Credit: iStockphoto
FROM COLOURFUL CRYSTALS that 'harmonise auras' to research groups studying 'unexplained' phenomena such as Bigfoot, crank science is everywhere. Some of it has gone mainstream, such as homeopathy, the treatment of ills with solutions so dilute they have no active ingredients. Another is astrology, the study of how the movements of the stars and the planets dictate our personalities and daily affairs.
Most present themselves with a peppering of real science, or at least sciencey sounding jargon. Their purveyors, too, come decorated with the trappings of science.
Historically, faith healers and shamans would adorn themselves in spiritual symbols such as masks, amulets and perhaps the odd chicken's foot. Today, many still peddle snake oil, but often disguise themselves with surgical gloves and white coats. With a little bit of window dressing, the supernatural becomes the scientific.
Pseudosciences may sound harmless, but don't be fooled, says James Randi, a former magician turned professional sceptic, based in Fort Lauderdale, USA. "Any misinformation or misrepresentation, particularly if it appears in the guise of science or other genuine sources, can be, and often is, damaging," he says. "We need to receive dependable data in order to design, alter and direct our lives."
But for anyone caring to scratch the surface, says Randi, the frauds are easy to detect. Real science searches for the truth through rigorous methods; it strives to leave no questions unanswered; it provides solid evidence any other researcher can reproduce. Criticism and questioning is encouraged and constantly leads to an evolution of science in the face of new evidence.
Paranormal and alternative practices, such as channelling the dead and homeopathy, disregard the scientific method, cherry pick data that support their cause and promote claims that are difficult to test. Such practices distort our view of the world and remain tightly closed to scrutiny.
While purporting to be part of the scientific spectrum, and therefore trustworthy, pseudosciences also often claim to be beyond explanation by science, warding off criticism with descriptions of the mystical, the otherworldly or the divine. But, as sceptics are fond of saying, "Before we say something is out of this world, we should first make sure it's really not in this world." Let's take a quick tour of claims that are not quite as they seem.
Rindi Prize
Puff! The moment I claimed that something was "supernatural" someone would be claiming it wasn't, because the whole concept of "supernatural" is bogus, an oxymoron to the tenth. Miracles simply have to operate in a way that is different than what we normally expect. Who knows what that cunning old theory known as "GOD" built into this cosmos?
We can't fully describe or anticipate the behavior of a single water molecule using conventional science and honest scientists admit this; there is, therefore, far more mystery than certainty, and even our "facts" are subject to constant change and reinterpretation. Our best theories are forever being proved either wrong or more complex than we initially imagined.
The only known solution to the opposing conclusions of the Uncertainty Principle and General Relativity is to factor time out of the equations, but that means that we live in a multi-dimensional "NOW"---a concept so difficult for most scientists to accept that nearly fifty years after this solution to the problem was offered, nobody takes it seriously or engages in the "new science" implied---and that is in the absence of any other mathematical proof or solution ever being offered.
How rational is that?
Even the mathematicians and physicists among us cannot be trusted.
The moment we consider the supernatural we must invoke our determination of what is "possible" and what is "impossible", because defining "supernatural" requires defining what is "natural" first, and it is abundantly clear that we don't know that with any certainty.
I, for example, find no argument between Creationism and Evolution; in my view, both may be taking place and both may be right. There is no "proof" that Evolution is the only creative process, only that it IS a creative process at work in our world. There may be dozens of unknown creative processes at work beyond our current notion of Evolution, and the mechanisms that impel them may be driven by forces we don't yet anticipate. My point is that there is by definition nothing "unnatural" or "supernatural" in this world.
We have ONLY natural phenomena that are scientifically understood and natural phenomena that are NOT scientifically understood, and in our present circumstance the vast bulk of what we think we know is subject to ongoing skepticism.
From the standpoint of a real skeptic then, the debunking of such phenomena as crop circles can be approached from either end---you say that they are created by hoaxers? So, let the hoaxers (who are obviously very well-educated, motivated, and well-funded) prove that they can produce crop circles of comparable complexity to those already documented? So far all I've seen are a couple of guys goose-stepping around with homemade grass presses on their feet---and their end product was nothing like the "real" crop circles. Let the admitted hoaxers step forward and produce credible replicas of their finest works. Thus far, as you would say, none have come forward and revealed their tools and methods. What we know for sure is that crop circles have been observed all over the world for a long time--many decades, if not centuries, and now, they are appearing in ice formations as well as farm fields.
How reasonable, I may ask, is it to theorize the existence of a worldwide group of hoaxers who devote a lot of time and skill to this for no known reason, and who have also kept their mouths shut for decades without ever coming forward and demonstrating their real methods?
This is happening in the age of satellite surveillance, dear hearts. IF such a group of hoaxers exists, we should simply be able to turn on the sky tele, tune into the site of the latest crop circle appearance on the night it appeared, and watch the replay. If we see a bunch of cuckoo Englishmen wearing green tweed suits with boards strapped to their feet, we will all know what to think.
Thus my complaint to you---you seem to take a lot of pride in debunking things that either do or do not exist and the people who "believe" or "don't believe" are derided. Why not take your own skepticism to a higher level and entertain better methods of inquiry?
Speaking of Delusions...
When will the so-called "intelligentsia" realize that the Church of Gore, with its dogma of Anthropogenic Global Warming or Anthropogenic Climate change (The nomenclature change came about when temperatures started dropping around 1998) is not just the grandest of delusions, but an absolute hoax.
Doubt what I say? Just look at their solutions. All of them result in the diminution of individual liberty:
1) A world government that supersedes national and local governments.
2) Carbon taxes that only marginally reduce CO2 production, while seriously degrading industry and personal incomes.
3) Regulations about what kind of car you drive, or short of that, how many miles you drive without a surcharge.
4) "Smart Grids" that can reach into your home and adjust your thermostat to suit some bureaucrat's whim.
5) Payment of a so-called "carbon debt" to "reimburse" the Third World for the West's alleged profligance. In other words, wealth redistribution, stealing from those who've earned and own and giving to those who have done neither.
The environmental movement has already doomed millions of people to death from malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases by banning DDT. Now, they want enslave the rest of the world.
At one time, folks were afraid of the Reds. Now we need to fear the Watermelons: green on the outside, but Red on the inside.