linuxmafia.com 2013/2013.06.linuxmafia.com/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/newsletters/basis/basisapr.88

Text File | 1997-06-28 | 38.6 KB | 806 lines

-------------------------------------------------------
April 1988 "BASIS", newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics
-------------------------------------------------------
         Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet
                   Vol. 7, No. 4
                Editor:  Kent Harker



THEY DON'T GET NO RESPECT
by Kent Harker

[Since its inception in 1948, UFOlogy has sought scientific
respectability. It has gained some when its ranks have added names
from the scientific community. Dr. James Harder, professor of
engineering at UCB addressed BAS monthly meeting (please see
Michael Sorens's article on page 5 for the details of that
meeting).

I sent Dr. Harder a copy of my article in early February and
invited him to offer a rebuttal which would be published unedited
in "BASIS". No response.]

Dr. Harder is a respected, qualified member of the scientific
"establishment" who finds himself in a minority. Of course, there
is nothing disreputable in this, as Dr. Harder recognizes. He
merely views himself as in the avant garde. He pointed out that new
discoveries are usually opposed at first and cited examples.

But there was a key statement by Dr. Harder that stopped me cold.
He said, "Observation always supersedes theory." The implication
is clear insofar as UFOs are concerned, and his dictum is correct
as it applies to the scientific method. If theory states that a
bird with a wing-area-to-body-weight ratio less than 2.33 CANNOT
fly, observation of a hummingbird aloft with a ratio of 1.91
supersedes the theory. It is a counter-example, and the theory must
fall or be revised.

As Dr. Harder applies this to the question of alien presence, he
makes a couple of -- unwarranted, I think -- assumptions. One is
that skeptics have some theory that there cannot be an alien
presence. The most critical of UFOlogy (Robert Sheaffer, for
example) do not take such a stance; Sheaffer could be persuaded and
he will tell you the kinds of things it would take to change his
mind.

But the most crucial, and, I think, the most unreasonable of
Harder's assumptions, is that UFO observations are reliable. In
fact I found it astonishing that an individual of Dr. Harder's
preparation and standing could so blithely allow the definition of
"observation" in the strict scientific sense to be applied to what
has been (and is) reported in UFOdom. SCIENTIFIC observation
requires rigorous standards and controlled conditions.

Let's see if that scientific standard is as carefully followed in
UFOlogy as would be taught in Dr. Harder's classroom at UC
Berkeley. How credible is the eye of a human observer -- an
eyewitness -- when highly emotional phenomena are involved?

At the dedication of the canonization of Saint Charbel, the first
Lebanese Catholic to be sainted, there was eye-witness testimony
that the arm of the memorial statue raised as if to bless the
assembled thong. It was not one or two that attested to this
miracle -- hundreds did so. Now, molecular theory states that the
particles of matter, irrespective of how apparently rigid the
nature of the material they compose, are constantly in random
motion. It is essentially unthinkable that all those billions of
billions of molecules just happened to have moved in the same
direction all at the same time, resulting in the marble arm being
elevated.

So the Church would call it a miracle, and we would have to agree.

If.

If the observations were reliable. I have no doubt whatever that
all those observers would pass a whole battery of lie-detector
tests and that any hypnotized participants would "remember" that
they, too, had witnessed the same event. I am certain that all of
those witnesses believe what they alleged and just as certain Dr.
Harder would not disagree with me.

The reliability of eye-witness accounts is a subject of great
psychological and legal concern. It is so easy to destroy the
testimony of an eye witness in a criminal case that both
prosecution and defense are very cautious about how it is done. A
recent case comes to mind that was aired on "60 Minutes" in which
a man was tried and convicted on eye-witness accounts. He was
poorly defended (a public defender) and Safer and crew found proof
that the man was not even near the scene of the crime at the time.
The eye-witnesses were not lying. They were honest people --
honestly mistaken when they positively identified the defendant.

What about when the account is second-hand? Would this be
acceptable under the evidential requirements of a science lab?
Particularly when the admission of such observations might require
a significant change in the scientific model? Are we ready to
jettison some deeply-entrenched, well-tested physics that says
large masses passing through the sound barrier must be accompanied
by a sonic boom when a "competent observer" (an Air Force pilot)
files such a report in which a UFO accelerates at an estimated 100
Gs without a sound? Do we wish to ignore those same laws
(Einsteinian physics) that require anything plastic to be quickly
converted to mashed potatoes in such an acceleration?

We can question the theory or we can question the observation. As
long as the observations are made in less-than-controlled
circumstances, the laws of parsimony require suspicion of the
latter before we set about turning things upside down.

Dr. Harder's stance seems to rest upon two kinds of observation:
Typical eye-witness reports and hypnotic recall. It is my
contention that Dr. Harder is not expert in either of these areas,
and that he is liable to heavy errors because of that lack of
expertise. (I have no doubt that he may be an expert hypnotist, but
this is not what I mean. I refer to the domain of psychology, brain
physiology, and related bio-psychological fields.)

The problems of eye-witness accounts are then exacerbated by the
problems of recall. The public has a notion that the mind is like
a tape recorder, and if one can successfully (via hypnosis, for
example) rewind the tape, what comes out when it is played back is
100% accurate. How does observation of the I-saw-it-with-my-own-
eyes variety stack up? Here is a tiny sample of the documented
cases in which (1) the reality was known, and (2) the observational
accounts of the event have been carefully recorded:

The planet Venus has been cleared to land at some major airports,
shot at, and mistaken for a freight train.

On March 12, 1978 (Sheaffer, 1981) thousands witnessed a "fleet of
UFOs" with a mother ship (or two, three or four mother ships,
depending upon which witness) about the size of a 747 was headed
on a collision course with a Brazilian military base. The UFO
armada leveled off at 2,000 feet (or 500 feet according to some)
and then disappeared. It was reported so low that one observer, a
pilot, saw portholes in the cigar-shaped vessel.

Astronomers very quickly documented that it was a large and
brilliant fireball meteor.

Night-flying advertising aircraft are often mistaken as UFOs and
usually described as saucer-shaped, enormous sized, and emitting
a flood of brilliant, continuous light, and moving slowly, or
hovering, without sound.

Weather balloons, flying at altitudes in excess of 60,000 feet are
reported to be enormous UFOs hovering at 1,000 feet in every color
imaginable.

An important hoax conducted on March 28, 1970 ("SI", 1980) at
Cradle Hill, England, a popular gathering place for UFO observers,
showed the extent of eye-witness unreliability. This case is
important in that the circumstances were carefully controlled.

At 11 p.m., a 12-volt, high-intensity purple spotlight was directed
at Cradle Hill from 0.75 miles away. It was stationary, and turned
on 5 sec., off for 5 sec., and on again for 25 sec. At Cradle Hill
a collaborator switched on a phony magnetic-field sensor (many UFO
enthusiasts expect a strong magnetic field as a secondary
confirmation of UFOs) at a predetermined time to synchronize with
the light, and the field-detection buzzer was activated so that the
group of about 30 UFO observers thought a strong field was present.

The collaborator then took two exposures of the light over two
previously exposed frames, each containing a fake UFO and then took
two real, time-lapse pictures. There were street lights and several
other reference point in all exposures. Negatives and prints were
turned over to various UFO groups throughout the world.

The first two photos showed the fake UFO in two different positions
far to the right of the spotlight (recorded by the second exposure)
with a much higher light intensity than the stationary purple beam.
All of the eye-witness accounts corroborated the photographic
evidence, stating that they observed the object moving, that it was
very bright, and that it was visible for one to one-and-a-half
minutes.

The perpetrators kept the hoax secret for two years, during which
time the photographs were extensively analyzed and declared to be
authentic. One specialist, Pierre Guerin from the Astrophysical
Institute in France, declared, "In my opinion there is no question
of the object photographed being in any possible way the result of
faking.

The history of UFOlogy is one in which these same scenes are
repeated with dreary regularity.

So what about the other side of Dr. Harder's observations, the
hypnotically-recalled experiences of UFO abductees?

The literature on the validity of hypnotic recall is usually in
professional journals; those not in the trades, as it were, would
have to exert special effort to follow the work that has been done.
The information that has come out for public consumption appears
in the context of court cases because the judiciary has had to
decide if such testimony is admissible. The verdict is that there
is so much subjectivity that serious errors may be introduced, so
hypnotic recall is inadmissible in a court of law. Why Dr. Harder
allows it in a science laboratory is something that needs to be
explained.

Some of the best analyses for public consumption have been done in
the latest issue of the "Skeptical Inquirer", and the reader is
urged to study the full account of the neuro-psychological problems
involved with hypnotic regression in that publication.

A great summation is embodied in the statement from U. of Kentucky
psychologist Robert A. Baker's article ("SI",1988) "The Aliens
Among Us: Hypnotic Regression Revisited" in which he said,
"...hypnosis is a situation in which people set aside critical
judgment (without abandoning it entirely) and engage in make-
believe and fantasy; that is, they use their imagination." Baker
goes on to point out that if the hypnotist is sympathetic and
supportive, the suggestible patient will (unconsciously) provide
whatever he or she perceives the hypnotist wants.

Dr. Harder might counter with a case he reported in which a mother
and daughter related the same abduction incident in great detail
under hypnosis. The women had no memory of any abduction in their
conscious state, so they could not have collaborated in any way,
according to Harder. He offers that the close agreement on the
details tends to rule out a prosaic explanation. I agree with
Michael Sorens when he suggests we leave it to "BASIS" readers to
see if a UFO abduction is the only other possibility.

Alas, UFOlogy has not advanced very much since the first flying
saucers were observed wafting through our atmosphere in 1948. J.
Allen Hynek, astronomer and pre-eminent UFOlogist, died without
seeing a realization of his prediction that UFOlogy would soon
achieve scientific respectability, and UFOlogy is in about the same
state as it was when he became a believer. The supermarket tabloids
and specialty groups generally remain the principal repository of
UFOmania.

References:

(Sheaffer, 1981): "The UFO Verdict: Examining the Evidence", Robert
Sheaffer, Prometheus Books, 1981.

("SI", 1980): the "Skeptical Inquirer", Vol. IV, No. 3.

("SI", 1988): the "Skeptical Inquirer", Vol. XII, No. 2.



RAMPARTS

["Ramparts" is a regular feature of "BASIS", and your participation
is urged. Clip, snip and tear bits of irrationality from your local
scene and send them to the Editor. If you want to add some comment
with the submission, please do so.]

There is faith and there is faith.

The widow and kids of Carl Stevens get top honors. The "Mercury"
took the story from the AP wire about the Stevens family. Carl, you
see, has not been alive since 1979. But his corpse was kept in the
upstairs bedroom of the home nevertheless. Each day Mrs. Stevens
faithfully changed his clothes and bedding. Friends and relatives
were told Carl was sick, and they were never allowed to see him
because "they had a black soul" (which would presumably interrupt
the healing process). Carl's two children appeared to be well-
adjusted teens, both of them honor students.

When the sheriff finally got a court order to enter the home, they
found Carl neatly tucked in his fresh clothes and bedding a mere
skeleton with a thin covering of skin. (There were no details about
any severe B.O. Mrs. Stevens might have noticed on hubby.) The
Sheriff, never one to overstate the facts, observed, "Let's just
say they have abnormal belief in the power of healing."



MATH PRODIGIES?

Skeptic Dr. Philip Rice sent an article from the "Chron." that
caught his eye. We have all heard of or witnessed the wonders of
the so-called lightning human calculators -- those whizzes who can
compute faster then their electronic counterparts. There is nothing
paranormal about this ability -- but. But, within limits. Philip
wondered if there were something "rotten in Denmark," as he put it,
to the whole thing when he read that the Institute of Noetic
Science (INS) was working with some of these remarkable people, so
he sent the article to "BASIS".

The article documented an Indian woman, a Ms. Devi, who performed
some prodigious mathematical feats: "The cube of 121? `One seven
seven one five six one,' she replied instantly." This is not really
very spectacular if one knows a few tricks. 121 is 11 squared, so
it is the same as 11 raised to the sixth power. There are short-
cuts to do multiples of eleven.

Devi was asked if she could only work with whole numbers and so she
asked for a fraction. She was given the task of extracting of the
third root of 12,812.904. "`That,' she said without hesitation,
`is the third power of 23.4."

As a former mathematics instructor, this editor was astounded at
the number and its third root.

Cubing 121 is no big deal. Knowledge of a few mental tricks, some
studied practice and most can perform arithmetic operations very
rapidly. Going the other direction is another matter, i.e.,
extracting higher roots. The thing that is more remarkable than
Devi's alleged power to perform such feats is the choice of a non-
integral number with rational roots. (Integers are positive and
negative counting numbers, and rational numbers are those that can
be expressed as a ratio of integers. The square root of three, for
example is irrational, i.e., it cannot be expressed as a ratio of
integers.) In fact, the probability of a RANDOMLY-CHOSEN, non-
integral number whose cube root is rational is effectively zero.
The "selected" number is virtually certain to have been a plant.

Tricksters hope we won't look in from the back end, but that's
exactly what Dr. Rice did in his comments to "BASIS". He thought
it a little strange that the root is sequential, i.e., 2-3-4. Take
.234, 2.34, 23.4, or 234, cube it and then feed the answer in
reverse through a plant. Mnemonics are the most likely explanation
here, not phenomenal ability. Philip showed how easily the same
scheme can be worked with other three-digit sequences.

"BASIS" then wrote to the "Chronicle" with these analyses and
called the INS to see if they would be interested in tests under
controlled conditions. We don't expect any of our counter to this
nonsense to appear, and, as we further expected, the INS will not
return any calls. After the fourth call in as many days, their
answering machines were off and we were able to talk to a human.
Her only comment was that remote viewing had been scientifically
demonstrated under controlled conditions and ESP was an established
fact. She seemed genuinely astonished that there were any people
who disbelieved.

Our thanks to Dr. Rice and the rest of our alert readers. The media
will continue hearing from us on things like this, and we think
they will begin listening if we keep up the heat. Keep sending in
the nonsense, and continue writing the newspapers.



LUCKY FOLLOW-UP
by Richard Cleverly

After my article on the psychic who offered, in full-page ads,
lucky numbers for only $1 (P&H), I saw the ad again on the back
page of the family supplement insert of the Sunday paper. Same
lady, a Madame Daudet. -- all good psychics are Madame, with an
"e", or Reverend.

Her ad promised "lucky numbers" that would bring untold wealth for
only a buck. What do I have to lose? Well, a dollar. But that's
only for P&H. In my first article I reasoned a sophisticated
scheme, so I decided to check things out by sending THREE letters
to the good Madame, and lest she track me with duplicate addresses,
one was from my P. O. box, another from my home, and a third from
my office.

I was unprepared for what I got.

The $1 was for P&H all right -- a bulk-mail envelope with cursive
writing on it stating, "Here is the personal and confidential
information you recently requested." I wondered if the carrier
thought I might be into porn. It was so full of personal and
confidential information I couldn't find the number she promised
me. I spent almost thirty minutes (I know, I wasted the dollar, and
now I'm throwing good after bad by spending time actually expecting
to find what she promised, but this is a Cause, you know) before
I found it.

In what looked like a hand-written note addressed "Dear Friend,"
she said she hoped she could call me her dear friend because as
soon as she received my inquiry she began researching my aspects
and had found some truly remarkable things. Deeper in the packet
was a titillating sample of the Secrets of the Ages, prepared "Just
for you" (but addressed "Dear Seeker of Happiness and Good
Fortune"). If this had cost me more I would not share the intimate
things she gave me with the rest of you raving skeptics. What I am
about to reveal is at great peril to my good fortune. Ah, the
sacrifices for the cause of Truth.

"Your letter to me was one of special communication. As soon as I
held it in my hand, I felt a sense of urgency, which made me
consider your case on a priority basis." she continued.

Just go to your bank, put a crisp dollar bill on the counter,
informing the teller you would like to make a deposit, and see if
you get that kind of respect. Come to think of it, it did take her
about three months to respond. Then again, it takes time to do that
kind of specialized research on my aspects, the kind you would only
do for a dear friend. Well, Mme. Daudet promised she would soon
reveal my special number that "shines with particular brilliance
in Your [she even capitalized my personal pronoun, thank you]
astral heaven."

Now this is where I am violating a sacred trust she placed upon me.
She said, "Part of your most important number is 2, and its
complementary 3." In fact it is so personal and confidential that
"it must never be revealed to anyone else, and if you do, you run
the risk of losing part of its power."

A 2 and a 3. Two? Twenty-three? Thirty-two? 3,322?

I don't suppose I should feel hurt if everyone else on the block
got those same numbers. I mean what with only 10 digits it surely
wouldn't mean there is anything impersonal that we millions happen
to share the same miracle numbers. Just, please, share your lottery
prize if you win it with my numbers. But these aren't my ONLY lucky
numbers. She has more for me. I remember now that she didn't say
in her original ads she would give me ALL my lucky numbers for the
$1.

She was so taken with my case that she was "inspired to continue
studying your personal case, and I have found that my first
instincts have been confirmed: You are entering a truly excellent
period of your life, a solar period, a period of warmth and
brilliance."

To get the rest of the numbers that go along with my two lucky
numbers, and to get a complete numerological horoscope to help me
take full advantage of the opportunities that await me in the truly
excellent period, I need to RUSH the enclosed validation card to
her together with my check for $35. Of course, she will accept
Visa. Whaddaya expect for a buck? Bon Dieu! I almost forgot. I get
a special surprise if I respond within 10 days: "A miraculous
Lourdes Medal from the sacred shrine at Lourdes, France."

Well, I passed.

One week later. My box is full of mail from astrologers, psychics,
and spiritualists. Norvell, "the greatest Astrologer of our time"
promises -- guarantees -- he will give me lucky numbers. (The guy's
sharp. He just guarantees he'll give me the numbers, not that they
will be lucky.) The Lottery Research Center in New York sends a
package that has so much printing on the envelope I wonder if there
is anything left to say on the inside. "This privileged information
is being released to you immediately: (Remove Contents)."

I was glad they reminded me to remove the contents in case I had
forgotten he had more to say.

I don't know what Norvell would think about it, but in the same
delivery was Lynne Palmer's solicitation and it says SHE is the
"world's most successful astrologer." Since she doesn't use upper
case on her title, maybe that's how she and Norvell sort it out.
She MUST be better, because she has more writing on her envelope.
Lynne is the clear winner in the writing-on-the-outside category.
(I wonder if there might be some law that says the importance of
the material on the inside is in inverse proportion to the amount
of writing on the outside.) There are about six postcards from
numerologists in the Minor Leagues -- they don't have the budget
for the big mailings.

This is the ultimate indignity. The Gaul tart had the gaul to sell
my name on mailing lists. Probably helped her cover her losses for
the measly dollar I sent her. Come to think of it, it was three
dollars, and I never did hear on the other two. Her data base must
sort on name, because I used the same name and birthday to see if
she would give the same computer printout for the same birthdays.

Why I ever thought there would be anything as sophisticated as I
suggested in my first article is beyond me now. Sorry.

Madame Daudet has the lucky numbers, all right. She's got mine and
all the rest of we suckers that mailed in our $1. Au revoir, money.



JANUARY MEETING
by Michael Sorens

At the January 26th meeting, held at the El Cerrito Library, we had
the pleasure of hearing Dr. James Harder give a most eloquent
presentation on UFOs. A professor of engineering at UC Berkeley,
and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS), Dr. Harder proclaimed himself a skeptic, while at
the same time espousing the belief that UFOs do, in fact, exist.

He began his talk by reminding us that there were skeptics as late
as 1902 who refused to believe the Earth was round. And that there
were skeptics, led by the pre-eminent physicist Robert Miliken in
1946, who declared that rocket travel to the Moon was impossible.
he hoped that we, his audience, were not those kinds of skeptics.
Dr. Harder indicated that he himself was the kind of skeptic that
required evidence to support a theory.

Citing a comparison he made to astrologers, it would be a straight-
forward task to test whether the "cosmic twin" theory holds any
water (i.e., two people born at the same time, same latitude, etc.,
and hence under the same sign will turn out similarly). One has
merely to examine birth records of a certain area from 15 or so
years ago to locate potential cosmic twins, then examine the
current school records, criminal records, etc., of those same
people today.  This type of study will provide a small, and perhaps
significant, amount of evidence relating to astrology.

Dr. Harder challenged that theory is useful, but observation and
experiment take precedence. In the well-known Trindade case, a UFO
was observed by approximately one hundred witnesses who were on a
boat in Brazilian waters. Photographs were taken, quickly
developed, and shown to the eyewitnesses, who generally agreed
that, yes, that was what they had seen.

Dr. Harder conceded that it may not have been a UFO; perhaps, he
suggests, it was mass hysteria. But why, he contends, did it affect
the film as well as peoples' minds? It is somewhat harder to
dismiss his notion that just because the photographer was a
specialist in trick photography is no reason to assume that trick
photography had been used. (This strikes me as akin to going back
to a used car dealer to purchase an additional car, after your
mechanic informed you that the seller must have been aware of major
problems with the first vehicle you purchased from him.)

There have, in fact, been alternate explanations about what
occurred: Prominent skeptic Robert Sheaffer cited a version of the
story that purported that only the photographer and a friend saw
the UFO.  They drew the attention of bystanders, but the craft had
flown off. Going off to a darkroom, they later emerged with their
pictures. This does tend to leave just a bit of room for skepticism
in this particular case. Dr. Harder later agreed that eyewitnesses
are not the best form of evidence, but in this case he suggested
that the eyewitness reports did constitute sufficient proof.

A member of the audience contended, however, that extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proof, a statement with which Dr.
Harder agreed. He went further though, to inquire whether this kind
if evidence should at least make the case worthy of further study.

Another person brought out how his grandson, Eric Tejeda, was able
to prove that UFOs have not visited us, bringing along a clipping
from the "San Francisco Examiner" showing his grandson in front of
his eighth-grade class while presenting his proof.

Assuming an average speed of 200 miles per second, it would take
over 18,000 years for a visitor from the nearest star to reach
Earth. Such a generation-ship might encounter many problems such
as raising young, having the knowledge to educate children, genetic
problems of interbreeding, food supplies, and energy resources.
These problems, Eric concluded, would make the possibility of alien
visitation so unlikely that it could be considered impossible.

Professor Harder conjectured that perhaps an alien technology could
find the means to get to Earth, and if they were that advanced,
they would probably be smart enough to learn English.  And,
perhaps, they would have good reasons for not wanting themselves
to be seen, either because they were benevolent and wished to let
us develop on our own, or because they were evil and were secretly
plotting the invasion of our planet. Several in the audience
countered that the aliens weren't doing a very good job of hiding
if we are to believe the thousands of sightings annually.

As one case study, Harder presented the following case: One of the
designers of the P51 fighter aircraft claims to have observed a UFO
in broad daylight, while riding as a passenger in an automobile on
a country road. After watching it for several minutes, he observed
it accelerate and disappear through the clouds; his later
calculations indicated that it was accelerating at approximately
100 Gs and reached a velocity of 9,000 to 11,000 mph by the time
it reached the cloud cover.

Astonishingly, the craft was utterly silent. Astronomer Norm
Sperling raised the objection to Prof. Harder that physics dictates
that there must be a sonic boom if such an event occurred. Dr.
Harder asked, "Is your theory better than his observation?" This
question is left as an exercise for the reader. (Keep in mind that
the observer had no special instruments, was riding around in a
car, and may or may not have had a notebook. Show your work.)

Dr. Harder presented a number of other interesting cases, though
it was at times questionable whether he was making a case for or
against the existence of extraterrestrials. Is it so unusual, for
example, that under hypnosis two people will relate a similar tale
about an alleged UFO incident, when they did not recollect anything
before the hypnosis?  Perhaps.

If, as in this case, the two people in question were mother and
daughter? One can hardly wonder. Harder's estimate of a 0.2%
probability of this happening by chance alone raised red flags to
ardent skeptic and magician Bob Steiner, along with others in the
audience -- Harder appeared unconcerned that such a precise
numerical figure should have some basis in calculation using common
statistical techniques.

In conclusion, I must applaud Dr. Harder for his eloquent manner
and his ability to lead a lively discussion with unruffled
feathers, but I must challenge him to present more rigorous
evidence for his claims. Furthermore, science demands that a theory
not be discarded wantonly in the face of weak evidence to the
contrary; either much stronger evidence or a better theory must be
offered in exchange.



TALK IT UP
by John Taube

In a recent KGO talk show with Bill Wattenburg as host, a lady
called, and the conversation went like this:

Lady: A year ago I was told that I had cancer and I had only six
months to live. With prayer, positive thinking, and a strong will
to live, I cured myself.

Wattenburg: I am going to cut you off right there. What you are
saying is demeaning to the thousands of people who have died from
that fatal disease. It is scientifically established that for a
thousand cancer patients given a determined period of time to live,
a small percent will enjoy remission. What accounts for a small
percentage to be lucky had not been determined at this time. There
is not one shred of evidence, however, that prayer, positive
thinking, will to live, or laying-on-of-hands plays any part in
remission. So I am going to cut you off and thank you for calling.

John: I am sure that Bill would agree that when one is diagnosed
as having a fatal disease, that person should not be discouraged
to pray or do anything else that makes him or her feel better. But
it must be put in perspective: Prayer, positive thinking, etc.,
have no significant therapeutic value, but they may at least help
the person feel better.

But, some misguided pseudo-practitioners do irrevocable harm to
people who have serious, non-fatal diseases by discouraging them
from following the advice of their physicians. When these
practitioners resort to faith-healing, for example, in many cases
they make a non-fatal disease a fatal one.

["BASIS" comment: When is a disease considered fatal?]



SECOND LAW VS. CREATIONISM
by Jim Ardini, (Diablo Valley College)
and Dick Kidd, (S. F. Community College)

As physics teachers, we often encounter the assertion that the 2nd
Law of thermodynamics precludes evolution, and, therefore forces
acceptance of special creation. This has happened so often that we
have written the following, which is distributed to students when
we study thermodynamics. Scientific creationists claim the 2nd Law
denies the possibility that a closed system can spontaneously
become more "organized."

Since life forms on earth are more highly organized than their
inanimate precursors, it could not have arisen without divine
intervention, they say.

The 2nd Law states that "the entropy of an ISOLATED system always
remains the same or increases." Creationists such as Dr. Gerald
Aardsma, physicist at the Institute of Creation Science in Santee,
CA, state it as "the entropy of a closed system always remains the
same or increases." (See Discover, Oct. '87.) However, a closed
system is not the same as an isolated system. To clarify this we
begin by defining a "system." It is any collection of objects
around which a real or imaginary boundary is placed.

If we are given three objects, a cat, a dog, and a hydrant, we
could create a system of the cat and dog, the dog and the hydrant,
or of all three. Next we distinguish between an isolated system and
a closed system. An isolated system is one across whose boundary
nothing can pass, i.e., energy, matter, or force. The closed system
to which the creationists refer is one across whose boundary matter
cannot pass, only energy such as light or heat. It is important to
realize that the 2nd Law refers only to isolated systems and not
to closed systems.

Next, two loose, but popular descriptions of entropy will be used:
Entropy is a measure of the "disorder" of a system, or the
"unavailability of energy to do work." Thus, when the available
energy or order of a system decreases, its entropy will increase,
and when the order exhibited by a system increases its entropy
decreases.

Imagine a room with a refrigerator which is internally at room
temperature and which has a tray of tepid water in the freezer. We
shut the door of the refrigerator and start the compressor by
plugging it into a battery. Next the room in which the fridge and
battery are located is insulated and sealed so that it is an
essentially isolated system. The temperature of the water in the
freezer will drop and the heat removed from the water will be
pumped into the room. Soon the water freezes into ice. The water
molecules in the ice are more highly organized than they were as
liquid water; because their organization will be greater, the
entropy of the water is less.

However, as this happens, some of the energy in the battery will
no longer be available. Therefore, the entropy of the battery will
increase. Since the room becomes warmer, the molecules of the air
will crash about more turbulently, in a more disorganized fashion.
This results in an overall entropy increase in the room. Thus, the
water* (and air) in the refrigerator will have a decrease of
entropy while the battery and air in the room will suffer an
increase of entropy.

According to the 2nd Law, the entropy of the sealed, room -- an
isolated system -- must increase or remain the same. However, when
real processes are considered, the entropy will not remain the same
it will always increase. Hence, the entropy of the battery and air
of the room will increase more than the entropy of the water will
decrease.

The 2nd Law allows the entropy of a real, closed subsystem to
decrease as long as the total entropy of the isolated system
containing it increases. The phrase "essentially isolated" was used
because there is no real system which is ideally isolated. However,
the "essentially isolated" system is one in which any slight
residual interactions of the system with the outside will not
significantly affect the numerical value of the entropy compared
to the system's net change of entropy.

The earth's surface has never been an isolated system because it
has always received energy from the sun. Therefore, there can be
local decreases in entropy at the earth's surface while, at the
same time, the entropy of the sun-earth system essentially an
isolated system, increases. The evolution of living things is
simply a local decrease of entropy and is not a violation of the
2nd Law.

An important experiment inspired by publications of A. I. Oparin
in the 20s and 30s was carried out by Stanley Miller in the 50s.
He produced, from simple precursors in a closed system, complex
organic molecules required by life forms, rudely violating the
"creationist's law of entropy."

Into a closed but not isolated system -- a sealed glass bulb
containing a soup of raw chemicals -- he introduced ultraviolet
light and high-voltage electricity, conditions that were believed
to duplicate the early earth's surface. In short order complex
organic molecules were produced -- a lowering of the closed
system's entropy. Among these compounds were several amino acids,
essential ingredients in the chemistry of life.

Already more than six-dozen varieties of organic molecules have
been detected in comets, meteorites, and both galactic and
extragalactic dust clouds. These latter are examples of entropy
decreases on a cosmic scale. (A summary of much of this evidence
is given in the March 88 issue of "Discover".

The creationists and their fellow ultra-fundamentalists, having a
corner on the truth, realize that scientific principles can be
correct only if they are congruent with their version of Revealed
Truth. Thus, they must alter or deny any principles that conflict
with that Truth. Galileo fell before the fanatical onslaught of
their seventeenth-century counterparts. A terrifying intellectual
chill gripped southern Europe after his trial, and the
Enlightenment was almost savaged in gestation.

Here, in twentieth-century America, these zealots are succeeding
in banning many great literary classics from Shakespeare to
Steinbeck. But, worst of all, is their attempt to force the
oxymoronic "scientific creationism" into the nation's science
classrooms and the minds of youth. This is a perversion of the
content and methods of science, and we must resist.

*Since change of entropy equals the heat transferred to a system
divided by the temperature of the system, the entropy change of the
water is negative since heat leaving the water is negative by
convention. This should prevent arguments that the change of
entropy of the water should actually be positive because there will
be less available (heat) energy in the water -- a problem created
by conflicting applications of the two popular definitions of
entropy.



UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY: GOODBYE COLUMBUS

Marco Maniketti, underwater archaeologist, will be the featured
speaker at the April BAS meeting.

In 1985, underwater archaeologists were searching for the wreckage
of Columbus's last two ships. The project was offered "help" from
the Mobius Society, a group capable of "remote sensing".  The
members of this clan alleged that they could use their psychic
abilities to locate the sunken remains. They were encouraged to
submit their information, and, in time, they claimed a 75% success
rate even though the wreckage was never found! Mr. Maniketti
witnessed the whole experiment and the attempts to justify their
failures.

Marco will make his presentation complete with photographic slide
details of this experiment, showing how remote viewing "works", and
why people continue to believe in it.

Remote viewing, pioneered largely by Bay Area physicists Targ and
Puthoff, has been something of a mainstay of psi, so Marco's
observations are an important contribution to skeptical
understanding.

                             -----

Opinions expressed in "BASIS" are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect those of BAS, its board or its advisors.

The above are selected articles from the April, 1988 issue of
"BASIS", the monthly publication of Bay Area Skeptics. You can
obtain a free sample copy by sending your name and address to BAY
AREA SKEPTICS, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco, CA 94122-3928 or by
leaving a message on "The Skeptic's Board" BBS (415-648-8944) or
on the 415-LA-TRUTH (voice) hotline.

Copyright (C) 1988 BAY AREA SKEPTICS.  Reprints must credit "BASIS,
newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco,
CA 94122-3928."

                             -END-