Pages

Sunday, December 28, 2008

Carnival of the Africans #5


That's right, loyal readers! We promised it, so here it is: the fifth instalment of the blog carnival celebrating science, scepticism and reason in Africa: Carnival of the Africans! Woohoo!

First I'd like to thank everyone who sent in submissions this time around. It makes hosting so much easier when the stories simply arrive in my inbox, without having to go digging for them. 

First up, we have a couple of items from James Hough over at Acinonyx Scepticus: James brings to our attention an important term in the sceptical phrasebook: Cargo Cult Science. Next, he points out how Rand Merchant Bank dropped the thinking ball in one of their advertising campaigns.

Next is our fearless leader, Michael Meadon from Ionian Enchantment. Michael explores the idea of wound licking as a plausible adaptive behaviour.

Simon Halliday from Amanuensis reviews some books of sceptical and ecomonic interest.

Doctor Spurt from Effortless Incitement explores the correlation between metaphorical language and actual experience.

Ewan McPhail from Ewan's Corner points out the bizarreness (is that a word?) of the warnings put out by local government regarding seaside religious rituals.

Michael from Irreverence highlights a list of "myths about the SA economy" published by the SA Communist Party.

Bongi from Other Things Amanzi offers us a frightening insight into the state of affairs in African medicine.


Auke Slotegraaf from psychohistorian.org gives us a detailed account of a presentation he attended given by an astrologer.

The doctors from The Science of Sport run down the top 8 sports stories of 2008.


And now, we have some newcomers!


Jonathan Davis from Limbic Nutrition makes some comments on the news coverage of the recent riots in Greece.


Blogroll

In case you missed it, here's a concise list of all the blogs involved with the Carnival - perfect for copy/paste action (do it now!):

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Johannesburg Sceptics in the Pub

The unbelievably popular Skeptics in the Pub has made it's way to Johannesburg. Although my invitation to the first one evidently got lost in the mail (*elbow*), the second installment will take place on the 5th of January 2009.

Go show your support on Facebook. See you guys there!

Thanks to James from Acinonyx Scepticus for hooking that up!

Monday, December 15, 2008

Call for Submissions: Carnival of the Africans

So, it's that time again where we start getting ready for Carnival of the Africans, our monthly blog carnival for African bloggers with a sceptical, rational and scientific focus.

This time around it'll be hosted right here on 01 and the Universe! Woohoo!

So, if you're an Afri-scepto-blogger, send me a link or two to good posts of yours you would like me to include in the Carnival. You can send the link, with a brief description, to owen(dot)swart{at}gmail(dot)com. Please try and get them to me by the 27th, if you possibly can.

If you're not sure what to send, take a look at the guidelines over at Ionian Enchantment. 

Okay, lemme have it!

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Back to Basics: UFOs

As a Trekkie and a sceptic, I am frequently asked my opinion on UFOs. Here's a high-level overview of my position on the topic.

What are UFOs?

UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. It's a jargon term originally used by military radar operators as a place-holder name for anything they detected on their screens until it could be identified. Some detected objects were never conclusively identified, and were then logged simply as 'UFO'.

Around the time of the Roswell incident, the term found its way into popular usage, and took on a whole new meaning.

Roswell, New Mexico, is a small town near a military base that was used extensively for testing of new and secret military technology. Farmers and other residents in the area would, from time to time, see strange things in the sky (experimental military aircraft) or find unidentifiable debris littered on the ground (crashed experimental aircraft). One such incident happened in 1947.

A litany of blunderous military cover-ups trying to hide the true nature of the experimental technology, combined with the popularity of science fiction literature at the time, led to the birth of a modern myth: a crashed alien spacecraft.

This incident is widely regarded as the birth of the UFO craze. Reports of "flying saucers" became more frequent, and before long people started reporting that they had encountered actual alien life-forms, often being abducted by them, and subjected to medical experiments.

In the midst of all this, the term 'UFO' lost its original meaning, and became a popular term for 'alien spacecraft'. Radar operators, pilots and other people familiar with the term started using it in public to describe their own experiences, and it caught on.

Is there any truth to the claims?

This isn't an easy question to answer. In order to address it properly, we need to break it down into several distinct claims:

  1. Intelligent alien life-forms have developed a technology that allows them to travel across interstellar space and visit our planet.
  2. A lot of people have seen things in the sky that can only be alien spacecraft.
  3. Alien spacecraft have crashed or been shot down on Earth, and there is a government conspiracy to hide it.
  4. People are visited or abducted by aliens and subjected to experiments.

Let's look at them in that order.

Aliens Are Here

The prospect of interstellar travel is a very difficult one, as far as our understanding of the laws of nature can tell us. The problem is that the stars are very VERY far away.

The nearest star, Promixa Centauri, is about four light-years away. A light year is a measurement of distance, and tells us how far light travels in a year. Light travels very fast (about 300 000 000 meters per second), so that means Proxima is about 39 732 000 000 000 kilometers away. Far.

So, if you were traveling at the speed of light, it would take you about four years to get from Promixa Centauri to Earth. But what if nobody lives at Proxima? The rest of the stars in our neighborhood of the galaxy are dozens, if not hundreds of light-years away. That's a very long trip, at the speed of light.

But there's another problem. As far as we can tell, it doesn't seem to be possible to travel at the speed of light. Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity tells us that the closer you get to the speed of light, the more massive you become, so the amount of energy needed to accelerate you increases exponentially. To move something the size of the space-shuttle even close to the speed of light would take more energy than the sun puts out in its entire lifetime. That's a lot of energy.

So interstellar travel is very VERY difficult. It's so difficult that from our point of view right now, it's effectively impossible to do. There may be other factors we don't yet know about that make it completely impossible.

However, as I said, all of that is based on our current picture of the universe. It's not preposterous to suppose that there might be intelligent people out there on other planets who have a superior understanding of physics, and have somehow found a way to get around all of that. It seems pretty unlikely, but we can't rule it out.

Okay, so, what's the bottom line? Could aliens be coming to visit us? Probably not, but it's not impossible.

Lights in the Sky

When people claim to have spotted a UFO, the evidence presented comes in two forms:
  1. Photographs and video footage.
  2. Eyewitness accounts.
If someone shows you a photograph, or even a video, of something strange in the sky, it's pretty much impossible to know what it is you're looking at. Sure, it could be a giant spacecraft. Or it could be a hubcap tied to a string. Or a cloud. Or a firefly. Or an aeroplane. Or a sophisticated CGI forgery. Even if the photograph seems to obviously present something that looks like an alien spacecraft, there's simply no way to know if that is, in fact, what is being presented.

It's unwise to underestimate hoaxers. They're clever, and have a vast array of tools at their disposal to create unbelievably realistic looking photos and footage.

Unfortunately, photographs and videos simply aren't strong evidence for the existence of alien spacecraft. At best they can show you that there was something weird in the sky that day, but often it can't even tell you that.

When it comes to looking at the sky and seeing strange things, on the surface it makes sense to take the word of people like pilots, air-traffic controllers, radar operators and other professionals who spend a lot of time dealing with airborne things. You would think that they would know what they're talking about.

The thing is, those sorts of people spend a lot less time actually looking at the sky than you might think. They probably know more about aeroplanes and air traffic than anyone else, but what do they really know about the sky? If they're not the experts, who is? Who spends more time actually looking at the sky than anyone else?

Amateur astronomers.

How many UFO sightings are reported by amateur astronomers? Very VERY few. This is because amateur astronomers have spent considerable amounts of time learning about strange atmospheric effects that can make the moon or the planet Venus look strange. They are trained to tell the difference between an aeroplane, a satellite and a meteorite. They're accustomed to being able to tell the size, distance and speed of an object, just by looking at it.

So things that, to most of us, would look odd or even inexplicable, are ordinary and mundane to those people who are accustomed to looking at the sky.

So when a policeman or other respected public official claims to have seen a strange light in the night sky, that he is positive was an alien spacecraft, he's not necessarily lying. He's probably just mistaken, because he wasn't able to accurately identify what he was looking at.

Alien Contact

The claims surrounding alien spacecraft crashes and the surrounding conspiracies sound convincing when they're explained by believers, but when you look at them in more detail, you see how little evidence there really is: none.

The quintessential example is the Roswell incident I mentioned earlier. Eyewitness reports give details of strange, unearthly materials that were recovered from the crash site. The military files on the incident were recently unclassified, including the wreckage. The so called "unearthly materials" were aluminium foil and balsa wood. It would be surprising to find that in the middle of nowhere, but but it's pretty mundane stuff. Even the eyewitness testimony is full of holes.

Based on a critical analysis, there doesn't appear to be any reason to doubt the military report on the incident. Unless you believe the conspiracy. 

That's the trouble with conspiracy theories. Any evidence against the claim (like the evidence produced by the military) is evidence for the conspiracy (in this case the assumption is that the military fabricated the "evidence" in order to cover up the "truth"). Conspiracy theories are unfalsifiable (they can't be proven wrong) and therefore we can't put much stock in them.

Of course we can't rule out the possibility that such a conspiracy may exist. But when you take into account the sheer number of people that would need to be in on it, it becomes a pretty unlikely possibility. Remember that four guys were in on Watergate and they couldn't keep that a secret.

Abductions

This, to me, is a very interesting part of the whole UFO mythos. The claims are that some people are kidnapped, subjected to experiments (that are usually of a sexual nature) and then returned to where they were found.

The first real story of this nature was the Betty and Barney Hill story. I can't do a better analysis of that whole story than Brian Dunning did, so I suggest you go and read (or listen to) that before you continue here.

Go on, I'll wait.

Back? Cool.

More recent accounts seem to have a lot in common. For the most part they follow a script something like this:

I was lying bed when I suddenly heard a very strange sound. I found that I was completely paralysed, except for my eyes. I felt a presence in the room with me, and I saw several small people with grey skin and large black eyes. They lifted me up and took me to their spacecraft, where they probed me with strange looking instruments. I lost all sense of time.

They returned me to my bed. When the noise stopped, I regained the use of my limbs and they were gone.

Sounds terrifying, right? How is it possible that so many accounts are so similar? Surely something must be going here!

Well, yes there is. But it probably has nothing to do with alien abductions.

Hypnogogic hallucination, also known as sleep paralysis or a waking dream, is a fairly common and well documented phenomenon. Essentially it is when your brain wakes up, but your body is still asleep. It's a highly unstable state, and is often accompanied by audio, visual, olfactory and even tactile hallucinations - particularly in the form of a "presence", a grey form, a feeling of being pressed down, and awareness of paralysis and loud rushing noises.

The brain will struggle to interpret those hallucinations in terms of familiar frame of reference. In the past this resulted in myths arising like the Old Hag, vampires, chupacabras, ghosts and possibly the Tokoloshe. It seems that new cultural pervasiveness of UFO stories has lead many people to overlay the cultural image of the "grey alien" onto these hallucinations

Most people will experience sleep paralysis at least once in their lives. Some people suffer from it chronically. 

So we have two competing hypotheses here:

1. An intelligent race from possibly hundreds of light years away decline to make themselves known to us as a whole, but see no reason not to pick up people at random performing odd experiments on them, leaving no evidence behind.
2. A well documented and common (but not well understood by the public) neural malfunction.

Both of these explain the phenomenon equally well, but only one of them doesn't raise any additional questions, or require us to introduce exotic physics. Occam's Razor tells us which is more likely.

Conclusion

Right, so where does this leave us?

It seems to me that this can all be summed up as follows:

Although it's possible (even likely) that intelligent life forms exist elsewhere in the universe, it is exceedingly unlikely that they have ever visited Earth, and almost certainly aren't visiting us now. If they are, they're very VERY good at covering their tracks, as they haven't yet left a single piece of evidence.

As a Trekkie, I hope for and look forward to the day when we might make contact with an alien intelligence. But I think that we're far more likely to do so through the efforts of SETI than through anal probes.


Monday, December 08, 2008

African Sceptical Blogroll

Hey kids. 

Here are some awesome Afro-sceptical blags for you.


Enjoy!


--

UPDATE: I should have said in the original post that this blogroll is part of Michael Meadon's (from Ionian Enchantment) initiative to unify and cross-pollinate the African sceptiblogs. Woohoo!

Sunday, December 07, 2008

Skeptics Circle #101

Michael Meadon from Ionian Enchantment pulled a sly one and combined some examples from the last Carnival of the Africans into the latest Skeptics Circle.

Check it out!

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Zuma's Country of God - The Sequel

This is an appendix to my previous post in which I pointed out that Jacob Zuma is an idiot.

My lovely and talented wife pointed me to a series of articles on a Democratic Alliance blog, 'The Real ANC Today', going into much greater detail on the attitude towards religion of the ANC in general and Zuma in particular. Paying specific attention to the inherent contradiction between nationalist and religious absolutism and a democratic government.

Here's a highlight:
[T]he notion of governing by divine right is intricately linked to the idea that, ultimately, physical force will be used to impose that ‘right’ - if not by the respective deity, then by those who supposedly represent its will on earth. In South Africa today, we are faced with a position where those aligned to Jacob Zuma have threatened to take up arms in his name - indeed for him - a comment Zuma has failed to condemn.
Chilling. 

Here's another:
Thus, as the apartheid state has been dismantled and its edifice diluted and washed away, so the ANC has been forced to re-invent ‘the demon’ of racism as a central and eminent threat to our democracy, and the evil against which it must both fight and justify its existence. It has simply substituted, exaggerated and conflated the one, generic racism, for the other, apartheid. For, as its Constitution illustrates, central to its ‘historic mission’ is the struggle against apartheid. Remove that, and the ANC’s core mission is denuded. Just as religion needs evil to exist, so the ANC needs racism.

Good, eh?

Here are the links:
One thing caused me to grimace and make sceptical noises while reading these, and that was the author's continued assertion that objective reality is a myth, as opposed to simply being partially hidden by the veil of subjective experience, and therefore unavaible to anyone for the purpuses of full understanding.

But I'm happy overlook that small quibble due to the otherwise highly rational argument presented - it's only a tangential point anyway.




Friday, November 28, 2008

Zuma's Country of God

Jacob Zuma is apparently an idiot.


That's no big surprise to the bulk of my readers, I'm sure. There have been plenty of examples of idiocy spewing forth from him over the years, but I suppose I always gave him the benefit of the doubt... assuming that his lack of formal education left him intellectually stunted, but not necessarily stupid.

After reading this article on IOL this afternoon, I've decided that there's probably no difference between the two. His stuntedness is, for all practical purposes, equivalent to stupidity.

This is what has led me to this conclusion.

At the National Presidential Religious Leaders summit* yesterday, Zuma said

"When all of us take office in government... we raise our right hand and indeed pronounce... so help me God. I believe no one can argue South Africa is not based on the principles of God," said Zuma.

"The bible says pray for those who are in government. I believe we must go beyond that. You must advise and criticise if there are things we do that are not in keeping with the principles of God."
He also points out the fact that the following phrase appears in the preamble to the constitution:

"May God protect our people...God bless South Africa."
Now, I wasn't there when the constitution was being drafted, but it seems pretty obvious to me that this specific wording was chosen so as to remain ambivalent to which "God" was being referred to here. Is it YHWH? Jehovah? Jesus? Allah? The Deist God? Spinoza's God? Zeus? Thor? Quetzlcoatl? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

It doesn't specify. And I imagine that it was a deliberate choice to write it this way, and not to refer to a specific version of God, so as not to alienate South Africans adhering to faiths other than Christianity. (I'll ignore for the moment the fact that it still manages to alienate those of us who believe in no gods - that's a subject for another post).

So isn't it interesting that Zuma automatically assumes that the God of the bible is the one we should be paying attention to? Why is Zuma's God the important one, and everyone else's gods are not?

He also presumes that the bible is the best way to find out what "the principles of God" are. The morality expressed in the bible is at best ambiguous. How are we to interpret it correctly? What makes Zuma's interpretation better than mine?

Of course it makes sense that Zuma would look to the bible for his values. He is, after all, a polygamist and not opposed to having his way with younger women - both of which are strongly advocated in the Christian bible.

I would expect a presidential candidate to be capable of looking beyond bronze-age mysticism and see the functional logic in a utilitarian ethical system. Blind adherence to a non-specific religious moral code is intellectually immature, and does not serve a president, or a country, well. Particularly a country such as ours which claims to pride itself on its ethnic diversity.



*Exactly why such a summit exists mystifies me.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

The Tokoloshe

There are a wide variety of spellings for this creature, so I'll just stick with this one.

The Tokoloshe is a mythical creature. I designate it as such because no physical specimens of it have ever been found, catalogued or analysed. Until that happens, I will generously categorise it alongside the sasquatch, yeti and chupacabra as a cryptozoological creature.

I'm not convinced that it even deserves that classification though. I'll explain why a little further on.

The Tokoloshe is frequently described as a vaguely humanoid creature the size of a human child. The precise description varies considerably depending on which version of the story you hear, but generally speaking it's a pretty ugly critter. It's usually described as furry and possesses very large genitals.

It's troublesome and mischievous, and can potentially cause harm to people.

Okay so far. Here's the crazy part.

The tokoloshe is often employed (sometimes created) by witches and wizards for a variety of functions. From personal revenge to sexual favours. It can even turn invisible by swallowing a magic pebble.

Right. So we're talking about a fairy here: a magical being with mystical powers. 

The only way to deal with claims like this sceptically seems to be to separate it into two distinct claims:

  1. There is a small, mischievous, vaguely humanoid creature that inhabits certain parts of Southern Africa that sometimes interferes with and causes trouble for humans in the area.
  2. There is a magical creature employed by witches and wizards to perform a wide variety of strange things. 

Let's deal with them in that order.

Another cryptozoological creature that gets way more press than the Tokoloshe is Bigfoot. A large bipedal ape-like creature inhabiting the forests of North America. There is at least one well documented animal fitting that description that everyone knows lives in those areas. Bears.

Bigfoot

A great many alleged Bigfoot sightings are attributable to bears. Could the same be true of the Tokoloshe? Are there any native wildlife that fit the Tokoloshe's description?

Yes there are. Monkeys.

Tokoloshe


Of course I can't prove that all Tokoloshe sightings are attributable to monkeys. But it seems a likely hypothesis, doesn't it?

So we have two competing hypotheses:
1. There is a previously undocumented ape living in Southern Africa... a well-explored eco-tourism destination.
2. Monkeys.

Both of these hypotheses explain the phenomenon equally well. The first hypothesis requires that we introduce some new ideas to explain the phenomenon, as well as raising questions about how such a creature evaded detection for so long, whereas the second only relies on the misinterpretation of some culturally sensitive eye-witnesses. That doesn't tell us which one is true, but Occam's Razor does tell us which is more likely.

The second claim is more difficult to deal with. The most difficult thing about it is the lack of consistency. In my research, I haven't been able to come across a consistent list of the magical attributes Tokoloshes are supposed to have.

What follows is the best that I've been able to distill from all the conflicting accounts:
  • They can turn invisible - either completely invisible or only to particular people, like adults.
  • They can be summoned or created by witches and wizards to do their bidding.
The first attribute is terribly convenient. How can you prove or disprove the existence of something that's undetectable? You can't. This is, as Pauli said, not even wrong. And of course the proposed mechanism through which they turn invisible is "magic". As soon as magic is invoked, the conversation is over... there's nothing verifiable about magical explanations.

The same goes for the second attribute. It's unverifiable, and therefore not a valid hypothesis.

The entire second claim sounds like prescientific, stone-age superstition and mysticism. I suspect that it's propagated by sangomas and inyangas in order to keep themselves employed. And of course it's protected from public scrutiny under the banner of "culture".

Of course, if you're reading this, you probably don't believe in the Tokoloshe anyway. But I hope I've made a small contribution, so that should you ever find yourself face-to-face with a believer, you'll be able to tell them not to be scared of monkeys.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Sceptical Activism and the Prime Directive

In a recent episode of the Geologic Podcast, George was asked a question about how he felt about sceptical activism in contrast to respect for cultural diversity. He immediately equated it to the Prime Directive, and discussed his initial thoughts on it.

This is a thought that has occurred to me as well. I was recently asked to participate in a panel discussion at an SFSA convention on the Prime Directive, so its intricacies are still relatively fresh in my mind.

The Prime Directive is a fictional law in Star Trek that prohibits Starfleet personnel from interfering in any way with members of other cultures. The assumption is that any interference, even if benevolent in intent, could have unforeseeable consequences that could potentially be disastrous.

The motivation for it stems from one of the underlying philosophical tenets that Starfleet adheres to: IDIC - Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Federation citizens are not permitted to assume that just because their technology is more advanced than other cultures, that they are superior to them in an way. And therefore may not impose their own values upon other cultures, but must rather allow them to develop on their own, in the hope that someday they might greet them as technological equals, and possibly as allies.

While this law makes sense in the context of a world where interstellar travel is easy, and where primitive cultures can exist in effective isolation until they are able to master Warp Drive, how applicable is it to 21st century Earth? And particularly to those of us who wish to advocate and propagate what we think is a superior technology: critical thinking?

In short: do I have the right to try and help a true believer by exposing them to critical thinking? If the believer asks for help, that would be one thing. But that almost never happens... in the vast majority of cases, the believer is happy in their delusions, and doesn't want my "help".

James Randi makes an analogy that sceptical activism is like running into a burning building and carrying some poor resident out over your shoulder. That certainly seems like the right thing to do. But what if that resident doesn't want to be saved? What if they like it in there, and are blindly willing to accept the consequences of remaining inside?

It seems silly that that might be the case, but it does appear to be. True believers seem content to sit comfortably in the blazing inferno, blissfully unaware of the danger they're in. And unwilling to listen to anyone tell them otherwise.

Conversely, a Christian might see my atheism as similarly sitting in the fire of eternal damnation. They're probably wrong, but they don't know that.

I see blogging as something of a compromise. I put content into the ether, and people can find it if they're looking. It's a pretty milquetoast medium though, because it's so passive. I would much rather have a soap-box in the mainstream media - television or radio, where I could actively get my message to a far larger audience. But do I have a right to do that?

Yes, I know that the woo faction don't hesitate to use the media to propagate their nonsense... and to substantial effect. Just as in Star Trek, races that don't adhere to the Prime Directive see no harm in exlploiting technologically less advanced people wherever they find them. But that doesn't make it right. Fighting fire with fire isn't necessarily the ethical choice.

So I find myself in something of a quandry. What do you think?