Do you remember a rag of a magazine way back in the day (well, way back in my day) called Cracked? It was kind of like the unpopular wanna-be version of the more well-known and liked Mad Magazine. Well, Cracked has come back with a vengeance, because now they have a really well-written & hilarious online presence over at Cracked.com – if biting satire & rough language is your thing, check them out 🙂
So why am I going on and on about Cracked.com? Well, every now and then they come out with a really good skeptical article – and I mean really good. I wanted to share with you one of my favorites which I ran across awhile back, called 5 Ways “Common Sense” Lies To You Everyday…
Albert Einstein said common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of 18. It is also a result of some pervasive and extremely stupid logical fallacies that have become embedded in the human brain over generations, for one reason or another. These malfunctioning thoughts–several of which you’ve had already today–are a major cause of everything that’s wrong with the world. …
I just saw this funny little cartoon – hat tip to the Friendly Atheist – and had to share it with my thoughts…
I like to call this the “Google-of-the-gaps” logical fallacy, which is a humorous version of the classic god-of-the-gaps fallacy. Essentially, the god-of-the-gaps is a logical fallacy which is an argument from ignorance: it states that because we lack the knowledge to draw any kind of reasonable conclusion upon a particular question (such as life after death, for example) then in our ignorance some stat that God (or gods) must be the solution.
Of course, the god-of-the-gaps is a silly argument to make, because with just a single change in wording, by substituting something else for the word “God”, one could argue that the explanation is Santa Claus, unicorns, leprechauns, space aliens, or numerous other silly things which are wholly unsupported by any evidence.
As I tell my students: you must make conclusions based upon what you do know, not upon what you don’t know. And lacking substantive evidence to draw a conclusion, simply state the most obvious truth: “I don’t know.”
Where does legitimate science end and questionable pseudoscience begin? It’s a good question, and one brought up in my mind due to a story about the theory behind the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) which has gotten a lot of attention in recent days. Two theoretical physicists have come up with a theory by which they propose to explain why the LHC might never detect particles like the Higgs Boson… sabotage from the future.
Yes, you read that right – sabotage from the future. I’ll let the article explain it a bit more…
Then it will be time to test one of the most bizarre and revolutionary theories in science. I’m not talking about extra dimensions of space-time, dark matter or even black holes that eat the Earth. No, I’m talking about the notion that the troubled collider is being sabotaged by its own future. A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan, put this idea forward in a series of papers with titles like “Test of Effect From Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal” and “Search for Future Influence From LHC,” posted on the physics Web site arXiv.org in the last year and a half.
Well, I got back from The Amazing Meeting 7 in Las Vegas a couple of days ago, and now that I’m back to some semblance of normalcy I can get back into a routine. Which includes keeping up to date with this blog. I wanted to take a few minutes to summarize some of what I learned at TAM7 in the two workshops I attended…
1. The first was with magicians Jamy Ian Swiss and D.J. Grothe – their workshop was on the relationship between magic, skepticism, and science. The basic premise of Jamy and D.J.’s workshop was that because scientists are used to dealing with nature (which doesn’t lie) then they are just as easily fooled by charlatans & pseudoscientists as the rest of us. On the other hand, magicians are professional deceivers, so they have an intimate knowledge of how people can be deceived and (perhaps more importantly) how people can deceive themselves.
Awhile back I made a post called “Gravity: Only A Theory” – it was about a spoof which used fake criticism of the physics of gravity to make fun of creationists and their pseudoscientific arguments. Believe it or not, there actually are some people who attempt to apply the same nonsensical thinking to the laws of physics (like gravity). A perfect example of such folk are those who cater to Transcendental Meditation (TM) – a New-Age cult which, among other things, teaches its followers that if one meditates hard enough you can actually fly in defiance of gravity!
One of these physics/gravity deniers, a Mr. Anirudh Kumar Satsangi, contacted me through the comments section of my earlier blog entry. Though I don’t have direct evidence of it, from his methods of argumentation and his claims, I think he might be a dedicated practitioner of TM. What ensued was his attempt to convince me that Einstein’s theory of relativity, including the mass-energy equivalence relationship E=mc^2, was completely wrong and that he had a “theory of everything” to replace it. His “theory” was supposed to be based upon meditation (sound familiar?) and is also completely impervious to testing – wow.
I wanted to share with you all the back-and-forth he and I had on the comments, because it is very instructive to see that most pseudoscientists use the same flawed arguments & logical fallacies to justify their nonsense. Here you go…
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said
March 13, 2009 at 9:38 am e
kindly let me know that in E=mc2 (famous eqs given by Einstein) whether c2 (c square) stands only for denoting some numerical value in the equation or there is some evidence of a speed equal to the square of speed of light?
mattusmaximus said
March 13, 2009 at 2:14 pm e
This link to Wikipedia should help you out on this…
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said
March 14, 2009 at 6:45 am e
Thank you very much Mattusmaximus for your kind response. It means c2 is a conversion factor only. It has no other function. How this conversion factor has been derived? How does c2 differ from v2 of ½mv2 ?
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said
March 15, 2009 at 5:50 am e
I have written following two papers which may lead to the realization for a higher theory of everything:
(i) Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator,
(1st Int. Conf. on Revival of Traditional Yoga, Lonavla Yoga Institute, Lonavla, January, 2006)
(ii) In Scientific Terminology, Source of Gravitational Wave is God
(2nd World Congress on Vedic Science, BHU, Varanasi, Feb 2007)
I have presented these two papers at the two different International Conferences. I am now submitting some views for being considered for Unified Field Theory
From Scriptures: (Prem Patra by His Holiness Huzur Maharaj)
The Current which manifested in the beginning of the creation is the Current of Sabda (Sound) and of Chaitanya (Consciousness). From whom that Current issued forth is known as Soami (Supreme Being). This Current, by turning back can merge again in the Holy Feet of Supreme Being. The entire creation manifested from this current and is sustained with its energy and when the Current of the Holy Feet is withdrawn, the creation ceases to exist.This Current of the Holy Feet is the Reservoir of all energy, tastes and pleasures, knowledge, skill, shapes, forces and light etc. etc. and of the entire creation, is also the Creator of all of them.
From Science:
Gravitation Force is the cause of manifestation of the creation (birth of planets, stars), its sustenance and when it is withdrawn towards centre or source the entire creation ceases to exist. Photons have originated from gravitons. In black holes photons merge into gravitons. In Black Holes, Gravitational Force is so high that it does not allow even light to escape. What does it mean then? It simply means that the gravitational force at black-holes attracts light towards it with much greater velocity than the speed of light. In fact, all forces including electromagnetic force, material force (strong and weak nuclear force) all merge into gravitational force in black-holes and becomes one force there and when the creational process starts again from a Black-Hole all the forces appear (manifest) again and descends downwards to create billions of stars, planets, satellite, asteroids and various life forms.
Hence it can be assumed that the Current of Chaitanya (Consciousness) and Gravitational Wave are the two names of the same Supreme Essence (Seed) which has brought forth the entire creation.
All cosmological researches should be conducted keeping in view of the following philosophical facts:
It has been stated in Bible (John I-1) “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,”
Mohammedans hold that God uttered ‘Kun’ (i.e. ‘Came into being’) and the creation came into being (Holy Quran, Sur. Bakr (II.117).
In Chhandogya Upanishad it is written “Tadaikshat bahu syam prajayeyeti” (VI-2-iii) i.e. “It thought (desired) Would that I were many! Let me procreate myself!” The Aitareya Upanishad says,”Sa ikshat ‘lokannusrija’ iti (I-1-i) i.e. “He bethought himself (desired) – ‘Let me create worlds’, etc. etc.
It is written in Chapter VII of Srimad Bhagavadgita : Sri Bhagwan said, “Arjun, now listen how with the mind attached to Me and practicing Yoga with absolute dependence on Me, you will know Me in entirety and without any shadow of doubt” (1). I shall unfold to you in its entirety this wisdom alongwith the Knowledge of the qualified aspect of God, having known which nothing else remains yet to be known in this world (2). Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, reason and also ego; these constitute My nature eightfold divided. This indeed is My lower (material) nature : the other than this, by which the whole universe is sustained, know it to be My higher nature in the form of Jiva, O Arjuna. (4-5). Arjuna, know that all beings have evolved from this twofold Prakriti, and that I am the source of the entire creation, and into Me again it disappears.(6)
The Radhasoami Religion also tells that, the ‘Word’ mentioned above is in fact Current of Sound or Current of Consciousness or Prime Current of Spirituality which was issued forth from its Source, or Creator or God. This Current has later on produced light and other forces. The scientists are discussing these days about dark energy which constitute about 96% of the entire universe which is not known to us. Only 4% part of the universe is known to us by all scientific means. In fact this 96% invisible portion of the universe is the vast expanse of spirituality which can be designated as field of gravitational waves in scientific terms. Visible portion of the universe (4%) consists of consciousness (gravitational force), mental force (electromagnetic waves) and material force (strong and weak nuclear force).
Body = Nuclear Force (weak as well as strong)
Mind = Electromagnetic Force.
Consciousness = Gravitation Force.
According to Radhasoami Religion the whole Universe can be sub-divided into three grand divisions viz.
1. Region of Pure Spirituality
2. Region of Subtle Maya
3. Region of Gross Maya
Nuclear forces dominate Region of Gross Maya (Gross Material Region), Electro-magnetic forces dominate Region of Subtle Maya (Subtle Material Region) and Gravitational Force dominates Pure Spiritual Region.
This is the only Truth which can be verified scientifically and can be termed as ‘higher theory for everything’. This also supports the statement of Sir Sahabji Maharaj that ‘the goal of science – Truth; the goal of philosophy – Ultimate Reality; and the goal of religion – God’ are the three names of same supreme essence.
Many things are common between Current of Consciousness and Gravitational Wave.
1. Current of consciousness can not be seen by any means and gravitational wave can also not be seen.
2. Current of consciousness is the weakest force on earth. Its strength goes on increasing on higher regions. Gravitational force is also very weak on earth and strong on Sun and even more stronger on black holes.
3 Tendency of both current of consciousness and gravitational waves are towards their source or centre.
4. Current of consciousness and gravitational force are both regarded as the creater of all the celestial and terrestrial bodies of the whole universe. They are also sustainer of these and when they turn back towards their source or centre the whole universe will collapse.
Hence it can be assumed that the source of current of consciousness and gravitational wave is the same i.e. God or ultimate creator.
This theory is based on scientific deduction. In scientific terms it can be said that the ‘gravitons’ are the elementaryparticle which was issued forth in the beginning of the creation accompanying with sound ‘Radha’.
mattusmaximus said
March 21, 2009 at 8:21 pm e
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said:
I have written following two papers which may lead to the realization for a higher theory of everything:
Mr. Satsangi, if you really believe that your “theory” has any kind of merit, then by all means submit it to a qualified, peer-reviewed physics journal for possible publication. That is how modern science is done, not by posting walls of text to blogs on the Internet.
By the way, one question for you – how does one go about testing your “theory”?
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said
March 24, 2009 at 9:23 am e
Dear Mattusmaximus
Thanks for your response. As I have mentioned above that the above two papers I had already presented at two different International Conferences where thousands of academicians participated. I have also received very encouraging remarks to these papers from eminent Professors of Physics.
How E=mc^2 can be tested ? There is lot of confusion.
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said
March 24, 2009 at 1:56 pm e
Dear Mattusmaximus
Refer to your question- how does one go about testing your “theory”?
Certainly it needs power of intuition developed by practice of meditation to test my “theory”. Kindly refer to Blog site “Fighting of the cause of Allah by Governing a Smart Mathematics Based on Islamic Teology” by Rohedi Laboratory,The Best Science on the World. Rohedi observed to my comments : “Congratulations you have develop the hihger theory of everything more wonderful than which has been developed by Stephen Hawking. Hopefully your some views for being considered for Unified Field Theory are recognized by International Science Community”
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said
March 24, 2009 at 2:04 pm e
Certainly it needs the power of intuition developed by the practice of meditation to test my theory. Rohedi has appreciated my views on theory of everything stating that it is more wonderful than the theory of Stephen Hawking. Kindly refer to his Blog site “Fighting of the cause of Allah by Governing a Smart Mathematics Based on Islamic Teology”
mattusmaximus said
March 25, 2009 at 3:12 pm e
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said:
Certainly it needs the power of intuition developed by the practice of meditation to test my theory. Rohedi has appreciated my views on theory of everything stating that it is more wonderful than the theory of Stephen Hawking. Kindly refer to his Blog site “Fighting of the cause of Allah by Governing a Smart Mathematics Based on Islamic Teology”
Making statements such as “Rohedi has appreciated my views on theory of everything” is not an outline for an experimental protocol – it is nothing more than a psuedoscientific argument from authority.
How E=mc^2 can be tested ? There is lot of confusion.
E=mc^2 is tested all the time in particle accelerators, such as at FermiLab which is just down the road from me. Also, you might want to read about this recent, high-profile experiment at MIT which tested out E=mc^2 and found it to be accurate.
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said
March 26, 2009 at 9:54 am e
excuse me, mattusmaximus, neither my arguement is psuedoscientific nor I have any intention of arguing with any authority. If you are authority in some field I also do enjoy authority in my field of work. Some of my questions are still un-answered. When speed has no role in E=mc^2, how this conversion factor (c^2) had been arrived at in the formula by Einstein. Had this formula (E=mc^2) was tested and verified experimentally during the life time of Einstein. If not, whether it was termed as psuedoscientific?
mattusmaximus said
March 26, 2009 at 4:31 pm e
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said:
excuse me, mattusmaximus, neither my arguement is psuedoscientific nor I have any intention of arguing with any authority. If you are authority in some field I also do enjoy authority in my field of work. Some of my questions are still un-answered. When speed has no role in E=mc^2, how this conversion factor (c^2) had been arrived at in the formula by Einstein. Had this formula (E=mc^2) was tested and verified experimentally during the life time of Einstein. If not, whether it was termed as psuedoscientific?
I have provided you with information on how E=mc^2 was derived – here it is again…
Now whether or not you choose to do some basic homework and read the info I provide is up to you. If you want to be lazy and not do the research, fine by me – but don’t sit there and keep implying that E=mc^2 hasn’t been tested experimentally when it very clearly has been tested. This line of argumentation is the same as employed by creationists all the time: they ask for evidence of evolution, it is provided to them, and then they ask “Why isn’t anyone able to show evidence for evolution?” It is disingenuous and dishonest.
And whether or not E=mc^2 was immediately tested right after Einstein proposed it is beside the point, because in the intervening time mass-energy equivalence has been tested and found to be valid in a huge number of experiments.
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said
March 27, 2009 at 2:11 pm e
mattusmaximus said quoting: ‘E=mc^2 passes tough MIT test by Elizabeth A. Thomson New Office, Dec.21, 2005.
1. “The team found that the formula predicting that energy and mass are equivalent is correct to an incredible accuracy of better than one part in a million. That’s 55 times more precise than the best previous test”.
2. Despite the results of the current test of E=mc^ Pritchard said:”This doesn’t mean it has been proven to be completely correct”.
3. “It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing – a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind”.
All the above statements indicate that E=mc^2 was not tested and verified experimentally during the life time of Einstein and even perhaps today it is in the process of experimentation. Till such time we reach at one hundred percent precise accuracy we should term Theory of Relativity as Pseudoscientific.
And Dear mattusmaximus, kindly let me know what is this ’same thing’ from where both mass and energy maninfested? I am quite sure you will find the reply for this question of mine in my comments which you have termed as ‘pseudoscientific’. Thank you
mattusmaximus said
March 27, 2009 at 3:36 pm e
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said:
1. “The team found that the formula predicting that energy and mass are equivalent is correct to an incredible accuracy of better than one part in a million. That’s 55 times more precise than the best previous test”.
Yes, this shows that E=mc^2 has not only been tested, but as it is tested out more and more it is found to be even more accurate! How is this any kind of argument in your favor?
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said:
2. Despite the results of the current test of E=mc^ Pritchard said:”This doesn’t mean it has been proven to be completely correct”.
Nice quote mine – another dishonest tactic often used by pseudoscientists, btw. The full quote is: “This doesn’t mean it has been proven to be completely correct. Future physicists will undoubtedly subject it to even more precise tests because more accurate checks imply that our theory of the world is in fact more and more complete.”
So what Pritchard is actually saying is that because he expects more and more accurate tests in the future, if E=mc^2 stands up to that experimental scrutiny, as it has so far, then our confidence in this theory will be even greater. By quote mining in this manner, you are disingenuously attempting to give the opposite impression of what he’s actually saying.
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said:
3. “It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing – a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind”.
Yes, many aspects of modern physics are counter-intuitive and difficult for people to understand. So what?
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said:
All the above statements indicate that E=mc^2 was not tested and verified experimentally during the life time of Einstein and even perhaps today it is in the process of experimentation. Till such time we reach at one hundred percent precise accuracy we should term Theory of Relativity as Pseudoscientific.
Now you’re just moving the goalposts, another dishonest pseudoscientific tactic and logical fallacy. Before you claimed E=mc^2 wasn’t tested, and I proved you wrong. Then you claim that it wasn’t tested in Einstein’s day, which though it might be correct is irrelevant because it has (and continues to be) tested to higher and higher precision and found to be accurate as time goes on. So now you move the goalposts again and say that unless we have 100% precision & accuracy – which is impossible in any kind of experimental science – then you’ll just call E=mc^2 pseudoscience.
And you then imply that because E=mc^2 hasn’t met your impossible criteria that then your ideas must be correct. This is yet another pseudoscientific tactic and logical fallacy called a false dichotomy. Even if E=mc^2 was shown to be wrong, which it hasn’t yet, then that would do nothing to support your ideas. You must provide positive evidence of your ideas, rather than tearing down accepted science.
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said:
And Dear mattusmaximus, kindly let me know what is this ’same thing’ from where both mass and energy maninfested? I am quite sure you will find the reply for this question of mine in my comments which you have termed as ‘pseudoscientific’. Thank you
I’m not exactly sure what the “same thing” really is, but I will venture to say that it is all energy – it’s just that mass is a specific manifestation of energy. A “solidified” form of energy, so to speak.
Now you answer my previous question & challenge:
You mentioned meditation as a “test” for your “theory” – please outline exactly how your “theory” can be experimentally falsified. That is, what measurement(s) would show that you are wrong?
Answer my question, or the next time I will block your posts.
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said
March 28, 2009 at 9:35 am e
I am working to establish my theory as a perfect blend of science and philosophy (religion). It is ridiculous to ask such question “how your theory can be experimentally falsified”. Please try to defend “theory” of Einstein which is facing the greatest challenge .
mattusmaximus said
March 29, 2009 at 5:01 am e
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said:
It is ridiculous to ask such question “how your theory can be experimentally falsified”.
So you admit there is no way to test your ideas? Can’t say I’m surprised – this is par for the course when it comes to pseudoscience, it is ultimately unfalsifiable and therefore completely non-scientific. The fact that you don’t see this as a problem just goes to show how you really have no clue how modern science works. If you wish to call your ideas philosophy, knock yourself out. But don’t call them scientific because you aren’t interested in meeting the criteria of science – you just want to leap past all the work and get the credit of science. Sorry, that’s just not good enough.
In accordance with my earlier ultimatum, I will be blocking your further comments to this blog. However, I would like to thank you for providing me with an excellent example of how pseudoscientists attempt to push their bogus claims. Our running conversation should make good fodder for a future blog post.
My wife and I love Chinese food. Often, after a long day, I like to drop by our favorite Chinese restaurant and pick up some dinner. And I think it’s hard to find many things better than a good, relaxing meal at the end of the day – unless, of course, you’re talking about dessert. And what is the classic dessert of such fare? The fortune cookie…
Just today, we had some Chinese take-out, and I chomped a fortune cookie for dessert. Now, while I’m not going to claim that anyone really takes these kind of fortunes seriously, I’m going to use them as a little lesson in critical thinking because there are related phenomena that some people do take seriously.
Let’s take that fortune revealed in my cookie:
A party with friends is in your near future
Now, it is true that there are a few events in the upcoming weeks where I’ll likely be getting together with friends. So should I conclude that this little cookie successfully predicted the future? Of course not!
Were I to conclude this party prediction a “hit”, I would be guilty of a common logical fallacy, namely observational selection (also known as “cherry-picking” or “counting the hits but discounting the misses”). Observational selection is a common fallacy employed by those who believe the messages of psychics – like Sylvia Browne or Nostradamus – can accurately predict the future.
Think about it, of all the people who receive fortune cookies every day, probably many people got the same message about an upcoming party with friends. Chances are, most were not going to have such a party (a “miss”), and those people would basically ignore the miss and just eat the cookie. But then I get this cookie which seems to successfully predict an upcoming gathering of friends (a “hit”?). You can see what’s going on here – it’s just basic statistics. Many more “party with friends” cookie predictions miss than hit, but those are ignored in favor of the hits.
With a psychic’s predictions, such as Ms. Browne’s predictions for 2008, as with a fortune cookie, most of the predictions fall flat as misses. Actually, to be fair to Browne, she got half of the predictions listed at that link correct, but many were extremely vague predictions that I think hardly count (when do we go through a year with no earthquakes?). But the true believers ignore these misses, and then they employ selective thinking to justify whatever hits they perceive of “proof” of the psychic’s powers.
Side note: If Sylvia Browne (or any other psychics) really had any powers she claims to have, you might think that she would have predicted the global economic meltdown. Funny that she didn’t, isn’t it? I mean, it was only the biggest financial crisis in the world since the Great Depression…
Oops, that’s a pretty BIG miss!!!
Now, can a fortune cookie (or psychic) get lucky, providing a “prediction” of a once-in-a-million hit? Certainly, it can happen. For example, here’s a story about a “fortune-cookie-payout” where many people won millions of dollars based upon the numbers on a fortune cookie…
Powerball officials initially suspected fraud, but it turned out that all the winners received their numbers from fortune cookies made by Wonton Food Inc., a fortune cookie factory in Long Island City, Queens, New York. The number combinations printed on fortunes are reused in thousands of cookies per day. The five winning numbers were 22, 28, 32, 33, and 39. The sixth number in the fortune, 40, did not match the Powerball number, 42.
Were those people just lucky or was there something psychic at work with the fortune cookies? The discussion about statistics above should give you a hint, and besides, there’s a reason why it’s a called once-in-a-million shot. With enough cookies handed out over enough years, and with enough people playing lottery numbers based on those fortunes, eventually someone will get lucky.
So where’s this “wisdom” I mentioned in the title of this entry? Well, dear reader, I think the wisdom given to us by those tasty little fortune cookies is a lesson in critical thinking – how not to be fooled and, more importantly, how not to fool ourselves.
The Skeptical Teacher 