Monthly Archives: November 2009
Quantum Confusion for the Audiophile
I was Farking around the other day and found one of the more questionable technological claims I’ve seen on Gizmodo and on Engadget.Com: the Blackbody, by LessLoss, at http://www.lessloss.com/blackbody-p-200.html . The idea is that this bit of heavyish black plastic gear will make your stereo system sound better just by being placed near it. And how much does it cost? Only a pittance of $959 plus your gullible soul. Let’s see what the company says about this little magic doohickey in their own words…
The Blackbody is a high-tech audio accessory which greatly enhances your audio playback experience by addressing the interaction of your audio gear’s circuitry with ambient electromagnetic phenomena and modifying this interplay. The Blackbody takes advantage of the quantum nature of particle interaction, and is therefore able to permeate metal, plastic, wood, and other barriers to affect the circuitry inside your components. This altered electromagnetic influence results in profoundly improved sound quality.
So far this sounds like the typical examples of the mangling of quantum mechanics that I’ve come to expect on the Web, and that raises a huge red flag to my Troythuluness, but let’s see a bit more…
The Blackbody utilizes particle/wave patterns to work…The device can be thought of as a sort of flashlight which shines at a 35 degree angle from its center.
Particle/wave patterns? This is just more of the nonsense I’ve seen on New Age websites rather than anything that legitimate physicists and engineers would say, but let’s look further…
The “beam of light from a flashlight” analogy is easy to grasp, but the truth is that the opposite is happening. The Blackbody is more akin to an “anti-projector” — in the sense that it is actually the gear which is “shining the light,” and the Blackbody’s 35 degree angle “line of sight” modifies the gear’s “shining” so that it ceases to affect the audio.
Urrgh?? An anti-projector? The fact that they put quotes around it indicates they’re not so sure what that is either. They then employ the disclaimer that it is ‘not sci-fi,’ saying that this little gadget “does not set up a ‘force-field,’” and then going on in to say that it does just that with classic rubber science. A little further down the paragraph, they commit the completely non-scientific usage of the term ‘photon energy’ that would just make scientists cringe.
Further, the quality of the sound from any audio system has nothing to do with ‘ambient reflections of actual EM fields originating from and affecting the gear’ but upon the vibrations of air caused by the speakers…hello, basic high-school electronics shop, anyone?
Could this device possibly work? If so, I suspect not as described, unless almost all of modern quantum mechanics is wrong.
But let’s see them back up their claims for their equipment with double-blinded independent tests, using electronic means of measuring and analyzing the alleged cleanness of the audio quality instead of relying on the notoriously flawed subjective expectation, perception, and assessment of all-too human listeners, and leave the techno-speak to the science-fiction writers and New Age gurus.
But, hey, just poke around the links provided and if you find yourself starting to think that this Wonderful New Technology™ sounds like a good deal, do yourself a favor—be skeptical. Fnord.
Disappointed, But not Surprised…
Well kiddies, it looks like even over a week after the November Nor’easter fun and games I mentioned two weekends ago, after an exhaustive bit of mucking around on the Wayback Machine and other sources, looking at the archived Web pages of psychic websites, that I have thus far been completely unsuccessful at verifying a single prediction by a major psychic concerning the Nor’easter, neither its timing nor its effects before the storm actually formed (you’d think that those psychics would at least have a heads-up that clueless, blathering meteorologists would be completely blindsided by–but no, it was the psychics who were blindsided…chortle evilly with tentacles waving).
More to the point, after over a week of poking around, I was completely unable to verify a single prediction that was meaningfully specific in content and time of occurrence, that was not added to the site retroactively when it was updated, nor a successful prediction that wasn’t so likely as to almost certainly be fulfilled anyway.
One would think that with so many self-styled psychics in the world that statistically (and statistics are very important in the arcane lore of parapsychology) at least one of them would have verifiably predicted (as opposed to retrodicted…) the 2004 Tsunami, the effects of Hurricane Katrina, the horror of September 11, 2001, or lately, the aforementioned Nor’easter.
But no, not one did on any internet archives that my vile Troythuluness could access.
That doesn’t mean that no psychic predicted these events at all, anywhere, at any time, but that’s not the point. It means that no psychic has ever predicted these tragic events in a way that is subject to meaningful verification using archived sources existing prior to the events themselves. And until that happens, I remain skeptical of such claims.
Most Excellent!
Here’s a link to something that was forwarded to me on Reuters.Com on (what else?) the LHC…
Big Bang machine achieves first particle collisions
A Link to Something Cool I Found on Fark
Nov. 23, 1963: Doctor Who Materializes on BBC
Awesome–Happy Birthday Doctor, you’re 46 years old, and don’t look a bit over 900.
The LHC is Up and Running…
So far so good, the Large Hadron Collider seems to be working like a charm, even after last year’s delays, and despite the wacky ideas about sabotage not just from the future, but by it, the fears of strangelets, planet-devouring mini black holes, and other amusingness.
It seems that the dire predictions of bad luck by otherwise distinguished Nobel-prize winners haven’t born fruit, and would have happened last Saturday if they were to happen at all.
Sorry, hypothesis falsified.
The idea that this sabotage by the Universe itself works selectively involves too many assumptions to be very likely even without last week’s disconfirmation, but them’s the breaks. Things are lookin’ up for the hunt for the Higgs boson.
(Last Update 11:16, 11/23/2009, Link Added)
A Question…and Some Thoughts
Here’s a question I came across on the JREF forums by one of the members, which I’ll post here as well, just to raise a point:
Scientists can correctly predict astronomical occurrences…down to the minute, and often down to the second. Why should psychics and prophets be held to a lesser standard?
It is true that psychics use a different method than scientists to allegedly gain their knowledge, but this is merely a statement that ‘They are different ways of knowing, therefore they are different ways of knowing,’ which is begging the question and does not serve as a valid excuse for why psychic predictions are not only always a little of target, but often completely wrong (when made beforehand and meaningfully specific in time of fulfillment and content).
Dedicated believers in the paranormal see nothing logically inconsistent with criticizing ‘mere materialistic scientists’ like meteorologists about even slightly inaccurate weather forecasts, and at the same time coming up with all manner of ‘reasons’ to support psychics whose only meaningfully accurate predictions are those made after the fact. Hindsight is 20/20, though most savvy media psychics will tailor their retrodictions to make them just a little off target to avoid suspicion.
Saying that the psychic and science are different provides no valid reason for giving the psychic a free pass no matter how off target its predictions, yet castigating science for even the smallest uncertainty or inaccuracy in the same. As the believers like to say, and as I will now, “…the forest for the trees, people!”
If psychic abilities are even as good as conventional, materialistic ‘ways of knowing,’ much less superior, what is the logic that they shouldn’t be held to at least the same if not better standards of accuracy? I’m gonna pull an Oprah and say, ‘I’m just asking questions.’
Check It! Modern Parapsychology
Hey, guys. I’m finally back to my regular posting schedule, and this Friday’s installment deals with the science, both legitimate and pathological, of modern parapsychology, since its inception in the 1930s by Dr. J.B. Rhine of Duke University. To be frank, much of the criticism of this field of research is unfair, and argues against straw-people.
Much has been made of fraud in the field, perhaps too much, and it seems to me that no more has been perpetrated by the researchers than has been done in any other area of science. Much of the fraud committed is the doing of test-subjects rather than the majority of parapsychologists themselves.
It is true that the field has been colored and tainted by this though, from its very beginning as psychical research in the mid-19th century, to the genesis of its modern incarnation in 1929 and to the present day, but by and large, it comprises literally thousands of experiments, most conducted by able, honest, and competent researchers.
It is the curious inability of rival laboratories to replicate even the most promising studies that has led to its dismissal by mainstream researchers, and this lack of repeatability is due to a number of methodological, logical, psychological, and statistical errors that can easily produce the appearance of a real phenomenon.
This appearance goes away when controls are tightened and better statistical methods are employed, which has the effect of eliciting elaborate ad hoc hypotheses from believers of psi to explain away the negative results. While absence of evidence is not proof of absence, when in the right context it can be evidence for it. I shall now present the links dealing with this post’s subject for your perusal. Enjoy.
- ..on the Oregonians for Science and Reason site, a more critical look at this subject, by Ray Hyman…
- …two new buzzwords for psi..Anomalous Cognition and Anomalous Perturbation….
- …on Rupert Sheldrake’s Morphic Resonance model of Biology…
- …on the Assumption of Psi…and What if Dean Radin is Right?
- …and because I just couldn’t resist, the JREF $1,000,000 paranormal challenge…
I am a Muggle
As this blog’s resident Eldritch Entity from beyond Time and Space™, my Troythuluness holds as provisionally true the absurdly irrational, completely ridiculous and totally indefensible ideas that…
- …fierce skepticism of science is endlessly recursive, ironic, and ultimately nonsensical, for science is a domain that emphasizes skepticism. One would be skeptical of skepticism…
- …the worst thing you can do to those who might be mentally ill is to dismiss the possibility and feed into delusional thinking by telling them that they are psychic. It’s irresponsible and unethical..
- …philosophical relativism is self-refuting and therefore logically impossible, since its truth implies its falsehood by necessity. It also poorly, to say the least, explains the evidence of our senses…
- …the arguments that psychic ability is scientifically proven or that evolution is scientifically disproven without citations of the evidence thus implied are just rhetorical handwaving and in any event fallacious…
- …freedom of speech is a Good Thing, but does not carry with it freedom from criticism, nor automatic and unquestioning acceptance of one’s crackpot theories…
- …psychics, intuitives, sensitives or what-have-you don’t really possess paranatural powers, no matter how sincerely or strongly they may believe they do…
- …when people in third-world nations are being killed because of belief in, and fear of, magic and witchcraft, yes, superstition and magical thinking IS unhealthy and dangerous…
- …no one has ever been killed by the direct actions of a demon, but plenty of people have been killed by botched exorcisms…
- …modern science is still in its infancy, its findings necessarily incomplete, but it delivers the goods…
- …it is within the power of the human intellect and reason to uncover useful knowledge about reality…
- …there’s no need to see magic and miracles where none in fact exist: For me, cats, starlit nights and the faces of my niece and nephew in a video chat are magic and miracle enough…
- …understanding the psychology of belief, from credulity to denial, is at least as interesting and important as investigating and explaining certain nonscientific concepts and claims…
- …it is neither virtuous in a moral sense nor beneficial to one’s health or finances to be easily persuaded by clever words and flattery, with false appeals to open-mindedness…
- …those believers who enjoin skeptics to question their own beliefs would do well to take this challenge themselves instead of resentfully complaining about their critics…
- …unlike with the pseudosciences, it’s the process used to reach a conclusion, rather than the conclusion itself as revealed Truth, which is important in science…
- …stupidity and dysrationalia are two separate problems: believers are not drooling morons: many are brilliant, though they can be trying to one’s patience in a discussion…
- …we all want to be different, but merely for wishing and believing that one have special powers does not mean that one actually does. Wishing and belief alone don’t make it so…
- …any claim of fact that requires a suspension of disbelief to accept it should rightly be regarded with suspicion, and is by my Troythuluness…
- …most supernatural claims with few exceptions are not just unproven, they’re structured to be unprovable, though the testable ones have been falsified in every valid study to date…
- …there is little good evidence for a life beyond this one, no matter that I might wish it were true, but the Universe does not abide by what I wish…
- …the Anthropic Principle would more appropriately be called the Anthropocentric Principle, for it attempts to reinstate the old conceit that we humans are the centerpiece of the Cosmos…
- …regardless of another skeptic’s reasons for their skepticism about a claim, which may not be the same as mine, the upshot is remain skeptical until evidence appropriate to the claim is in before rendering assent…
I am a proud, card-carrying member of a species that has reached out a quarter of a million miles to set foot on the surface of the Moon, no longer a mere disk hanging in the sky, but a place, a world that we’ve actually been to. I’m under no illusions that science will solve all our problems, but it’s made us potentially the most formidable–and dangerous–species in the history of the planet. That’s something to consider.
It’s my understanding that rationality, conscious or unconscious, isn’t just a personal value of mine, an idiosyncratic preference unique to skeptics–it’s a necessity for making sound, sensible, and most importantly, successful decisions, even for those who intellectually deny reason and objectivity. Irrationality is just that–senselessness–and not conducive to good decision-making.
Peddlers of woo would rather people not think for themselves, to ‘just accept, with an open mind’ that all one desires to be will magically come to pass–to ‘just believe.’ They would pooh-pooh the very notion of an external reality not directly amenable to wishful thinking or intent. They would have us happily and mindlessly skipping back to the dark mists of prehistory, of superstitious ignorance and fear, of shamans, witch-doctors, and tribal sorcerers when instead, if we can avoid killing ourselves off or bombing ourselves back to the stone age, we can reach for the stars.
I’ll opt for the stars any day…feel free to join me if you like.
Yes, I believe in the validity and power of the scientific method, and I challenge any paranormalists and other proponents of fringe claims out there to demonstrate something, anything, that allows us to understand and explain the world and ourselves better than science does, with at least as much power, utility, and precision. If you can do that, then I’ll renounce my advocacy of science and skepticism and devote myself and this blog to the new paradigm whatever it may be.
Expect to be disappointed though, if you have no real evidence and only excuses to cover for that lack, for I have a higher bar for evidence than paranormalists have shown themselves to possess, and have very little patience for the typical sorts of logical fallacies and rhetoric used in lieu of facts by many believers I’ve met and read in person and online. I’m also not impressed with the seemingly clever use of statistics as ‘evidence’ for occult phenomena.
One’s use of these fallacies and arguments has the unfortunate effect of making me less likely to take the claimant’s statements seriously, and though a noob, my ability to assess arguments for their worth is improving.
Yes, my Troythuluness does read paranormal blogs–often useful for finding out what believers believe–or at least, what they say they believe…
My ‘attitude’ as a skeptic is completely irrelevant to what I accept as true: I have no problems with being shown when I’m wrong; no need for control; no fear of mystery, of the novel, of the unusual; no fear of the truth; I simply don’t leap to a paranormal conclusion when weird things happen as I have no need to. Those who would presume to psychoanalyze skeptics have no clue what they are talking about.
I just find scientific, real scientific explanations, and not those of pseudosciences like parapsychology, creationism, or electric universe theory, much more adequate in terms of parsimony and usefulness: observation, measurement and reason according to standard criteria of adequacy are far better judges of the probably real than what I might want or need to believe.
In terms of my acceptance of science, its underpinnings, methods, purpose, and findings, and what those last tell us at the moment about the Cosmos and ourselves, I’m a believer, not a nonbeliever. To paraphrase Bad Astronomer Phil Plait, I likes reality just the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way! I am a proud mundane…I am a Muggle.
Atheist now accepts Intelligent Design
Here’s something I found on potholer54′s YouTube channel…The accompanying text is his.
This video is not sarcasm, it is parody and dramatic irony.
Only a tiny minority missed the point, so for their sake, the premise is this: Of all the things creationists could have used as the icon of Intelligent Design (they’re all equally flawed), they chose something that gives us typhoid, cholera and stomach cancer. Hence the irony.
If creationists do indeed mistake this for a creationist video, thats the idea. Because while most creationist videos describe the wonderful design of the flagellum and stop there, leaving viewers satisfied that their deity must be the designer, I continue with a description of what the flagellum actually does it pushes a bacterium into childrens guts and subjects them to an agonizing death. I imagine that as the video continues, the satisfaction of creationist viewer changes to discomfort, then puzzlement.
