Of all ostensible paranormal phenomenon, extra sensory perception (e.s.p.) is probably one of the most well known and widely believed. Many people who generally have a skeptical attitude towards metaphysics still hold out hope that e.s.p. is a real phenomenon and that someday it will be conclusively demonstrated. In any skeptical treatment of a phenomenon experimental evidence is of paramount importance. In this regard e.s.p. has not produced widely accepted and reproducible results after nearly one hundred years of trying. Another important consideration, however, is a possible mechanism for the phenomenon in question. If no plausible mechanism can be found then this fact must raise the level of skepticism towards the existence of that phenomenon. Countless experiments have been carried out probing the existence and reported capabilities of e.s.p. but few inquiries have been made into the requirements necessary for it to work. What does science say about the feasibility of such a phenomenon?

Extra sensory perception is perception that occurs beyond the conventional senses of sight, hearing, small, taste, and touch. The primary manifestations of this phenomenon are said to be telepathy, precognition, and clairvoyance. Respectively these are; awareness of another’s thoughts, knowledge of future events and information about a remote object or area. Other terms synonymous with e.s.p. are anomalous cognition, second sight and remote viewing. All of this information gathering is apparently not acquired through conventional means but through an unknown sense that picks up signals from either another brain or an object or from the future itself.

Duke University researcher Joseph Banks Rhine coined the term e.s.p. in 1934 in his popular book “Extra Sensory Perception.” He purported that his experiments unequivocally proved that e.s.p. is a viable, demonstrable phenomenon. Not surprisingly, when more controls were added to his experiments the evidence diminished and eventually vanished, but he attributed this to what he called “the decline effect.”  If skeptics were present and no effect appeared he invoked “the observer effect.” In fact he had a special explanation for all of e.s.p.’s experimental failures.

What, however, might an alleged e.s.p. signal be? Perhaps a known force could account for it or maybe a force that has not been experimentally verified but theoretically might behave as e.s.p. requires. If not these, then maybe there is another force about which scientists have not an inkling. Further, any hypothesized signal would need a receiving mechanism. If a force does not implicate itself then at least we should be able to identify a part of the human body that evolved to interpret the force that carries e.s.p. information.

Centuries of experiments, theorizing, and observation have revealed four fundamental forces in nature that can accurately account for all interactions of matter. These forces are the strong force, the weak force, electromagnetism, and gravity. (actually there are now three fundamental forces since electromagnetism and the weak force have been shown to be different manifestations of the same electro-weak force). If one of these forces has the qualities required for e.s.p. to exist then, at the very least, the feasibility of e.s.p. would have to be entertained.

Before discussing these forces in detail a quick overview of the basic structure of the atom might come in handy. The concept of an atom is not new, in fact it is 2400 years old. In 400 BC the Greek philosopher Democritus believed that matter could not be forever subdivided, that at some point an indivisible object should be encountered. He used the word “atomos”, which means indivisible, to describe this fundamental and irreducible piece of matter. We have learned much in the intervening millennia. Briefly, the center or nucleus of an atom consists of a neutral (no electric charge) neutron and a positive proton. This nucleus is surrounded by a cloud of negative electrons that are attracted to the protons, canceling their charge and making the atom, as a whole, electrically neutral. Neutrons and protons themselves are each composed of triplets of bizarre objects called quarks. It is these quarks (and electrons) that are the most fundamental constituents of matter that we know and therefore compose everything.

Antoine Henri Becquerel (1852-1908) discovered the weak force (manifested as radioactivity, the spontaneous emission of particles by atomic nuclei) in 1896. There are different types of radioactivity, the weak force is responsible for a process called beta decay in which certain unstable atoms change a neutron into a proton and eject bits of themselves like electrons and anti-neutrinos. Different chemical elements are produced by beta decay; I’m sure that alchemists would have loved this process. Without this force stars would not shine and the molten interior of the earth would have cooled millions of years ago.

The strong force was discovered in 1921 by E.S. Bieler and James Chadwick. It is the force that binds quarks together forming the atomic nucleons: neutrons and protons. A residual of this force glues the protons and neutrons together overcoming the mutual repulsion of the positively charged protons. Consequently only a hundred or so stable atomic configurations (elements) have been identified that can balance electric repulsion between protons and the strong attraction. The strong force is by far the strongest found in nature as evidenced by the power of a nuclear bomb which explosively releases the bound energy of the strong force. By comparison, dynamite is one million times weaker because it is governed by a much weaker force, electromagnetism (discussed later).

As exotic and indispensable as the strong and weak forces are they cannot be directly responsible for e.s.p., primarily because they act over such a short range. The range of these forces has been determined to be approximately one or two femto meters, which is approximately one ten-millionth the width of a human hair. One reason for such a limited area of effect is an exponential drop off in intensity as the distance increases between two particles. Within their domain these forces accomplish amazing feats without which life and our universe would not exist, but a little more than an atomic diameter away they are powerless and thus cannot be directly responsible for extra sensory perception.

The nuclear forces described above might seem somewhat removed from direct personal experience, so what about a force that we can relate to? Gravity is just such a force. Everyday of our lives we feel and fight the force of gravity. It keeps objects on the ground, determines the shape of the earth, keeps planets in their orbits, and shapes the large scale structure of the universe. Such an apparently powerful and pervasive force surely might be able to account for e.s.p..

What does science tell us about gravity? It is an attractive force that affects all matter and energy in the universe. Nothing with mass is immune to the effects of gravity. Surprisingly, it also happens to be the weakest force of the four, so weak, in fact, that equations dealing with subatomic particles routinely disregard gravitation because its effects are negligible at an atomic scale. How, then, can such a weak force be so dominant and evident in our lives while much stronger ones like the strong force are virtually unnoticeable? This is due to two special properties of gravity: it is long range and always attractive. A force becomes manifest when particles exchange what are called virtual particles. It’s like two people on skates throwing a medicine ball back and forth and recoiling when the ball is thrown or caught. If you could not see the ball it would appear as if an invisible force was at work on the skaters. Now imagine that the ball weighed very little. The skaters could stand very far apart and still be effected by it. This is analogous to gravity’s virtual particle the graviton, which is massless and therefore can affect particles very far away. (This, of course, is just one of the ways to look at gravity, Einstein’s general relativity treats it as the curving of space-time.) The second special property of gravity, and absolutely crucial to its strength, is its unique ability to always be attractive. Gravity does not have opposite charges like the negative and positive electrical charges. This explains how huge objects like the earth can be electrically neutral. No matter how strong a charge is, if there are roughly equal amounts of positive and negative electric charge, no force will be noticed. This is how gravitation can be so weak yet still add up to a considerable force that can move clusters of galaxies.

Even with these special abilities it is the extraordinary weakness of gravity that prevents it from carrying e.s.p. signals. The force gravity exerts between two brains is just too feeble to have any of the effects that e.s.p. believers purport. Only on astronomical scales does its significance amount to anything.  Additionally, there is nothing unique about the gravitational field of the human brain, gravity really only cares about mass. No special configuration or complexity of matter could modulate a gravitational signal because all that matters is the size of an object and amount of stuff it is made from. Replace any object’s atoms with an equivalent mass and distribution of any other type of atom and gravity will be essentially the same. Therefore, a human brain and a lump of coal both with the same mass and density will have identical gravitational fields.

Of the fundamental forces of nature only electromagnetism (EM) now remains to be considered. On the surface it seems promising. Unlike gravity, weakness is not a problem for EM since it is far more powerful, approximately 1040 times stronger. What else has science determined about this force? Primarily it keeps atoms together by insuring that the negative electrons orbit the positive nucleus. Consequently all the laws of chemistry can be attributed to this force. Additionally, whenever you touch anything it is the electromagnetic force that prevents your hand from simply moving through it. The negative electrons of your hand are repelling the like charges in a doorknob, for example.

A pure manifestation of the electromagnetic force that we are all familiar with is electromagnetism. As its name implies it is an alternating wave of electricity and magnetism moving through space. Since a moving electric charge produces a magnetic field and a changing magnetic field produces an electric field, it is self-propagating and goes on its merry way regardless of what happens to the source that created it. Many of the stars we see at night have long been dead but its light has no knowledge of this.  We know this radiation as light but the visible light we see is only a small slice of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, which ranges from long wavelength, low energy radio waves, to short wavelength, high energy gamma waves. Electrons produce photons of light whenever they move from an outer orbit around the nucleus to an inner orbit, thus shedding excess energy. Since the virtual particle associated with EM, the photon, is massless, it has an unlimited range like gravity and will not stop until it is absorbed by another atom that exists, for example, in the earth’s atmosphere or an astronomer’s eye.

Finally we have a force that is long range and strong enough to move useful information from one place to another. Additionally, the human brain itself seems amenable to this radiation since thought itself consists of moving electric current, which is precisely what creates electromagnetic radiation. Unfortunately (you knew this was coming) electromagnetism does not fit the bill as a carrier of e.s.p. information either. Most claims for e.s.p. require distance effects that do not fit with the inverse square law of radiation that light always obeys. This law states that if the distance between two objects double, then the energy being received is only 1/4 its initial intensity; multiply distance by 3, then you have to divide energy by 3 squared, or 9. This has special significance for the weak fields (brain waves) that are produced by the brain, and therefore for e.s.p.. For a field to affect the brain, enough energy must be transported and it must interact strongly enough so that the signal can be received. Eventually (and over a relatively short distance) the electromagnetic energy produced by the brain would be so attenuated that it would take hours to transmit a single thought.  This does not even address all the interference caused by the ubiquitous electrical devices in our lives. Our skulls also filter out most of the electromagnetic fields produced by our brains (as would the skulls of any potential receivers of an EM signal).

The primary drawback, however, to the hypothesis of electromagnetic radiation as the carrier of e.s.p. signals is that such signals would be easily detected by modern instrumentation. We have been virtual masters of electromagnetism for decades now, routinely receiving radio waves on our radios, creating x-rays for medical diagnosis, and interpreting every slice of the EM spectrum coming from space that our atmosphere does not filter out. Our knowledge of the different manifestations of light and how they are produced has ballooned along with our understanding of astronomy, physics, optics and a host of other sciences. The concomitant increase in sophistication and precision of the tools we use has given us an unprecedented ability to detect and study these ephemeral waves. Whether people could produce or detect electromagnetic e.s.p. waves is actually beside the point since our ability to precisely detect and examine them would be in the hands of these very sensitive instruments. It is not unreasonable to assume that any force that could create a chemical or electrical reaction in our neurons would be detectable – in fact it is a virtual certainty. The fact that electromagnetic radiation associated with e.s.p. has not been detected strongly points toward the conclusion that it does not exist.

It is true that our brains do generate an electrical field which can be detected. This technique is called electroencephalography (EEG), and is used as a diagnostic tool. The electrical field produced by our brains is very weak, however, and only the largest fields make it through our skulls and can be detected by electrodes placed on the scalp surface, where the field is measured in microvolts, millionths of volts.

For these electrical fields to then cross even a few feet of space, then penetrate a potential receiver’s skull, they would be attenuated further by many orders of magnitude. The electrical field produced by our brain, therefore, is insignificant in strength at a potential receiver’s brain, and is therefore too weak to produce any electrical effect that could manifest as e.s.p.. This tiny electrical field is also overwhelmed by the copious other electrical fields produced by our muscle activity, our heart, and other natural sources, not to mention the now ubiquitous electronic equipment that fill our living space.

Our brains also produce a measurable magnetic field, measured by a technique known as magnetoencephalography (MEG). This magnetic field, however, is many times weaker than the electrical field, and is therefore even less capable of producing an effect in another’s brain. What our brains do not produce, however, is electromagnetic radiation, such as radio waves. As mentioned, any sufficiently strong signal would have easily been detected by now.

Many people blithely dismiss the discussion above stating that it does not matter, that there is probably another force we don’t know about that can account for e.s.p.. Assuming there is a force in nature that we know nothing about, we can still make some intelligent assessments about characteristics it should have, given what we know about forces in general and the anecdotal accounts concerning e.s.p.. As stated in the previous paragraph, it is fair to assume that e.s.p. would induce some neuro-chemical change in the human brain for us to notice it. This requires energy, energy that would be detectable even by instruments your great-grandfather had available to him.

It appears that the fundamental forces of nature can offer us no solace in our desire to believe in extra sensory perception. Either the force is too short-ranged, too small, or too weak. Any force that does have the strength and range to carry a signal from one brain to another would be easy to detect with instruments that should respond to the same forces as our brain cells. This fact, coupled with the undeniable inability to produce an e.s.p. experiment that is reproducible and widely accepted, even after a century of trying, should put to rest any debate about this phenomenon. Unfortunately, I would be utterly amazed if it did.

Part II

In part one of this article I discussed the fundamental forces of nature and examined whether they can account for the claims made for extrasensory perception. It turned out that none could account for it, not gravity, not electromagnetism, nor any of the nuclear forces. Either they are too weak or too short ranged to be considered as viable explanations.

If the fundamental forces of nature cannot provide a mechanism for e.s.p., perhaps one of the more bizarre aspects of quantum theory can offer some hope. In part two of this article we will see that certain quantum phenomena seem amenable to e.s.p., but this is true only until the details of these phenomena are examined. Also, regardless of how e.s.p. signals might be produced, it is not unreasonable to assume that the body would have mechanisms in place to interpret these signals. A lack of any such structures would be a significant problem for the feasibility of e.s.p.

Earlier this century Albert Einstein said that he had an open mind about e.s.p. but he would be skeptical until it was shown that e.s.p. “energy” dropped off in intensity like all the forces in nature. He also expressed dissatisfaction with what was to become one of the most significant theories of the century, a theory to which he made important contributions – Quantum Mechanics. Many people, anxious for scientific justification for their paranormal beliefs, use Quantum Mechanics (QM) to justify their beliefs in the paranormal. QM lends itself to this type of abuse because QM offers a view of reality that is completely counterintuitive to our everyday experiences. What is this theory all about?

Quantum Mechanics Primer

Essentially, Quantum Mechanics describes the behavior and interactions of matter and energy at its most fundamental level. It reveals that the world at the atomic scale is completely unlike the macroscopic world of everyday life. We have learned that energy is not continuously variable, like the volume control on your t.v., but is discrete like the channel selector. This means that energy does not exist in a perfectly, infinitely smooth progression from low energy to high but in discontinuous jumps from one level to the next. Additionally, matter and energy are both wave-like and particle-like with only one aspect becoming manifest at any one time, depending on which aspect one is attempting to observe. Also, there is an intrinsic limit on how much can be simultaneously known about nature that can never be surpassed. The classical examples are position and momentum. The more precisely we know one variable, the less precisely we can know the other. Finally, an unmeasured quantum system (atoms, photons of light, etc.) does not exist in one of its possible states but all of them at the same time. This simultaneous aggregation of states is called a superposition and is one of the most bizarre realities revealed by QM. A mathematical tool known as a wavefunction describes this superposition, assigning probabilities to the existence of all the states. When the system is measured the wavefunction is said to “collapse” causing one of the possible states to become reality.  It should be noted that wavefunction collapse and superposition, although widely believed, is more of an interpretation of QM (the Copenhagen Interpretation)  than the direct results of theory and experimentation. So, QM has introduced such bizarre and counterintuitive concepts as the discreteness of energy, the wave-particle duality of matter and energy, and the ultimate probabilistic nature of all reality. This ‘Readers Digest’ version of Quantum Mechanics is about as simplified as it gets (for a fuller treatment see The CT Skeptic vol 2 issue 3 ) but hopefully it is enough for the discussion of QM and e.s.p. that follows.

The quantum weirdness discussed above has been used to justify a host of paranormal phenomena where no real justification exists. Specifically, one of the connections between QM and e.s.p. involves the assertion that QM supports the instantaneous transfer of information over arbitrarily long distances.  If this assertion were true, it would offer a viable mechanism for e.s.p., but the speciousness of the claim reveals itself upon closer examination.

QM has demonstrated that if two particles share a common origin, they become “entangled” in such a way that although they may be separated by light years, they still behave as one system with certain effects on one having an instantaneous effect on the other. This is not mere speculation. Actual experiments have been performed demonstrating his phenomenon. (Browne, 1997)  For example, if two particles are created from a single quantum system that has no spin, then in order for total spin to remain zero, the net spin of the two particles must also be zero. (Spin in quantum mechanics is not quite like a spinning top. For the purposes of this discussion, however, think of  “spin up” and “spin down” as different directions of normal everyday spin.) The fact that total spin must be the same is the result of a conservation law, which I will not go into here. Since spin cannot be created from nothing, if one particle is measured to be spin up along any axis (such as the x-axis) then the other particle must be the opposite spin on the same axis. Now remember, the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM tells us that until the particles are measured, they both exist in a superposed state in which all the infinite number of possible spin states exist at the same time along every possible axis. If an x-axis measurement is taken of one particle to determine its spin, then its wavefunction is said to collapse into either spin up or down. No matter in which axis of spin a measurement is taken, the particle will spin in that direction or its opposite. This is taken to mean that the act of measurement forces the particle to choose that direction in which to spin. Theory and experiment also show us, however, that if the twin particle is similarly measured, it will spin in the opposite direction of its partner. How did it know which spin direction the first particle was measured in so that it could “choose” the opposite?  Did it somehow communicate this information instantly, apparently disregarding the speed limit of light?  It is this apparent instantaneous transfer of information that many proponents of e.s.p. have latched onto as the mechanism for e.s.p. If science has shown that nature can communicate information instantly with no real energy being transferred, why can’t people do the same thing?

People can not do the same thing for two reasons. First of all, these experiments show that there are certain correlations between particles that are entangled. Postulating that a signal  was exchanged at superluminal (faster than light) speeds, however, is one interpretation, but it is an interpretation that has a lot going against it, such as Einstein’s Relativity. A better interpretation would consider that quantum phenomena are ill suited for description by human language, which evolved in a classical (Newtonian) environment. Even if signals were sent, it is not possible to exploit this process to send information, e.s.p. or otherwise. At its heart Quantum Mechanics is a statistical science. The behavior of a quantum system can never be predicted precisely. All that is possible are statements of probability. For example; scientists cannot tell you when an atom will decay, only that a certain percentage of like atoms will decay over a certain amount of time. Therefore, it is impossible to know beforehand which spin a particle will have before it is measured (unless, of course, you measured its entangled partner first). If you can not know what it will be, then it is impossible to encode a message you want to send instantly. Regardless of the mechanism, be it a computer or a brain, the only thing that can be sent are random bits of data with nothing for anyone to interpret.

If this isn’t enough there is another good reason why entanglement can not explain e.s.p.; a phenomenon called quantum decoherence. This principle is a description of what happens to quantum systems when many of them interact. Any of the inevitable interactions with other particles destroy any special connection between entangled particles, creating new entangled particles which then interact with other particles, and so on. The result is no special relationship between the original entangled particles and no possible message for an e.s.p. signal. Related to this is the fact that the human brain itself is not a quantum system (although it is made up of many of them) Any entangled particles produced by the brain would quickly decohere preventing any e.s.p. message from being sent.

Physiological Perspective

Many people will unfortunately disregard modern science’s view of the feasibility of e.s.p. Let us take another approach, therefore, and examine the sensory mechanisms that humans have evolved. If an e.s.p. sense exists then there must be structures designed to intercept and interpret this information.

There are many structures in the human body that feed the brain information about the world both outside the body and within. Specialized cells, called receptors, change the energy they receive into nerve impulses that are sent to the cerebral cortex of the brain, which interprets the information, telling us if it is the beat of a drum, a scratch on our skin or a sunset. Without such structures the brain would be completely insensate, unaware of anything going on around it. Sight, touch, taste, smell and hearing are the canonical examples of the human senses but scientists have identified receptors for no less than nine senses including ones informing us about the internal state of the body. One example is proprioception, which tells us the orientations of our limbs and where we are in space.

The one hundred and fifty million rod and cone receptor cells in our retina transform the energy of light into electrical signals for our brain’s visual cortex to interpret. The twenty five thousand hair-like receptors in the inner ear’s cochlea change the mechanical energy of sound waves into signals the auditory nerve can send to the brain. Our touch receptors are divided into four different types which are dispersed with varying distributions throughout our skin. Other receptors provide us with information such as heat, cold, and pain.

As sophisticated and marvelous as our senses are, other animals put us to shame with the subtlety and precision of their sense organs.  Buzzards can see small rodents from three miles away. Moths can hear frequencies twelve times higher than we can and cockroaches can detect movement as small as two thousand times the diameter of a hydrogen atom. Some animals do not simply have keener versions of our own senses. Some have receptors that provide information unlike anything we can sense. The shark, for example, has electro-receptors that allows them to perceive the weak electric fields emitted by the muscles of their prey.

All of the receptors responsible for such capabilities have been extensively studied. There are no mysterious receptors with unknown functions, receptors that might respond to unknown and elusive energies and thereby account for e.s.p.  Such candidate receptors for e.s.p. are conspicuous by their absence. This lack of receptors is not definitive proof against the feasibility of e.s.p., but is yet another mark against it.   Some e.s.p. proponents contend that the human brain itself is the receptor of e.s.p. signals. Doesn’t the average human use only 10% of his brain? Couldn’t the rest be devoted to extra-sensory perception? Contrary to this popular and pervasive myth, healthy humans use all of their brains. (See Don’t You Believe It in this issue for a more thorough discussion of this topic.) Although there is much we still do not know about the human brain, there are no vast areas with unknown capabilities.  If this were true we would be able to remove eighty to ninety percent of our brains with no loss of ordinary function. Further, from an evolutionary perspective, this myth is preposterous. Our brain weighs only four percent of our body weight but consumes close to twenty percent of its resources ². Evolutionary pressures could not select for an organ that consumes so many resources and is devoted to a function that only apparently benefits a few of us.

Conclusion

In part one we saw that nature does not provide for any known force which can account for e.s.p. Now we see that the weirdness of Quantum Mechanics provides no refuge for those seeking scientific plausibility for this failed theory. Just because a theory like Quantum Mechanics seems bizarre, it does not necessarily mean that it can be used to justify bizarre claims. On the surface, certain quantum phenomena may seem to support e.s.p. but this support vanishes upon closer examination. Additionally, if e.s.p. exists there should be receptors in the body evolved to send and receive these signals. None have ever been found.   Modern science, therefore, offers no plausible mechanism, and no direct evidence for e.s.p., which should increase skepticism to very high levels. Lack of a possible mechanism for a phenomenon is not enough to conclude that such a phenomenon does not exist, or is impossible. It does mean, however, that before the existence of the phenomenon is accepted as true, reproducible and compelling evidence should exist, which is lacking for e.s.p.. Unfortunately, interest in e.s.p. is far more widespread than the scientific literacy which is necessary to judge the feasibility of such paranormal phenomena.

In part three of this article I will discuss the feasibility of other types of e.s.p. such as telekinesis and precognition.

PART III

In part one of this article I discussed the fundamental forces of nature and examined whether they can account for the claims made for extrasensory perception (e.s.p.). It turned out that none could account for it, not gravity, not electromagnetism, nor any of the nuclear forces. Either they are too weak or too short ranged to be considered as viable explanations. In part two of this article I discussed ostensible support for e.s.p. by Quantum Mechanics (QM) and human physiology. As weird and counterintuitive as QM is, it cannot be used to justify the claims made by proponents of e.s.p.. Human physiology also fails to produce the elaborate and specialized organs that we would expect to exist if e.s.p existed.

Throughout this article I have implicitly used the term e.s.p. for communication from one mind to another outside of the normal sensory channels. This definition, often called telepathy, is what is most commonly assumed when the term e.s.p. is used, but there are other words that fall under the rubric of e.s.p., each with meanings different from telepathy. The most common are clairvoyance, precognition, and telekinesis.  Each of these will be discussed in turn and shown to be as bereft of scientific feasibility as telepathy.

Clairvoyance involves acquiring knowledge about an object or event without the use of our normal modes of perception. This is very similar to telepathy which involves mind-to-mind transfer instead of object-to-mind. Please read parts one and two of this article for an in depth discussion of this type of phenomena. I will make one point about clairvoyance, however. At least with the idea of telepathy one mind creates the information signal and another picks it up. I’m even more skeptical about clairvoyance because the information is improbably sent by innocuous objects like a watch or piece of clothing.

Telekinesis, or psychokinesis, is the ability to move or influence an object using only the power of the mind. Purists do not consider telekinesis to be part of e.s.p. because it does not involve any form of supernatural perception. They consider it part of “psi” which is a more general term for paranormal abilities involving the mind. However, most people consider telekinesis to be a form of e.s.p., perhaps because it represents influence at a distance. Regardless of the semantics, telekinesis is a widely believed “power” of the mind and I believe it fits in well with my discussion.

It is very compelling to think that with a mere thought we could move an object. Some argue that the brain can accomplish many amazing feats, and there remains a great deal to be discovered about it, so is it too much to ask for the brain to move an object by itself? It might seem trivial in terms of energy for the brain to move a small object but you might be surprised just how much energy is required. The average brain consumes about 25 watts¹ or 6 calories per second (this assumes a 2400 kilo-calorie diet). Let’s see what amount of energy would be needed for a simple act of telekinesis in which a pen is moved by the power of the mind. Assuming the pen weighs four ounces, what would be required by the brain to move such an object a few feet into the air in about a second? A spherical field produced by the brain would need a 100 kilowatts of power in order to move a pen that is a few feet away². This is similar to a modest radio station. If the power could be focused into a laser-like beam with modest dispersion then the power requirement could be reduced to 100 watts which is equivalent to the power output of the entire human body. Therefore, the simple act of moving a pen using telekinesis would require, at least, the entire energy output of the human body for a brief period of time.

The brain normally consumes about 20% of the body’s energy production. In order for the brain to increase it’s power output to 100 watts, blood flow to the brain would have to increase by a factor of 4, and the body would have to increase its total energy production by 60%. This is equivalent to a moderately vigorous exercise. This is all assuming that the brain is capable of producing and focusing a coherent beam of energy with a high degree of efficiency (a completely separate and non-trivial problem). Therefore, a telekinetic engaged in the activity of moving even an object as small as a pen should experience an increased heart rate and breathing as if they were engaged in moderate exercise. Lifting two pens would require athletic conditioning, and anything heavier than that would be beyond the means of normal human physiology.

Perhaps we can tap into an external source of energy thereby removing any of the seemingly insurmountable problems associated with using biochemical energy. One such possibility is a form of energy called Zero Point Energy that exists everywhere, even in that paragon of nothingness, a vacuum. Quantum mechanics has conclusively shown us that a vacuum cannot be pure nothingness, it is suffused with unseen energy that constantly surrounds us.  This stems from Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle which states that there is a fundamental and irremovable level of uncertainty encountered when measuring systems on the atomic level. Variables like position and momentum cannot both be precisely known with arbitrary accuracy. The more accurately we know one the less we can know the other. If one is known with absolute precision then we can know nothing about the other. This not only applies to position and momentum but more generally to energy and time. Thus the value of the fields that pervade space like the electromagnetic or gravitational fields and their rate of change over time also cannot both be precisely determined. Therefore the value of such a field cannot be zero because then its rate of change would also have to be zero, and this is not possible. Consequently, at time intervals close to zero, energy can approach infinity. This leads us to the inescapable conclusion that space is seething with so called virtual particles that appear from nothing, survive for the briefest moments (about 10-23 seconds3), then disappear into the nothingness from which they appeared. This energy, also called vacuum energy, is not merely the idle speculation of an obscure principle of physics. The Uncertainty Principle has remained unassailable and bullet proof throughout the seven decades of its existence. Its predictions about Zero Point Energy are evident in the unavoidable noise encountered in electronic circuits. Even fluorescent lighting could not exist were it not for the random fluctuations of energy of the vacuum state.

Could this ubiquitous Zero Point Energy be the power source behind an apparent telekinetic effect? Unfortunately this option suffers the same problem that plagues biochemical energy, namely lack of sufficient energy.  Even if we could somehow tap into this energy (another big problem) there does not seem to be enough to make it practical. Some scientists believe that if this energy could be harnessed it would end all our energy problems once and for all. Although estimating how much of this energy might exist is problematic, evidence is lacking to support this contention. Nobel prize-winning physicist, Steven Weinberg, estimates that within a volume the size of the earth there is an amount of zero point energy equivalent to only a gallon of gasoline. To lift a pen would require utilizing the amount of Zero Point Energy found in ten billion cubic meters of space, roughly a cube three kilometers on a side³.

Precognition is very different from telekinesis but it is similar to telepathy in that information would have to travel through space in order to be perceived by the brain. But, because precognition involves the perception of future events, this information would have to travel through time as well. We shall see that this introduces a host of new problems that are peculiar to this form of e.s.p..

The concept of time travel (to the future) received firm scientific backing with the development of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity in the early part of this century. This amazingly successful theory predicted that time was not an absolute as Newton believed. Rather its passage can be dramatically different for two objects moving at high speeds relative to each other. It has been conclusively demonstrated, for example, that subatomic particles accelerated to appreciable fractions of the speed of light survive far longer than they otherwise would have. This “time dilation” effect essentially slows time for speedy travelers compared to their partners back home. They therefore move into the future at a pace quicker, from their point of view, than the usual one second per second. Because of the mountains of evidence supporting this phenomenon there is not one reputable physicist alive today that doubts that space travelers on a high speed journey would return to earth younger than their former contemporaries.

If traveling into the future is possible then perhaps information can somehow be retrieved from the future and be perceived by the human mind. A problem arises with this scenario, however, due to the fact that once this information is attained it would then have to travel back in time so that we can perceive it. Physicists agree that travelling back in time is not possible under ordinary circumstances. There has been some speculation that black holes and worm holes might offer a method for traveling into the past, but they represent extreme conditions which cannot exist on Earth. Black holes are the infinitely compressed remnants of super giant stars, where gravity is so intense that even light can’t escape. The problem with black holes is traveling to one and hoping you’re not turned into spaghetti by the tidal forces. Worm holes are hypothetical tunnels through highly curved space that might connect distant regions of the universe. Some scientists believe that if one end of a wormhole is accelerated to a high velocity compared to the other end then traveling through it might offer access to the past. As you can imagine, even if this were true, the engineering problems would be formidable. In addition, the tunnel’s existence would be so fleeting that it would collapse on you while you were traversing it. Some propose that the mouth of the wormhole could be propped open with matter that has enormous negative pressure. Finding this so-called “exotic” matter might be an insurmountable problem, however, since no evidence or theory suggests that it might exist.

If this doesn’t make time travel into the past difficult enough, consider the paradoxes that can be produced. The canonical example is called the grandfather paradox. If I travel to the past and inadvertently kill my grandfather before my mother was born then I would never be born. (yes, I know, tenses are difficult when discussing time travel) But if I’m never born then I can’t travel to the past to kill my grandfather? If grandpa doesn’t die, then I will be born and I will kill him. Therefore if he survives he also dies. The only way to resolve this is to invoke alternate and coexisting realities or timelines. If this is the case then this isn’t really time travel, is it.

Perhaps ephemeral information doesn’t suffer the constraints that seem to prevent macroscopic objects from traveling back in time. People with precognition simply acquire information from the future, obviating the need for people to do the traveling. Might not this prevent all these problems? Unfortunately, changing the past is the same as sensing the future and altering the present. Consider, I have a vision of a future calamity. Using my precognitive information I prevent this calamity. How then can information travel to the past about an event that never happened? If I am not warned then I can’t prevent the calamity and it occurs. We’re back to the grandfather’s paradox. Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, the Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge University, has my favorite, if unique, objection to time travel. He contends that if it were possible we would be inundated by hordes of tourists from the future.

What this all boils down to is the violation of one of the foundations of all modern science, cause and effect. All of physics is based on cause and effect and the existence of precognition would require the modification of many of its principles. Physicist Lawrence Krauss said it best, “That’s a lot to ask for a little precognition.²”

After examining the different forms of extra sensory perception and many well established, widely accepted principles of science, it is obvious that both are incompatible. Either the reported claims of e.s.p. are somehow in error or much of science is.  In this regard, e.s.p. is similar to many other paranormal phenomena and psuedosciences. When one looks for a physical process or mechanism, none are found that are consistent with our understanding of nature. Our minds, however, are powerful. Powerful enough to reveal many of the true wonders of the universe. E.S.P. is just not one of them.

References:

Part II

1) “Signal Travels Farther and Faster Than Light,” M.W. Browne; New York Times, July 22, 1997: Science Times section
2) Principles of Neural Science, 3rd Edition, by Kandel, Schwartz and Jessell, 1991, New York, Elsevier.

Part III

1) Principles of Neural Science, by Eric R. Kandel and James H. Schwartz, 2nd edition, Elsevier, 1985.
2) Beyond Star Trek, Physics from Alien Invasions to the End of time. Lawrence M. Krauss, 1997
3) Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent, the London Sunday Telegraph   From New Scientist, 25 February 1995, Vol.145, No.1966, pp. 30-33.

Comments and Author’s Response

Dear Editor,

I enjoyed Mr. Novella’s article on telekinesis in The New England Journal of Skepticism, Spring, 1999.  However, the article’s illustration of lifting a pencil at a distance of a few feet is fraught with large quantitative errors.  In the first place, I weighed a new wooden pencil and found the weight to be about 4.5 grams–rather less than 4 oz.  So let us consider a fishing sinker weighing, for convenience, a bit less than 4 oz., to be exact, 102 grams or 1 Newton. To lift that slightly-less-than 4 oz. sinker by 1 meter requires 1 Newton-meter or 1 Joule of work.  Now a Joule is a watt-second of work, so to lift the sinker 1 meter in 1 second requires a power of 1 Watt–far less than the figure of 100 W cited in the article..  (When the article says, “If the power could be focussed like a laser beam…”, I assume that the computation in the article assumes that nearly all the power emitted by the brain in order to raise the pencil goes, in fact, to raising the pencil.

If my assumption is correct, however, the article is neglecting inefficiencies in the performance of mechanical work which consume over 75% of the metabolic energy expended–but that neglect would be an error on the side of caution.  Anyway, lifting a pencil–or even a 102-gram sinker 1 meter with a beam of energy focussed like a laser should be no less efficient than lifting it by hand, unless the computation embodies some unstated assumption that I can scarcely imagine.  And we all know that such a task does not produce noticeable tachypnea or tachycardia.  (In fact, a sudden pulse of work that expended 100 W for 1 second would not produce noticeable tachypnea or tachycardia either, since the energy would be supplied anaerobically and perhaps also using oxygen bound to myoglobin; and the debt would be repaid relatively slowly.  Consider a 71.4-kg man who rises from a seated position and raises his center of mass 1/3 meter.  His weight is 700 Newtons, so he does 700/3 or 233 Joules of work; and achieves a mean power output of 233 W if he does it in 1 second.)

Please understand that I am not defending  telekinesis: I don’t believe it either, and I am not at all pleased at the prospect of my children being taught by teachers who have been indoctrinated in post-modern thought (an oxymoron).  In fact, most post-modernists may not have time for the white western male rational obfuscation contained in the previous paragraph.  However, people who throw stones should make sure that they are not living in glass houses.

Bruce Wenger

Author’s Response

Thank you for your careful analysis of my article. The word “pencil” in the article should be “pen,” hence the weight discrepancy. (This has been corrected for the online article above)

Mr. Wenger’s assumption that “nearly all the power emitted by the brain in order to raise the pencil goes, in fact, to raising the pencil” is not correct. In the article I stated that the laser-like energy beam had a “modest dispersion.” I did not specify this in my article (which perhaps I should have) but my research indicated that the geometry of the human head precludes a tightly focused beam. Therefore, a 100 Watt beam would be needed to apply the 1 Watt of power required to lift the pen. This calculation was provided for me by physicist, Lawrence Krauss.

Regarding the issue of tachycardia and tachypnea, my article compared the energy output (100 Watts) to moderate exercise. Obviously, one second of exercise is not enough to raise the heart rate or cause shortness of breath. A sustained telekinetic effort, however, should have the same results as moderate exercise.

Robert Novella

Sections:

Topic Overview
Index of NESS Articles and Blog Posts
Index of Relevant SGU Episodes
Outside Resources
Summary of Key Research

Topic Overview

There are many forms of creationism but at their core they all share a denial, to some degree, of evolutionary science. Creationism is therefore a pseudoscience and a form of denialism.

The various forms of creationism include:

Young Earth Creationists – believe the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, based upon a literal interpretation of Genesis. YECs believe that God created all living things essentially in their current form. They deny all of evolution, except perhaps for what they call “microevolution”, or minor adaptations to the local environment. Of course, evolution is nothing but adaptation to the local environment, extrapolated over billions of years.

Old earth creationists believe that the world is billions of years old, but still deny various aspects of evolution. Some deny common descent – that all species are phylogenetically related, and instead believe that life arose through a series of separate creations. Others accept that life evolves and is related through common descent, but deny random mutations and natural selection as the mechanism of evolution. They believe that a supernatural force was necessary to push evolution forward.

In this latter camp are many of those who espouse so-called Intelligent Design, which is really just another name for creationism or evolution denial. They argue that evolution could not happen, for various reasons, and therefore a supernatural agent was necessary.

Finally, there are those who accept the scientific consensus on the fact and mechanism of evolution but hold out belief that evolution unfolded according to the will of God – that evolution was simply God’s mechanism for creation.

Meanwhile, the evidence for evolution is robust and growing, leading to its overwhelming acceptance among scientists. To quickly summarize this evidence:

Fossils – The fossil record shows the appearance of new species over time, their persistence for a time (on average about 2 million years) and then their disappearance. But more importantly, there is a distinct pattern to the fossil record in that new species appear morphologically related and derived from older species. The fossil record reveals a bush of hierarchicaly nestled groups – exactly what we would expect if life arose through evolution and common descent. Further, there are no fossils that falsify evolution – no horses mixed in with Cambrian fossils.

There are also many transitional fossils (in reality all fossils are transitional, but specifically there are those that bridge gaps between extant species). Despite the numerous false claims by creationists, and as predicted by evolutionary theory, paleontologists have found fossil species that are transitional between fish and terrestrial animals, reptiles and mammals, reptiles and birds, land mammals and whales, ape ancestors and humans, and many many more.

Genetics – If we examine the genetic relationship among species we also find a pattern of relationships that closely resembles the bush of life drawn through morphology. At a fine level of detail, of course, there are anomalies but the overall pattern is clearly evolutionary. For example, if we pick a protein like hemoglobin we find that the more closely related two species are the more similar their hemoglobin – even if we look at silent changes in the DNA sequence in the gene for hemoglobin. There is no functional reason for this pattern – only an evolutionary reason makes any sense.

Development – While embryos do not pass through the adult stages of earlier species (and old idea now rejected), development does carry the scars of evolution. Specifically, embryos do not develop directly and efficiently into babies but rather the developmental process takes many complex and unnecessary twists and turns. Developmental pathways, however, can be explained by evolutionary contingency – evolution often works by tweaking the process of development, taking it down different paths.

Morphology – living organisms also carry the tell-tale signs of their evolutionary past, usually evidenced through suboptimal design due to the constraints of evolutionary history. The eye is an excellent example (see reference below) – in vertebrates the retina is literally backwards, the light sensing layer is below the vascular and other layers, causing unnecessary problems.

There are also many vestiges of our evolutionary past. Cave salamanders retain stunted and useless eyes in their dark environment. Chickens retain genes for teeth that never get expressed. Pandas have a thumb that is actually an enlarged wrist bone.

Selection and mutation – there is now also copious direct evidence that beneficial mutations occur spontaneously in nature, and that beneficial mutations can be selected for and spread through the population. There is even evidence for contingency – multiple mutations working together to create a new adaptive trait. So there is direct evidence for every aspect of evolution through natural selection.

Please be patient as we build this resource. In particular the key research we link to below – we obviously cannot summarize the thousands of published articles that constitute the evidence base for evolution. Rather, we focus on recent high quality representative studies that establish important principles of evolutionary theory.

Index of NESS Articles and Blog Posts

• A Few Questions about Evolution (Steven Novella, 8/09)
• Another Gap Filled – More Evidence for Eye Evolution (Steven Novella, 12/07)
• Answering the ID Crowd (Steven Novella, 09/07)
• Buchanan’s Inane Rant Against Darwin (Steven Novella, 7/06)
• Buckley on Darwin (Steven Novella, 02/07)
• Creationists, Mechanical Engineers, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Steven Novella, 4/01)
• Creationists Run Aflow of the Evidence (Steven Novella, 1/99)
• Design, Evolution, and more Semantic Nonsense from ID Proponent, Michael Egnor (Steven Novella, 04/08)
• The Design Interference (Steven Novella, 10/02)
• The Evolutionary Rubes Strike Back (Steven Novella, 04/07)
• Evolve This! – Why We Should Care About Evolution and Creationism (Steven Novella, 10/04)
• Evolving Mice (Steven Novella, 09/09)
• The Expelled History Fallacy (Steven Novella, 4/08)
• He May Be a Neurosurgeon But He’s No Evolutionary Biologist (Steven Novella, 03/07)
• Hugh Ross’s Testable Creation Model (Steven Novella, 04/07)
• Intelligent Design and the Argument from Ignorance (Steven Novella, 07/07)
• Intelligent Design is Not Science (Steven Novella, 04/08)
• Intelligent Design – Response to Behe (Robert & Steven Novella, 11/05)
• Is Intellgient Design Falsifiable? (Steven Novella, 04/08)
• Irreducible Stupidity: As If We Needed Another Example (Steven Novella, 06/07)
• The Judgment of Tiktaalik (Steven Novella, 11/07)
• Ten Major Flaws of Evolution – A Refutation (Steven Novella, 09/07)
• More Witless Self-contradiction from the Discovery Institute (Steven Novella, 4/08)
• Natural vs Artificial Selection and ID Propaganda (Steven Novella, 12/07)
• Non-Science in Dating the Earth (Chuck Roche, 5/04)
• Responding to Behe and Irreducible Complexity (Steven Novella, 4/99)
• Scientific Proof and Evolution Denial (Steven Novella, 07/07)
• Why ID Should Not be Taught in Science Class (Steven Novella, 09/07)

Index of Relevant SGU Episodes

• Episode #97 – Creation Museum Opens
• Episode #99 – Creationism Poll
• Episode #105 – Brain Evolution
• Episode #124 – Information Theory
• Episode #126 – Creationists New Strategy
• Episode #132 – Creationist Research Journal
• Episode #134 – Interview with PZ Myers, Bat Evolution
• Episode #140 – Interview with Eugenie Scott
• Episode #141 – Expelled Again
• Episode #143 – Age of the Earth
• Episode #145 – Evolution Freedom Law in Florida
• Episode #146 – Misconceptions about Evolution
• Episode #148 – Radiometric Dating of Mt. St. Helens
• Episode #152 – Bacteria Evolve
• Episode #154 – Creationism Bill Passes in Louisiana
• Episode #155 – Conservapedia Denies Evolution
• Episode #156 – Tiktaalik
• Episode #165 – Creationism in the UK
• Episode #172 – Junk DNA
• Episode #183 – Science Education in Texas and Lousiana
• Episode #184 – Evolution – Lizards and Fire Ants
• Episode #192 – Evolution Education in Texas
• Episode #197 – Walking Seal
• Episode #200 – Missing Link Ida
• Episode #201 – RNA World, Polonium Halos
• Episode #202 – Texas Update
• Episode #209 – Thomas Jefferson and Evolution
• Episode #215 – Evolving Mice

Outside Resources

Books

• Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters (Donald R. Prothero, 2007)
• The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (Richard Dawkins, 2009)
• The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution (Sean B. Carroll, 2006)
• The Triumph of Evolution: and the Failure of Creationism (Niles Eldredge, 2000)
• Why Evolution is True (Jerry A. Coyne, 2009)
• Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body (Neil Shubin, 2008)

Websites

• Evolution 101 Podcast (Zachary Moore)
• Free Inquiry Creationism Resource
• The National Center for Science Education
• The Talk Origins Archive)

Summary of Key Research

(Note: this is not meant to be an exhaustive list of evidence but a smattering of representative papers presenting key evidence for evolution.)

________________________________

Blount ZD, Borland CZ, Lenski RE. 2008 Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 7899–7906.

Summary: This elegant and thorough research documents the evolution of E. coli bacteria in the lab over 20 years. Specifically they grew 12 strains of E. coli is a glucose limited environment but rich in citrate – an alternate carbon source that E. coli cannot normally use. After 31,000 generations on strain finally evolved the ability to use citrate, and they thrived. The researchers went back through the generations (because they saved them along the way) and found that the mutation allowing use of citrate was dependent upon two prior mutations.

This research not only establishes in a thoroughly observed laboratory setting that random mutations may lead to the acquisition of a new and useful ability, but the role of contingency in evolution. This directly contradicts the notion of irreducible complexity as put forth by Behe.

___________________________________________________________

Daeschler E B, Shubin NH, Jenkins FA. A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature 440, 757-763 (6 April 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature04639

Summary: This is a description of Tiktaalik – a devonian fish with transitional features of land-based tetrapods. Specifically:

Although the body scales, fin rays, lower jaw and palate are comparable to those in more primitive sarcopterygians, the new species also has a shortened skull roof, a modified ear region, a mobile neck, a functional wrist joint, and other features that presage tetrapod conditions.

It is also notable that the researchers were specifically looking for a specimen like Tiktaalik – evolutionary theory predicted that a fish with similar features should exist in the Devonian era, and so the discovery of Tiktaalik was a powerful validation of evolution.

___________________________________________________________

Linnen CR, Kingsley EP, Jensen JD, Hoekstra HE. On the Origin and Spread of an Adaptive Allele in Deer Mice. Science 28 August 2009: Vol. 325. no. 5944, pp. 1095 – 1098, DOI: 10.1126/science.1175826

Summary: These researchers demonstrate the occurrence of a de novo mutation in deer mice that has arisen in the recent past (about 4,000 years ago), after the geological appearance of sand dunes. The mutation allowed the normally dark haired mice to develop lighter sandy-colored hair for better camouflage in the new environment. This demonstrates the ability of random mutations to provide selective advantage, and for that selective advantage to cause the spread of the new mutation throughout a population.

___________________________________________________________

Mead LS, Mates A.  Why Science Standards are Important to a Strong Science Curriculum and How States Measure Up. Evolution: Education and Outreach. Published online: 7 August 2009

Summary: Reviews US state science standards with attention to their treatment of evolution and the historical science, with attention to the inclusion of creationist language.

___________________________________________________________

Rohner N, Bercsényi M, Orbán L, Kolanczyk ME, Linke D, Brand M, Nüsslein-Volhard C, Harris MP. Duplication of fgfr1 Permits Fgf Signaling to Serve as a Target for Selection during Domestication. Current Biology, 03 September 2009,  doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.065

Summary: This study shows that zebra fish retain an unaltered copy of the fgfr1 gene while a mutation in the copy of the gene is responsible for the phenotype of mirror scales. This evidence supports the principle that gene duplication is an evolutionary mechanism that increases the amount of genetic information in a species, and allows one copy to retain the original function of the gene while the other copy is free to mutate and experiment with new functions.

___________________________________________________________

Thewissen JGM, Madar SI, Hussain ST. (1996). Ambulocetus natans, an Eocene cetacean (Mammalia) from Pakistan. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 191: 1–86.

Summary: This paper presents the fossil evidence for Ambulocetus natans, the so-called “walking whale.” The link also describes other fossils transitional between land mammals and cetaceans. For years creationists crowed that there was a lack of transitional fossils between land mammals and whales, as if the lack of a complete fossil record called evolution into question. Now creationists have quietly dropped this from their mantra as a beautiful sequence of fossils from land mammal to modern whale has been found and described. Ambulocetus is as close to a half-whale/half-land mammal as you can get – a smoking gun of a transitional species.

Sections:

Topic Overview
Index of NESS Articles and Blog Posts
Index of Relevant SGU Episodes
Outside Resources
Summary of Key Research

Topic Overview

Astrology refers to a number of ancient systems of belief that relate the positions of the planets and constellations to events on Earth. In Western culture, the Zodiac is central – twelve constellations that the apparent position of the sun moves through throughout the year – Cancer, Leo, etc. So-called sun-sign astrology predicts the personality and fate of individuals based upon the date of their birth – which is supposed to correlate to the constellation where the sun was positioned.

Another form of astrology is referred to as sidereal astrology, and considers not only the sun-sign of birth but also the position of the stars on the horizon at the moment of birth (to within 4 minutes).

Astrology, of any type, is considered by mainstream scientists to be a classic pseudoscience.  It is not based upon any validated principles of astronomy, physics, cosmology, or any scientific discipline. There is no plausible mechanism by which the positions of the planets and stars from the perspective of earth can influence the personality of an individual, or their “fate.”

There are also significant practical problems with the various forms of astrology. For example, due to the precession of the equinoxes, the sun is no longer in the constellations that correspond to the classic dates created 2,500 years ago in Babylonia. This means that during the alleged time of Aries the sun is actually in Pisces. Ancient astrologers did not know of precession (as the earth rotates, its axis slowly shifts) so they made no allowances for it.

Sidereal astrology has a separate problem. The basic beliefs of this system were worked out centuries ago, prior to the advent of accurate clocks and time keeping. It was not possible to note the precise time of birth, and it was not commonly practiced to note the position of the stars at the moment of birth. So one wonders how the basic prinicples were worked out.

Even today, while the time of birth is generally noted, it is not a high priority, and  accuracy within 4 minutes is not typical.

But most importantly – there is no empirical evidence to show that any astrological system has any predictive power. Personality profiles do not correspond to astrological signs.

Index of NESS Articles and Blog Posts

• Astrology Convention in Denver (Steven Novella, May 8 2008)
• Does anybody know what time it is? WOO time! (Mike Lacelle, March 26 2009)
• Retro Fit (Evan Bernstein, September 29 2008)
• United Astrology Conference: Loserfest 2008 (Evan Bernstein, May 19 2008)
• Why You Should Not Use CareerBuilder.com (Rebecca Watson, October 28 2008)

Index of Relevant SGU Episodes

• Episode #18 – Astrology vs Astronomy
• Episode #62 – Psychic Astrology
• Episode #63 – Randi Speaks: Business Astrology
• Episode #89 – Astrology Fails Again

Outside Resources

• Astronomy Cast Episode #39 – Interview with Steven Novella on Astrology and UFOs (Host- Fraser Cain, June 4 2007)
• Bad Astronomy – Astrology Page (Phil Plait)
• The Skeptic’s Dictionary – Astrology (Robert T. Carroll)

Summary of Key Research

There are different versions of the dangerous error known as creationism. “Young earth” creationists believe the world was created ten thousand years ago in six days; others gallantly admit the earth is older. But all creationists deny one scientific fact: life on earth is the product of evolution, slow change over time brought about primarily by natural selection acting on variation.

There are a lot of these people. According to a 2001 Gallup poll, 47 percent of all Americans accept a strict creationist view, and only 12 percent accept a strict scientific view of evolution. And the creationists have tried–with some success–to get their views inserted in school curricula across the country, in states like Kansas and Georgia. This despite the fact that nearly all scientists with a specialty in the natural sciences–about 98 percent of them–accept evolution as an established fact.

Two questions, then: Why the difference between public and scientific opinion? And why should we care?

There is an ongoing creationism vs. evolution controversy–but on school committees, not among scientists. Almost all scientists agree that there is an overwhelming consilience of evidence for evolution–from fossils, genetics, developmental biology, population studies, biochemistry, and anatomy. There is also evidence that makes sense only in light of evolution, like fossilized early whales with legs and the latent ability of chickens to grow teeth.

The controversy goes back over a century. After Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, most scientists were soon convinced, but there was strong religious opposition. States wrote laws against the teaching of evolution, and some of the laws remained on the books as late as the 1960s. But in the ’70s and ’80s, fearing that they were losing the battle with science, creationists changed their tactics: They would not try to outlaw evolution, just try to win “equal time” for creationism. Under the banner of “fairness” they argued that both “models” (they did not use the term “theory”) of origins should be taught to students, who could then make up their own minds.

To make their religious faith seem more scientific, creationists came up with…

Intelligent Design

The central argument of ID is that life displays structures that are “irreducibly complex,” which means structures that could not carry out their current function if they were any simpler–and since evolution requires that they have passed through simpler stages, they could not have evolved.

For example, ID proponent Michael Behe argues that the flagella of the single-celled paramecium–the tail-like motor that it uses to propel itself through water–could not function if any of its pieces were missing. This “irreducibly complex” argument, however, was shot down long ago by evolutionists who noted that a complex structure could have evolved from a simpler structure that served a function different from and simpler than its current purpose. A flagellum did not have to evolve to function as a motor; it could have evolved from a simple food gathering appendage. Intelligent Design proponents have no answer to this fatal criticism of their core claim.

But back to the real controversy: Why should we care about what our children are taught about science? In a world increasingly ruled by science and technology, the benefits of having a scientifically literate voting population and workforce should be obvious. Furthermore, more important than teaching the current findings of science–what scientists currently think is true–is teaching how science works. Intelligent Design should not be taught as science in the public schools because it is not science. For example, ID cannot state its hypotheses in a way that can be tested by observation and proven false. The wizards of ID distort the process of science.

The sad fact is, creationists have been successful in making evolution publicly controversial even though no scientific controversy exists. They have spooked textbook companies into removing the “e” word from their texts, or watering down the treatment of evolution. It is no wonder that public opinion differs so much from scientific opinion: Creationists have been successful in destroying good science education. They have created the public ignorance they now exploit to further their cause.

But here’s a useful principle: The scientific community, not politicians, should determine what is proper science. People trained in laboratories, not seminaries, should be trusted on questions of the origin of species. Especially in a world where technology is a matter of national security, a world in which education is the key to defeating poverty and terrorism alike, we owe it to ourselves to heed scientists, not snake-oil salesmen.

I once saw a UFO. That is, I saw an object in the sky I couldn’t identify. Chances are you have too, probably more than once. What I saw were lights in a large “V” shape, moving silently, too slow to be a plane, moving out of view after about 10 minutes. Was it a flying saucer, and alien spacecraft, a time-traveling psychic Bigfoot, or perhaps something more prosaic–something boring?

There are thousands of reported UFO sightings each year, and in this digital age you can easily find numerous pictures and video clips on the internet. Does this mean we are being visited by alien spacecraft? Probably not.

After more than half a century of fascination with flying saucers, there has yet to emerge a single piece of credible evidence that we are being visited by aliens. There isn’t one unambiguous photograph or video that holds up to scientific scrutiny, not one piece of physical evidence. No smoking saucer.

Any reasonable person should ask believers why that is. Believers will often counter that the aliens don’t want us to know they are here (in which case they are doing a pretty bad job of hiding their presence, what with all the crashed saucers and anal probing), but that is just special pleading. No evidence is still no evidence.

Skeptics also point out that the very concept of a “flying saucer” was born of nothing more than a reporter’s liberties. In 1947, pilot Kenneth Arnold started the modern flying saucer craze when he reported seeing several UFOs. He described them as boomerang-shaped, but also noted that they were hopping, like a saucer skipping on the water. A reporter then coined the phrase “flying saucer” and the image stuck. And the fact that most UFO witnesses report seeing saucer-shaped objects demonstrates how suggestible we are.

There are numerous known stimuli for unusual or unexplained sightings. Astronomical objects seem to be the most commonly mistaken for UFOs; Venus is often a bright and unexpected addition to the early evening or early morning sky, for example. The crescent moon can seem eerie peeking through the clouds, and it can seem to follow a traveling observer. In addition to natural objects, countless man-made artifacts now clutter the sky: satellites, planes, rockets, weather balloons, experimental aircraft and more. Then, too, there are outright hoaxes.

Proponents of the “extra-terrestrial hypothesis” (ETH) often point out that there is a residue of unexplained sightings, occurrences that can only be due to real flying saucers. These partisans are committing, however, a suite of logical fallacies. First, “currently unexplained” does not equal “unexplainable”–a good explanation may be just around the bend. Second, “unexplained” does not mean alien spacecraft (a bit of illogic called the argument from ignorance)–unexplained just means unexplained. Third, the fact that there remain unexplained cases does not necessarily point to the ETH. Given the millions of such sightings, isn’t it reasonable to propose that there should by necessity be a small percentage of unexplained cases, even in a world without alien visitors? Sometimes we just can’t explain things. That doesn’t mean some loopy, improbable theory must be right.

No flying saucers does, of course, mean we should try to explain how so many observers could be mistaken. Well, this is not as difficult as it may seem. First, most sightings are of points or shapeless blobs of light–those could be anything. Other sightings are of shiny or metallic-seeming objects, but without clear detail to suggest a spacecraft.

Sometimes people do report details, like windows or fins. They also report objects moving at fantastic speeds or carrying out seemingly impossible maneuvers. However, when viewing an object against the sky, without a clear background for reference, it is impossible to estimate size, distance, and speed, and we are subject to optical illusions.

Also, human beings have an innate tendency to perceive details that are not present, often triggered by expectation or suggestion. And our memories are not reliable; they are malleable and subject to contamination. Even the so called “reliable” witness can be unreliable: Air Force pilots mistake common objects for UFOs all the time.

It is admirable to look up into the sky with awe and wonder. Astronomy is awesome, and true scientific mysteries invite our wonder. But curiosity must be coupled with intellectual discipline. We should be aware of the limitations of our own observations and memory, the human tendency toward suggestibility and wishful thinking, and the dictates of logic.

So what was that object I saw in the sky? Turns out it was five mischievous ultralight-airplane pilots, flying in formation. But if I had never discovered the truth, it wouldn’t mean we were being visited by alien spacecraft.

Letters and Dr. Novella’s Responses

Letter 1

Dear Steven,

I just read your article and while you make great points you dismiss all the data collected such as radar tracking and actual video footage of UFO’s made by reliable witnesses (both government and private individuals.) Please check out the upcoming Peter Jennings ABC news special on 2/24/05 regarding UFO’s. Also, please take the time to view the 50 minute video on the Disclosure Project (http://www.disclosureproject.org/). Something is happening and we need science to help us identify, explain, and deal with the eventual outcome of whatever this phenomena is.

John Lennon witnessed a UFO in New York City and remarked to a very skeptical friend that he had never hallucinated anything so outlandish even while taking LSD. Why would so many risk their careers and all they have achieved to come forward with the similar accounts of incredible technology that is not being utilized by the government, military, and most surprisingly, greedy corporations?

While your sighting was explained, thousands of other sightings have not been explained. Those are the ones that are most important right now.

Sincerely,

Beth Glover

Dr. Novella Responds:

Beth,

Thank you for your letter.

First, I do not dismiss any data, sightings, radar, or other pieces of evidence. There is something happening, I just think that what is happening is a psychocultural phenomenon, not an extraterrestrial one. The psychocultural hypothesis (PCH) is a much better fit to all of the data than the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH).

I am familiar with the disclosure project. They do not have any piece of evidence that can be considered a smoking gun – nothing which is incompatible with the PCH or which demands the ETH. If you think there is any such evidence, then let me know what it is. I would be happy to take a close look at it. Keep in mind, every single time I have issued such a challenge to a UFO proponent, the evidence was either never forthcoming or was proven to be either mundane or fraudulent. Also, volumes of evidence is not a substitute for quality. I would be happy to revise my opinion if someone could show me a single piece of evidence which is even remotely impressive.

Further, you do reiterate a couple of common fallacies that I did address in my article. First, there is no such thing as a reliable witness. No one’s testimony, by itself, will be sufficient to establish a phenomenon such as alien visitation. We are all susceptible to well-documented errors in perception and memory. Also, you seem to imply that since you cannot imagine why someone would lie, that they must be telling the truth. Yet, it is also well documented that people do lie for strange and personal reasons. And, keep in mind that most witnesses probably are not lying, they are just mistaken and perhaps over eager.

You also refer to the sightings which remain unexplained. They, of course, are more interesting than those that are explained, but they are not evidence for alien spacecraft. They are simply unknown, and there are thousands of quirky but mundane possible explanations. You can’t build a case on ignorance. As an aside, I recently saw advertised in a magazine a large mylar silver toy blimp shaped like a flying saucer. Most people probably do not know such things exist and if they saw one without knowing what it was probably could not guess.

I hope this clarifies my position, and again I would be happy to follow up with any specific cases you feel are compelling.

Regards,

Steven Novella

Beth Replies:

Dear Steve,

I’m impressed with your quick response and thank you for it. I just read your article regarding PCH. If you are right, there are millions who have succumbed to “magical thinking” and curiously are willing to risk public ridicule by acknowledging it. Perhaps a clinical study should be undertaken to examine the phenomena of magical thinking so we’ll better understand ourselves.

Sincerely,

Beth Glover

Dr. Novella again replies:

Beth,

There already is a large body of psychological literature on “magical thinking” and related concepts. It appears that humans do have several inborn tendencies that contribute to magical thinking, for example the propensity for pattern recognition and story-telling, the desire for meaning, the allure of the fantastical, etc. The solution is to understand logic and to practice intellectual discipline (what I would call healthy skepticism).

You seem to be placing a great deal of significance on the claim that people who admit to having had a UFO experience subject themselves to public ridicule. I think you should reconsider this premise, however. More than 50% of the public believe in UFOs. In fact, I find myself much more the target of attacks by being skeptical of the ETH. Further, there is a large subculture of people who embrace and celebrate the ETH – a very large support group.

You also should consider the logic of this statement. If your premise is correct, that would only mean that witnesses believe their own accounts, it does not mean that their accounts are true and accurate. Also, to be consistent, you have to apply the same logic to people who make other claims – demonic possession, miracles, bigfoot encounters, ghost encounters, crop circles, psychic ability, etc. Why would all those people lie or face public ridicule?

I can also give you a personal observation, from years of working with many people who hold a range of fringe beliefs. To me they seem thrilled to have something interesting and potentially meaningful in their lives, and they seem unconcerned about criticism from stodgy skeptics and scientists.

In short you seem to be overemphasizing and misinterpreting the significance of alleged fear of public ridicule, and giving insufficient significance to a host of other psychological factors, such as the simple desire to have something interesting in your life.

But all of this is ultimately irrelevant, because we can argue endlessly about what to infer from such things. The bottom line remains this – what does the evidence show? To date, there is a conspicuous lack of anything demonstrably alien.

Regards,

Steve Novella

More from Beth:

Steve,

I can see that you readily accept the company line offered by our government. Since you are not privy to government information, why do you contend that you have all the evidence at your disposal to conduct a scientific study? Again in your attempt to calm your fears, you got all mixed up and didn’t read carefully what I said. I said that UFO’s have deactivated nuclear weapons and played cat and mouse with military jets – there is documentation to support that. I don’t think your fears are nonsense and understand your motivation to deny.

Your collection of hypotheses offered up to explain my deficiencies in rational thought are no doubt unlimited but at this time I remain unmoved by your arguments and unblinded by your science. I prefer to keep my mind open to the possibility that the scientific community and our government don’t have all the answers at this time to explain what UFO’s are or what they mean to mankind.

Beth

Dr. Novella Responds:

Beth,

You still didn’t provide documentation. You say it’s well documented – give me a name, a link, a book, something.

You appear to be taking the “fear” angle, common to UFO believers. What exactly do you think I am afraid of? If the aliens were here and had hostile intentions, we would be toast already. If they are here and don’t have hostile intentions, then what a boon to humanity that would be. What is their biology, how do they manage to travel the vast interstellar distances, what is their physics and cosmology? Even if they only let a few crumbs fall to us, how fascinating that would be. I truly hope to live to see us make contact, either directly or through SETI, with an alien civilization.

I have no fear. Your insistence that I do is puzzling. Perhaps it means that you have nothing more substantial to fall back on. You still have yet to point out an error in logic or to provide documentation of a case that points to aliens. The fear thing is the UFO believer “company” line, but it’s nonsense. Do you know any adults who are afraid that we are being visited by aliens? Maybe there are a few out there, but almost everyone I know is fascinated by the idea and without fear.

Finally, you claim the government has proof of aliens I can’t know about because they are hiding it. Well, then, how do you know about it? This is not evidence, it’s just using a conspiracy (for which there is no evidence) to explain away the lack of evidence. That’s called special pleading.

Regards,

Steven Novella

When I was a child some of my favorite toys were simple magnets. I was fascinated by the way they could push or pull on each other at a distance with an invisible force. It was like magic. Energy itself, all types of energy, seems like magic. Physicists, performing almost like stage magicians (nothing up their sleeves), recently delighted in showing off how they could levitate frogs using superconducting magnets.

It’s no wonder that mysterious energies play a central role in so much of the science of the weird. Many gurus and mystics claim they can heal by simply manipulating “life energy.” There is also no shortage of con artists and the self-deluded who claim they have found the secret of limitless free energy. Simply inserting the word “energy” into any claim, no matter how ridiculous, will give it the appearance of cutting-edge science.

Shortly after the discovery of electromagnetism, while it was still cutting-edge science, Anton Mesmer claimed to have discovered “animal magnetism,” a new force that he could detect and manipulate to “mesmerize” his subjects. Benjamin Franklin, considered an expert of his day in the electrical force, was asked to head a commission to investigate Mesmer, and he definitively showed the claims to be nothing but delusion.

The idea of a “life force” goes back even further than Mesmer, at least thousands of years. Every human culture had some concept of a life energy that animates living things, such as chi, spiritus, animus, etc. Modern science has failed to find this energy, however, and biological models have rendered the concept quaint and unnecessary. But the concept survives in numerous mystical healing modalities, collectively called “energy medicine.” Some chiropractors still believe that by manipulating the spine they are freeing up the flow of the life force called “innate intelligence.” Therapeutic touch practitioners believe they can manipulate the “human energy field” without any actual touching, it turns out. And acupuncturists believe their needles are altering the flow of life force, which they call chi. It is too easy to make vague references to “energy” as the explanation for any unconventional healing method.

But the universe is basically composed of two things, matter and energy. It was Einstein who taught us that matter and energy are actually two sides of the same coin, and are related by the most famous of equations: E=Mc2 (energy = mass times the speed of light squared). Humans have a much more comfortable and intuitive grasp of matter. Matter, after all, is tangible, and (usually) obeys what feel like common-sense rules of behavior. Energy, on the other hand, is not easily grasped by the human mind. It is intangible, often invisible, and spooky.

To scientists, however, real energy is as lawful and comprehensible as matter. Science knows of only three forces in the entire universe: the strong nuclear force, the electroweak force (which includes both the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism), and gravity. Astronomers now think there may also be a new mysterious force in the universe called dark energy, a long-range repulsive force that is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate; this is still somewhat speculative. Energy follows strict laws of nature, like the law of conservation of energy (you can’t get something from nothing) and the laws of thermodynamics. The rules that govern energy are so thoroughly established by countless careful and irrefutable observations and experiments that they truly deserve to be treated as iron-clad laws of nature.

Sometimes energy itself is the scam. The promise of free energy, often in the form of perpetual motion machines, or engines that produce more energy than they consume, is almost an obsession with many cranks. Free-energy con artists try to beguile audiences with presentations that have all the dazzle and detail of a ride at EPCOT Center. They hope that at least some members of the audience will be sufficiently ignorant of the laws of energy that they will think investing thousands of dollars for limitless free energy is a good deal.

It is best to be skeptical of any claims of mysterious forces, or vague references to “energy” as catch-all explanations for seemingly fantastical phenomena. And it would be a safe bet that any claims to produce energy from nothing are mistaken or fraudulent. Sure, science is a journey and not a destination, and the claims of scientists change all the time. But some things are more certain than others, and the mechanics of energy ranks near the top. Any claim that would seem to topple the existing laws that govern energy would have to meet an enormous burden of proof before it would (or should) be taken seriously.

Now if only I could get my hands on one of those levitating-frog gizmos.

An obese friend of mine commented on how well his new diet was going, as he absentmindedly devoured an entire low-carb cheesecake while happily engaged in his sedentary pastime. He, like many of my friends, family, and patients, truly desire to lose weight and be healthy but seem to be wrapped in an endless cycle of failure, not to mention excess adipose tissue.

Like so many aspects of our society, the average citizen is overwhelmed with weight-loss misinformation, pseudoscience, and a burgeoning industry of dieting fraud, quackery, and bad advice. The correct information is mixed in there too, if you know where to look and how to recognize it when you see it, but sadly, for the average person, it is lost in the noise.

You have probably heard the statistics before, as they have become the standard preface to any article or tome on diet and weight loss. America is fat. The 2001 statistics from the center for disease control (CDC) indicate that in 2001 the prevalence of obesity (body mass index or BMI of 30 or greater) was 20.9% (Mokdad 2003).The numbers for 2007-2008 were 33.8% overall (Flegal 2010). The most recent data does indicate, however, that the trend is leveling off in the last decade.

The National Center for Health Statistics estimates that 65% of adults in the United States are overweight (BMI of 25 or greater) or obese. Children and adolescents are increasingly overweight as well, and the degree to which Americans are overweight is increasing. The prevalence of obesity is about the same across age, sex, race, and level of education, although it tends to be higher at lower socioeconomic levels. The estimated direct annual healthcare costs of obesity is $90 billion, and it is estimated that soon obesity will overtake smoking as the number one preventable health risk.

There’s plenty of blame to go around for what is being called the 21st century pandemic of obesity. The western lifestyle is always the first target of blame, for good reason. Americans eat too much and exercise too little. We have an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, with desk-jobs and video games taking up an increasing portion of our time, displacing manual labor and sporting activity. The American diet also tends to be dense in calories and large in portion. A recent CDC report indicates that Americans are eating more. Between 1971 and 2000 the average American’s daily calorie intake increased by 168 calories for men (from 2,450 to 2,618) and 335 calories for women (from 1,542 to 1,877) (CDC 2004).

The same report also indicates that the portion of calories from carbohydrates increased during the same period, while fat intake increased slightly and protein intake decreased slightly. The additional calories in the American diet was largely from increased carbohydrates.

While increased calorie intake is certainly to blame,  I place a significant portion of the blame for America’s dieting woes on nutritional nonsense itself. Fad diets and misinformation give people false hope, failed strategies, and distract them from the real causes of their obesity, and the real solutions.

Fad Diets

Charlatans will happily flock to any realm where there is a significant gap between the public’s desires and their knowledge. In the area of dieting, there is a vibrant industry of weight-loss gurus and fad diets, in a seemingly never-ending cycle. A casual perusal of any large bookstore chain’s shelves will reveal dozens of popular titles. Most readers will recognize the Atkin’s diet, now enjoying the top spot in popularity, but many others are still popular, such as the South Beach diet, the Pritikin diet, and the Zone.

Fad diets, as a common theme, usually focus on the proportion of various macronutrients in one’s diet. Calories (in physics, the basic unit of energy is the calorie, but in nutrition a thousand such calories, or a kilocalorie, is also referred to as a Calorie, sometimes distinguished with a big “C”) in our diet come from either protein, fat, or carbohydrates – the macronutrients. Alcohol also contains calories, but otherwise there is no other source of energy in our diet.

The basis of most fad diets is to claim that weight loss (and other health benefits) can be achieved by altering one’s diet so that it contains an optimal proportion of the macronutrients. This usually takes the form of labeling one of the macronutrients as “bad” and minimizing it in the diet. In the 1970’s and 80’s the bad macronutrient was fat, spawning a low-fat craze in the food industry which still lingers today. In the 1990’s and the new century carbohydrates have clearly displaced fat as the bad boy on the block, and a low-carb craze is in full swing. Enter the Zone, although in the low-carb camp, went one step further to claim that there was a magical zone of proportions of the three macronutrients which would produce optimal health and weight loss.

The problem will all of the popular diets is that they followed the short and quick path to popular appeal and bypassed the more arduous path of scientific validity. In short, the proponents of such diets never did valid research to establish their premises or their clinical claims. Meanwhile, legitimate researchers have been slowly and quietly advancing our knowledge of nutrition and weight loss, but their findings have been largely disconnected from the cycle of popular marketing and belief. Occasionally, a guru will cherry-pick a study or two which appears to support their position, but largely only useless anecdotes and hand-waving explanations are offered to support claims.

Low-Carb Diets

You can’t go to a food store or restaurant these days without being inundated with low-carb, or Atkins-friendly, options. Atkins has been making his low-carb claims since the 1970’s, but he was largely eclipsed by the low-fat craze of the 70’s and 80’s. In the 1990’s, however, other dieting gurus, like Spears of Enter the Zone fame, started pushing the low-carb claims, and the momentum has clearly shifted. Interestingly, despite decades of time and millions of books sold, Atkins claimed rather lamely that he did not have the resources to do proper clinical studies of his claims.

The low-carb diet philosophy has several key components. One claim that may have some legitimacy is that carbohydrates stimulate the release of insulin, which then drives down the blood sugar level, which in turn may drive rebound hunger causing further calorie intake. So far the studies have shown that low carbohydrate diets may reduce hunger and lead to decreased caloric intake, but they also show that any such advantage only lasts for 6-12 months (Nordmann 2006). Long term, there does not appear to be any advantage to low-carb diets. Perhaps our bodies adjust to our new diets and we reach a new equilibrium in terms of hunger. Regardless, it is important to note that there does not appear to be any long term advantage to decreased carbohydrates.

It is also important to point out that in clinical trials comparing various diets in obese subjects, overall weight loss is modest, and subjects are usually gaining weight back by the end of the study. In the review cited above, for example, at 6 months subjects on a low carb diet lost on average 3.3 kg more than subjects on a low fat diet. By 12, months, however, the difference was only 1.0 kg, with the 95% confidence interval being between -3.5 to +1.5 kg (meaning that as far as these data can tell low fat diet may be superior to low carb by 12 months). And – on average subjects were gaining weight toward the end of the study, with total weight loss being negligible.

The South Beach diet focuses on glycemic index rather than total carbohydrates, and this does make more sense, although supportive data is still lacking. Glycemic index refers to the rapidity with which a carbohydrate is broken down into glucose, the form of sugar that is used by cells to make energy and which stimulates insulin release. Most people are surprised to learn that potatoes, which are high in starch (starch is basically a long chain of glucose molecules strung together), is metabolized into glucose more quickly than table sugar (which is sucrose and needs to be broken down into glucose and fructose). Therefore, it may be more important to focus on the kinds of carbohydrates we eat rather than on the total amount. Nutritionists now do recommend substituting whole grains for processed white bread, brown rice for white, whole-wheat pasta for white, and avoiding too much sugar. It is not clear if this aids in weight loss, but there may be other health benefits, for example avoiding diabetes (more on this below).

However, most of the fad diets either strongly suggest or directly claim that you can lose weight without reducing calories simply by avoiding carbohydrate calories. This is where the fad diets clearly depart from the scientific evidence, which overwhelmingly supports the idea that a calorie is a calorie. People lose weight because they burn more calories than they consume, and all weight loss diets work by reducing calories.

Another aspect of the low-carb diets worth commenting on is the phenomenon known as ketosis. Although our bodies can burn fat and protein for energy, glucose is the primary fuel of cells. Our brains are especially dependent upon a steady supply of glucose for energy, and this is why we need to maintain a certain blood glucose level for optimal health. We cannot convert fat or protein into glucose, and therefore must consume a certain amount of carbohydrates in order to meet the body’s needs. If the cells in our body are starved of carbohydrates then they produce proteins known as ketones and burn the ketones as an emergency substitute for glucose. This leads to a build up of ketones in the blood, a metabolic state known as ketosis.

Diabetics can go into ketosis, not because they are starved of glucose but because of insulin dysfunction, preventing adequate transport of glucose from the blood into cells. So even though there is plenty of glucose around, the cells can’t get access to it and must rely upon ketones for quick energy. Another way to achieve ketosis, however, is to simply deprive the body of carbohydrates. The Atkins diet recommends decreasing carbohydrate intake to less than 20% of total calories, which is low enough to cause ketosis, and this is, in fact, the goal. Some more extreme low-carb diets call for total carbohydrate intake of 5% or less.

Ketosis is generally considered to be an unhealthy metabolic state. Ketones are acidic, and high levels of ketones in the blood therefore lead to another metabolic state known as acidosis. One side effect of ketoacidosis is a decrease in hunger, and that is likely a major contributor to the apparent short-term weight loss that low-carb dieters experience.

Again, I will emphasize that long term health and weight control cannot be achieved through short-term strategies that result in unhealthy metabolic states.

Low-Fat Diets

Just like with carbs, you can’t lose weight by reducing fat unless you also reduce total caloric intake. But the food industry aggressively marketed low-fat foods to dieters, without significantly reducing or disclosing total calories. In order to keep food appealing calories were typically replaced with more protein or carbohydrate calories. In fact, many dieters were lulled into eating more calories because they thought low-fat foods would be healthy.

It is true that fat contains more calories per gram (9) than protein or carbohydrates (which contain 4). Therefore, fat is more calorie dense and foods high is fat are typically also high in calories. However, just counting calories from fat can be deceiving, and still dieters are better off just counting total calories.

Another aspect of the low-fat diet claims is that they are more heart healthy, whether or not they are an advantage for dieting. This story, however, turned out to be more complex and interesting than was at first thought, and the low-fat diets of the 70’s and 80’s may have actually contributed to increased heart disease. I discuss this more thoroughly below.

East Less, Exercise More

That, in a nutshell, is the formula for weight loss and general nutritional health. The magic formula of calories in vs calories out still holds sway over our weight, despite the aspirations of frustrated dieters. Many times have I seen knowing resignation on people’s faces when I tell them that the evidence still strongly supports this basic fact. We can’t help wishing there were a magic bullet, a way to lose weight without (as copious ads claim) dieting and exercise. But down deep, we all know the unfortunate truth.

There is also no magical way to achieve the goals of reduced calorie intake and increased expenditure, but there are some common-sense recommendations that are worth keeping in mind. It is difficult to estimate how many calories we are and should be eating day to day. Overeating by even a small amount, the equivalent of a slice a bread, for example, can result in a slow and steady weight gain adding up to several pounds per year. Therefore, there are many legitimate dieting aids which essentially help the dieter count calories. Some systems use actually calorie counting – keeping track of every morsel and looking up the caloric content in a table or booklet – but these tend to be tedious. Some systems, like Weight Watchers, use points, others use cards, or some other proxy for tracking calories that is a bit easier. Some systems, like Jenny Craig or Nutri System, require you to buy their prepackaged food with pre-measured caloric content. These systems are generally more expensive once you count the cost of the food, and don’t teach people to fend for themselves in the real world.

The research does show that dieters have a hard time estimating calories, and most people tend to grossly underestimate the total number of calories they eat in a day. People tend to specifically underestimate the calorie content of diet meals (Carels 2007) and large meals (Wansink 2006).  The research also shows that structured meal plans (eating prepared foods with known caloric content) and partial food substitution (diet shakes and bars also with fixed calorie content) do result in more weight loss and greater long term success (Vázquez 2009, Davis 2010). Whatever method you use, consider if it is affordable and convenient in the long term. There is no point in using a system that you do not feel you can do for the rest of your life.

The goal should be to change your eating habits for life, which means adopting eating habits that are realistic and tolerable. Cumbersome or expensive systems will likely be abandoned eventually, and studies indicate that the weight will likely just come back on as old habits are resumed. Also, highly restrictive diets are monotonous and difficult to maintain. So keep it simple, keep it tolerable. This brings up another major recommendation for weight loss – think long term. Short term strategies are by definition doomed to failure.

Unfortunately, many dieters fall into the trap of thinking short term. “If I can just get rid of these 20 pounds quickly, then I will change my habits to keep it off.”

Lose-weight-quick schemes are like get-rich-quick schemes – they seem to appeal to our natural tendency to desire instant gratification and avoid long-term effort. But the data are clear, people who keep weight off long term adopt healthy eating and exercise habits and stick with them. Rapid weight loss programs almost always fail.

Reducing calories can be achieved without spending money on a specific weight loss program. The most important strategy is simply portion control. Put less food on the plate and don’t take seconds. When eating out, if served a large portion then only eat part of it and take the rest home. Don’t order appetizers and additional side dishes.

Another strategy to reduce calories is to avoid snacking between meals. This is something that everyone knows, but also seems to be one of the more difficult things to do. Part of the reason for this is that we snack more out of habit than out of hunger, and habits are hard to break. Let’s face it, eating is fun, and we have cheap access to an abundance of tasty snacks which are enjoyable to eat. There is also often a social dimension to eating that further reinforces the behavior. The common sense recommendation for snacking is to do it in moderation. It’s OK to have an occasional treat, but avoid making it a regular ritual. Also, keep low-calorie healthy snacks close at hand (I prefer baby carrots), and try not to fill the cupboards with high-calorie snacks. Some people might find it easier to comply with some hard-and-fast rules, like no snacking after 7pm, but have some low-cal snacks on hand for emergencies.

The final strategy for reducing caloric intake is to alter the kinds of food that you eat, but this is much less important than portion control. Some foods are denser in calories than other foods, and eating calorie-dense food is likely to result in greater overall caloric intake. It is therefore helpful to familiarize yourself with the approximate caloric content of the common foods you enjoy eating.

Exercise, Exercise, Exercise

Don’t forget the second half of the “calories in vs calories out” equation. Long term weight loss can also be achieved through increased exercise. Some health professionals blame America’s weight problem more on our sedentary lifestyle than our eating habits, even though both are clearly playing a role. Recent data, however, seem to favor overeating as the inciting problem, not lack of exercise (Metcalf 2010).

Even though it is difficult to burn off large numbers of calories through exercise, unless you are a marathon runner, steady modest exercise can burn off hundreds of excess calories per week, which add up over the long term. Exercise also appears to be key to long term maintenance of weight.

As with dieting, knowing a few basic commonsense rules are all that is needed. Regardless of your age, start slow and build up steadily over time. Avoid beginning a strenuous exercise program that will simply discourage you and burn you out quickly. Pick exercises that you find fun and are convenient and you are more likely to continue them long term. The research suggests that for weight loss and cardiac health it is more important to exercise for a longer period of time rather than at a greater intensity (Chambliss 2005). If you are older or if you have any serious medical problems, it is probably best to consult your primary care doctor before starting an exercise program. For those with physical limitations, a referral to a physical therapist may be helpful in outlining a program. For many people, swimming (what therapists call “aquatherapy”) may be an excellent option because the buoyancy of the water decreasing any weight-bearing and therefore is much easier on the joints.

There are many benefits to regular exercise other than just weight control. Cardiovascular health is also improved, muscle strength and endurance increase, and exercise even increases the level of HDL (the good cholesterol – see below) in our blood.

There is another way to increase calorie output other than exercising – by increasing the basal metabolic rate of your body with stimulants. Many diet pills, even the “all natural” pills favored by the supplement industry today, promise weight loss without diet and exercise by offering stimulants. Caffeine is a popular choice, but also substances that many people would not recognize as stimulants are used. Ephedra was a popular herbal stimulant used in diet pills, until the cases of sudden death piled up high enough so that the FDA could finally force a ban of this chemical.

Although stimulants can cause you to lose weight in your sleep, this is not a healthy or even successful strategy. Stimulants can be risky to use, especially for those with heart disease, but even young healthy people are taking a chance. Long term stimulant use can also cause osteoporosis and sleep disturbance. Once the stimulants are stopped, metabolism will decrease again, perhaps even lower than before, and the weight will quickly come back on. My advice for stimulants – just say no.

Overall Health

There are reasons to change your diet and adopt regular exercise other than weight control. I reviewed the benefits of exercise above. For diet, there are several health concerns in addition to weight control. The most basic one is simply overall nutrition. Even though there is no magic formula of macronutrients, we do need to get a reasonable mix of all three macronutrients in our diet. In addition, there are several “essential” fatty acids (fats) and amino acids (proteins) that we must get in our diet. By definition, “essential” means that we cannot make the fats or amino acids from other substances, we must consume them directly. There are also numerous micronutrients, including vitamins and minerals, that we must get from our diet.

The issue of routine supplementation is complex and beyond the scope of this article. Many nutritionists feel that complete nutrition can be achieved by food alone, without the need for supplementation. Others, however, feel that a multi-vitamin is a safe and reasonable measure to insure proper nutrition. Also, some populations, such as women of child-bearing age, have specific nutritional requirements and should have routine supplementation.

Regardless of whether or not you choose to take supplementation, it is a good idea to get as much quality nutrition as possible from your food. The number one rule for this is to simply eat a varied diet – another reason why fad diets with restrictive food choices are a bad idea. In terms of what food to eat, it is a good idea to get as much fruits and vegetables as possible, since they are an excellent source of vitamins and minerals. If you are trying to lose weight, however, be careful with fruits, as they can be calorie rich. Whole grains are another staple, and the diet should be rounded out with nuts and legumes and protein from fish or chicken. Red meat should be consumed only occasionally. Dairy is still a bit controversial, but moderate consumption is reasonable.

Diabetes and Glucose Metabolism

Diabetes is a serious health problem often related to diet. There are two basic types of diabetes: Type I diabetes is an autoimmune disease that kills off the pancreas cells which secrete insulin. This type tends to have its onset early in life and is often referred to as insulin-dependent. Type II diabetes is a metabolic disorder thought to be due primarily to insulin resistance. The cells of the body do not respond as vigorously as they should to the hormone, insulin, which causes glucose in the blood to enter cells. Therefore cells do not get enough glucose to function, and the glucose level in the blood rises. The pancreas then produces more insulin to compensate, but its ability to do so can be exceeded in severe cases. There is also a milder form of diabetes called impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) which is being increasingly recognized.

In addition to genetic predisposition, the primary risk factor for developing Type II diabetes is being overweight. Often the disease can be eliminated by weight loss alone. However, it is also important to avoid overloading the body with a sudden surge of glucose, stressing its ability to secrete insulin in order reduce blood sugar levels. Those with Type II diabetes or IGT, or those at risk for either condition, should therefore avoid foods which are rapidly broken down into glucose.

For control or prevention of diabetes, therefore, it is helpful to have a diet with a moderate amount of glucose. It is also helpful to get carbohydrates in a form which is not rapidly broken down into glucose, but is more slowly broken down over time (a low glycemic index). Basically, avoid sugar and refined white starches.

Here again most low carb diets, such as Atkins, fall down, for they concentrate on the total amount of carbohydrates and ignore the types of carbohydrates. In fact it is the types of carbohydrates that are likely more important, and ultra-low total carbohydrate intake is unnecessary, even for diabetics.

Heart Health

Another aspect of health that is tied closely to diet is heart disease. More specifically, atherosclerosis, which is a build up of cholesterol deposits on the inner surface of arteries. The cholesterol plaques can restrict blood flow, break off and then clog one or more arteries downstream (embolus), or they can cause platelets (sticky cell fragments in blood that are the first line of clotting to stop bleeding) to clump on the plaque (called a thrombus) thereby blocking flow through the artery. Such blockage of arteries that feed the heart cause heart attacks, and when they affect the arteries that feed the brain they cause strokes.

It is well established that the risk of atherosclerosis directly correlates with the level of cholesterol in the blood. People with very high cholesterol are therefore at high risk for strokes and heart attacks. Other causes of high cholesterol are being overweight and lack of exercise.

It was this link between blood cholesterol and heart disease that led to the low fat craze of the last 30 years. There was a brief push for low-cholesterol foods (eggs became the bad-boys of the refrigerator for awhile), but the data soon showed that fat intake was more important than actual cholesterol intake. Ironically, the low fat-diets of the 80’s and 90’s seemed to have lead to an increase in heart disease. One cause likely relates to the fact that during this time Americans continued to grow fatter, supporting the hypothesis that fad diets are a failed strategy. But there is likely a more important explanation as well.

As most people have likely heard by now, there is good cholesterol (HDL or high density lipoprotein) and bad cholesterol (LDL or low density lipoprotein). HDL is good because it carries cholesterol away from the inner lining of arteries to the liver to be metabolized. LDL is bad because it carries cholesterol to the arteries where it is deposited, forming streaks of cholesterol and eventually plaques. The low fat movement did not distinguish between types of fat, but oversimplified by labeling all fat as bad (much as the low-carb diets of today label all carbohydrates as bad). Foods, like nuts and vegetable oils, which increase HDL, were banned from low fat diets. Low fat food products replaced fat (even if it was the good kind) with protein and carbohydrates. The net result of decreasing both good and bad cholesterol was more heart disease, not less.

There are three basic types of dietary fats: saturated, mono and polyunsaturated, and rehydrogenated. Saturated fats (those that have the maximal number of hydrogen atoms on the carbon backbone of the fat molecule) are bad fats because they increase LDL. Saturated fats are found in red meat, dairy products, lard, and therefore fatty deserts. Lean meats, like chicken, have much less.

Unsaturated fats are missing one or more hydrogen atoms. They are found in fish (omega-3 fatty acid), nut and legumes, and vegetables (and therefore vegetable oils). Eating generous amounts of these foods, therefore, is heart healthy.

Hydrogenated fatty acids (also called trans-fatty acids) start as unsaturated fatty acids and are processed to put back the hydrogen atoms. These fatty acids have a very negative effect on lipid profile, worse than saturated fat, and are therefore the worst kind of fat. They are found primarily in solidified fats, such as margarine, and processed foods, primarily baked goods. As much as possible, hydrogenated fats should be eliminated completely from the diet.

References

Akkary E, Cramer T, Chaar O, Rajput K, Yu S, Dziura J, Roberts K, Duffy A, Bell R.Survey of the effective exercise habits of the formerly obese. JSLS. 2010 Jan-Mar;14(1):106-14. Epub 2010 Apr 21.

Carels RA, Konrad K, Harper J.Individual differences in food perceptions and calorie estimation: an examination of dieting status, weight, and gender. Appetite. 2007 Sep;49(2):450-8. Epub 2007 Mar 4.

CDC, Trends in Intake of Energy and Macronutrients – United States, 1971-2000. MMWR Weekly February 6, 2004; 53(04);80-82; http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm, accessed May 6, 2004.

Chambliss HO. Exercise duration and intensity in a weight-loss program. Clin J Sport Med. 2005 Mar;15(2):113-5.

Davis LM, Coleman C, Kiel J, Rampolla J, Hutchisen T, Ford L, Andersen WS, Hanlon-Mitola A. Efficacy of a meal replacement diet plan compared to a food-based diet plan after a period of weight loss and weight maintenance: a randomized controlled trial. Nutr J. 2010 Mar 11;9:11.

Katherine M. Flegal, PhD; Margaret D. Carroll, MSPH; Cynthia L. Ogden, PhD; Lester R. Curtin, PhD. Prevalence and Trends in Obesity Among US Adults, 1999-2008.  JAMA. 2010;303(3):235-241. Published online January 13, 2010 (doi:10.1001/jama.2009.2014).

Metcalf BS, Hosking J, Jeffery AN, Voss LD, Henley W, Wilkin TJ.Fatness leads to inactivity, but inactivity does not lead to fatness: a longitudinal study in children (EarlyBird 45). Arch Dis Child. 2010 Jun 23. [Epub ahead of print]

Mokdad AH, Ford ES, Bowman BA, Dietz WH, Vinicor F, Bales V, Marks J. Prevalence of obesity, Diabetes, and Obesity-Related Health Risk Factors, 2001. JAMA, 2003;289:76-79

Nordmann AJ, Nordmann A, Briel M, Keller U, Yancy WS Jr, Brehm BJ, Bucher HC. Effects of low-carbohydrate vs low-fat diets on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2006 Feb 13;166(3):285-93.

Vázquez C, Montagna C, Alcaraz F, Balsa JA, Zamarrón I, Arrieta F, Botella-Carretero JI.
Meal replacement with a low-calorie diet formula in weight loss maintenance after weight loss induction with diet alone. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009 Oct;63(10):1226-32. Epub 2009 Jun 17.

Wansink B, Chandon P.Meal size, not body size, explains errors in estimating the calorie content of meals. Ann Intern Med. 2006 Sep 5;145(5):326-32.

Modern Attacks on Harry Potter and Roleplaying Games

Here is your character on your character sheet:

NAME:  Bob the Fighter
RACE:            Halfling
HEALTH:       10
STRENGTH:  10
SMARTS:       2
Carries a big club that does
1 to 10 points of damage.

Here is your first adventure:

Gamemaster (GM): Bob wakes up after a good night’s rest in the Lepus Woods, and is pretty hungry. So, he picks up his big club and starts to look for breakfast. After a short time, Bob hears some rustling in the bushes ahead. Ok Bob, what do you do?

Bob: Oh, I guess I try and hear what it is.

GM: Ok Bob, roll a “hear” roll.

You roll a D10 (a dice with 10 sides) and score a 2. 2 plus your smarts of 2 gets you a 4. You tell the GM.

GM: (Quickly checking a chart and seeing that Bob needed a 10 or higher to correctly discern what the noise was) Well Bob, you can’t quite make out what it is, but there is definitely something moving around in there.

Bob: Darn…uh…I go up to the bushes.

GM: Ok, Bob, you go up to the bushes and see that it’s a little rabbit hopping around in there. What do you do now?

Bob: Um…hit it.

GM: Ok Bob, roll to hit.

You roll a D10 and get an 8. 8 plus your strength (10) equals 18. A quick check on the GM’s “to hit” chart shows that an 18 is more than enough to strike a little rabbit.

GM: Ok, Bobbo, you give it a solid whack with your big club. Roll damage.

You roll another D10 as you see by your character sheet, your club does 1 to 10 points of damage. You get a 6, plus your 10 strength equals 16.

GM: Well Bob, since the rabbit only had a Health of 3, and you did 16 points of damage to it, you smush it into a pulp. Looks like you found breakfast.

Bob: Hehe, I sit and eat the mush.

GM: Alrighty Bob, while you’re enjoying your hasenpfeffer, a shadow descends over you. You look up and see a 10-foot rabbit standing behind you.

Bob: EEEK! Er, I jump up with my club.

GM: OK Bob, with the gore of your breakfast still dripping from your lips, you spring around with your trusty club in your hand. However, the big rabbit is much faster than you and swipes at you with his humongous claw.

The GM rolls a D10 and scores a 7. 7 plus the rabbit’s strength of 20 equals 27. A quick check of your character sheet reveals that you have only 10 Health points.

GM: Well Bob, the big rabbit, having taken umbrage at your treatment of his offspring, has swiped you for 27 points of damage. That’s 17 more points than you had. So, as you spin bloodily to the ground you sense your spirit floating off to the big clubbed shaped cloud in the sky.

End of adventure.

What you have just read is typical of a pastime, in its simplest form, that many have enjoyed since its inception some thirty years ago, role-playing games. And for almost as long, there has been a vociferous minority decrying the hobby, claiming that the games promote everything from occultism to murder. The criticisms rise from the same blind misconceptions and suppositions that created the witch-hunts, the satanic panic, and the pre-school molestation craze. I will not rehash here the many fine studies that have discredited these virulent attacks on the hobby I hold dear (you can see them for yourself by reading the sources cited in the bibliography). Rather, in this piece we will try to shed light on what these games actually are, a topic not addressed even in the literature I have read defending them, and then look at the most contemporary occurrence of these attacks, the brau–ha-ha over Harry Potter as examined by the NESS vice-president.

The author has been an active participant in the hobby for more then 20 years. I have found the games to be mentally stimulating in their intricacy and detail, creatively spurring in their immense breadth of fictionalized realities, but above all, the games are a wondrous engine of social interaction.

Countless are the times I have gathered with good friends for a night of gaming around a table and played into the wee hours of the morning, the session running for five, six, or seven hours. The author has done this on average once a week for two decades. Yet what is absolutely essential for the non-initiated to understand is that during these thousands of hours of gaming a significant percentage of the time is spent discussing, arguing, and laughing about anything but the game. The actual game at hand, be it “Call of Cthulhu,” “Space 1889,” or the granddaddy of them all, “Dungeons and Dragons,” becomes the frame work for the gathering. Not the other way round.

I have personally seen what these multitudinous hours around the table can do to hone the social skills of my fellow gamers and myself. I have seen the tempered be made becalmed and the introvert flower. Role-playing games are really quite astounding in their degree of success in the molding of the latter. People who come to the games as shy and reclusive can, many for the first time in their lives, experiment with a voice that is not entirely their own. If only just for a sentence or two (at first), they are “Bob the Fighter,” not Bill Smith the shy. In time, they inevitably begin joining in the rich conversations sparking about the table on other issues, and before they know it, they are successful in a social environment. This success stays with them and aids in other aspects of their life.

As to the game-play in specific, it matures as the gamer does. When you are young, the games are all about getting the sharper sword, the faster horse, and the harder armor. Yet when the novelty of such hording wears thin, the story begins to move to the fore and eventually becomes the only glue left holding the veteran gamer to the table. Under the auspices of an experienced inventive game master, these tales can be compelling. The storyteller will touch on matters of the human condition that the players are unlikely to encounter in their daily lives. Their characters can be placed in situations replete with deep moral or ethical dilemmas. They might have to choose the lesser of two evils or be made to sit in judgment of friends or fictional family. More often than not, it is their wit at play, not their weapons.

In the end, these are games of the mind. They are at their stellar best when the dice are silent, the characters’ stats are forgotten and the table fades from perception as the story at hand sweeps you into it. Like no other entertainment the author has encountered, role-playing games have the unique component of you personally affecting the outcome. This cannot be done with books, theater or even film. With those media you are swept along; within the realm of the role-playing game you are swept into the story and you impact it, albeit for a brief time.

I opened this piece with an example of the role-playing game at its simplest. What follows is an example of it at an entirely different level:

GM: The rain is driving now Thera. You are watching from the front of the angry crowd as the guards lead your brother Aaron toward the gallows. You know that you have the proof that could free him in your pouch, the note from Baron Maller confessing to the murder he is being executed for. Maller gave it to you as he lay dying, after he helped you destroy an evil vampire that had been decimating his barony. Over the time you two worked together, your valor and love of justice slowly won him over from the narrow minded leader he used to be. Yet, bringing the note forth now might be believed by this angry mob, and even if it were, the Barons name would be ruined, and the barony would fall from the hands of his just son, into the ruthless grip of Duke Grond. They are ascending the steps of the gallows now… what do you do?

Thera: Oh god…

In short, these games are fun, compelling, and socially rewarding. Will the critics ever go away? Unfortunately, they will probably persist, like Leatrile. The coauthor now examines the most recent incarnation, attacking the very popular Harry Potter phenomena.

Harry Potter

Hide your children! Better yet, don’t teach them to read and do not, I repeat, do not bring them to the movies. This is not some new twisted parenting philosophy yet it is actually sadly commensurate to the irrational reaction of a vocal minority to an eleven year old boy named Harry Potter.

Unless you’ve been off-planet with no radio for a few years you know that Harry is the main character of J.K.Rowling’s publishing juggernaut “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone.” The popularity of this book and its offspring has been truly mind-boggling with over one hundred million books sold and translations made in scores of languages including Icelandic, Serbo-Croation and Zulu. Amazon.com has listed the series among its most popular among the more than one million books that they sell online. The series has spent so much time on best-sellers lists that a special list for kid’s books was created so authors of adult books wouldn’t have to compete. Not only can the books themselves be found in the tight little grips of most pre-adolescents, you can also find Harry Potter video games, pillows, card games, and lets not forget M’cDonald’s happy meals. In late 2001, the ante was upped with the release of the blockbuster record-breaking movie version of the first book.

This phenomenon isn’t just a marketer’s wet dream; educators and parents the world over were stunned and overjoyed that children could be so spell-bound by the written word. For years the struggle against video games and t.v. seemed almost insurmountable until Harry started waving his wand, driving kids in droves to voraciously read book after book. This silver lining has a dark cloud however. As the incredible popularity of the books started being widely recognized, an increasingly vocal and outraged group of parents, concerned citizens, and religious leaders started condemning the books as actually harmful to children.

This condemnation has taken many forms. A library in Kansas cancelled readings of the Harry Potter books due to concerns raised by irate citizens of their magical content. Members of the Harvest Assembly of God Church in Butler County in PA held a book burning in which Potter books and videos of Pinocchio and Hercules were consigned to the fires. Reverend George Bender stated that “We believe that Harry Potter promotes sorcery, witchcraft-type things, the paranormal, things that are against God,… That is really bad.”1 Across the nation, numerous school trips to the Potter movie have been canceled due to its ostensible support of witchcraft. Some students in Jacksonville Florida must present parental permission slips before reading the books in school libraries. For nearly three years, the Potter books have topped the American Library Association’s list of challenged and banned books. In Peryn Pennsylvania, local police refused to direct traffic for the annual YMCA triathlon because the club is said to promote witchcraft by reading the books to children. There is now a “hate-line” telephone number in Austria that you call to vent on how much you hate Harry Potter.

Critics tend to fall into one or more of three categories. There are those who feel that the books glorify witchcraft, spells, and the occult; activities that they believe are unambiguously proscribed by the bible. Others feel that the books create an almost overwhelming interest in these activities which draws the reader into the occult and away from biblical teachings. At the absurd end of the spectrum, there are those that believe that the Potter book series is a direct tool of Satan and his minions, designed to prepare the children of the world for his hostile takeover bid. Baptist activist Jon Watkins warns that “Satan is up to his old tricks again and the main focus is the children of the world”2.
What of these claims? Does the bible condemn witchcraft? Part of the problem lies in the definition of witchcraft itself. Seventeen different types of activities have been called witchcraft, some are similar but many are completely different or even opposite. What follows is a brief description of some of the different types of witchcraft.

Bible Witchcraft

Both the Old and New Testaments of the bible mention the words witch or witchcraft in certain English translations. For example: “Thou shall not suffer a witch to live” (Exodus 22:18 KJV). The Hebrew word, M’khashepah, means someone who uses spoken spells to cause harm or kill others. Wouldn’t “Evil Sorcerer” be more apropos than “Witch”?. Similarly, In the New Testament, the word Pharmakia is often translated as witch but it really refers to the practice of using poisons to harm or kill others.

Wiccan Witchcraft.

The primary group of individuals that refers to themselves as witches today are Wiccans. The Wicca Neo-Pagan religion draws it inspiration from many aspects of the rituals and culture of the ancient Celtic people. These modern-day witches bear little resemblance to our culturally induced conceptions of them. Of paramount importance to Wiccans are their two laws that define appropriate behaviors. The first, the Wiccan Rede, says essentially that Wiccans are free to do anything they want as long as no one is harmed. The Threefold Law states that any evil or good that one does returns three times over. Obviously the wicked witch of the west never heard of these laws.

Satanic Witchcraft

The term witchcraft can also bring to mind the worship of Satan with its arcane demon summoning rituals plus the concepts of hell, pure evil, and satanic ritual abuse. The Satan that modern-day Satanists worship however bears little or no resemblance to this Conservative Christian conception of him. The Satan that Satanists worship is a figure from a pre-Christian era that embodies power, virility, and sensuality, which has nothing to do with pitchforks and pointed ears.

Fantasy Witchcraft

This type of witchcraft stems primarily from the culture and media of the United States. TV shows like Bewitched and Sabrina, books like Harry Potter, and movies like The Wizard of Oz and Fantasia have all instilled in us images of old hags flying broomsticks, spells that manipulate matter and minds, cloaks of invisibility, and evil familiars that can change shape but prefer posing as black cats.

The term Witchcraft is a hopelessly vague concept, embodying ideas and images from many different activities, sources and times. Yet people persist in believing that all are similar enough to warrant a one-word description. The witchcraft that many claim the bible condemns has nothing to do with 21st century witches or Harry Potter and is at best a very poor translation.

Witchcraft and Spells

Regardless of the semantics, what about the critic’s fear of children being drawn into the dangerous and evil world of magic and spellcasting (I know, but humor me on this one). At the DemonBuster.com site I found the following quote: ‘Hey parent, what are you going to do when your child puts a spell on you? The (Potter) movie/books may be ‘fantasy’ to some, but witches and anyone with the knowledge can really TRANSFORM into animals and back.”3 Filmmaker and anti-cultist Caryl Matrisciana believes that the Potter series lures children to web sites where they can learn how to cast their own spells and even transmogrify themselves into different types of creatures.4 Author Cindy Jacobs comments in her book “Deliver Us From Evil”: “These books are entry-level occult tools that introduce readers to such things as witchcraft, sorcery, spells and spiritual power apart from God. What begins as fantasy leads to real spells and potions. Books such as Harry Potter are openers through which a person can become a practitioner of magic.” 5 Christian occult investigator David Bay, runs a website attacking among other things, the Freemasons, the Roman Catholic Church, and Harry Potter. He also seems to think that spells and magic are real: “The storyline of her Harry Potter creation features the most sophisticated, the most accurate, depiction of advanced Witchcraft imaginable. Rowling clearly knows her Witchcraft.”6

It is correct that J.K Rowlings did do a great amount of research for her books but this effort was spent on mythology and folklore as well as the occult and very little time, I suspect, was actually spent on the spells themselves. Rowlings herself says that the spells are made up. Look at some examples in her books, they consist, for the most part, of pseudo-latin phrases with a little wand waving. To make your wand shine like a flashlight just wave it around and say “Lumos” (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, page 335). To bind someone simply do the wand thing while saying “Petrificus Totalis” (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, page 273). Is this part of the dangerous influence that Rowling’s Pandora’s box has unleashed? Well, I’ve tried some of these spells and they did not work. I guess you could always say that my wand was missing a crucial ingredient but where do I find a unicorn hair or phoenix feather?

This is the one thing about the Harry Potter controversy that really gets my goat. It’s not the confusion about the word witchcraft, it’s not the book banning or even the book burning; it’s the fact that in the 21st century people still think that magic spells are real. I can’t even remember if I ever thought that spells were real and I believed some pretty weird things in my credulous youth. Even if I was raised in an environment that constantly stressed their reality and their inherently evil nature, I’d like to think that I’d have a hard time swallowing their efficacy. The ramifications are just too extraordinary. Think of the impact on physics and medicine and our lives in general if spellcasting was a reality. Wouldn’t someone by now have demonstrated a simple yet spectacular spell in public that no amount of controls and double-blind protocols could explain away? Wouldn’t a hard-up witch head straight to Florida and easily claim the Amazing Randy’s million bucks? Wouldn’t we be literally inundated with bizarre yet increasingly believable news stories that continually seem to point to one inescapable conclusion; that spells really truly work? This reminds me of crashed alien saucers, cures for cancer, and even those quick-and-easy-weight-loss schemes in that if they were true, the proof would be in our face and we would talk of little else.

References

1- Purging Flame: Pa. Church Members Burn Harry Potter, Other Books ‘Against God’ March 26 2002 ABCNews.com http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/book_burning010326.html
2- “Harry Potter–Christians Debate New Movie” Anthony Breznican, November 9, 2001 http://www.cesnur.org/2001/potter/nov_05.htm
3- http://www.demonbuster.com/harry.html, 2002, Stan $ Elizabeth Madrak
4- The Trouble with Harry: A documentary filmmaker says the upcoming Harry Potter films threatens Christianity with their occult messages. by Tony Ortega http://www.newtimesla.com/issues/2001-10-18/faultlines.html/1/index.html
5-Deliver us from Evil: Stop the Occult Influences Invading Your Home and Community. By Cindy Jacobs, Gospel Light Publications, 2001 pp. 57,58
6- Harry Potter: Expelled from School by Brian Kim http://www.ucsf.edu/synapse/archives/2001.11.29/expelled.html
7-http://www.ntskeptics.org/1995/1995may/may1995.htm, May 1995, Jeff Freeman

“Then how do you explain the fact that humans share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, and a genetic code will all life on earth?” I asked.

“Well, I think you have to keep an open mind,” was her starry-eyed response.

People who believe odd things–that coffee enemas can cure cancer, that the Loch Ness Monster exists, that art on the dollar bill can explain secret conspiracies–are always telling us to “keep an open mind.”

To that, the classic reply is: “Keep an open mind, sure–but not so open that your brains fall out.” In the endless sparring between skeptics and believers, the “keep an open mind” rejoinder is the favorite weapon in the believers’ arsenal. It is their all-purpose tool. But what does it really mean to be open-minded, and is it the skeptics or the believers who are truly closed-minded?

Having an open mind is a curious virtue: Everyone agrees that open-mindedness is indeed a virtuous state, but it’s most often praised by those being decidedly closed-minded. Also, the most open-minded people are those whom you would least suspect as paragons of this particular virtue, skeptics. And those most lacking open-mindedness are those most likely to admonish others for not being so–true believers.

Let me explain.

Having an open mind means you don’t dismiss claims to truth out of hand. You analyze first. When you analyze a claim, you consider all the relevant evidence and examine all the logic involved, in a fair and unbiased manner, then grant tentative acceptance or rejection. If new arguments or new evidence come up, then you revise your opinion. Being open means that you apply this standard fairly to all claims. Being open-minded does not mean believing every claim, no matter how improbable–that’s being gullible, not open.

This process of fair analysis, based upon logic and evidence, leading to tentative conclusions, which are open to revision, is part of science. It is also the very soul of true open-mindedness.

By contrast, true believers adhere to a desired claim regardless of evidence or logic. No argument is persuasive enough, and no evidence (or lack thereof) is compelling enough to nudge them from the perch of their belief. They are closed to the possibility that Bigfoot might be a delusion, that crop-circles are pranks, that coffee enemas don’t cure cancer–that their cherished belief might be wrong. Yet it is such believers who most frequently claim the moral high ground of open-mindedness, then condemn unbelievers for being closed-minded. They wish others to accept their claims either without examining the logic and evidence, or despite refutation from such examination.

The “open-minded” police often use the label of “closed-minded” as a personal attack to dismiss the arguments of those who dare to examine their claims. You do not believe I was abducted by aliens, they argue, because you are closed-minded. (Could it be because they lack credibility or any evidence to back up the claim? Or because the claim is inherently improbable?) To them, being abducted by aliens is an article of faith, much as religious believers take certain beliefs on faith.

That’s fine. People are entitled to their faith. It’s an important freedom, guaranteed in the Constitution. But personal faith cannot be used to justify a scientific claim about the factual state of nature. Scientific claims must be public, open, and transparent–they cannot be based upon secret knowledge, special talents, or unquestioned virtues. If you think aliens have visited the planet, you must be prepared to offer evidence, not just accuse other people of being closed-minded for not believing you.

Science is also a cumulative process. At this point in history we happen to be sitting on centuries of painstakingly accumulated scientific knowledge. It would be both hubris and folly to ignore all that has gone before. So while keeping an open mind to new ideas and claims, it is to our advantage to view such claims through the filter of established knowledge. Believers would have us view new claims in an intellectual vacuum, as if all claims were inherently equal.

So let me turn the tables and humbly ask you, dear reader, to be truly open-minded. Adhere to the advice of David Hume, who wrote, “A wise man portions his belief to the evidence.” Keep your brains tucked safely inside your skulls. Be open but not gullible. And remember, it is better to think than to believe.

Just last year, a “crop circle” (actually a crop square) appeared in Martha Bailey’s cornfield in New Milford, Conn. Her field is surrounded by a 7-foot-tall fence of chicken wire and wood. Overnight, in the middle of the field, a “perfect” square of flattened down corn appeared. According to Martha, “Everything was secure, the gates were locked, [so] it had to be something that touched down and flattened it.”

By something, she probably meant an extraterrestrial landing ship. Rather than looking for simpler explanations—like, say, someone climbing a chickenwire fence—believers in crop circles often posit visits from aliens or other paranormal explanations. And, perhaps fueled by pop-culture references like the 1999 M. Night Shyamalan movie Signs , the ranks of believers are growing. For the last couple of decades, mainly in English-speaking nations, summer brings with it an increasing number of ever-more-elaborate pictures made in large fields of wheat and other crops. Crop circle season exactly coincides—amazingly—with the end of school and the beginning of summer vacation.

Crop circles began appearing in England in the early 1980s. At first they were little more than giant simple circles in wheat fields. Over the years they have become more intricate and complex. Many recent crop circles resemble beautiful spirograph-like pictures. Over time, the circles spread from England to America, Australia and other English-speaking countries. They later spread to other European lands and, recently, into Asia as well.

Early investigators hypothesized that wind vortices or other natural phenomena might explain these circles, but the increasing complexity of designs defied such explanations. Later enthusiasts were inspired to ponder, as the author of www.cropcircleresearch.com puts it, “Are they a communication from extra-terrestrials? Evidence of other dimensions or a catalyst to advancing our way of thinking?” Others claim that crop circles are technological schematics. Cereologist (as crop circle investigators are sometimes called) Chris Hardeman has built a device based upon the Barbury Castle crop circle, which can be interpreted as a drawing of a tetrahedron (pyramid shape). He claims that when he applies electrical current to the device it defies gravity by levitating.

We are fortunate to have the world’s expert in crop circles, Colin Andrew, living right here in Branford, Conn. He wrote one of the first books on crop circles, called Circular Evidence. I call it Circular Reasoning. To Andrew, cereology is serious science. He is an electrical engineer by training, which he feels qualifies him as a scientist (but that’s another column). According to his web site, “Coming from a scientific background, he has favored using scientific protocols for ground projects but his information gathering has included consulting native peoples around the world, reputable and experienced dowsers as well as intuitive people like mediums and psychics.”

In 1991, two Britons, Doug Bower and David Chorley, confessed to starting the whole modern crop circle hubbub. They reportedly made hundreds of circles, and they were able to demonstrate their techniques (mostly involving boards, rope and stakes). Of course, by then the crop circle phenomenon had grown beyond their imaginings or control. Other artists had surpassed them in skill. One group of artists, who call themselves simply the Circlemakers, is still creating circles, quite complex and beautiful.

In reaction to Doug and Dave’s revelation, the crop circle community was (ahem!) skeptical. At a psychic book reading I was attending at the time, the topic came up, and an attendee said, “I don’t believe that. How can you explain the perfect circles? That’s just impossible.” If only I had a piece of string and a pencil I could have drawn some miraculously perfect circles for them.

But no matter. Summer 2005 will bring a new season of crop circles. What mysteries of the universe will be revealed in barley this year?