text:
In Depth › Analysis and Opinion
In defence of pseudoscience
Believe it or not; pseudoscience provides the perfect launch pad for logical thought, says Dr Paul Willis.
By Paul Willis
Recently, I was watching an old MythBusters with my son. It was the one where they investigated the Hindenburg myth, that what caught fire was not the hydrogen but a thermite mixture in the paints used to dope the fabric covering of the behemoth airship. (They concluded that it was a mixture of both the thermite and the hydrogen).
Watching their models of the Hindenburg burn with varying intensities took me back to my high school days and a bout of paranormal fakery and investigations that developed my abilities to think rationally.
In hindsight I started out with hoaxes, pseudoscience and pulp-science as a training ground for rational investigation. And it hasn't surprised me that over the years as I've met thousands of scientists and science communicators, their ranks are filled with people who started thinking in the rational paradigms of science by dabbling in the pseudosciences.
It all started when a school mate whose name has long since been forgotten came to school one day with some colour photographs of the last minute of the Hindenburg as she crashed to the ground in that infamous fireball. We gathered around realising that there was something wrong — we'd never seen colour pics of the incident before and there was something about the pose that rang alarm bells in the backs of our minds.
They were, of course, hoaxes; he'd spent the weekend making a scale model of the airship then photographed it after setting it alight. But what he also ignited was a wave of hoaxing across the school that lasted for months. I got in on the craze hoaxing photos of UFOs and ghosts. It was all good fun and some of the results I remember were very convincing. But we were learning something important; that it is relatively easy to fake data and that the kudos of creating a convincing fake is intoxicating!
Testing claims
Up until that point I had dabbled in all kinds of pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo from UFOs, ghosts, Bigfoot, past life regressions, psychic abilities etc, etc. You name it and I was interested in it. But the hoaxing fad started me down the path of devising ways of testing the claims made by the paranormal, and questioning the evidence that had been put forward. I had already dispatched creationism as a corrupted belief system by conducting some simple investigations of the evidence for an old earth and the evolution of life that could be found all around me. And as I investigated all the other non-science and 'fringe' science that had held my attention to that point, one by one my interest in them dropped as they each revealed themselves to be based on bunkum, probable fraud and impossibilities.
I tested past life regressions by planting questions that could not have been answered by someone who was genuinely from another period ("You enter the room where you died in 1760, where is the light switch?" "On the left of the door").
I covered three identical buckets, only one with water in it, and got dowsers to tell me which one was full — they couldn't do it. I once taped a large quartz crystal under a chair that I got a crystal freak to sit on without knowing it; they detected nothing until I told them they were sitting on a crystal (I actually told them it was a garnet taped to the back of the chair and they started prattling on about how they could feel 'garnet energy' in their back and they were shocked that they were actually sitting on a large quartz crystal without realising it).
Conversely, I even had the science teacher at school convinced that his hand was tingling because of the radiation coming from a lump of uranium ore that a friend brought to school — the powers of suggestion!
Throughout my career as a scientist and science communicator I've been struck by how many of my colleagues also shared an early interest in the pseudosciences and how examining and testing those beliefs led them to appreciate rational thinking and dispatch the pseudosciences as implausibilities that are often riddled with fraud. In this way pseudoscience has been a scratching post for many young scientists upon which they can hone their logical abilities to investigate and test claims. In some cases this has been their introduction to science but often, as in my experience, I had a pre-existing interest in science and used the pseudosciences as a testing ground for my abilities as a budding rational thinker.
Thus I wish to praise the pseudosciences as useful in the ontogeny of so many of our scientific minds. Not as a constructive contribution to their knowledge but as a convenient foil to test their growing powers of reason.
About the author:Dr Paul Willis is the director of RiAus, Australia's unique national science hub, which showcases the importance of science in everyday life. The well-known palaeontologist and broadcaster previously worked for ABC TV's Catalyst program. This article was first published on the RiAus website.
Tags: science-and-technology, pseudoscience, weird-and-wonderful
Published 30 October 2012
Comments (46)
Comments for this story are now closed. If you would like to have your say on this story, please email ABC Science
mutant :
30 Oct 2012 7:46:55pm
Interesting...led me straight to my hobbyhorse of why any real scientist would claim that GM food is harmless and a blessing when tne actual science to prove that requires the gold standard...the double blind trial...which because of epigenetics will require at least 2 generations of humans and controls. Scientists are behaving like priests saying "trust me im a scientist" and similarly pontificating about their certainty...and denegrating any who disagree. One wishes science was consistent and followed its own rules as neatly outlined here...trouble is, it doesnt in the case of GM food, both as ingested and its environmental impacts...we cannot know, yet there are plenty of psuedoscientists masquerading as scientists on this issue.
Help101 :
31 Oct 2012 1:58:31pm
Nice 'hobbyhorse' Mutant.
I noticed that a French scientific team studied the effects of Monsantos 'Roundup' resistence GM crop and the Roundup poison found that both Roundup and the GM crop lead to much higher instances of tumors when studied over the life cycle an animal (instead of the usual short term studies undertaken).
This study was later critised by the French government no doubt as it was inconvenient to Monsanto to have such information in the public domain.
Science takes a back seat to realpolitik.
Eben Huxley-Jones :
01 Nov 2012 10:44:01pm
You appear to have made up your mind about GM food already. Based on what exactly?
You're wrong about the very basis of science. Science isn't about proving something. It's about disproving it. You appear to have begun with the hypothesis that GM is unsafe. But you can't disprove that. Even with double-blind generational studies you can still say "oh, but what about...?".
Do GM crops present a possible danger to those who consume them or to the environment? Of course. But at this time, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence to disprove their safety. We have to work with what we've got. Every time a new pharmaceutical is developed there is the potential for harm top those who use it, or to the offspring of those who use it. But in order to make sensible and timely decisions about what to approve and what not to approve we need to base those decisions on the best information available at the time. If, in the future, additional information becomes available then we can revise an earlier decision, but we can't assume the worst of everything.
The reason that some people have been "denigrated" for their opinions in relation to GM crops is precisely because they are that: idealist and alarmist opinions based on nothing. "It is unnatural therefore it must be bad".
As members of the scientific community we have a responsibility to exercise due diligence. But in the absence of evidence to indicate actual harm caused by GM crops to either those who consume them or the broader environment it would be scientifically irresponsible to assume the worst when known benefits can be derived from GM crops. In my experience many of those who take issue with GM crops have little to know understanding of the technology used to generate them, or of the non-GM methods by which crops have been genetically manipulated by humans since agriculture began. Virtually ever species of plant and animal that humans consume were at one point or another a "mutant"; a genetic aberration of a prior species that humans selectively bred because it represented a "better" species for human purposes. Canola was a freak of nature long before anyone even conceived of engineering it at a genetic level.
Personally, I'd like to see a little more evidence-based research and a little less hyperbole.
P.S. Id be way more concerned about the amount of Roundup and other chemicals you're consuming in your food than whether or not the food itself is GM. We know based on previous experience with chemicals and pharmaceuticals that they can have unforseen and devastating effects on humans and the environment. Monstanto used to make DDT and Agent Orange and we all know how well they worked out.
Help101 :
02 Nov 2012 11:33:40am
Hi Eben Huxley-Jones.
You raise some very interesting issues.
Namely whether a product (ie. a chemical) should be demonstrated to be safe before being used on the public or wider environment (your example of DDT being one excellent example).
GM crops designed to be resistant to Roundup which enables the farmer to put Roundup directly onto their GM resistant crops also of course increases the amount of Roundup consumed by humans. Roundup is a known carcinogenic according to a long term French study. So too was the GM Roundup resistant crop even when Roundup was not used on the crop according to the same long term French study into the effects of this GM crop.
Of interest too is how different GM crops are from the old style of altering a plants genetics through cross breeding processes. GM allows the introduction of new genes (including non plant genes) which would never be possible using the old techniques. It is the effect of these new non plant genes on the organism and the food chain that is of course of concern, and when viewed against the results of the French study there are strong indications of a detrimental effect on the apex user of the crop (ie. you and me).
Like you i'd like to see more evidence-based research on the safety of these crops prior to them being used in the wider environment and being used by humans.
Note also that the 'absence of evidence' of harm does not in itself indicate safety as the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You see it pays to do the studies first to determine if there is evidence of absence (of harm) before declaring such an idea.
JoeBloggs :
02 Nov 2012 12:57:29pm
Some of my favourite Genetic Engineering to date:
1. The Enviropig, or "Frankenswine. Scientists added an E. Coli bacteria and mouse DNA to a pig embryo. This modification decreases a pig's phosphorous output by as much as 70 percent making the pig more environmentally friendly.
2. Venomous cabbages. Scientists have recently taken the gene that programs poison in scorpion tails and looked for ways to combine it with cabbage. This limits pesticide use while still preventing caterpillars from damaging cabbage crops. These genetically modified cabbages produce scorpion poison that kills caterpillars when they bite leaves but the toxin is modified so it isn't harmful to humans (we think?).
3. Spider Goat. Researchers inserted a spiders' dragline silk gene into the goats' DNA in such a way that the goats would make the silk protein only in their milk. This "silk milk" could then be used to manufacture a web-like material called Biosteel.
4. Bacteria Corn. The Bt corn plant is engineered to contain a bacterial gene that causes production of an insecticide in every cell of the corn plant, including the edible corn ear and the roots. This toxin has been found to persist in the soil for months. A Cornell study showed that this toxin kills the larvae of certain species of moths and butterflies. Other studies have indicated reduced viability of other nontarget beneficial insects, such as ladybugs and lacewings. Bt toxin also persists in the roots of the crops and in plant residues for a considerable time after the crop is harvested, which may have major adverse consequences for the millions of soil organisms that help maintain soil fertility.
Yet there is little or no labeling of GE foods as being genetically engineered, because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers the GEOs from which these foods are made to be "substantially equivalent" to the non-genetically engineered plant from which the GEOs are derived.
The doctrine of substantial equivalence is pure pretext and rationalization with no basis in science. Yet, in a remarkable display of arrogance, the supporters of genetic engineering accuse their critics of not basing their objections on "sound science."
The FDA also uses this "substantial equivalence" rationalization as an excuse to avoid any effective testing of GE foods to determine their safety. Such testing might seriously delay or even prevent the introduction of GE crops into the marketplace.
The scientific precautionary principle is "When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." But i guess we aren't using that principal for GM products so I guess we will find out what it all does in a generation or two or three.
Frank :
31 Oct 2012 7:18:14am
Very interesting article. One day perhaps all that time fooling around with BS will prove fruitful and economics will be transformed from a pseudoscience into something useful.
SeanK :
02 Nov 2012 3:08:40pm
Very well said!
Economics seems the closest thing to witchcraft in my mind; acts of prophecy, weird rituals, arcane symbols, selling your soul...
I think if the scientific method where ever taken to it we would all see it for what it is!
ij :
31 Oct 2012 7:38:39am
I agree, except when scientist themselves sell pseudoscience.
I refer to string theorists who are pushing the so-called "landscape" and continue with supersymmetry even after the LHC found nothing they expected.
Help101 :
31 Oct 2012 2:13:06pm
The results to date from the LHC do not exclude Supersymmetry.
"an absence of evidence is not evidenc of absence" Dr Carl Sagan.
Freowiz :
31 Oct 2012 6:28:23pm
Rightly so Help 101. But this is leading to an absence of research and funding in other areas to find a GUF
I think I think :
19 Nov 2012 10:43:48am
@Freowiz - you obviously don't have a very good understanding of the problems with the standard model. It is deeply flawed, and is possibly the most important aspect of scientific research that we need to 'get right'. Investigations into supersymetry, whilst expensive, will serve to give us the foundation for truth in all the other areas of science that are studied.
Plus, the money spent on this research may not be spent on other areas of research anyway - there is no bucket of money that all scientists dip into.
ij :
01 Nov 2012 9:07:29am
Afraid they do. Predictions were made that the LHC would find super symmetric partners. Experiment showed nothing. Which is why your Sagan quote is a strawman argument.
So what was their response? They claim the super symmetric partners are of even higher mass. While ignoring the problems associated with such a claim.
They are pushing the boundaries of what it means to be a scientific theory, because their theories continue to come up empty when experiments are performed to test their predictions - the final arbiter of physical scientific theories.
Note the important point here - they claimed they would be seen by the LHC.
A testable prediction.
That doesn't mean there aren't particles that the LHC cannot detect. It means those theories that predicted they would be seen, but weren't, are discredited.
Except string theory, which predicts nothing, but whose proponents continue to claim is a scientific theory.
Help101 :
01 Nov 2012 11:00:59am
Hi IJ,
You are quite correct as some of the super symmetry theorists thought that the current power levels used at the LHC would provide much needed evidence for their theories.
However the news isn't all bad. Sudhir Vempati, assistant professor of physics at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) in Bangalore, stated "If the Higgs boson had turned out to be more massive than 135 giga electron volts (GeV), some of my work on supersymmetry would have had to be abandoned,". Some parts of supersymmetry theory - called minimal models - would not hold if the particle was heavier than 135 GeV. Fortunately for Vempati and hundreds of other physicists who have staked their careers on supersymmetry, the Higgs particle seems to have a mass of 125 GeV.
It is important to remember that SUSY (like other theories like string theories and various other quantum mathematical theories) is very much a work in progess at this stage and that the LHC will help our scientific community learn more about key components of SUSY like dark energy and dark matter which we currently know very little about.
As always the more we learn the more questions we have.
It should also be noted that the Standard Model does not provide an answer to all the observations of nature, and these deficiencies have led to extensions and these other theories.
I think I think :
19 Nov 2012 10:44:41am
Great response help.
Jeremy :
01 Nov 2012 12:27:37pm
You misuderstand Sagan's quote. He meant that if there hasn't been a search for evidence, then you can't cite the lack of evidence as a reason for not believing something. On the other hand if you looked for evidence but found nothing, that is indeed evidence (but not proof) of absence.
Help101 :
02 Nov 2012 11:36:52am
Hi Jeremy,
I do understand Dr Carl Sagans quote.
I think you misinterpreted my post in that there is still much more to learn from the LHC and that not all evidence has been collected as yet to determine the validity of the SUSY theories.
Monut :
31 Oct 2012 9:46:42am
There really isn't a huge difference to a child between a book on dinosaurs and a book on ghosts. They can appear both reasonable and fantastic at the same time. As we grow up some people develop skills to seperate the two, while for others the two remain blurred for life.
02 Nov 2012 9:19:03am
It's called consciousness, and it may have discrete phases.
But this unfortunately is another area of pseudoscience.
People don't seem to have a problem with the idea that a 2 year old can not do differential calculus, and that starting with addition, subtraction, etc ...over time with enough tutoring they could get to master calculus. And, for what it's worth, this ability to do maths is somehow encoded neurologically.
But put the same concept around something like consciousness, where it builds over time and has a neurological base, and people seem to get upset.
Pseudoscience and the preference to find magical explainations for cause and effect is an early stage of consciousnes developement. This 'animism' may even be something you could test for in children. It also represents an early stage in the development of civilisation. But to suggest that at this point in time, some cultures have a less developed consciousness is politically incorrect... interesting isn't it.
Science dominates a later phase of consciousness which moves someone from an absolutionist or fundamentalist position ("everyone should think like me"), to a way of seeing the world as multiplistic. Curiosity is the door through which we travel to get there, something that fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam needs to get.
Again, tis a shame consciousness is a pseudoscience otherwise this might be relevant.
ltrev :
04 Nov 2012 7:59:11am
Your opinion will not get much support because you link the idea of consciousness to concepts of understanding and comprehension rather than to the notion that qualia exist.
I think I think :
01 Dec 2012 8:47:18pm
Qualia doesn't exist in the realm of science.
FreeGuy :
02 Nov 2012 3:04:28pm
Unfortunately to the child of creationist parents its the dinosaurs that end up being the fiction.
Help101 :
31 Oct 2012 9:58:26am
The interesting thing about pseudosciences and the analysis of them, to use Carl Sagans words, is that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Perhaps the hardest part is to differentiate the fake from the real.
The subject of Unidentified Flying Objects being an excellent example, however if you focus on the verifiable opinions from respected groups (ie. NASA astronauts & controllers) you can minimise the chaff.
"Mission control, we have a UFO pacing our position, request instructions." -Astronaut Cady Coleman
NASA Transmission - Shuttle Mission STS-73.
"All Apollo and Gemini flights were followed, both at a distance and sometimes also quite closely, by space vehicles of extraterrestrial origin - flying saucers, or UFOs, if you want to call them by that name. Every time it occurred, the astronauts informed Mission Control, who then ordered absolute silence." -Maurice Chatelain
Former Chief of NASA Communications Systems.
"At no time, when the astronauts were in space were they alone: there was a constant surveillance by UFOs." - NASA Astronaut Scott Carpenter. Carpenter photographed a UFO while in orbit on May 24, 1962.
"Of course UFOs are real, and they are interplanetary. The cumulative evidence for the existence of UFOs is quite overwhelming and I accept the fact of their existence." -Air Chief Marshall Lord Hugh Dowding
Commanding Officer of the Royal Air Force during WWII.
"Let there be no doubt. Alien technology harvested from the infamous saucer crash in Roswell, N.Mex., in July 1947 led directly to the development of the integrated circuit chip, laser and fibre optic technologies, particle beams, electromagnetic propulsion systems, depleted uranium projectiles, stealth capabilities, and many others. How do I know? I was in charge!" - Colonel Philip Corso
Former Head of Foreign Technology at the U.S. Army's Research and Development Department at the Pentagon. Four years Director of Intelligence on President Eisenhower's White House National Security Staff.
What an interesting universe we live in.
david :
31 Oct 2012 10:24:30pm
right... all modern technology comes from UFOs.
The history of the development of all those things is well known and easily available, and involves the work of tens of thousands of people from all over the world.
This is one of the things that much pseudoscience has in common : the idea that everything is being run by a handful of conspirators. In fact, the real research community is vast and diverse and discoveries are made through painstaking experiment.
Help101 :
01 Nov 2012 11:18:26am
Hi David,
I agree, it was a very curious statement when you consider the source.
Lt. Col. Corsos claims that a covert government group was assembled under the leadership of the first Director of Central Intelligence, Adm. Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter (see Majestic 12). Among its tasks was to collect all information on off-planet technology. The US administration simultaneously discounted the existence of flying saucers in the eyes of the public, Corso says.
According to Lt. Col. Corso, the reverse engineering of these artifacts indirectly led to the development of accelerated particle beam devices, fiber optics, lasers, integrated circuit chips, Kevlar material and the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), or "Star Wars", was meant to achieve the destructive capacity of electronic guidance systems in incoming enemy warheads, as well as the disabling of enemy spacecraft, including those of extraterrestrial origin (debate still surrounds the observational footage from NASA of a particle beam attempting to intercept a UFO in Earth orbit as to whether it was from our Star War system or another source. The fact that the UFO was able to very quickly alter its course to avoid the trajectory of the particle beam might suggest the beam was from our Star Wars system).
These claims, while challenging, should be seen in light of his 23 year career in the military (and the intelligence departments) and the positions he held as Battalion Commander of European Air Defense, Intel Staff Officer Plans & Estimate Branch GHQ Far East Command, Chief Special Project Branch G-2 Section of the HQ AFFE 8000th AU Command, Chief Foreign Technology Division of the United States Department of Defense, Staff Officer in the Plans Division OCRD Washington DC.
Did you have any comments in relation to the NASA staffs opinions on the UFO's that they regularly observed?
I think I think :
19 Nov 2012 11:22:52am
Help, these 'discoveries' are fundamentally underwhelming considering that they came from a galaxy crossing, interplanetary species far in advance of our own.
Take the laser for example - the physics were pretty well understood by the time your UFO crashed, and we were only limited by technological advancement at the time. This advancement did not make any great leaps between 1947 and 1960, when the first working laser was built. The improvement was incremental, and easily traced as it developed. This clearly suggests that we did not receive any great insight into lasers (at least) from the discovery of extra terrestrial technology.
With respect to the claims that UFO's were regularly observed, I would suggest that without independent verification they were simply artefacts. Small objects can appear to follow a larger object in zero gravity if they share similar trajectories and momentum.
Many amateur astronomers were capable of verifying these claims with their land based telescopes at the distances involved - it is unreasonable to suspect that the US was capable of canvassing the entire world to keep them quiet.
jack :
05 Nov 2012 3:40:29am
And with that bomb shell....... We as a society still allow such things as patents?............ Everything is a remix.........
Eben Huxley-Jones :
01 Nov 2012 1:51:44am
UFOs are an interesting case, because they are by their very nature "unidentified". It's illogical for a person to say they "believe" or "don't believe" in UFOs because of the very nature of UFOs. Is it, or does it appear to be, an object? Yes. Is it, or does it appear to be, flying? Yes. Can you identify it? No. Then UFOs exist.
The only way to disprove the existence of UFOs is to identify every previously unidentified flying object. And even if it was possible to do that, it wouldn't be long before another object was observed that was or appeared to be flying which couldn't be identified.
None of which is to say that any previously observed UFO is evidence of alien life. They're just proof that sometimes we aren't able to positively identify flying or apparently flying objects. Personally I doubt that there are aliens spying on us. I would think that an intelligent species capable of interstellar travel would have better things to do than mutilate cattle and probe the occasional rural inhabitant with histories of psychological disturbance.
Help101 :
01 Nov 2012 11:36:06am
Hi Eben Huxley-Jones,
You are quite correct that the term UFO doesn't necessarily indicate its origins or any details of what it is other that it is unidentified.
The declassifed documents from various military agencies and intelligence organisations from all over the western world indicate that that they are able to explain 98% of all UFO cases. However it is those 2% that baffled our military and intelligence experts that is of real interest (to us and them).
Just one example is the Rendlesham Forest Incident which is the name given to a series of reported sightings of unexplained lights and the alleged landing of a craft or multiple craft of unknown origin in Rendlesham Forest, Suffolk, England, in late December 1980, just outside RAF Woodbridge, used at the time by the U.S. Air Force. Dozens of USAF personnel were eyewitnesses to various events over a two or three day period.
Around 3 a.m. on 26 December 1980 strange lights were reported by a security patrol near the East Gate of RAF Woodbridge apparently descending into nearby Rendlesham Forest. Servicemen initially thought it was a downed aircraft but, upon entering the forest to investigate, they saw strange lights moving through the trees, as well as a bright light from an unidentified object. One of the servicemen, Sgt. Jim Penniston, later claimed to have encountered a "craft of unknown origin" and to have made detailed notes of its features, touched its "warm" surface, and copied the numerous symbols on its body.
In June 2010, retired Colonel Charles Halt (deputy base commander at the time) signed a notarized affidavit, in which he again summarized what had happened, then stated he believed the event to be extraterrestrial and it had been covered up by both the US and UK:
"I believe the objects that I saw at close quarter were extraterrestrial in origin and that the security services of both the United States and the United Kingdom have attempted, both then and now, to subvert the significance of what occurred at Rendlesham Forest and RAF Bentwaters by the use of well-practiced methods of disinformation."
I certainly agree that the determination as to whether Exterterrestrial Biological Entities (EBE's) would be interested in studying our planet and dominant species, like our scientists study other species on this planet, is a topic subject to much debate.
I suspect the best way to determine the validity of any claims is to look at who is making the claim. Are they just an average Joe with potentially suspect motives, or are they a reputable person like a senior member of the military or from a reputable agency like NASA (ie. Buzz Aldrin or Maurice Chatelain).
It is certainly a morally, theologically and scientifically a very challenging topic.
JoeBloggs :
01 Nov 2012 12:21:10pm
The raw N.A.S.A. footage from the space shuttle mission STS-48 showing a UFO changing direction to ensure it isn't hit by some type of beam weapon is pretty amazing.
It makes you wonder who was doing the shooting and why.
toddynoosa :
01 Nov 2012 2:17:12pm
type "colonel philip corso" into google and the next word that is suggested is "hoax", with all the evidence needed.
Science is strengthened by questioning the "belief". Thanks for strengthening my mind.
Help101 :
02 Nov 2012 11:46:20am
Hi Toddynoosa,
That is correct.
If you type that into google the first subject line offered by google contains on the end the word "hoax", the next option provided by google is "ufo", the following option provided by google is "credentials".
I do agree that there is much debate about Colonel Philip Corso, and although some investigators reject Corso's claims, there can be no doubt about his credentials.
After joining the Army in 1942, he served in Army Intelligence in Europe. During the Korean War, he continued his Intelligence duties under General Douglas MacArthur. He rounded out an impressive resume with four years on President Dwight Eisenhower's national security staff.
The main criticism about his claims is that there is a lack of references to documents, which, does not necessarily make his claims false.
With the reputation that Corso had, and his clearances, it seems highly likely that he would have been in a position to see what he saw (if there was anything to see).
My Oath :
11 Nov 2012 8:31:43am
Colonel Philip Corso is incorrect. Particle beams were not developed from Roswell technology after 1947.
Rutherford was using particle beams in the early 1900.
scipd :
31 Oct 2012 7:48:44pm
Disproving the absence of no supernaturality is purely a philosophical pursuit i.e. nothing to do with science.
scipd :
31 Oct 2012 7:57:54pm
Confirmation bias is more of an issue that can inflict damage in any area of study or culture...
Phineas :
31 Oct 2012 11:44:06pm
Sure, pseudoscience is good fun (or one better... to make fun of), but we must be careful not to mistake it for what actually works.
Homeopathy in the UK actually has a bid in the health funding (for example).
JoeBloggs :
01 Nov 2012 12:22:08pm
Hahaha didn't you know that lavender extract essential oil smells fix broken bones .... ;)
Eben Huxley-Jones :
01 Nov 2012 9:56:02pm
One of the many problems concerning homeopathy is that many people think that the term is interchangable with "natural medicine" when it fact it is a completely demented belief system with no basis in reality whatsoever. The homeopathic remedies given to patients are nothing more than water or alcohol with absolutely no ability to treat any disease or condition.
Help101 :
02 Nov 2012 11:49:33am
Exactly right Eben Huxley-Jones.
The predominate problem with the homeopathic remedies is their claimed dilution which would require more water/alcohol to achieve the dilution than would fit inside the entire observable universe.
It is just very expensive water, it is similar to a placebo (which for some strange reason "work" for some people if they believe in it strongly enough according to some studies).
I think I think :
19 Nov 2012 11:37:37am
Actually Eben - there is no such thing as 'natural medicine'. There is medicine, and then there is unreliable stuff that may or may not make an ailment better or worse.
Aspirin has shown all the kooks who think their stuff is valid, how it should be done.
stormy :
03 Nov 2012 12:17:54am
Pseudoscience is also the backbone of the make-work jobs in gov't research labs that
employ lots of people.
Darrell :
03 Nov 2012 11:07:07am
Well, here we go again.. The eternal search for "Truth,".. And what is "reality," anyway... What is "Consciousness".. Yes, we can "know" many things rationally & logically of course, if we are born with a certain scepticism, or the ability to "question" everything.. Even previous scientific discoveries.. This is the process of evolution etc et al.. And, then there is the inborn ability some people have of being able to imagine all kinds of things.. Like, Einstein dreaming or imagining what it would be like to travel on a beam of light etc.. And, all this is tricky territory.. trying to determine, what is "real" & what is not.. And, what is "reality" etc.. Despite all we have learned, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that much of what we beleive we are certain of today, could be proven to be wrong, & or incomplete.. Just look back about 500 years to see what was beleived to be "real" or possible back then for example! Yes, life is a great mystery indeed...
Help101 :
05 Nov 2012 11:29:44am
Good points Darrell,
It is highly likely that people in 500 years time will look back on some of our 'knowledge' and certain theories and shake their heads and just laugh (like the flat earth idea of old). Other bits they will still agree with.
I do however look forward to more knowledge in relation to gravity theories, dark matter/energy, space/time relativity, FTL travel, multidimensional universe(s), and a comprensive theory explaining the big and the small (which we may never achieve as big keeps getting bigger and small keeps getting smaller).
PlayNolan :
19 Nov 2012 9:54:10pm
Interested in the multi-dimensional universe, given the obvious nonsense of the big bang emerging from nothing.
Current speculations are that the universe has 10, 11 or 26 dimensions, most of which we can't perceive ... or can we? ;-)
ltrev :
04 Nov 2012 7:50:01am
Pseudoscience (and religion) is about creating institutions that are immune to evidence.
And some of these institutions are particularly keen to educate children.
Faking evidence and testing claims (such as whether prayer works) may be educational and fun between peers. In the wrong institutional setting it can be a disaster.
Eligius4917 :
05 Nov 2012 10:12:27am
I wonder how many children became rational thinkers after watching Scooby-Doo cartoons. Just in case there's somebody reading this who's never seen a Scooby-Doo cartoon, the characters in the show find some place that is haunted by some supernatural creature, which they prove by investigation is a fake. I always thought that show sent a good message about not believing in he supernatural, and to think rationally. I've even found a blog praising it by an atheist!
Help101 :
05 Nov 2012 11:45:55am
True Eligius4917, Scooby-Doo is a great demonstration of a critical mind at work.
It is also interesting how some of the pseduoscience on TV ends up becoming real science and reality over time.
Star Trek springs to mind.
Use this form to email 'In defence of pseudoscience' to someone you know:


text:
Please note that we have moved into our NEW SHOWROOM. Come visit us at 515 West Walnut Street, Perkasie, PA 18944.
All of the soapstone products that you see on our site are made in our Perkasie, PA facility. When you order a sink from us you won't be getting a sink that has been sitting around for a couple of years.
Even the block sinks (one piece sinks) you see; we make these sinks with a 3 week turn-around. Our Bow/Slant block sink is only available from Bucks County Soapstone.
OTHER SOAPSTONE SUPPLIERS will make you wait for a cookie cutter straight front block sink for up to 16 weeks (if you want a special size), that's enough to make anyone choose another type of sink. So let me say it again, WE WILL BUILD YOUR BLOCK SINK WITH A BOW/SLANT, SLANT, OR STRAIGHT FRONT IN 3 WEEKS.
Please head right over to the Video portion of our website; be sure to see our process and one piece sinks. In FOUR SHORT minutes we will show you how different we are than anyone else out there working with stone.
Please feel free to send us an e-mail at email@example.com
with any feedback you may have about our site.
I want to personally invite you to visit our showroom and shop, see and touch the product in the showroom and then put on some safety glasses and tour the manufacturing area where you get to meet our craftsmen and see them carrying out their trade. We will take the time to make sure all of your questions about soapstone are answered during your visit.
Our showroom is filled with soapstone displayed in ways that stimulates the senses of soapstone enthusiasts so please make time to visit. We recommend you visit before you have all of your kitchen choices decided because many people change their minds once they visit us. Like your sink decision, look at the sinks we create before you decide on another type of apron front or vessel sink. You'll know what we mean once you visit.
A word about Saturdays.
Most Saturdays we have appointments, so usually someone is here from 9am to Noon. The reason we make appointments on Saturday is to accommodate those of you who cannot make it out to see us during the week. By offering appointments we can be sure to spend quality time with you.
Treasuring our families, it is our desire to spend weekends(starting at noon on Saturday) at home with them.
Thank you,
Scott Seuren
© Bucks County Soapstone Company 2002 - 2011
Bucks County Soapstone
515 West Walnut Street
Perkasie, PA 18944
Phone: 215-249-8181 — Fax: 215-249-8183
Pennsylvania Contractor's License: PA6413

subset: commoncrawl


text:
.43 caliber single color paintballs - 8000 paintballs in box.
For use with Grenade Launcher and Thunder Grenade. High quality, made in USA.
The newest .43 caliber paintballs, especially made for RAP4 Markers by a manufacturer here in the U.S.A.! These are the best paintballs in the market today!
*Out of Stock*
Review (0)


text:
Calvin Klein Collection Kelena Rhinestone Leather Ankle Strap Sandal
Sorry, this item is sold out!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Item # 268052
Setting the tone of elegance and sophistication, Calvin Klein Collection is the epitome of sleek modernity. The classic style of the Kelena sandal makes it the perfect addition to your shoe collection.
- Rhinestone-embossed leather upper
- Ankle strap with an adjustable buckle
- Almond toe
- Fully lined in leather
- ¼" platform, 3½" heel
- Leather sole
- Made in Italy
- View more Women's Calvin Klein Collection Shoes
- Online Exclusive!
Tell us what you think!
Everyone has an opinion. Here's your chance to share yours! Be the first to write a review of this product and help your fellow shoppers pick the best of the best.


text:
I'm trying to articulate abstraction. Abstraction is the art that's capable now of handling so many areas which other forms of art can't deal with. Abstraction is flat, it can completely liberate the artwork.
Sean Scully, interview with Adrian Dannatt, 'I don't have the American ambition of being the next great abstract artist', Flash Art, vol. 25, no. 164, May–June 1992, pp. 103–105 (p. 104).


text:
BLUE Freedom® Grain Free Chicken Small Breed Dog Food
Give your small-breed dog special nutritional care with the omega-3 and -6 fatty acids, glucosamine and L-carnitine supplements in this chicken-flavored dog food. Packed with quality protein from chicken and boosted with vitamins and minerals from fruits and vegetables, the food helps your tiny canine enjoy a full, happy life. Your small-breed pooch will feel like the big dog on the block when he or she fuels up with the nutrients in this BLUE Freedom Chicken Dinner Small Breed Dog Food. Specially formulated with omega-3 and -6 fatty acids, glucosamine and L-carnitine, this recipe gives your petite pooch proper nutrition for a healthy life. Featuring savory chicken as the main ingredient and accented with flavorful vegetables and fruits, this food provides a well-balanced and great-tasting meal for your furry friend.
Food Type: Wet Food
Life Stage: Adult Small Breed
Health Consideration: General Health
Flavor: Chicken
Primary Ingredient: Chicken
Nutrition Option: Grain Free, Natural
Package Weight: 5.5 oz
Chicken, Chicken Broth, Chicken Liver, Carrots, Peas, Sweet Potatoes, Ground Flaxseed (source of Omega-3 and -6 Fatty Acids), Potassium Chloride, Guar Gum, Blueberries, Cranberries, Fish Oil, Glucosamine Hydrochloride, Carrageenan, Cassia Gum, L-Carnitine, Vitamin A Supplement, Thiamine Mononitrate (Vitamin B), Riboflavin Supplement (Vitamin B2), Biotin (Vitamin B7), Vitamin B12 Supplement, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Vitamin E Supplement, Iron Amino Acid Chelate, Zinc Amino Acid Chelate, Cobalt Amino Acid Chelate, Copper Amino Acid Chelate, Manganese Amino Acid Chelate, Sodium Selenite, Potassium Iodide, Salt and Choline Chloride
Guaranteed Analysis:
Crude Protein (min) 8.0%
Crude Fat (min) 6.0%
Crude Fiber (max) 1.0%
Moisture (max) 78.0%
Omega 6 Fatty Acids* (min) 0.8%
Omega 3 Fatty Acids* (min) 0.1%
Glucosamine* (min) 380mg/kg
L-Carnitine* (min) 380mg/kg
*Not recognized as an essential nutrient by the AAFCO Dog Food Nutrient Profiles.
Now: $ 18.99
Now: $ 2.79 to $ 3.29