Not that we need another reason, but what she passes on is not just tasty news, there is science behind it, and I love science.
From the dept. of “nutritional news we love to read” comes this tasty morsel from INH Health Watch.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Top 5 Reasons to Eat Chocolate Every Day
This post comes from a good friend of mine, Marlene Harris. I post things of hers and welcome her informative inputs on things fitness and health.
Not that we need another reason, but what she passes on is not just tasty news, there is science behind it, and I love science.
From the dept. of “nutritional news we love to read” comes this tasty morsel from INH Health Watch.
Not that we need another reason, but what she passes on is not just tasty news, there is science behind it, and I love science.
From the dept. of “nutritional news we love to read” comes this tasty morsel from INH Health Watch.
Free Tilly
The following is a reprint from the Wednesday, September 11, 2013 edition of eSkeptic Magazine. Donald R. Prothero reviews Gabriela Cowperthwaite’s film Blackfish (Magnolia Pictures, 2013), about Tilikum — a killer whale in captivity at SeaWorld responsible for the deaths of several people.
Free Tilly
By Donald R. Prothero
Every year, millions of people
visit marine theme parks, especially those run by the giant SeaWorld
Corporation, including three in the U.S. in San Diego, San Antonio, and
Orlando. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars not only in admissions and
rides, but also food, merchandise, parking and many other expenses. My own
family used to have an annual pass to SeaWorld San Diego, because we visited so
frequently. The centerpiece of each visit was the killer whale (or orca) show,
where “Shamu” (a role played by many different whales) goes through its tricks,
splashes the audience, and astonishes us with its apparent “tameness” despite
their scary size. But after watching Blackfish, I can no longer stand to go
there. I cannot imagine watching the killer whale show ever again.
Blackfish is a gripping documentary film that follows a series
of recent events concerning the abuse of orcas in captivity, especially as they
have long been used in shows. First released at the Sundance Film Festival in
January 2013, since July it has gone into wider release in large cities with
movie houses that specialize in indie, foreign, and documentary films. It has
received universal rave reviews, and rated
a 98% “Fresh” ranking on the RottenTomatoes.com movie site.
Unlike some exposés, this movie (“blackfish” is the name that First Nations
people gave to orcas) obtained an incredible amount of information and access,
and interviews nearly all the people close to the story (including a number of
former SeaWorld trainers who quit when they could no longer live with
themselves). Through the details provided by these many trainers and other
witnesses, the film shows in gut-wrenching and painful detail how inhumane it
is to keep a huge marine predator that is adapted to large complex social
groups, and capable of swimming in packs hundreds of miles each day, and
confining them for decades among other hostile whales in something that feels
like a bathtub.
The movie begins with a teaser
about the tragic death of senior SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau on February
24, 2010, when she was performing with a 12,000-pound, 23-foot-long bull orca
named Tilikum (“Tilly” to the trainers). It then jumps back in time to 1983,
interviewing the man who captured Tilikum by tearing him away from his mother as
a young calf in Iceland, killing many other whales in the pod, and covering up
the crime. The film then traces Tilikum’s history: first, in a poorly run
facility called SeaLand in Victoria, B.C. where he was brutalized by the older
whales, confined to a very small pool, and eventually killed a trainer. When
that incident caused SeaLand to close in 1992, Tilikum was sold to SeaWorld,
where he became the star of the Orlando park. None of the staff knew of Tilikum’s
traumatized past or his previous killing, and he became a regular in more and
more shows as trainers took greater and greater risks. Yet the film documents
many close calls where trainers nearly died, but the incidents were all covered
up. In 1999, Tilikum killed a man who had hid after park closing, and
apparently tried to get too close to the whale during the night (he was
allegedly not detected, even though they have security cameras everywhere). His
body was found naked and maimed, floating atop Tilikum, the next morning.
Still from the documentary Blackfish
Interspersed with the story of
Tilikum are interesting interviews with marine biologists about orcas in the
wild, describing their incredibly complex social structure, with a wide range
of vocalizations that can be rightfully called “different languages.” Again and
again, the movie demonstrates not only how intelligent these creatures are, but
also how they are tightly bonded to their family units in the pod. The
offspring never leave their mothers for their entire lives—unless death or a marine
park separates them. Although SeaWorld is the primary focus of the story, the
film takes a brief tour to another similar park in the Canary Islands west of
Spain, where a marine park abused its animals, and eventually an orca killed a
trainer. The film then concludes with the details of the death of Dawn
Brancheau, and shows that Tilikum without provocation suddenly dragged her to
her death, and then ate her. (You see a lot of gut-wrenching footage, but no
actual killings or maimings).
This incident led to an OSHA
investigation, with SeaWorld trying to escape liability by blaming it on “trainer
error”, even though the video footage of the incident, the eyewitnesses, and
the trainers who knew her, clearly demonstrate that she did nothing wrong. OSHA
ruled against SeaWorld, and concluded that orcas were too dangerous to be
handled this way. SeaWorld employees now must keep barriers between themselves
and the whales at all times, and no longer enter the water with them. But there
is a much larger issue here. At one time, we thought of orcas as frightening,
terrible “killer whales” and they were the subject of numerous low-budget
exploitation films. Now we understand that they are as intelligent, or more
intelligent, than any other wild animal, with complex social behaviors and
tight mother-offspring bonds—yet we treat them as “dumb fish” to be cooped up
in tiny pools, and moved around from park to park, disrupting their family
bonds that are seldom broken in the wild.
Clearly, it makes no sense to
put humans in harm’s way, because these creatures are always “wild animals”
that could turn on you and kill you in a few seconds. (Just ask Siegfried and
Roy). But the film makes it clear that keeping them in these inhumane
conditions is incredibly cruel and traumatic for them, and there is no real
justification for it. They are not threatened in the wild, so (unlike some
endangered animals in zoos) the marine parks are not protecting them from
extinction. Nor does the “educational value” of letting a few people see them
close-up justify the inhumanity of their confinement for decades. Some would
argue that SeaWorld could build them bigger pools to swim in, although this is
ludicrous when you realize they swim hundreds of miles a day in the wild. And
what has SeaWorld been building instead? Roller coasters!
So why does SeaWorld do it, and
why did they try to blame the victim whenever tragedy occurs? As you might
expect, it’s all about money. Not only are the orca shows the biggest draws in
SeaWorld (generating revenue not only with their shows, but especially with all
the merchandise), but Tilikum in particular is valuable as a stud. His sperm is
worth thousands of dollars, and consequently he is the father of a large number
of the whales currently in the collections. (We even get to see how they
stimulate the semen out of a bull orca in graphic detail). Clearly, SeaWorld
views the orca show as critical to their entire business model. No wonder they
refused to cooperate with the filmmakers. When they did respond to the film
shortly before its release, their PR statement mostly misrepresented what the film actually
says, or repeated the false claim that Dawn Brancheau was to
blame for having a ponytail that the whale could grab (clearly debunked by the
actual video footage). Corporations clearly want to protect themselves, but you
emerge from the film disgusted with SeaWorld’s well-documented pattern of
covering up dozens of dangerous incidents and close calls, and trying to play
down or cover up the deaths that Tilikum alone caused—or blame the victim after
she is dead and cannot defend herself.
The ancient Romans enjoyed
brutality, watching gladiators fight to death in their arenas, and lions eat
Christians. Animals of every kind were forced to fight and kill each other—all
for entertainment. A few centuries ago, bear baiting was considered fun and
acceptable as a sport. Bull fighting, dog fighting, and cock fighting are still
found around the world, although they are illegal in most of the developed
countries. We look on these practices and cannot imagine how people could
derive enjoyment out of such horrendous treatment of animals. Perhaps some day
soon, we’ll look back and have the same attitude toward depriving and torturing
orcas, and keeping them in prison for our own enjoyment as well. After all,
most research on chimps is over or nearly phased out. Sometimes we do make progress.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Levels of Nothing
The following is a reprint from the Wednesday, August 28, 2013 edition of eSkeptic Magazine. The subject of Nothing is something that is actually hard to get your mind around. As simple as the concept is, the more you think about it, the less you realize you really know. This article attempts to quantify it in some small way. However, if this article doesn't cause your brain to cave in, read it again. I think you missed something. But if it's any consolation, Steven Hawking's 'Brief History of Time' did the same thing to me.
Levels of Nothing
There Are Multiple Answers to the Question
of Why the Universe Exists
BY ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN
Nothing, of late, is something of a scandal. Physicists and philosophers debate the efficacy of quantum physics, and the value of philosophical analysis, to explain why there is Something rather than Nothing.1 In Skeptic magazine Vol. 13 No. 2 (2007), I confronted my life-long obsession with Nothing. Entitled “Why This Universe: Toward a Taxonomy of Ultimate Explanations,” the article described my existential angst and offered some 27 possible “ultimate explanations.” I suggested that while “Why Not Nothing?” may seem impenetrable, “Why This Universe?”, energized by remarkable advances in cosmology, may be accessible. While they are not at all the same question, perhaps if we can begin to decipher the latter, we can begin to decrypt the former.
After the article was published, Skeptic editor Michael Shermer encouraged me to expand the article into a book. I approached the philosopher John Leslie, who for decades had focused on Something/ Nothing and whom I had come to know through our discussions on Closer To Truth, the PBS television series that I created and host, and we set about to co-edit a book of readings and commentaries on the ultimate question.
The Mystery of Existence: Why is there Anything At All? (Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), long in gestation, presents the ideas of contemporary thinkers as well as some others throughout intellectual history, grouped under five possible “solutions” to the “Why-is-there- Something-rather-than-Nothing?” puzzle:
1. a blank is absurd;
2. no explanation needed;
3. chance;
4. value/perfection as ultimate; and
5. mind/consciousness as ultimate.
In this article I shall explore the essence of Nothing, or what I call “Levels of Nothing,” especially in light of recent debates and public interest.2 Why “Levels” of Nothing? That’s where the confusion lies.
What is it About Nothing?
Lump together everything that exists and might exist—physical, mental, platonic, spiritual, God, other nonphysicals. As for the physical, include all matter, energy, space and time, and all the laws and principles that govern them (known and unknown); as for the mental, imagine all kinds of consciousness and awareness (known and unknown); as for the platonic, gather all forms of abstract objects (numbers, logic, forms, propositions, possibilities— known and unknown); as for the spiritual and God, embrace anything that could possibly fit these nonphysical categories (if anything does); and as for “other nonphysicals,” well, I just want to be sure not to leave anything unclassified. Lump together literally everything contained in ultimate reality. Now call it all by the simple name “Something.” Why is there “Something” rather than “Nothing”?
Why Not Nothing? What guides me here is gut feeling, not clever reasoning, which is why no argument has ever dissuaded me from continuing to think, following Leibniz,3 that Nothing, no world, would be simpler and easier than any world, that Nothing would have been the least arbitrary and “most natural” state of affairs.
As I have continued to think about Nothing, I have continued to think that Nothing “should,” in some sense, have obtained, and the only reason I accept the fact that Nothing does not obtain is not because of any of the arguments against Nothing,4 but because of the raw existence of Something—because in my private consciousness I am forced to recognize that real existents compose Something. In other words, an a priori weighing of Nothing v. Something (from a timeless, explanatorily earlier perspective) would, for me, tip the balance heavily to Nothing, but for the fact of the matter.
Thus, since I have no choice but to recognize that there is Something, I have no choice but to conclude that there is foundational force, selector, productive principle or type of necessity—some deep reason—that brings about the absence of Nothing. I cannot rid myself of the conviction that Nothing would have obtained had not something special somehow superseded or counteracted it. Yes, I know that seems circular—and many well-regarded philosophers say, “So there’s a world not a blank; what’s in any way surprising about that?” But I just can’t help feeling that they are passing right over the problem most probative of ultimate reality.
Levels of Nothing
Defining “Nothing” may seem simple—no thing, not a thing. But what’s a “thing”? I invoke the term “thing” in the most general possible way, and therefore, given some possible notions of Nothing, it is no contradiction to find “things” that compose these different kinds or levels of Nothing. Teasing apart these constituent things, as if scaffolds or sinews of Nothings, may help enrich understanding of the nature of Nothing, yielding a taxonomy that arrays opposing kinds of Nothing that could be conceived and might have existed.
This taxonomy is structured as a deconstruction or as a dissection, as it were, a reverse layering, a peeling, a progressive reduction of the content of each Nothing in a hierarchy of Nothings. As such, this taxonomy takes its heritage from the so-called Subtraction Argument, which seeks to show that the absence of all concrete objects would be metaphysically possible. (Stated simply, the Subtraction Argument works by imagining a sequence of possible worlds each containing one less concrete object than the world before, so that in the very last world even the very last object has vanished. It is no surprise that complexities emerge.5)
Developing this way of thinking, there might be nine levels of Nothing, with a general progression from Nothing most simplistic (Nothing One) to Nothing most absolute (Nothing Nine). There are criticisms of each of these Nothings. My point here is not so much to argue the legitimacy of any one kind of Nothing but rather to construct an exhaustive taxonomy of all potential or competing Nothings, and perhaps a taxonomy in which those Nothings are mutually exclusive. Following are nine levels of Nothings.
1. Nothing as existing space and time that just happens to be totally empty of all visible objects (particles and energy are permitted)—an utterly simplistic, pre-scientific view.
2. Nothing as existing space and time that just happens to be totally empty of all matter (no particles, but energy is permitted—flouting the law of mass-energy equivalence).
3. Nothing as existing space and time that just happens to be totally empty of all matter and energy.
4. Nothing as existing space and time that is by necessity— irremediably and permanently in all directions, temporal as well as spatial—totally empty of all matter and energy.
5. Nothing of the kind found in some theoretical formulations by physicists, where, although space-time (unified) as well as mass-energy (unified) do not exist, pre-existing laws, particularly laws of quantum mechanics, do exist. And it is these laws that make it the case that universes can and do, from time to time, pop into existence from “Nothing,” creating spacetime as well as mass-energy. (It is standard physics to assume that empty space must seethe with virtual particles, reflecting the uncertainty principle of quantum physics, where particle-antiparticle pairs come into being and then, almost always, in a fleetingly brief moment, annihilate each other.)
6. Nothing where not only is there no space-time and no mass-energy, but also there are no preexisting laws of physics that could generate space-time or mass-energy (universes).
7. Nothing where not only is there no space-time, no mass-energy, and no pre-existing laws of physics, but also there are no non-physical things or kinds that are concrete (rather than abstract)—no God, no gods, and no consciousness (cosmic or otherwise). This means that there are no physical or non-physical beings or existents of any kind—nothing, whether natural or supernatural, that is concrete (rather than abstract).
8. Nothing where not only is there none of the above (so that, as in Nothing 7, there are no concrete existing things, physical or non-physical), but also there are no abstract objects of any kind—no numbers, no sets, no logic, no general propositions, no universals, no Platonic forms (e.g., no value).
9. Nothing where not only is there none of the above (so that, as in Nothing 8, there are no abstract objects), but also there are nopossibilities of any kind (recognizing that possibilities and abstract objects overlap, though allowing that they can be distinguished).
Nothings 1 through 7 progressively remove or eliminate existing things, so that a reasonable stopping point—a point at which we might well be thought to have reached (what I hesitatingly call) “Real Nothing”, the metaphysical limit—would be Nothing Seven, which features no concrete existing things (no physical or non-physical concrete existents) of any kind.
Nothings 8 and 9 go further, eliminating nonconcrete objects, things, existents and realities. Do they go too far? Many philosophers assert that neither Nothing 8 nor Nothing 9 is metaphysically possible, arguing that the claimed absence of abstract objects and/or possibilities would constitute a logical contradiction and hence abstract objects and/or possibilities exist necessarily. This could be important because, as John Leslie points out, among the realities which aren’t concrete things, or which do not depend on the existence of concrete things, and thus cannot be eliminated, there may be some realities that are plausible candidates for explaining the world of concrete things.7 In this way of thinking, the crucial distinction is between realities that seemingly can be eliminated and realities that seemingly cannot be eliminated, rather than any particular way of distinguishing between levels of nothingness or particular ways of defining nothingness.
Note that among all these levels of Nothing, one of the “lesser Nothings”—that is, a kind of Nothing with more “things” in it—is the Nothing of physicists. What physicists contemplate—the sudden emergence or “tunneling” of universes from “Nothing”—is fascinating and indeed may be cosmogenic, but the tunneling process or capacity is not Nothing.8 The Nothing of physicists is thick with the complete set of the laws of physics, and so between physicists’ Nothing and Real Nothing lies a vast, unbridgeable gulf. On this taxonomic scale, physicists’ Nothing is Nothing Level 5, barely half way to utterly Nothing. If physicists’ Nothing were in reality Real Nothing (i.e., ultimate reality), the laws of quantum physics (or whatever might turn out to be the most fundamental physical laws underlying quantum physics) would have to be either impossible to remove (meaning that eliminating them would involve logical contradiction) or a brute fact about existence beyond which explanation would be meaningless. I doubt I could ever get over the odd idea that something so intricate, so involved, so organized and so accessible as the laws of physics would be the ultimate brute fact.
As a separate consideration, some philosophers of religion argue that God is a “necessity”—meaning that it would be impossible for God not to exist— thus precluding Nothing 7 (which has no non-physical concrete things such as God but still has abstract objects) and crowning Nothing 6 (which has no space-time, no mass-energy, no laws of physics but still has God and other nonphysical things) as the metaphysical limit of what is to be explained.9 I find the move challenging. Moreover, based on the levels of Nothing in this taxonomy, it would seem less of a leap to imagine a world without God (Nothing 7) than to imagine a world without abstract objects (Nothing 8). For the traditional God, that won’t do.10
Why Not Nothing?
Cosmic visions are overwhelming, but I am sometimes preoccupied with another conundrum. How is it that we humans have such farsighted understanding after only a few thousand years of historical consciousness, only a few hundred years of effective science, and only a few decades of cosmological observations? Maybe it’s still too early in the game. Maybe answers have been with us all along. This is a work in process and diverse contributions are needed.
Setting aside my taxonomy and consulting my gut, I come to only two kinds of answers. The first is that there can be no answer: Existence is a brute fact without explanation. The second is that at the primordial beginning, explanatorily and timelessly prior to time, some thing was self-existing. The essence of this something necessitated its existence such that non-existence to it would be as inherently impossible as physical immortality to us is factually impossible.
Various things or substances could conceivably contain this deeply centered self-existing essence, from the most fundamental meta-laws of physics to diverse kinds of consciousness, one of which could be God or something like god. Perhaps even these explanations are so mundane and bedrock is so bizarre that abstract objects or pure possibilities somehow harbor generative powers.
Why is there Something rather than Nothing? Why Not Nothing? If you don’t get dizzy, you really don’t get it.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
The best news I've heard all year
I always knew this, but maybe it's just my taste buds talking. Check it out.
Who's got the monkey?
This little gem comes from the Harvard Business Review from 1999, but the original actually dates back to about 1974.
It's a time management tool about the burden of subordinates to their managers, but the concepts can work both ways, and even when working with associates in other organizations or business groups. The application is simple, and if you find yourself stressing out from things out of your control, then give this a look. It may give some hints in how to deal with your situations.
I was given this many years ago, but I am glad to find it still out there and just as appropriate now as it was then. We still find ourselves asking Who's Got The Monkey?
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
My heavy problem
I've been wanting to trim my weight for a while now, but despite my (what I thought were) good efforts, I just haven't been able to crack through the barrier and really start losing,
I started Nutrasystem plan a little over two weeks ago, in hopes of reducing my weight (aka gut, etc). My gut isn't especially large, but I have had it for about 6 to 7 years, and knowing it's not a healthy sign in looks, blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. I decided to try Nutrasystem as an alternative to what I have been doing.
In the first two weeks I have been on the program, I have stayed the course faithfully, and only added to it as necessary to eliminate the energy crash I was experiencing after my workouts. My daily average intake after the adjustment is on average about 1500 calories.
Well, two weeks on, I have basically remained at the same weight for the entire time. My weight can fluctuate as much as 3 lbs. during any particular time, so plus or minus the pound I lost and then gained back, was hardly noteworthy.
I had a previous tendonitous problem for about six months, so I decreased my workouts during that time. However, during that period I did not gain or lose any more than the percentage I have always experienced. In other words, I stayed the virtually the same. Before I got on the Nutrasystem plan, I got back into my workout routine, which is a combination or cardio and weight training, that works best for me. Each run anywhere from 30 to 50 minutes, depending on the what that day's schedule demands. I workout nearly every day, but each day has a different schedule.
Since I have been on the NS plan, and after I adjusted my intake to account for my energy crash problem (and the tendonitis being gone), I have increased the intensity of my workouts, which now exceed the length and intensity of what I was doing before I had my tendonitis problem.
Like I said, I have weighed almost exactly the same for about seven years. My wife and I already have a good diet, so there actually isn't much difference in calorie count from before I got on the system. I was taking in possibly 500 to 600 calories a day more, but it is all basically good stuff. More that a year ago, I stopped drinking sodas, eating french fries, and eliminated any excess sugar, fat, and carbs from my diet. This has resulted in no change whatsoever.
What I do believe is that my other variables are keeping me from losing the mass. I'm beginning to believe that the diet and exercise variables are basically about right for me, but it's all the other things that are preventing me from making a dent in my quest.
All the time I went through my brain tumor gig and during the following recovery period, I did not gain or lose a pound. As soon as I was able, I started playing racquetball and working out. This had no effect on my mass. I work on a computer for my job, which means I spend about eight hours sitting at a desk. The job has it's stress, so sitting all day with the stress as an added factor, does not help my case. During Spring and Fall months I would walk the nearby industrial park at lunch, but this was more to get out of the office, and had no real effect on my weight.
What I now am coming to believe is that the whole cancer and its associated effects has altered my physiology. That in combination with my age, my sedentary job and its stress, are more of an influence in my inability to alter my appearance than tweaks in my diet and exercise, which are actually doing well. I really don't quite look like I'm the weight I am, but I could look a lot better. Muscle is certainly denser that fat, so this may account for some small amount of this.
My kids tell me that I am in pretty good shape for someone my age, and in fact, my ability to row, bike, and push weight, is in some cases right on par with theirs, maybe better. I'm just a little slower on the court, because of the added mass.
This is a relatively full picture of where I am. Now that two weeks have passed and I have seen zero progress, I can't really say that Nutrasystem has helped, although it seems to do well for others.
I've studied a lot on the subject and tried numerous things over the years, but haven't broken through my personal barrier. I just started doing some other things to get me moving more, and found that I'm not as good as I think I am, or at least as good as I should be.
I'm open to suggestions, but I'm committed to get the excess off. Steady as she goes.
Wednesday, July 03, 2013
Alien Invaders
The following is a reprint from the Wednesday, July 3, 2013 edition of eSkeptic Magazine. Humans are a paranoid bunch, and Orson Welles showed us just how much that is so. You only have to study history to understand it. If I were an alien, this is the last place I would want to be.
Alien Invaders!
BY DANIEL LOXTON
All living human beings everywhere on Earth belong to the same species, Homo sapiens. Those whose ancestors lived in different parts of the Earth may look or sound different from each other, but in every important way we’re the same. People are people. We all have an incredible amount in common with one another.
Sadly, one of the many things that humans have in common is a potential for violence. We can be peaceful—trading and negotiating and working together—but we can also be fierce. Sometimes one group of people decides to fight another for things that they want, such as resources or territory. Depending on the size of the groups involved, we may call this “piracy” or “banditry,” or we may call it “war.” It’s a sad part of human nature, but it’s not unique to us. Other animals make war between groups, including chimpanzees. They’re very close relatives to humans, so it’s not surprising that chimps share some of our behaviors—cooperative and destructive. (Even animals as distantly related to us as the ants wage war against other nests or invade neighboring territories.)
Because humans can sometimes be dangerous, groups of people often distrust or fear strangers. People may feel that those who look or sound different must really be different, deep down. Sometimes people even come to believe that those that seem different must be bad people. This tendency is called “tribalism”: feeling it is important for those in your own “tribe” to be treated with respect, while outsiders can be treated badly.
Which brings us to an ancient idea that has long terrified humankind: the fear that the place we live could be invaded by cruel strangers from somewhere else. This has happened often in human history, with armies taking over other lands and displacing or oppressing the people who already lived there. Europeans invaded the New World, to the sorrow of many Native Americans. Even the mighty Roman Empire fell to “barbarian” invaders….
Space Age Paranoia
With the development of science, humankind began to realize that ours is just one planet among many. We learned that the twinkling stars in the sky are really mighty suns like ours. At the same time, we learned that our own planet was an almost unrecognizably different place at different periods in the distant past. Prehistoric times were like a series of alien worlds, right here on Earth. (“Alien” means “of an extremely different kind” or “foreign” or “belonging to another place.”)
This new knowledge changed the way we told stories about some of our most ancient fears. To express our anxieties about wars and invasions between countries, writers began to imagine invasions of really “alien” beings from outer space. For example, the 1897 Martian invasion story The War of the Worlds was a clever new twist on stories that imagined military invasions by other countries, which were a very popular type of fiction at that time.
In the 1950s and 60s, UFO legends and science fiction stories were inspired by the Space Age (the period of human exploration of space by astronauts and robotic vehicles) and the Cold War (a long period of military tension and spying between the United States and a then-powerful Communist state called the Soviet Union). Millions worried that a war using unimaginably powerful “atomic” (or later, “nuclear”) bombs could erupt at any moment and devastate the entire globe. Writers and Hollywood filmmakers made good use of these fears of Space Age atomic destruction, producing countless stories about alien invasions. In some, such as Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956) the aliens arrive as an unstoppable conquering military force. In others, such as Invaders from Mars (1953) and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) the aliens invade by stealth, controlling or replacing their human victims—a reflection of American fears about Communist spies. (“They’re already here,” screams the hero of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. “You’re next!”) And in still other movies, the invaders were atomic monsters created or transformed by radiation. Radiation is a dangerous and terrifying side effect of exploding atomic bombs.
Over time, some alien invasion stories came to reflect fears of environmental destruction rather than atomic war. In the television miniseries V (1983) the aliens come to steal the Earth’s water (and also, while they’re at it, to eat all the humans). But whatever their purpose, alien invaders bring ruin—and take whatever they want in return.
Martians Invade the Earth
The grandaddy of alien invasion stories is The War of the Worlds by H. G. Wells. Published first in installments in a British magazine in 1897 and then collected as a book in 1898, War of the Worlds is a science fiction tale about an attack upon the Earth by merciless invaders from Mars. In the story, tube-shaped spacecraft 90 feet wide crash down in the English countryside. Crowds gather to marvel at these “meteorites”—only to learn the truth when the Martians lash out with their devastating “heat ray.”
Towering, tentacled, three-legged war machines emerge and march across the countryside. Britain’s army and navy are no match for these “vast spiderlike machines, nearly a hundred feet high.” People can only flee before the terrible Martian weapons—not only the “flaming death, this invisible, inevitable sword of heat” but also black clouds of poison gas that the aliens launch against the defenders of London.
Realistically told as one survivor’s personal eyewitness account, War of the Worlds is a very scary book. It may be over 100 years old, but it is as much a horror story as it is science fiction—a harsh, gruesome tale of panic and destruction and grim survival. As the San Francisco Chronicle said in an 1898 review,
Nothing in all literature is more instinct with horror and dread than the advance of these Martians across the peaceful English country… The contrast between the pastoral land and the steel-clad visitors who stalked like giants over the landscape, burning and destroying everything in their path, is so powerful that it can never be blotted from the memory.
A lot of the scariness comes from the aliens’ ghastly indifference to human life and suffering. Wells described the Martians as “intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic” who viewed humans the way “a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water.” The Martians took no more notice of attempts to communicate or make peace than we would “of the lowing of a cow.” Their calm, methodical purpose was simply to wipe out human civilization as efficiently as possible.
Yet for all their power, the Martians had no natural defenses against Earth’s microscopic bacteria. Without any immunity, Wells wrote, the invaders “must have begun to rot almost as soon as they arrived.” In the end, the Martians’ own bodies were invaded—and destroyed—by alien germs!
Radio Panics
In 1938 a young actor named Orson Welles adapted the already-classic H. G. Wells story as a radio play for American audiences. In an extremely realistic radio broadcast, actors portraying news reporters, military commanders, government officials, and scientists told radio listeners that Martians were attacking the United States—and instructed the population of New Jersey and New York City to evacuate. Although the show was introduced as a play, many thousands of people were bewildered or frightened by the performance. Some were terrified. The New York Times reported that 875 people phoned the newspaper in concern. Thousands more called the police, or even fled to the closest police station. Thankfully, it seems no one was seriously hurt in the confusion. The next day, a visibly shaken Orson Welles told reporters,
It came, of course, as a great shock to us that the old H. G. Wells fantasy, a classic original for so many adventure stories, romances, and even comic strips should have had so profound an effect upon radio listeners. The invasion by mythical monsters from the planet Mars seemed to us to be clearly in the realm of the fairy tale. Deeply regretful that this is not so.
A 1949 Spanish-language version of Orson Welles’ radio play ended in greater sorrow. Broadcast in the capital city of Ecuador, it caused not only widespread panic, but also a savage riot. An enraged mob burned down the newspaper building where the radio station was located, killing as many as 20 people…
Friday, June 28, 2013
The time you have left
I ran across some YouTube videos today by a guy who calls himself zefrank. As I wandered through them, many of them were quite funny. He has a thoughtful humor and makes you think.
One, however, was a bit more serious, and got me to think about my own life. It's called The Time You Have Left. I invite you to watch this one and see if you don't walk away with the same questions I have after viewing it. I won't spoil the ending. It's important for you to take the journey there yourself. I think it will be worth it.
One, however, was a bit more serious, and got me to think about my own life. It's called The Time You Have Left. I invite you to watch this one and see if you don't walk away with the same questions I have after viewing it. I won't spoil the ending. It's important for you to take the journey there yourself. I think it will be worth it.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Body Language: (Don't) Read my lips
This is a reprint from the Wednesday, June 26, 2013 edition of eSkeptic Magazine. I always thought that body language would give me a little insight into people's behavior. I guess I was wrong, but I suppose it still makes good TV.
Body Language: (Don't) Read my lips
By Karen Stollznow
When you run your hands through your hair like that it makes me think you’re flirting with me,” a colleague once said. Someone’s been reading those self-help books about so-called “Body Language.”
“Maybe I’m not flirting,” I replied, “but instead I’m just getting my hair out of my eyes, or detangling my hair, or it’s a nervous habit, or I have dandruff, or I’m readjusting my wig. There are many possible reasons for any action.” But not everyone believes that.
Linguistics, kinesics and semiotics are among the academic disciplines that attempt to observe and describe gesture and other forms of non-verbal communication. On the other hand (excuse the pun), body language is the new age, self-help interpretation of behavior. Body language “experts” claim they can “read” posture, facial expressions, and other body movements.
The theory seems to be that we conceal the truth with language, but we reveal the truth with body language. Experts on reading body language can supposedly decode our thoughts and feelings, disclose innermost desires, unlock the powers of intuition, provide searing insights, expose secrets, and uncover the hidden meanings behind our behavior. Julius Fast, author of the seminal book Body Language, says: “Your body doesn’t know how to lie. Unconsciously it telegraphs your thoughts as you fold your arms, cross your legs, stand, walk, move your eyes and mouth.”
Self-proclaimed body language specialists fancy themselves as behavioral scientists, or detectives who see clues in our cues, inspired by Sherlock Holmes and TV shows such as Lie To Me. They are motivational speakers, authors of self-help books, and gossipmongers of tabloids and the talk show circuit. They analyze photographs of celebrities to supposedly decipher personality traits, to guess who’s in bed with whom, and predict who’s dumping whom. They interpret footage of political debates, speeches and interviews, to uncover underlying meaning and detect deception.
With the help of these body language experts, you can be a success. Buy their books, attend their seminars, follow their programs, systems and methods and you too can harness these techniques to achieve your goals. They will provide you with the tools you need to give you confidence, to catch a liar in the act, to ace that job interview, to attract love, and to stop sending out those “wrong messages”. Some fear that body language is so accurate that reading people’s behavior is an invasion of privacy, or a type of unethical manipulation.
Proponents of body language theories claim there is standardized meaning in the way you sit, stand and walk, how you shake hands and lick your lips, or even run your hands through your hair. Like a visual polygraph test, they believe that answering a question and touching your nose a certain way, or an involuntary subtle shift in your eye, betrays a lie. Crossing your arms indicates defensiveness, or a lack of openness, while rubbing the stem of a wine glass suggests that subconsciously, you want to rub something (or someone) else.
Body language gurus promote the use of their techniques in conjunction with other alternative therapies. Allan and Barbara Pease, “Mr. and Mrs. Body Language,” are authors of the self-proclaimed “communication bible,” The Definitive Book of Body Language. They recommend the supplementary use of Neuro-Linguistic Programming techniques. Elizabeth Kuhnke, author of Body Language for Dummies, uses body language in conjunction with chromotherapy (i.e., color therapy). Shelly Hagen adopts principles of Feng Shui; “Cashmere and cotton, for example, are soft and inviting, suggesting that the wearer is a gentle soul. Hard materials, like leather or boiled wool, keep others at a distance.”
Some followers believe that body language can do more than reveal if someone is sexually attracted to us. Bioenergetic Analysis is a form of body psychotherapy, pioneered by Alexander Lowen and John Pierrakos. Bioenergetic therapists read posture, gestures and expressions to diagnose their clients, and treat them using exercise, movement and vocal expression. Proponents of Bioenergetic Analysis claim that body language techniques can heal conditions such as anxiety and depression, and even cure cancer.
Like infomercials that claim we only use 10% of our brains, body language theory claims that only 10% (or 15%, or 20% or 50%) of our communication is verbal. I once taught a course in Verbal and Nonverbal Communication and was expected to teach that human communication consists of 93% body language and 7% language. There has been much research on this topic, but no study has categorically proven there is a precise ratio of verbal to nonverbal communication. This myth seems to have its basis in a study by Albert Mehrabian, who studied the typical responses of people when communicating their feelings and attitudes.6 John Borg, author of Body Language: 7 Easy Lessons to Master the Silent Language and other writers generalized these findings to all communication, and created this unscientific sound bite.
Books about body language are full of anecdotes and hype. They include references to authors who support their theories, but no citations to the studies. Their claims, theories and models are unsupported by evidence. They invoke the names of legitimate scholars and irrelevant research to validate the practice. For example, Charles Darwin’s The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex addresses the importance of gesture and sign language, and suggests that gestures are relevant to the origins of language. Books about body language seize this reference, but they misinterpret and overextend Darwin’s arguments.
Many body language advocates believe in the universality of gestures, behavior and expressions. Tonya Reiman of Body Language University has developed the Reiman Rapport Method, a “ten step process to master universally pleasing body language.” Dr. Paul Ekman has conducted extensive research into classifying human facial expressions. He claims that a small range of expressions, such as those indicating anger and happiness, are biologically universal to all humans. Yet Amrozi, the Indonesian terrorist known as the “Smiling Bomber” demonstrated that a smile can also signal confidence and defiance. There are immense differences in expressions, habits, behaviors and customs across cultures and individuals.
In a study of behavioral cues, Ekman now claims he has discovered 29 “wizards”; subjects he claims are “geniuses of lie detection.” His findings have led to the use of behavior-detection officers by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), in the Screening Passengers by Observation Technique (SPOT) program. However, TSA’s SPOT methodology isn’t supported by scientific evidence; nor is Ekman’s work in this study. A group of independent researchers who examined Ekman’s research concluded: “Analyses reveal that chance can explain results that the authors attribute to wizardry.” Moreover, Ekman’s recent research is not peer-reviewed. He stated he doesn’t publish his findings anymore because enemies of the United States follow his work closely.
I do not dispute the idea that nonverbal actions carry meaning, or that we are receptive to nonverbal communication. But there is no formula for understanding behavior, and every act has numerous potential meanings and causes. Our “body language” is subject to context, intent and interpretation. It is influenced by culture and socialization and differs at the individual level. Reading body language is simply the subjective interpretation of the observer, and is open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
The analogy to “reading” is helpful. Interpreting body language is a kind of cold reading, or a form of body divination to predict thought.
The claims in books about body language show that reading behavior is a superficial and unreliable practice. It is potentially risky too. So be careful the next time you approach the woman who seems to be looking at you and stroking the stem of her wine glass. You might just get that wine thrown in your face.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
How To Be a Skeptical News Consumer
This is a reprint from the Wednesday, June 12, 2013 edition of eSkeptic Magazine. We are all bombarded with media from every direction. Some of it is things we seek out or comes to us from friendly sources. Other media is unsolicited, coming from friends, public media, and uncountable and yet seemingly reliable sources. How we digest this and what we believe can be a slippery slope. What is the true source of the information, and in some cases, who is the organization who owns the company where the source originates?
This article is a little long, but is a pretty good read. Learning how to question the information you are taking in, and becoming a critical listener, can make the difference between falling into the trap of believing what is phony and what is not.
==============================
How To Be a
Skeptical News Consumer
By Donna L.
Halper
Even the
most skeptical among us have had this happen: A friend or relative forwards an
e-mail from an organization with a safe-sounding name (“The Clean Air
Initiative,” “The Center for Consumer Freedom”), but the e-mail is filled with
scary assertions, usually of a political nature. If the Obama-care health bill
is passed, Grandma will face a “death panel” that will decide if she lives or
dies; if Barack Obama is re-elected, America will soon become a Marxist or
Muslim nation. Some of the chain-emails are obvious partisan propaganda (There
is little if any chance of any president, whether Barack Obama or anyone else,
imposing Marxism or Islam on America; and the Affordable Care Act [its official
name] contains nothing about “death panels”). But some are more subtle, relying
on truncated (or fake) quotes, or manipulated facts. And while we most often
see these sorts of false (but credible-looking) assertions made during
elections, they can also be generated by interest groups trying to peddle
unproven cures for diseases, or anti-science advocacy groups who oppose
fluoridation or vaccination.
I’m a
professor of media, and I focus on critical thinking in every class I teach;
but it’s not just college students who can benefit from a skeptical approach to
what they see from both print and online sources. Every school—from elementary
right on up—should encourage students to become media literate: the ability to
evaluate and assess the claims made by commercial advertising as well as by
politicians and advocates. We are supposed to live in an “information society,”
but sadly, much of what we see and hear is not entirely accurate. As a
researcher, I’ve noticed the tendency on the Internet for some “fact” to be posted
on one site and then reposted hundreds of times, as if the amount will somehow
prove it’s true. As any student of philosophy knows, this is an aspect of
Argumentum ad Populum, or the Bandwagon effect—if millions of people believe X,
it must be true. Or, as my students will often tell me, they saw it on
Wikipedia (or some other frequently read site), so it must be true.
In fairness
to Wikipedia, although I much prefer encyclopedias where the articles are
signed (so that I know who wrote the piece), some of their articles are quite
thorough and informative. But others contain well-traveled myths and rely on
volunteers to correct them. It’s often a losing battle. I can’t tell you how
many times I’ve refuted the myth that radio station KDKA was the first station
in the United States (or in the world, depending on which source you read).
This is a durable myth, promoted very effectively in the 1920s by their
corporate owner—Westinghouse—which had an impressive publicity department. And
that is rule number one of media literacy: Know who created the message, so you
can factor in whether the creator was pushing a special agenda. Not all agendas
are malevolent. Westinghouse may have indeed believed their station was unique
and the company sought to promote that fact. But they were not alone: the
Detroit News (which owned a station in Detroit), AMRAD (owners of a station in
Medford Hillside MA), and several other American companies had stations on the
air at that time, as did the Marconi company in Montreal, and these owners
certainly wanted to spread the word about what their stations had done. Yet
Westinghouse was so effective in asserting KDKA’s primacy that to this day, the
claim is treated as historical fact by otherwise reputable textbooks. History
can indeed be written not just by the winners, but by powerful publicists.
Many
contemporary media critics treat the proliferation of fake news and erroneous
information as something modern, but the truth is we can trace it back several
hundred years. In some cases, the misinformation was even intentional, created
in order to sell newspapers (a technique still used by today’s tabloids). A
good example occurred back in late August 1835, when the New York Sun published
an authoritative-looking piece about a famous British astronomer who had
discovered life on the Moon, thanks to an amazing new telescope. It was a time
when a college degree was only available to the privileged few, and the Sun
used techniques that are still being used even now: they cited an “expert,”
used scientific jargon, and claimed that his “discovery” had appeared in a
prestigious overseas journal. In an era where fact-checking would have been
difficult, few readers asked the questions a skeptic might ask today: Was the
expert a real person? Did the expert really write what the article claimed he
wrote? Did the journal exist, and was his work really published in it? The case
came to be called the Great Moon Hoax and a good summary of it can be found on
the website of the Museum of Hoaxes.
Of course,
even in 1835, there were skeptics (including some at rival newspapers), and
eventually, the story was shown to be an elaborate fraud. But this would not be
the only time a media outlet hoaxed the public: the Orson Welles’ “War of the
Worlds” broadcast from late October 1938 is another frequently cited example.
In this case, the broadcast was a radio adaptation of H.G. Wells’ science
fiction novel about a Martian invasion of earth. But so realistic was the
presentation, complete with scary sound effects (including the special tones
used by radio stations when airing a news bulletin), that many listeners were
certain they were hearing news, rather than a play. The effect was further
enhanced by the deep-voiced and very serious narrator (Welles), who kept
providing new and more frightening “details” about the “invasion.” Today, we
know that reports of mass panic after the broadcast were exaggerated (the show
didn’t even air in some large cities, Boston among them), but it sounded so
authentic that millions of listeners were convinced the United States was under
attack from Martians, and there is evidence that some people did in fact run
from their homes in terror, convinced the end was near. The broadcast was a
mixed blessing for Welles, whose Mercury Theater program previously suffered
from very low ratings. After the “War of the Worlds” hoax, the show got lots of
attention, but not all of it favorable—many people were furious that they had
been fooled, and some critics demanded that such programs be banned. As for
Welles, he claimed to be shocked, shocked that anyone would believe a
science-fiction play, and yet many people did. And to this day, there are
programs on television about “ghost-hunting” or about houses that are allegedly
haunted; and because they are often well-produced and make good use of special
effects, gullible viewers think they must be true.
Unfortunately,
there have been many times when the media themselves gave credence to
pseudoscience, and not just to sell papers or get bigger radio and TV ratings.
It has been noted by some critics that far too often, journalists who lack a
background in science simply repeat what a press release claims to be true, or
quote from someone else’s article without checking into its veracity. Also, in
fairness to journalists, the job of any reporter is to tell a story, and when
confronted with a very dense and jargon-filled academic essay, the tendency is
to find a way to give it more excitement and mass appeal. The media’s
misadventure with science is nothing new: in 1922–1923, many otherwise
reputable newspapers were eagerly touting a new “miracle man”—a doctor from
France named Emile Coué, who could cure people by teaching them positive
thinking, and having them chant “Every day, in every way, I’m getting better
and better.” Of course, Coué was not a doctor (at most, he was a pharmacist),
and there was little objective evidence of any cures, but that didn’t stop
reporters from going to his presentations and marveling at the people who were
no longer (pick one) blind, lame, asthmatic, or terminally ill. By most
accounts, Coué was quite charismatic, and a number of reporters who saw him
seemed genuinely convinced that he was a miracle-worker. The many articles
praising him led to the emergence of an entire cottage industry, with radio
programs devoted to American “experts” in the Coué method, and schools that
claimed to teach anyone how to derive amazing results. Radio also became home
to a number of other frauds: fortune tellers, faith healers, and assorted other
quacks, some of whom were criticized by the press, but most of whom became very
popular anyway. One of the most famous examples was Dr. John R. Brinkley,
another fake physician, whose “cure” for impotence involved goat gland implant
surgery for men, many of whom underwent the painful procedure in hopes of
improving their performance in the bedroom. The story of his successful radio
career and his eventual downfall, is well told in R. Alton Lee’s 2002 book The Bizarre Careers of John R. Brinkley.
These days,
it’s not just scary chain e-mails that should warrant skepticism and critical
thinking. Politicians love to give non-threatening or positive names to laws
that would otherwise inspire debate and controversy. Two good examples: After
9/11, Congress quickly passed the PATRIOT Act, which evoked emotions of
standing up to terrorists and showing pride in being an American. But the act,
which was an acronym for “Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept
(and) Obstruct Terrorism,” contained some provisions that are still being
debated today, and a number which civil libertarians and privacy advocates have
vehemently opposed. Another example was the 2002 “Healthy Forests Act,” which
certainly sounded like something worth doing: who isn’t in favor of healthy
forests? But when skeptics, many of whom were also passionate about the
environment, delved further into this act, which was a priority for President
Bush, they found it actually encouraged more logging in national forests.
Whether logging is a good thing or not, the name did not reflect the provisions
the act contained. Another media literacy rule: Find out who is actually behind
the innocuous-sounding name, so you can decide whether the facts they are
presenting can be trusted.
And then
there are fake quotes. Did you know that the Founding Fathers said America is
supposed to be a Christian nation? Did you know that they also insisted that a
nation that did not rely on the Bible would never prosper? If you believe the
chain e-mails sent by conservative Christian advocacy groups, often citing the
work of David Barton (an evangelical Christian minister, former co-chair of the
Republican Party of Texas, and the founder of WallBuilders, a Texas-based group
that claims the separation of church and state is a myth) then you have
probably been told that the American founders were opposed to the government
helping the poor (especially the undeserving poor), and that they especially
feared the rise of socialism. In journalism, it’s a truism that “If your mother
says she loves you, check it out.” In other words, just because you got the
quote from Mom, that doesn’t mean she had accurate information. I always
encourage my students to fact-check quotes, because even if the person actually
said it, often the quote is taken out of context (this can frequently be seen
in political ads, where both parties try to make their opponent look bad by
using a particular quote to fit a narrative of what a horrible person he or she
is). The Internet has been a great benefit in finding actual sources for
quotes, but it has also been part of the problem: It is very easy to put up an
authoritative-looking website with a very ideological agenda. When it comes to
quotes, skepticism is especially needed, to make sure that: (a) the person really
said it, and (b) the context supports the way the quote is being used. This is
not just a good rule for political ads: it even applies to classic movie
quotes: The words “Play it again, Sam” were nowhere to be found in the movie
“Casablanca,” but millions of people think that’s what Ingrid Bergman said.
Thus, in order to make sure your evidence is accurate, take the time to
fact-check the quotes, even the ones that “everybody” believes to be accurate.
The bottom
line is that it pays to be skeptical because so much of what we encounter in
the media turns out to be entirely false, mythically inflated, politically
charged, ideologically loaded, or a mixture of facts and fiction. And as we see
with the “Birthers,” that percentage of the public who insist that Barack Obama
was actually born in Kenya, no matter how much credible evidence is presented
that he was born in Hawaii, some people have trouble distinguishing between
verifiable fact and unproven opinion. But this is not just a problem that
affects Birthers, climate change deniers, or people who think we never walked
on the Moon; as we see every day, it is surprisingly easy to misinform the
average person. Back in 1938, after the furor over “War of the Worlds,” the
Boston Globe’s pseudonymous “Uncle Dudley” gave readers some good advice, words
that still resonate today. He said that we all have a duty to think for
ourselves and not rush to judgment just because of something we heard in a
broadcast. And whether the information is in print or broadcast, he concluded,
“…a robust will to doubt, to examine statements, and to measure them alongside
common sense and experience… is a hallmark of the civilized mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)