empty. I'm sure people are saying it must be invisible or something.
5. One thing that I was told when watching the video made it so I couldn't go back to seeing it as a cell phone was the sentence "She's itching her head." Not much to say here, it's more like seeing through an optical illusion than solving a problem.
All that remains that I can say about the video is speculation on how this video impacts the profits of the company.
1. The most obvious part is where there's a guy before the clip is even shown, giving his films and movie company a little poke from the promotion stick. A bit odd, seeing that a large chunk of the video only serves to hear him talk.
2. Under the assumption that she is holding a cell phone, the most obvious thing to ask is "How is she getting reception?" Not many cell phone towers in 1928.
3. Now on to the part about why it isn't a cell phone she's holding. At first, I had to get an explanation from someone who believed it on how it looked like a cell phone in her hand. From what I was told, the shadows of her hand and the shine on her hair was supposed to be a cell phone.
4. Granted, the way she is holding her hand seems to say she's holding something, and since we in the cell-phone era automatically see that gesture as holding a cell phone. But when she turns her head toward the camera, it seems her hand is empty. I'm sure people are saying it must be invisible or something.
5. One thing that I was told when watching the video made it so I couldn't go back to seeing it as a cell phone was the sentence "She's itching her head." Not much to say here, it's more like seeing through an optical illusion than solving a problem.
All that remains that I can say about the video is speculation on how this video impacts the profits of the company.
Social Change Wheel
On the social change wheel, there are 8 different aspects that show involvement in the community. From the votes taken in class, it would seem not many people take part in the community.
First on the list is direct service, which is participating in activities that, in medical terms, treat the symptom instead of the disease. The example list only one thing I might be able to do, which is serving food at a kitchen. Since there isn't much of a homeless problem in Waverly, I cannot do this.
The next spoke on the wheel is community/economic development, which is helping the economic situation of the neighborhood. Given I have no experience in this field, and that it's likely to stay that way, I don't fit into this part.
Spoke three is voting. Not much to say here, since I only turned 18 after the elections. School elections and the like I've participated in, but knowing that only the kids with the largest group of friends will win gives a pretty easy and accurate way to see who will win.
Next up is direct action, rallies and mass movements of people. Not really something a common college freshman can put together.
Number five is grass-roots political activity. This is one area that nearly anyone who wants to get involved in the community can start at. Seeing that I lived most of my adult life in a rural area, there was never much of an opportunity or cause to get involved in this way.
Spoke six- community building. This is one area I was briefly involved in during the flooding. When most of the roads leading to my area of the country were under water, I had the opportunity to stand near my neighbors on the shore of what used to be the road to town. After some stares from them, showing dislike for my mother's photography, and our dog swimming briefly, we left for home. But for the part about actually helping, I worked for a day removing water from my father's workplace (with one of those man-sized squeegees, not very efficient).
Number 7- advocacy through community education. From what I can read, it seems that this aspect is about teaching people things that are taught a lot in school and by parents. As far as I know, Waverly is doing good on this one.
Last up, socially responsible daily behavior. Since I don't consume much outside the mensa, and I don't drive, I don't have much I can do for this, except turn off the lights when leaving a room. This I do.
First on the list is direct service, which is participating in activities that, in medical terms, treat the symptom instead of the disease. The example list only one thing I might be able to do, which is serving food at a kitchen. Since there isn't much of a homeless problem in Waverly, I cannot do this.
The next spoke on the wheel is community/economic development, which is helping the economic situation of the neighborhood. Given I have no experience in this field, and that it's likely to stay that way, I don't fit into this part.
Spoke three is voting. Not much to say here, since I only turned 18 after the elections. School elections and the like I've participated in, but knowing that only the kids with the largest group of friends will win gives a pretty easy and accurate way to see who will win.
Next up is direct action, rallies and mass movements of people. Not really something a common college freshman can put together.
Number five is grass-roots political activity. This is one area that nearly anyone who wants to get involved in the community can start at. Seeing that I lived most of my adult life in a rural area, there was never much of an opportunity or cause to get involved in this way.
Spoke six- community building. This is one area I was briefly involved in during the flooding. When most of the roads leading to my area of the country were under water, I had the opportunity to stand near my neighbors on the shore of what used to be the road to town. After some stares from them, showing dislike for my mother's photography, and our dog swimming briefly, we left for home. But for the part about actually helping, I worked for a day removing water from my father's workplace (with one of those man-sized squeegees, not very efficient).
Number 7- advocacy through community education. From what I can read, it seems that this aspect is about teaching people things that are taught a lot in school and by parents. As far as I know, Waverly is doing good on this one.
Last up, socially responsible daily behavior. Since I don't consume much outside the mensa, and I don't drive, I don't have much I can do for this, except turn off the lights when leaving a room. This I do.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Occam's Razor
Occam's razor is a commonly known thing, but in my experience, I hear people sum it up incredibly incorrectly.
The definition of Occam's razor I am most commonly given when I ask is "The simplest answer is usually correct." This is wrong, and it's easy to figure out why after you think about it. If I ask them how the pyramids were made, and they reply "The Egyptians built it by using servants and complicated system using ramps and pulleys", I reply that the simplest answer is that aliens did it.
The correct definition of Occam's razor is that "The answer that requires the fewest assumptions is usually correct." So if we have a decision between assuming that the Egyptians built things using things that evidence shows they had, and between assuming the existence of aliens (with the hundreds of assumptions that make their existence and movement to our plant possible), Occam's razors says we should go with the former.
This is more of an issue of people mis-knowing the saying, rather than the purpose. I'm pretty sure most people know how it is supposed to be used, even if their wording is a bit off.
The definition of Occam's razor I am most commonly given when I ask is "The simplest answer is usually correct." This is wrong, and it's easy to figure out why after you think about it. If I ask them how the pyramids were made, and they reply "The Egyptians built it by using servants and complicated system using ramps and pulleys", I reply that the simplest answer is that aliens did it.
The correct definition of Occam's razor is that "The answer that requires the fewest assumptions is usually correct." So if we have a decision between assuming that the Egyptians built things using things that evidence shows they had, and between assuming the existence of aliens (with the hundreds of assumptions that make their existence and movement to our plant possible), Occam's razors says we should go with the former.
This is more of an issue of people mis-knowing the saying, rather than the purpose. I'm pretty sure most people know how it is supposed to be used, even if their wording is a bit off.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
More Fallacies
"Fallacy" is just a name for a gap in reasoning, and since people are finding new ways to get around the named fallacies so they can say "Nope, no fallacies here", new fallacies and sub-fallacies are emerging.
The first that is often used is "Moving the Goalpost". The name kind of gives it away, but it's where you start with a claim, and then moving your standards to be more and more broad, to the point of tedium. A conversation using this fallacy would be something like this-
"Obama is a terrible president because he doesn't do anything about the war on terror."
"He's done a lot about the war on terror"
"Well, he's not done anything successful"
"Yes he has. We've had plenty of success"
"Well, he hasn't had enough success"
Another new fallacy is "Poisoning the Well". It's a bit of ad hominem, but it's a fallacy where you try and win by making the opponent look bad.
Example-
"My opponent, who was in jail for drunk driving, says we should make marijuana legal."
The False Dichotomy is another fallacy, which is summed up as "You're either for or against", when you can be inbetween. Related is the False Continuum, which is the opposite.
Examples-
"You're either for the war on terror, or you support terrorists"
"Cherry picking" is another fallacy, which can be quite common depending on how you look at it. It's where you choose only some of the truth to support your claim, when the whole shows the opposite of your position.
Example-
"Reducing gun control is wrong, because this child obtained a gun and killed himself on accident", where many more lives were saved because of more available guns.
And finally, one of the more oddly named fallacies, "Fallacy of Quoting out of Context", usually called quote mining. One of the more recent and publicised examples is when the creationists quoted Darwin.
The first that is often used is "Moving the Goalpost". The name kind of gives it away, but it's where you start with a claim, and then moving your standards to be more and more broad, to the point of tedium. A conversation using this fallacy would be something like this-
"Obama is a terrible president because he doesn't do anything about the war on terror."
"He's done a lot about the war on terror"
"Well, he's not done anything successful"
"Yes he has. We've had plenty of success"
"Well, he hasn't had enough success"
Another new fallacy is "Poisoning the Well". It's a bit of ad hominem, but it's a fallacy where you try and win by making the opponent look bad.
Example-
"My opponent, who was in jail for drunk driving, says we should make marijuana legal."
The False Dichotomy is another fallacy, which is summed up as "You're either for or against", when you can be inbetween. Related is the False Continuum, which is the opposite.
Examples-
"You're either for the war on terror, or you support terrorists"
"Cherry picking" is another fallacy, which can be quite common depending on how you look at it. It's where you choose only some of the truth to support your claim, when the whole shows the opposite of your position.
Example-
"Reducing gun control is wrong, because this child obtained a gun and killed himself on accident", where many more lives were saved because of more available guns.
And finally, one of the more oddly named fallacies, "Fallacy of Quoting out of Context", usually called quote mining. One of the more recent and publicised examples is when the creationists quoted Darwin.
We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment.Is turned into-
We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sickWhich shows Darwin as a Nazi, or something similar, when the full quote/misquote issue is examined.
Cold Reading
If there is one thing I despise in the world, it is those who make a living from the false comfort of someone who has lost a loved one, when the comfort comes from telling them "Hey! They're dead, but they want me to tell you X." Nor surprisingly, many people share my thoughts. Of the bunch, Penn & Teller and South Park pop out.
In cold reading, the reader starts out by asking a very, very vague question. Something like "I'm sensing a... J." And of every single person in the crowd, it's likely that someone they are there about has a first, last, or middle name starting with J (Or even named "Jay". Or they liked Blue Jays, or liked the baseball team.) Then depending on what name the person gives, and in what way, the reader will make assumptions about them being alive or dead, man or woman, parent or something else. Then after the long chain of events, when the reader finally gets to the point, they'll give some all-around advice or something in the same way horoscopes predict what kind of day you'll have. Some common ones are "Don't worry about the money", "Don't break the family up over me", "You should stay on the course you're going", "Don't feel guilty", and even more if there's more context to be had.
In Penn & Teller's TV series, they cover many topics that are pseudoscience, yet are popular. One of their earlier episodes was over cold reading, and with a low budget and a reputation for being skeptics, they never got to do anything with John Edwards, but they had their time with a reader low on the chain. She targets a young man in the front who is crying, and starts to repeatedly ask the wrong questions and give the wrong leads, and it starts showing that she's starting to do poorly. This is about where the clip cuts out.
South Park did quite well on this subject in my opinion. As with a lot of pseudoscience topics, they make fun of the pseudoscience and give the message that the real science isn't stupid. In this case, Stan went out and started cold reading, telling people how he did it each step of the way, and when he told people that he's doing a trick, they tell him he's gifted. It eventually leads up to a faceoff between John Edwards and Stan, where Edwards is abducted and named "Biggest Douche in the Universe".
In cold reading, the reader starts out by asking a very, very vague question. Something like "I'm sensing a... J." And of every single person in the crowd, it's likely that someone they are there about has a first, last, or middle name starting with J (Or even named "Jay". Or they liked Blue Jays, or liked the baseball team.) Then depending on what name the person gives, and in what way, the reader will make assumptions about them being alive or dead, man or woman, parent or something else. Then after the long chain of events, when the reader finally gets to the point, they'll give some all-around advice or something in the same way horoscopes predict what kind of day you'll have. Some common ones are "Don't worry about the money", "Don't break the family up over me", "You should stay on the course you're going", "Don't feel guilty", and even more if there's more context to be had.
In Penn & Teller's TV series, they cover many topics that are pseudoscience, yet are popular. One of their earlier episodes was over cold reading, and with a low budget and a reputation for being skeptics, they never got to do anything with John Edwards, but they had their time with a reader low on the chain. She targets a young man in the front who is crying, and starts to repeatedly ask the wrong questions and give the wrong leads, and it starts showing that she's starting to do poorly. This is about where the clip cuts out.
South Park did quite well on this subject in my opinion. As with a lot of pseudoscience topics, they make fun of the pseudoscience and give the message that the real science isn't stupid. In this case, Stan went out and started cold reading, telling people how he did it each step of the way, and when he told people that he's doing a trick, they tell him he's gifted. It eventually leads up to a faceoff between John Edwards and Stan, where Edwards is abducted and named "Biggest Douche in the Universe".
Chiropractic
Chiropractic is becoming a major industry in the world today. It helps people with back problems, saves people from unnecessary pain, and in the original form of chiropractic, entails much pseudoscience.
There are two beliefs in Chiropractic. The first (which is scientific), is that the spine is an important structure in the body, and it should be kept in a good condition, which means trying to treat any injury that might be afflicting it. The second train is the pseudoscientific train of thought.
Chiropractic in its original form is all about how the human body has an innate intelligence, which is dulled by subluxations (displacements) in the spine. It also teaches that every disease and aliment can be treated by manipulating the spine. Needless to say, this is not close to truth.
Today, you can get a degree in chiropractic from the American, British, Canadian, or the International Chiropractor Associations. You can get degrees that usually only hold weight intra-chiropractic, meaning that it's not going to let you practice general medicine at a hospital.
In the recent past, there was a court case in the UK where Simon Singh, a writer, was sued by the British Chiropractic Association, where he was sued because he called it "bogus". He lost the initial lawsuit, filed for appeal, and then won that. And considering the presence chiropractic has in the UK, this was not a small feat.
There are two beliefs in Chiropractic. The first (which is scientific), is that the spine is an important structure in the body, and it should be kept in a good condition, which means trying to treat any injury that might be afflicting it. The second train is the pseudoscientific train of thought.
Chiropractic in its original form is all about how the human body has an innate intelligence, which is dulled by subluxations (displacements) in the spine. It also teaches that every disease and aliment can be treated by manipulating the spine. Needless to say, this is not close to truth.
Today, you can get a degree in chiropractic from the American, British, Canadian, or the International Chiropractor Associations. You can get degrees that usually only hold weight intra-chiropractic, meaning that it's not going to let you practice general medicine at a hospital.
In the recent past, there was a court case in the UK where Simon Singh, a writer, was sued by the British Chiropractic Association, where he was sued because he called it "bogus". He lost the initial lawsuit, filed for appeal, and then won that. And considering the presence chiropractic has in the UK, this was not a small feat.
Ideomotor Effect
This is another effect caused by being human, amplified by having supernatural beliefs. In short, the Ideomotor effect is when someone moves a muscle unconsciously, such that they do not realize they are doing it. It is the cause of some of the major supernatural phenomenon that are popular these days.
Dowsing
When dowsing, the subject holds two rods, usually metal, and in a way that will allow them both a full range of motion with as little friction as possible. When the two rods cross, it is supposed to indicate that there is water there. How far down, how much there is, how much rock there is between the water and the surface, and how healthy the water are factors that seem to not concern the spirits or forces that cause the rods to meet. The reason these rods meet is that the holder unconsciously moves the muscles, and if they happen to move in a way that the rods meet, they proclaim there is water.
Facilitated communication/Ouija boards
Facilitated communication is a process where someone with training takes hold of a person that would normally have little to no ability to communicate (Coma, autism, mentally retarded) in the same way that several people grasp the piece of wood on an Ouija board, and have the spirits send them a message. In the former case, if you place a blind between the nurse and the keyboard on which the answers are typed, the outcome will be gibberish. In the latter case, if you blindfold all the participants and rotate the board, the spirits will guide them to where they think the answers are located on the board.
With facilitated communication, the family members of the afflicted are led to believe that the afflicted have some incredible intelligence, and for a small fee, can communicate and see the amazing knowledge the afflicted possess. Which is even more amazing when given the fact that much of the time, the afflicted cannot even see the keyboard, much less give signs of even comprehending the fact there is someone holding their hand. Even more intriguing is the fact that when the nurses are changed for a single patient, each time, the afflicted develop a new personality.
Dowsing
When dowsing, the subject holds two rods, usually metal, and in a way that will allow them both a full range of motion with as little friction as possible. When the two rods cross, it is supposed to indicate that there is water there. How far down, how much there is, how much rock there is between the water and the surface, and how healthy the water are factors that seem to not concern the spirits or forces that cause the rods to meet. The reason these rods meet is that the holder unconsciously moves the muscles, and if they happen to move in a way that the rods meet, they proclaim there is water.
Facilitated communication/Ouija boards
Facilitated communication is a process where someone with training takes hold of a person that would normally have little to no ability to communicate (Coma, autism, mentally retarded) in the same way that several people grasp the piece of wood on an Ouija board, and have the spirits send them a message. In the former case, if you place a blind between the nurse and the keyboard on which the answers are typed, the outcome will be gibberish. In the latter case, if you blindfold all the participants and rotate the board, the spirits will guide them to where they think the answers are located on the board.
With facilitated communication, the family members of the afflicted are led to believe that the afflicted have some incredible intelligence, and for a small fee, can communicate and see the amazing knowledge the afflicted possess. Which is even more amazing when given the fact that much of the time, the afflicted cannot even see the keyboard, much less give signs of even comprehending the fact there is someone holding their hand. Even more intriguing is the fact that when the nurses are changed for a single patient, each time, the afflicted develop a new personality.
Clever Hans Effect
Some people may remember animals a while back that would either be claimed to have super-intelligence, or be able to use telepathy to find an answer, the most common test being the ability to do simple math.
The most famous animal that was publicized with these abilities was a horse named Clever Hans. He was brought around Germany in the early 1900's by his owner, who had no desire to make a profit from the horse, only to show the scientific world of his discovery.
The German scientific community put together a commission to investigate Hans, and after testing, they found him to be legitimate. One of the scientists who headed the investigation, saw that Hans only answered correctly when the experimenter was in sight of Hans, and knew the answer.
When the head of the experiment looked closer, he saw changes in the body language of the experimenter when the right answer was given (And since the answer was always given in some number of taps of the hoof, he always crossed the correct answer). When the head of the investigation took out the factor of body language in the experiment, the horse had a much lower success rate. In turn, when the experimenter gave false body language, the horse stopped tapping.
In summary, animals (or in this case, horses) can be very smart, whether this is the case because of horse psychology, or because it learned that good body language = no more tapping = food.
The Clever Hans effect is a subset of the ideomotor effect.
The most famous animal that was publicized with these abilities was a horse named Clever Hans. He was brought around Germany in the early 1900's by his owner, who had no desire to make a profit from the horse, only to show the scientific world of his discovery.
The German scientific community put together a commission to investigate Hans, and after testing, they found him to be legitimate. One of the scientists who headed the investigation, saw that Hans only answered correctly when the experimenter was in sight of Hans, and knew the answer.
When the head of the experiment looked closer, he saw changes in the body language of the experimenter when the right answer was given (And since the answer was always given in some number of taps of the hoof, he always crossed the correct answer). When the head of the investigation took out the factor of body language in the experiment, the horse had a much lower success rate. In turn, when the experimenter gave false body language, the horse stopped tapping.
In summary, animals (or in this case, horses) can be very smart, whether this is the case because of horse psychology, or because it learned that good body language = no more tapping = food.
The Clever Hans effect is a subset of the ideomotor effect.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Homeopathy
There are a lot of alternative (Read: No science) medicines out there nowadays, and since they aren't bound by any types of ethics, they can make any types of baseless claims about their medicine, as long as they skirt the FDA's regulations. The first of many major pseudoscience medicines is Homeopathy.
Homeopathy was founded by Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, so while his ideas may have been scientific by that age's standards, we have enough knowledge these days to know his hypothesis was incorrect. His hypothesis in a nutshell- Water 'remembers' what you put in it, so by some jump of logic, the more you dilute the water, the more effective the drug is.
Now, the holes in this are pretty obvious. Water cannot "remember" what is put into it. In Hahnemann's version of homeopathy, you would dilute the drug until none of it remained at all in the final product.
In the dilution process, it is basically filling a tank full of water, taking something like a cup of the product and pouring it into another tank, and repeating the process however many times you want, such that, in the final product, you would need more water than there is on earth to have even 1 molecule of the original drug in the final product.
There are two major laws in homeopathy. The Law of Infinitesimals (Diluting into nothing), and the Law of Similars. The law of Similars says that if you want to cure yourself of an aliment, you should take something that gives you the same symptoms of what you cure (summed up as "like cures like"). Besides the obvious hole in this logic ("Hey look! We cured your hair loss! Just wait for this hair loss drug to get out of your system"), it relies upon the law of Infinitesimals to be true.
James Randi, one of the most renowned skeptics of our time, has publicly demonstrated the lack of efficacy in homeopathic drugs. He has a third party make a homeopathic sleeping medicine, takes it early in the day (usually at a convention), and fails to fall asleep, or even yawn.
Homeopathy was founded by Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, so while his ideas may have been scientific by that age's standards, we have enough knowledge these days to know his hypothesis was incorrect. His hypothesis in a nutshell- Water 'remembers' what you put in it, so by some jump of logic, the more you dilute the water, the more effective the drug is.
Now, the holes in this are pretty obvious. Water cannot "remember" what is put into it. In Hahnemann's version of homeopathy, you would dilute the drug until none of it remained at all in the final product.
In the dilution process, it is basically filling a tank full of water, taking something like a cup of the product and pouring it into another tank, and repeating the process however many times you want, such that, in the final product, you would need more water than there is on earth to have even 1 molecule of the original drug in the final product.
There are two major laws in homeopathy. The Law of Infinitesimals (Diluting into nothing), and the Law of Similars. The law of Similars says that if you want to cure yourself of an aliment, you should take something that gives you the same symptoms of what you cure (summed up as "like cures like"). Besides the obvious hole in this logic ("Hey look! We cured your hair loss! Just wait for this hair loss drug to get out of your system"), it relies upon the law of Infinitesimals to be true.
James Randi, one of the most renowned skeptics of our time, has publicly demonstrated the lack of efficacy in homeopathic drugs. He has a third party make a homeopathic sleeping medicine, takes it early in the day (usually at a convention), and fails to fall asleep, or even yawn.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Fallacies
In short, fallacies are defined as "a misleading or unsound argument." So a no-no when in an argument. Most people are surprised at how many fallacies they use in normal life, but many are pretty obvious.
(Many fallacies have latin names, which I have learned them by. Ones that have been coined recently have more English names)
And now, a list with examples-
My favorite fallacy- the ad hominem ("to the man") fallacy. It's defined as an attack against a person's character.
Ex. The President's policy on internet piracy is wrong, because he's black.
In no way is the legitimacy of his position lessened by his race. Now, if the position were something that actually had relevance to someone's race, this might have a ground to stand on, but most people know something is a personal attack.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this")- also known as "Correlation does not imply causation", sometimes shortened to "Correlation, not causation". It's a situation where if something happens in a way that looks like something else caused it, it doesn't mean that one caused the other.
Ex. As a lot of people know, there is an inverse correlation between pirates and global temperatures. In days long ago, there were very many pirates, and pillaging aplenty. Now, there are very few pirates, mostly those in Somalia. And for the same amount of time, global temperatures have been rising. While some people believe this to be a wrong because global warming is caused by carbon emissions accumulating over time, most people now realize that global warming is caused by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this")- Because A came before B, A caused B.
It's a lot like the previous fallacy, but with a subtle difference.
Ex. I mowed my lawn, and it rained. Therefore, me mowing causes it to rain.
We know that mowing the lawn has no effect on the probability of raining.
Non sequitur ("it does not follow")- Basically summed up by its name. An overall category for almost all fallacies.
Ex. A person has tried everything 'modern science' has to cure their aliment. This person then uses Secondary, Complementary, and Alternative Medicines (SCAMs) to try and cure themselves.
Just because you tried everything something can offer, it doesn't mean you should delve into something without any efficacy.
Now we move into the recent ones-
Straw Man- Instead of attacking the person's argument, you attack a completely different one- a straw man.
Ex. Person A believes there shouldn't be life sentences. Person B says that we would need to kill people then, and goes on to prove that killing is wrong. Person A watches in annoyance as Person B brings up points they both agree on, but not at all relevant.
Begging the question- Not at all related to the popular usage (This begs the question of...), it is a fallacy where there is an unproven assumption in your statements.
Ex. Person A asks Person B "Do you enjoy killing people?" No matter what Person B says, there is an assumption that he kills people. While not all uses of this fallacy are this blatant, they can come close.
Pragmatic Fallacy- In simple terms, it's where Person A says Process Z works for them, therefore it is true. "Works" can mean "It makes me happy," or "I like it."
Ex. Since homeopathy/astrology/acupuncture appeals to me, it is true.
Just because they like them doesn't mean they're true.
There are many more fallacies, many requiring experience in them, others sub-fallacies under some other major ones.
(Many fallacies have latin names, which I have learned them by. Ones that have been coined recently have more English names)
And now, a list with examples-
My favorite fallacy- the ad hominem ("to the man") fallacy. It's defined as an attack against a person's character.
Ex. The President's policy on internet piracy is wrong, because he's black.
In no way is the legitimacy of his position lessened by his race. Now, if the position were something that actually had relevance to someone's race, this might have a ground to stand on, but most people know something is a personal attack.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this")- also known as "Correlation does not imply causation", sometimes shortened to "Correlation, not causation". It's a situation where if something happens in a way that looks like something else caused it, it doesn't mean that one caused the other.
Ex. As a lot of people know, there is an inverse correlation between pirates and global temperatures. In days long ago, there were very many pirates, and pillaging aplenty. Now, there are very few pirates, mostly those in Somalia. And for the same amount of time, global temperatures have been rising. While some people believe this to be a wrong because global warming is caused by carbon emissions accumulating over time, most people now realize that global warming is caused by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this")- Because A came before B, A caused B.
It's a lot like the previous fallacy, but with a subtle difference.
Ex. I mowed my lawn, and it rained. Therefore, me mowing causes it to rain.
We know that mowing the lawn has no effect on the probability of raining.
Non sequitur ("it does not follow")- Basically summed up by its name. An overall category for almost all fallacies.
Ex. A person has tried everything 'modern science' has to cure their aliment. This person then uses Secondary, Complementary, and Alternative Medicines (SCAMs) to try and cure themselves.
Just because you tried everything something can offer, it doesn't mean you should delve into something without any efficacy.
Now we move into the recent ones-
Straw Man- Instead of attacking the person's argument, you attack a completely different one- a straw man.
Ex. Person A believes there shouldn't be life sentences. Person B says that we would need to kill people then, and goes on to prove that killing is wrong. Person A watches in annoyance as Person B brings up points they both agree on, but not at all relevant.
Begging the question- Not at all related to the popular usage (This begs the question of...), it is a fallacy where there is an unproven assumption in your statements.
Ex. Person A asks Person B "Do you enjoy killing people?" No matter what Person B says, there is an assumption that he kills people. While not all uses of this fallacy are this blatant, they can come close.
Pragmatic Fallacy- In simple terms, it's where Person A says Process Z works for them, therefore it is true. "Works" can mean "It makes me happy," or "I like it."
Ex. Since homeopathy/astrology/acupuncture appeals to me, it is true.
Just because they like them doesn't mean they're true.
There are many more fallacies, many requiring experience in them, others sub-fallacies under some other major ones.
How to correctly debate
By debate, I do not mean the court-style debate, where you and an opponent have to spout off as much information as you can on your own teams, and impress the judges. I mean the kind of debate where you and another person try and convince the other about a topic.
First, you need to decide if the person is able to be swayed. A lot of the time, people only argue because they think that the other person can be swayed the other way. People who believe in things that require a deep-seated belief in something (faith healing, conspiracy theories) generally can't be swayed. And some of the times, people just have mental problems (ex. Time Cube). Also, keep in mind if you're doing the arguing online or in public that you could convince observers that you are right.
First off, identify your position on the issue. If the majority of evidence for the claim falls on your side, you're in the clear so far. If the evidence falls on the other side, you need to come up with evidence of your own. It is the responsibility of the person trying to prove a point not shown by the evidence to show evidence that backs their claim. And as Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
When you're presenting evidence, be sure to make sure it comes from a decent source. For example, you don't want to go to a Vitamin C maker/distributor's website for a study on the efficacy of Vitamin C. What you want to look for is an article in a peer reviewed journal. Nature is a popular one for biology/medicine, but there are ones for nearly every kind of science.
Next, present these things in an understandable way. Don't be cryptic in unveiling these facts, do it so anyone could understand.
Now for the most important part (and the most commonly screwed up). Let the other person rebut. The most common thing I see in online debates is people giving points, waiting a couple pages/days to pass, and then bring up the points again, ignoring the rebuttal towards these the first time he gave them.
As an example of how not to debate, here's a summary of the debate above.
Person A starts the argument, saying the government blew up WTC7. Person B asks them to give evidence for this. Person A says the burden of proof is on B, and waits. Person B, bored, gives reasons why the conspiracy is impossible. Person A links from conspiracy websites for proof that his position is correct. These sites blatantly edit quotes from government agencies in the hopes that they can make people think they are correct. Person B points this out. Person A ignores this, and rebuts the other points. Several days later, A brings up these same points. B asks for sources on his claims, noting that he already demolished the argument. A says he provided sources and that he doesn't need to do so again, and says he was never proved to be wrong.
Most people aren't like that, but if you want to be respectable in a debate setting, try not to be so bad as person A.
First, you need to decide if the person is able to be swayed. A lot of the time, people only argue because they think that the other person can be swayed the other way. People who believe in things that require a deep-seated belief in something (faith healing, conspiracy theories) generally can't be swayed. And some of the times, people just have mental problems (ex. Time Cube). Also, keep in mind if you're doing the arguing online or in public that you could convince observers that you are right.
First off, identify your position on the issue. If the majority of evidence for the claim falls on your side, you're in the clear so far. If the evidence falls on the other side, you need to come up with evidence of your own. It is the responsibility of the person trying to prove a point not shown by the evidence to show evidence that backs their claim. And as Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
When you're presenting evidence, be sure to make sure it comes from a decent source. For example, you don't want to go to a Vitamin C maker/distributor's website for a study on the efficacy of Vitamin C. What you want to look for is an article in a peer reviewed journal. Nature is a popular one for biology/medicine, but there are ones for nearly every kind of science.
Next, present these things in an understandable way. Don't be cryptic in unveiling these facts, do it so anyone could understand.
Now for the most important part (and the most commonly screwed up). Let the other person rebut. The most common thing I see in online debates is people giving points, waiting a couple pages/days to pass, and then bring up the points again, ignoring the rebuttal towards these the first time he gave them.
As an example of how not to debate, here's a summary of the debate above.
Person A starts the argument, saying the government blew up WTC7. Person B asks them to give evidence for this. Person A says the burden of proof is on B, and waits. Person B, bored, gives reasons why the conspiracy is impossible. Person A links from conspiracy websites for proof that his position is correct. These sites blatantly edit quotes from government agencies in the hopes that they can make people think they are correct. Person B points this out. Person A ignores this, and rebuts the other points. Several days later, A brings up these same points. B asks for sources on his claims, noting that he already demolished the argument. A says he provided sources and that he doesn't need to do so again, and says he was never proved to be wrong.
Most people aren't like that, but if you want to be respectable in a debate setting, try not to be so bad as person A.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Ground Zero Mosque
There's a quote from Austin Powers that I can't help but think of when I hear something about this topic. "There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch."
From what I can tell, the public perception of these events is that some extreme terrorist Muslims with guns and armor want to build a mosque on ground zero to desecrate the lands, and make fun of the tragic deaths. But from what I gather using my skeptical eye is that there is a Muslim man who is well recognized for his community services that wants to build a community center a distance away from ground zero, with a mosque inside.
I can't help but wonder what kind of state the national psyche is in if something as minor as this gets blown so out of proportion. I've heard opinions from "Fox news isn't news",to "The republicans are mad they lost the election and want to damage the democrats' images" to "People are venting their rage towards terrorists into their view of Islam".
The part about Fox news is mostly true. They recently reported how kids spent their drug money on music that could apparently make them high. Which the scientific community knows is only because they want the music to make them high.
And on the subject of politics, I tend to try not to get involved. It is my opinion that there are plenty of people that would do anything to damage the Left's image, but I really hope that most of it can be chalked up to ignorance. Same thing with the American people.
Back when that guy in Florida was burning Qurans, word went around that the Mosque was going to get moved. Turns out that he made it all up; never even talked to the guy.
Since I don't watch Fox much anymore, my perception is that the whole event is dying down. Hopefully this is because the facts are getting circulated, instead of the people being placated.
From what I can tell, the public perception of these events is that some extreme terrorist Muslims with guns and armor want to build a mosque on ground zero to desecrate the lands, and make fun of the tragic deaths. But from what I gather using my skeptical eye is that there is a Muslim man who is well recognized for his community services that wants to build a community center a distance away from ground zero, with a mosque inside.
I can't help but wonder what kind of state the national psyche is in if something as minor as this gets blown so out of proportion. I've heard opinions from "Fox news isn't news",to "The republicans are mad they lost the election and want to damage the democrats' images" to "People are venting their rage towards terrorists into their view of Islam".
The part about Fox news is mostly true. They recently reported how kids spent their drug money on music that could apparently make them high. Which the scientific community knows is only because they want the music to make them high.
And on the subject of politics, I tend to try not to get involved. It is my opinion that there are plenty of people that would do anything to damage the Left's image, but I really hope that most of it can be chalked up to ignorance. Same thing with the American people.
Back when that guy in Florida was burning Qurans, word went around that the Mosque was going to get moved. Turns out that he made it all up; never even talked to the guy.
Since I don't watch Fox much anymore, my perception is that the whole event is dying down. Hopefully this is because the facts are getting circulated, instead of the people being placated.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Obligatory 9-11 entry
Everyone knows about 9-11, though not everyone agrees on what happened. Most people think it was caused by a plane crashing into it. Some think it was caused by aliens. More think it was by explosives smuggled in beforehand, and even more think that the government was behind it all.
My process in evaluating the cause of the falling of the towers is by looking at all the evidence. Many people ignore any lines of evidence that may be contrary to their own, and sometimes make their own assumptions based on things they think look out of place, but which can be explained away with reasoning.
The list below is comprised of things conspirary theorists point out to show that the planes did not cause the fall of the towers.
1. There were traces of thermite found at Ground Zero
2. The towers fell straight down
3. Jet fuel can't melt steel
4. People heard explosions
5. There was a 'squib'
6. The towers looked like they were in freefall
There is much more, but these cover most of what most of the vocal conspiracy theorists still think.
1. There were traces of thermite found at Ground Zero
Thermite is a chemical strong enough to burn through most things you can care to name. It burns at extremely high temperatures, and is used industrially. There are multiple combinations of metals to create thermite, but the most common is Iron oxide (rust) and Aluminium. It so happens that the supports for the towers are made from steel, and coated with Aluminium. And it also turns out that when you add oxygen to iron, it creates iron oxide. The only mystery now is how so much of it ended up at ground zero.
2. The towers fell straight down
This is an example of something that is "duh" when you think about it. Skyscrapers nowadays are built so that in case of the need to demolish the building, or if it gets weakened to the point of failure, it falls straight down. This is so that skyscrapers don't take out 5 city blocks with them. This is also an example of people saying what "should" happen, when the opposite is true. What they think should happen is that the buildings have a wedge cut from the side, causing it to fall like a tree having a wedge cut from it.
There's also the part where the towers were held up differently than most sky scrapers. Skyscrapers usually have a support every so often throughout the entire building. The towers had a single inner-support area, made with several beams, and then some minor supports on the outside face. Most skyscrapers wouldn't be hurt as badly as the towers in the event of a plane crash, as they have more diffuse supports. A plane would only have to get near the central supports in the towers to make the structure unsound.
3. Jet fuel can't melt steel
Most people have already heard this one, if anything. Jet fuel can't melt the supports. What they can do is weaken them. A good analogy/use of this principle is in a forge. This is the reason why blacksmiths put the metal in a fire before shaping it.
4. People heard explosions
Besides the part where this is entirely subjective opinion, this isn't much of a reason to suspect conspiracy. There were natural gas pipelines running to many floors. There were some restaurants in the building, so it makes sense. Other than that, heat makes things expand. When you burn something in a closed space, it's basically a firecracker. It may take longer, but if there were any sealed areas in the building that were being heated, they could have burst.
5. There was a 'squib'
The above image shows the cloud of dust and smoke, and beneath that, you can see a small puff. Some people think that this is proof of a bomb being set off on the below floor, and it just went off early. Others think that the fires and a plane crashing into the building somehow made pressures skyrocket on neighboring floors, causing it to release from a window.
6. The towers looked like they were in freefall
What most people think when they imagine a building falling floor-by-floor is something like this:
One floor falls -> Slows down while the floor beneath starts falling -> repeat
What most people realize is that something that massive isn't going to be slowed down by anything very much. The combined weight of several floors isn't going to stop for a floor that was made to design static weight.
My process in evaluating the cause of the falling of the towers is by looking at all the evidence. Many people ignore any lines of evidence that may be contrary to their own, and sometimes make their own assumptions based on things they think look out of place, but which can be explained away with reasoning.
The list below is comprised of things conspirary theorists point out to show that the planes did not cause the fall of the towers.
1. There were traces of thermite found at Ground Zero
2. The towers fell straight down
3. Jet fuel can't melt steel
4. People heard explosions
5. There was a 'squib'
6. The towers looked like they were in freefall
There is much more, but these cover most of what most of the vocal conspiracy theorists still think.
1. There were traces of thermite found at Ground Zero
Thermite is a chemical strong enough to burn through most things you can care to name. It burns at extremely high temperatures, and is used industrially. There are multiple combinations of metals to create thermite, but the most common is Iron oxide (rust) and Aluminium. It so happens that the supports for the towers are made from steel, and coated with Aluminium. And it also turns out that when you add oxygen to iron, it creates iron oxide. The only mystery now is how so much of it ended up at ground zero.
2. The towers fell straight down
This is an example of something that is "duh" when you think about it. Skyscrapers nowadays are built so that in case of the need to demolish the building, or if it gets weakened to the point of failure, it falls straight down. This is so that skyscrapers don't take out 5 city blocks with them. This is also an example of people saying what "should" happen, when the opposite is true. What they think should happen is that the buildings have a wedge cut from the side, causing it to fall like a tree having a wedge cut from it.
There's also the part where the towers were held up differently than most sky scrapers. Skyscrapers usually have a support every so often throughout the entire building. The towers had a single inner-support area, made with several beams, and then some minor supports on the outside face. Most skyscrapers wouldn't be hurt as badly as the towers in the event of a plane crash, as they have more diffuse supports. A plane would only have to get near the central supports in the towers to make the structure unsound.
3. Jet fuel can't melt steel
Most people have already heard this one, if anything. Jet fuel can't melt the supports. What they can do is weaken them. A good analogy/use of this principle is in a forge. This is the reason why blacksmiths put the metal in a fire before shaping it.
4. People heard explosions
Besides the part where this is entirely subjective opinion, this isn't much of a reason to suspect conspiracy. There were natural gas pipelines running to many floors. There were some restaurants in the building, so it makes sense. Other than that, heat makes things expand. When you burn something in a closed space, it's basically a firecracker. It may take longer, but if there were any sealed areas in the building that were being heated, they could have burst.
5. There was a 'squib'
6. The towers looked like they were in freefall
What most people think when they imagine a building falling floor-by-floor is something like this:
One floor falls -> Slows down while the floor beneath starts falling -> repeat
What most people realize is that something that massive isn't going to be slowed down by anything very much. The combined weight of several floors isn't going to stop for a floor that was made to design static weight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)