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.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)