tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34576683620981524132024-03-13T10:33:45.661-07:00Thoughts on Science and PseudoscienceBlinding people with science, reason, and skeptical inquiry.The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-80618069700508498752014-07-31T10:24:00.000-07:002014-07-31T10:24:20.236-07:00One Simple Counter to Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZTjSr5tgH1c/U9p64MjrctI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/CO_ULpydny4/s1600/imagesCAHWG7WH.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZTjSr5tgH1c/U9p64MjrctI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/CO_ULpydny4/s1600/imagesCAHWG7WH.jpg" height="212" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Zeno was a Greek philosopher who has famously vexed great minds for thousands of years with his puzzling <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/#H4" target="_blank">paradoxes</a> that seem to defy explanation or refutation. The problems he describes are typically simple to state, and to understand, but defiantly difficult to deconstruct or disprove. Aristotle, Bertrand Russell, St. Thomas Aquinas, and scores of other heavy-weight philosophers have chimed in with suggested solutions to at least some of Zeno's riddles. I've looked at a lot of these counterarguments, solutions, and refutations to Zeno's Paradoxes, but I've never seen one particular counterargument that seems the most obvious to me.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Zeno is famous for posing at least three major paradoxes: (1) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise" target="_blank">Achilles & the Tortoise</a>; (2) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Arrow_paradox" target="_blank">the Arrow Paradox</a>; and (3) the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Dichotomy_paradox" target="_blank">Dichotomy Paradox</a>. It is this last problem to which I am referring. The Dichotomy Paradox is a thorny little thought experiment involving motion of an object, and our mental and mathematical conceptualizations of that motion. The Dichotomy Paradox sneakily pits math versus reality in this little gem of a riddle.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Zeno asks us to consider a person traveling from one city to another, say Athens to Rome. In order for the traveler to go the full distance, <em>d</em>, the traveler must first complete half of the trip, <em>d</em>/2. In order to go the last half, the traveler must again travel half of the remaining distance, so (<em>d</em>/2)/2 = <em>d</em>/4. Zeno argues that the traveler must keep traveling half the distance, then half of the remaining distance, then half of <em>that</em> remaining distance, and so on for infinity, never quite reaching the endpoint. And since no one can travel an infinity of distances in a finite amount of time, Zeno concludes that it is impossible for the traveler to complete his trip by moving! Ergo, motion is just an illusion.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Obviously, people and objects can and do move in the world, so we know from the start that Zeno's conclusion cannot be true, but that's what is so puzzling about it. It was not immediately obvious to philosophers at the time where exactly this line of thinking was going astray. <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/#H2" target="_blank">Most critiques</a> of this Paradox rely on more modern thinking and mathematical techniques that were not available in Zeno's day; namely, infinite sums in which a finite answer is produced. So a traveler going on the number line from zero to one, using Zeno's traveling method of going half, then half again, then half again and again, results in an infinite sum that eventually results in completion of the trip:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
0 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ..... = 1</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But you don't need to know about infinite sums to dismiss Zeno's Paradox straight away, you just need to point out that he is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question" target="_blank">begging the question</a> (assuming his own conclusion) in this logic, or contradicting himself -- I'm not exactly sure which. I've never actually seen any other philosophers point out this glaring hole in Zeno's logic, so I decided to post my thoughts here in the hopes of being corrected. Let's work backwards, very quickly, which clearly suggests a problem with his thinking:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Zeno concludes traveling the distance <em>d</em> is impossible (or illusory?). But then assumes traveling the distance <em>d</em>/2 <em>is possible</em>. So instead of setting our target distance at <em>d</em>, and never quite reaching it because of the infinite half-sums involved, let's set our target distance to 2 times <em>d</em> = 2<em>d</em>. Since we can apparently travel half-distances no problem, according to Zeno himself, then half of 2<em>d</em> is just <em>d</em>, the distance we wanted to travel in the first place.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Boom, that's it. Problem solved, as far as I can tell. We just showed that traveling distance <em>d</em> was possible using Zeno's own described method of travel, no fancy maths or infinite sums necessary to banish this riddle. Dichotomy Paradox solved?</div>
</div>
The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-73692984271101306742013-06-24T13:32:00.002-07:002013-06-24T13:32:20.701-07:00A Human Brain is Now Mapped in 3D at the Cellular Level<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://s3.hipertextual.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/16/files/2012/02/connectome.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://s3.hipertextual.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/16/files/2012/02/connectome.jpeg" height="316" width="400" /></a></div>
Something amazing happened this month, something monumental. For the first time ever, a human brain has been scanned and computationally reconstructed as a virtual 3D model, <i>with detail down to the cellular level</i>. <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/?p=1725#.Ucbi2JjJa3I" target="_blank">The work</a> was <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6139/1472" target="_blank">reported in the flagship journal <i>Science</i></a>. This is monumental because it is the most detailed map of the human brain ever before captured, and should allow incredible advances in understanding how the brain's circuitry, structure, and connectivity gives rise to the mind, consciousness, behaviors, and mental illnesses.<br />
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The scanning and computational reconstruction were conducted by Canadian and German researchers, using the brain of a 65 year old woman who donated her body to science. The project was part of Europe's <a href="http://www.humanbrainproject.eu/" target="_blank">Human Brain Project</a>. Over thousands of hours, the brain was thinly sliced, scanned, and then reconstructed as a virtual 3D model that is freely available for scientists to access.<br />
<br />
The next important step in this work, as I see it, is for the 3D physical model to be turned into some form of computational model like a neural network simulation, either wholly or in part (i.e., a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectome" target="_blank">connectome</a>). Then simulated inputs can be fed into the system to see how activity occurs, and to conduct experimental work on this computational model derived from the detailed physical model. To build the connectome, realistic assumptions will have to be made about how the physical connectivity translates into computational connectivity, but this does not seem too insurmountable now that we have a full cellular connectivity map in 3D.<br />
<br />
Another issue with the computational reconstruction will be running the simulations on a powerful enough computer system. The computational complexity will be absolutely immense, even with state-of-the-art technology. So perhaps we will be limited for the time being in only simulating certain brain circuits or maybe even regions, but this should be very enlightening in any case.<br />
<br />
For further reading on this topic, check out the field of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectomics" target="_blank">Connectomics</a>, which is spear-heading this type of research. The 1990's was the Decade of the Brain. It looks like these new results may lay the groundwork for a Century of the Mind, in which our understanding of how brains give rise to minds advances exponentially. Perhaps, in our lifetimes, we may see satisfying scientific explanations for mental illness, brain dysfunction, intelligence, and maybe even the mysterious problem of consciousness. Only time (and lots of future research) will tell.</div>
The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-21127842281110662332013-06-17T05:09:00.001-07:002013-06-17T19:15:12.574-07:00Visual Hallucinations in Photographs<br />
<div style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; height: 101px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: justify; width: 645px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://medicallywiseinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Hallucinations0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="138" src="http://medicallywiseinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Hallucinations0.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
A neurological <a href="http://casereports.bmj.com/content/2013/bcr-2012-008372.abstract" target="_blank">case study</a> was recently reported on visual hallucinations in photographs. I found this particularly fascinating. Two Parkinson's patients with severe visual hallucinations and delusions were shown photographic evidence proving that what they were seeing wasn't actually there. Strangely enough, the patients' hallucinations extended into the photographic realm, and they reported seeing the hallucinations there, too. Utterly bizarre.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
This is apparently the first reported visual hallucination that persisted into photographs of the scene where the hallucinations/delusions were occuring. The researchers referred to this phenomenon as "delusional hallucinations" or "delusional illusions." They discovered this oddity by taking photographs of the scene in which the hallucinations were occuring, then showing them to the patients in order to prove nothing was actually there. But the patients saw their hallucinations in the scene anyway.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's almost as if we were to show UFO or Bigfoot believers photographs or videos of the scenes in which they saw something, and proved no aliens or Bigfoots were there, the viewers would STILL report seeing the same thing! Of course this assumes the viewers in question were truly hallucinating, which is probably not the case for the majority of supernatural reports. Most supernatural reports appear to usually be misidentifications or misunderstandings of a scene (such as black bears being misidentified as Sasquatches, and aircraft or meteorological or astronomical phenomena misidentified as alien-driving UFOs).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Back to the case report. Something about the real-world scenes in which the hallucinations were occurring was contributing or in some sense causing/driving the hallucinations (it might have been a particular tree, or flower bed arrangement in a yard, or whatever; it's not clear exactly). And apparently the same stimuli from the scene, when portrayed from a photograph, was enough to cause the same hallucinations to bleed over from the real-world into the photo. Identifying such visual features that were contributing to the hallucinations might now be experimentally possible given these results, and allow for deep experimental study of visual hallucinations and delusions. I'm not aware if this particular phenomenon is limited to only delusions/hallucinations in Parkinson's disease, or if such reports have been made or are even possible with other neurological syndromes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is a remarkable testament into how the brain constructs our perception of the world around us, using (sometimes sub-par) visual information to construct a "best guess" about what is out there in the world. It also speaks to the power of photographs: to some part of ourselves, a few splotches of light placed here-or-there in the right arrangement elicits powerful feelings, and seems undeniably real on some level. We keep ourselves surrounded by pictures of our loved ones, hanging on our walls, on our desks, in our phones, and stuffed in our wallets and purses. Even for persons long departed, a photo has the power to let us feel their presence once more.<br />
<br />
</div>
The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-36802013092028333702013-05-14T11:16:00.001-07:002013-05-14T12:58:03.761-07:00Why saying "Newton was Wrong!" is a Poor Argument<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; height: 209px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; width: 172px;">
<img src="http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQt6eJ0DLeqc3Dfa6CDJtmsPs_Uy6UN7N6BmU9fl-089ByZV0ycU0oVQFuxig" height="200" id="il_fi" style="padding-bottom: 8px; padding-right: 8px; padding-top: 8px;" width="153" /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've been seeing a lot of pseudoscientific rants lately that sound a lot like this: "Well, your fancy so-called scientific theories could be all wrong. Newton had the final word in physics, until Einstein came along, and then WHAMMO he re-wrote the laws of physics!!". This is a poor argument with several layers of problems.<br />
<br />
</div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Newton wasn't wrong, exactly. His description of the laws of physics were only approximations, but they were fantastic approximations nonetheless. We still use them today in spaceflight and many many physics calculations because they work well in almost every circumstance.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Einstein didn't "rewrite" the laws of physics, he added refinement to Newton's work. Einstein stood on Newton's shoulders, just as Newton famously stood on the shoulders of previous giants [<i>note</i>: not actual giants, just scientists, philosophers, teachers and other great thinkers. Some may have been tall but were no Bigfoots.]</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Part of the problem may be the public image of Einstein as a wild witty dopey professor-type with frazzled hair at all times; swooping in out of nowhere to blow the physics world away by demolishing all their work for centuries. Like his genius came from being a bit wild and crazy (and maybe it did). Einstein's real brilliance was understanding and mastery of new complex mathematical tools that few others at the time were using. Even as a self-taught lone wolf genius working full-time, as a young man he was already on the cutting edge of his field in terms of understanding and interpreting the then-current research. It's much harder to be a lone genius these days, as doing much of science now requires expansive collaboration, complex and costly equipment, years or even decades of intricate study. Plus there aren't as many Swiss patent clerk positions, as one might hope.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Really, the worst part of this argument is that it implicitly compares the arguer to Einstein. Just don't do that, seriously. YOU ARE NO EINSTEIN, and I am not either, let's all accept it and just get that off the table as an arguing point and move on. Remember, some geniuses are crazy, but most crazy people aren't geniuses (they just think they are). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-74772116891513462912013-05-14T04:18:00.002-07:002013-05-14T13:13:53.870-07:00A Few Popular Psychology Myths Debunked<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://lolsnaps.com/upload_pic/BrainsAreAwesome-88661.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://lolsnaps.com/upload_pic/BrainsAreAwesome-88661.jpg" height="195" width="200" /></a></div>
This post tackles a few common misunderstandings and incorrect memes about brains, intelligence, and psychology that are floating around the internet and elsewhere. For these two, it's not even clear how these silly ideas got started. But understanding why they are wrong (or meaningless) is instructive and interesting.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>We only use 10% of our brains.</u></b> Really? So the extra 90% of our brains are just sitting there, not being used? Why would we have all that extra brain for? Usually this claim is put in the introduction of fancy new self-help materials that are splattered with the prefix "neuro-" preceding every other word. Then the books or articles are offering YOU, the lucky reader, the secret to unlocking all of this incredible unused mental power that every other poor ignorant sucker just leaves dormant in their heads, for the low low price of just $29.95! Wow, amazing! This meme is just nonsensical and untrue, here's why:<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First, the brain (obviously) consists of neurons. Neurons are living cells, and they fire (discharge) many times a second for their entire existence. So we are always "using" 100% of our brain, all day every day, even when we are asleep, awake, brushing our teeth, watching a movie, driving, or taking standardized tests. It's not the <i>firing itself</i> of individual neurons that is important, it's the differential <i>firing rates</i> and the <i>overall patterns</i> of communication that allows the brain to perform useful computations (think, feel, perceive, act, etc.).<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Second, if there were any part of our brains that we weren't ever using, evolution would be quick to whittle that away because brain tissue is expensive and costly to possess (it is metabolically greedy consuming 20-25% of our oxygen and food). Plus, extra large brains need extra large heads (skulls) for protection, which gives rise to all sorts of unintended problems like dangerous childbirth, difficulty walking, running, leaping, unfused skulls until after birth, etc. Unless the benefits somehow outweighed the costs, evolution is not going to equip us with brains that go 90% unused. This just isn't a plausible idea.<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In any case, it's not even clear what is meant by the phrase "we only use 10% of our brains" since it doesn't define what is meant by "use" and it doesn't specify what the 10% is referring to, or how the 10% number is calculated. It's basically just a made-up meme that apparently the self-help/neuro-craze crowd seems to have latched onto and perpetuated for the last few decades.<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>90% of communication is non-verbal</u>.</b> Again, this meme fails to define what the 90% is referring to, or how it's calculated. Plus it would imply that we could communicate almost perfectly without using any sounds or words whatsoever. Try explaining a complicated physics problem or tell an intricate story without resorting to words. Just limit yourself to the use of non-verbal communication for a day, see how well you can communicate with your family, friends, and colleagues. All this communicating should be easy since 90% of communication is non-verbal, right?<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Maybe today this statistic is more true than ever, given the amount of communication we do in the virtual world via texting, Twitter, email, Facebook, etc. But usually the stat is used to refer to interpersonal, face-to-face styles of communication involving body language, facial expressions, clothing and other social ornamentation, and all the many sublte signs of communicating that humans have invented. It's true these are important and interesting, but they aren't 90%.<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The highest fidelity human sense, carrying the most information to the brain, is by far the visual system. In fact nearly half of the cortex is devoted to visual processing. This allows us to discern thousands of faces that are only slightly different from each other, see and understand objects even in cluttered environments, track moving objects, move ourselves through the spatial environment, see in 3D, with high detail, and in color. So I won't deny that the visual channel, as opposed to the auditory (verbal) channel, carries much more raw information.<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And yet what do we do when we can't talk directly to someone verbally, either face-to-face or over the phone, but still want to communicate with them? We use vision to verbalize our communication. We write our thoughts down, converting verbalizations into symbolic visualizations (writing) and send them to someone via letter, text, chat, tweet, books, graffiti, blogs, hieroglyphics, tattoos, or sky-writing. Then the receiver uses their high fidelity visual system to convert those visualizations into a verbal stream of sounds inside their own head. Almost like magic. So even when we are communicating "non-verbally", it's basically just a verbal-to-visual-back-to-verbal communication chain. It seems 90% or more of communication is actually verbal and not the other way around. </div>
The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-37308439853787227812013-03-25T22:42:00.002-07:002013-03-27T07:24:05.268-07:00Bigfoot Footprints: The Problem of the Distribution Shape<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qjNKt71a0sE/UVEzo4VGRjI/AAAAAAAAAAQ/DAo6VwTtQVI/s1600/bigfootprint.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qjNKt71a0sE/UVEzo4VGRjI/AAAAAAAAAAQ/DAo6VwTtQVI/s1600/bigfootprint.jpg" height="325" width="400" /></a></div>
A <a href="http://www.bfro.net/ref/theories/whf/fahrenbacharticle.htm" target="_blank">scientific study on Bigfoot footprints and other such data</a> was published in the late 1990's:<br />
<br />
<b>Fahrenbach, W. H. (1997/1998). "Sasquatch: Size, Scaling, & Statistics," Cryptozoology, 13, pp. 47-75).</b><br />
<br />
This work admirably attempted to tabulate and present 40 years worth of Bigfoot evidence data. I won't even get into the issue of what the researcher is counting as "good" or "acceptable" data to include in this collection of samples. Instead I want to focus here on the footprint data, because it appears to create an especially problematic issue for Bigfoot believers.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The paper considers over 700 footprint measurements purported to be left by the ever-elusive and mysterious Sasquatch creature. <b>Here's the problem: The foot size distribution should be bimodal (with two 'peaks' or 'spikes' in the histograms) due to different sizes between males and females. But the paper (Figure 1) clearly shows only one peak in the data.</b> The author interprets this finding as suggesting NO <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism_in_non-human_primates" target="_blank">sexual dimorphism</a> between males and females, but this is incredibly unlikely for the following reasons: <br />
<br />
In primates, males are almost always <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~hogwash/BW_PDFs/RP014.pdf" target="_blank">larger</a> than females. And the larger a primate is, the <a href="http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2408790?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101822230203" target="_blank">bigger the difference</a> between males and females (they display a larger sexual dimorphism with increasing size). Maybe you didn't notice, but Bigfoot is <i>supposedly</i> 8 to 10 feet tall and weighing in at something like 400 lbs or some such nonsense (yet it's able to run with incredible speed, take bounding leaps, and elude all attempts at detection like a stealthy ninja in the woods? Right.).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
The three largest primate species ever to exist (<i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus" target="_blank">Gigantopithecus</a> blacki, bilaspurensis, and giganteus</i>) were truly massive, with some potentially approaching 10 feet in height and 1200 lbs in weight. All three of these species are now extinct but are thought to have possibly coexisted with very early human ancestors. Some wild and implausible theories suggest that Bigfoots are remnants of one of these <i>Gigantopithecus</i> species that have survived until modern times. The oversized height and weight certainly seem to match Bigfoot descriptions.<br />
<br />
The problem is that these species had huge differences in size between males and females, exactly as we would expect, given <i>real </i>primate data on body size features. For instance, in the <i>G. blacki</i> species, males were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus#Morphology" target="_blank">twice as large</a> as females, and so their footprint distributions would have been unmistakenly bimodal. And so should any of their remaining relatives, such as Bigfoots. <b>Any primate that is as large as Bigfoot is claimed to be should have obvious sexual dimorphisms and differing footprint sizes. But the Bigfoot footprint distribution is unimodal!</b> Even if <em>Gigantopithecus</em> were not Bigfoot's ancestor, the expected male-female size differential for primates should result in a bimodal histogram of footprint sizes.<br />
<br />
The unimodal distribution of supposed Bigfoot footprints simply does not support the existence of the mythical creature, as the cited research paper suggests. Where we would expect to see two peaks in the histograms, we see only one. The shape of the distribution observed in the Bigfoot footprint data is more suggestive of hoaxers randomly selecting larger-than-human footprint sizes, or completely understandable misidentifications or misinterpretations of human/animal footprints or of just random patterns that aren't any form of footprints at all. It's another poor attempt at "proof" of an undiscovered but oft-sighted primate species secretly living in modern North America. Sorry Squatchers, but again, your supposed Bigfoot evidence just does not stand up to any serious scientific scrutiny.<br />
<br /></div>
The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-90382837799353559072013-03-05T19:30:00.001-08:002013-03-15T04:48:27.655-07:00Time.com Article on Computer Learning Widely Misses the Mark<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://blogs.ifsworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/AI-lowres.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://blogs.ifsworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/AI-lowres.jpg" height="304" width="320" /></a></div>
A recent <a href="http://science.time.com/2013/02/27/how-computers-can-learn-for-starters-chuck-the-silicon/" target="_blank">article</a> published in the science and technology section of Time.com makes some truly spectacular errors and misunderstandings about artificial intelligence and computer learning. And I thought it would be instructive for people who are interested in these topics to consider why this article is inaccurate, and where and how it misses the mark so badly. The author starts out by claiming that computers are extra stupid:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Just how stupid is your computer? The short answer is that it's really, really stupid. The longer answer is that it's stupider than a slime mold.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The author describes how spectacular it is that a slime mold can make its way through a microscopic maze to get at a food source at the end of the maze. Which I agree, this sounds neat and very cool, but not exactly an incredible example of mental powers. Then he claims this maze-finding behavior is an example of "learning," but really this is an inaccurate description. It's probably an example of homing behaviors, in which an organism navigates or orients based on a simple signal from the environment, the way a moth will fly towards a flame (or the way bugs will fly toward lights at night). This is homing, and it is not cognitively-sophisticated behavior. And even if it were, computers can easily do it, and have been doing so for decades. For instance, the military has been using laser-guided bombs and heat-seeking missiles for years and years, which rely on the same principle (the program says "go towards the laser dot" or "go towards a heat-source"). But according to the author, this is an example that <i>"the slime mold learns -- something your computer will never, ever do."</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is a truly curious claim, first, that slime molds are doing some amazing feats of learning (which his example did not demonstrate), and second, that our computers cannot learn (either at the level of slime molds or beyond). He goes on to suggest that the main technological hurdle holding back computer intelligence is that computers use digital signals to communicate, while neurons' firing intensity or firing rate can vary in a non-digital (analog) fashion. Um, no, sorry buddy.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Many computer systems were once analog, in many ways that's how they started. But they SUCKED so badly as analog systems (programming them to do something useful was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer#Setup" target="_blank">a huge hassle</a>) that it was a spectacular breakthrough when they went digital. Analog computers are really fast and efficient at doing a few things, like solving differential equations, just not with the repeatability and accuracy offered by digital computers. <span style="font-family: CMR12;">"Analog computers of the 1960s were physically large, tedious to program and required significant user expertise. However, once programmed, they rapidly solved a variety of mathematical problems, notably differential equations, without time-domain discretization artifacts, albeit with only moderate accuracy. Analog computers were superseded by digital ones long ago..." (<a href="http://www.cisl.columbia.edu/grads/gcowan/vlsianalog.pdf" target="_blank">Cowen, 2005</a>)</span></div>
<br />
Going back to analog wouldn't magically solve hosts of artificial intelligence problems, it would just overly complicate things. So it's not clear from the Time article what exactly computer learning has to do with the analog/digital issue.<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Plus, neurons aren't strictly analog. Their output certainly is analog, but their inputs are not quite. They have a firing threshold that says "if my inputs don't sum to over some given amount X, then I will not fire." Any given neuron will either fire or not fire within some fixed amount of time based on its inputs and whether its threshold is exceeded. This is a binary decision (fire/don't fire) for each individual neuron. It's probably most accurate to consider a neuronal system as a weird hybrid combination of analog and digital computing units all wired together in complex ways.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In any case, it's my understanding that analog systems can be modeled to any desired degree of fidelity using floating-point operations within digital computers. Both of these considerations help explain why we can accurately model neuronal behaviors inside a digital computer to a high degree of fidelity, without resorting to the use of strictly analog systems. The author's points just make no sense.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
How neurons compute (what substrate they are using, or whether its analog or digital or a mix) isn't what makes brains smart. It's the <i>patterns</i>, the conglomerations of neurons and how they are interconnected. No single neuron is smart. Even a small group is pretty dumb, comparable to the slime mold that the author uses as an example of "learning." The real magic comes from hooking up massive amounts of neuronal groups and feeding them into sets of one another, hooking them up in appropriate ways (figuring out how to do this is the real tricky part, but we'll get there). But again, <i>it's all in the patterns</i>. If we can copy or capture how these patterns work or what they are doing and implement them in another substrate (i.e., a digital computer), there is no reason why we could not get these stupid computers to be as smart or smarter than people. In some real sense, computer could become people-like.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Still, modern day computers are not stupid. They aren't human-level geniuses, exactly, but they certainly aren't as dumb as the author portrays them to be. Computers as sophisticated (or less) than your current iPhone or laptop are helping land airplanes, translate human languages, planning flights, answering phones, detecting faces and emotional expressions in photographs, and literally a billion other smart activities, far beyond the capabilities of a measly slime mold. Just a few decades ago, such feats would have seemed near-impossible for computers, but this "AI-creep" has been slow enough that it feels invisible to most observers. And of course, every time AI and computer learning programmers conquer another human-like feat of intelligence (checkers, chess, Go, Poker, Jeopardy, face recognition, optical character recognition, detecting credit card fraud, translating languages, flying airplanes, etc., etc.), the goalposts move and detractors claim that "well that wasn't really an instance of 'true' intelligence anyway"!<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I think there really is a potentially-amazing story underlying this article, regarding the transistors that can change based on their inputs ("memristors" or memory-resistors). That technology, or the idea behind it, could be <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/08/upside/" target="_blank">a major leap forward</a> in allowing massively-parallel computers to be wired together (the way a brain is a massively parallel collection of simple processors called neurons), and to adjust the strength of their inter-connections more easily and on-the-fly. Simulating parallel computing on serial processors, the way complex cognitive modeling is often done now, is an inefficient way to go about doing parallel computing. It's much more elegant and simpler to tackle the problem actually using parallel processing, which the memristors mentioned in the article <i>could maybe possibly</i> allow. I think this is the story that the author meant to hit, but missed. Badly.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-55853459526593500042013-01-17T10:04:00.002-08:002013-01-22T05:05:21.667-08:00Is There Alien Life in the Universe? Probably, But Not What You Think<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images.defensetech.org/images/alien.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://images.defensetech.org/images/alien.jpg" eea="true" height="170" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are billions or even trillions of stars in every galaxy, and there are billions of galaxies in the universe. Around many of these stars are probably planets, with many of these planets being Earth-like in regards to size and distance from the parent star. Surely, then, given the sheer magnitude of the numbers, there <em>must</em> be alien life out there somewhere, right? Yes, there probably is alien life, but it's probably not what you are thinking. Alien life, if it exists, is almost certainly stupid goo.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It seems likely based on the current understanding of biology and astronomy that life may be common throughout the universe; maybe even very common. But I doubt we would find alien life forms to be anywhere near as complex as life on Earth, and even if they were, the chances of them being "intelligent" are basically nil. I'll explain why, but first I need to give a brief explanation of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation" target="_blank">Drake Equation</a> before getting to my points.<br />
<br />
The Drake Equation is a formula used to estimate the number of technologically-advanced alien civilizations in our galaxy capable of interstellar communication. It was invented in the 1960's by astronomer Frank Drake and used to argue for a concerted effort (SETI) in searching for possible radio communications coming from alien life. The equation consists of several factors that get multiplied together to arrive at a final estimate. Some of these factors include: the number of stars in the galaxy, the number of planets per star, the number of habitable planets, the proportion of habitable planets on which life arises, and the proportion of habitable planets on which intelligent life arises. It is this last factor (term "FI" in the equation) that I will focus on. We will perform our own estimate for this term, and then compare our final results to Drake's initial calculation, and to a <a href="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/2915/full" target="_blank">more recent calculation</a> that utilized the "best" available current estimates for the terms.<br />
<br />
Drake and colleagues performed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Historical_estimates_of_the_parameters" target="_blank">an initial calculation</a> in 1961 and came to the conclusion that there are probably between 1,000 and 100 million technologically-advanced civilizations just in our galaxy. So the universe should be teeming with intelligent life, according to their calculation. But his FI term they used in the equation (the proportion of planets with life that develop intelligent life) was 1, meaning Drake was assuming <strong>that 100% of the time life arises, it ultimately leads to intelligent life</strong>. Even my personal hero, astronomer Carl Sagan, estimated this term to be high for his calculation. I really truly hate to disagree with the esteemed scientists Drake or Sagan, but this idea is just wrong.<br />
<br />
First, it assumes that life irrevocably "leads" to intelligence, as if evolution through natural selection is a purposeful or directional process. It is not. Evolution is not a ladder of complexity or intelligence or perfection that we are slowly climbing and that we will someday reach and declare ourselves "All Done!" Evolution depends upon and thrives upon utter randomness, and is a totally directionless process. <strong>There is no direction or ultimate purpose or endpoint of evolution</strong>. Today's advanced models are tomorrow's fossils; a changing environment (which happens constantly) can easily make the best and most clever organisms' designs obsolete. It is estimated that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction" target="_blank">99.9% of all species</a> that have ever existed have gone extinct. We are the lucky few that remain, and our continued survival should always be in doubt.<br />
<br />
One counter to this argument is that there seems to be several examples in nature of <strong>convergent evolutionary traits</strong>, like eyes or wings. This means that nature has <em>independently</em> discovered or stumbled upon these solutions (often multiple times), so they must be generally useful classes of solutions to the problems of survival and reproduction. If given enough time and appropriate variation, eyes or wings are almost certain to arise on our planet, and in life on any planet, or so the thinking goes. In the same vein, <strong>intelligence is often assumed to be a convergent evolutionary trait</strong>. People typically just assume that intelligence is "generally useful" and so is certain to evolve. Most of the time, this assumption is implicit, and the arguers are not even aware they are making it nor are they aware that it is a highly questionable assumption.<br />
<br />
Even if eyes or wings are convergent traits, I would still argue <strong>there is no <em>general</em> trend for organisms to get smarter</strong>. Think of intelligence as a particular evolutionary adaptation to a particular problem (or set of problems) faced by our ancestors. A good analogy is the peacock tail. Peacocks have huge, ungainly, ornamental tails in order to attract mates (it demonstrates good health, nutrition, genes, etc., to a prospective mate). But such an adaptation is obviously costly. Peacock tail size and beauty developed in a sort of runaway arms race, in which each generation needed to have a fancier and larger tail than the last in order to stay competitive in the mating game. The only thing that ultimately stopped the development of larger and larger tails seems to be its sheer size; too big of a tail and the peacock could not move effectively through its environment. Things just cannot grow exponentially forever.<br />
<br />
Advanced intelligence in humans is the equivalent of a peacock tail; it's extraordinarily effective for our particular physical and social environments, and several unique environmental factors seem to have led to a runaway development in greater and greater intelligence. But this is true only for our particular species, in our unique environment. We would never dare to argue that alien life is likely to develop fancy ornamental peacock-like tails just because tails and/or wings seem to be a convergent evolutionary solution to the problems of flight on Earth.<strong> </strong>Analogously,<strong> we should not dare to argue that alien life is likely to develop fancy expensive human-like intelligence,</strong> even if some rudimentary level of intelligence were convergent in evolution (and this assumption is questionable as well).<br />
<br />
Intelligence is difficult to evolve because big brains are costly, in a variety of ways. First, brains are metabolically-greedy. The human brain consumes 20 to 25% of our food and oxygen intake. This is a very risky avenue of survival for evolution to pursue, because such high metabolisms require large and regular high-calorie meals. Any variation in the environment that effects steady high-caloric food intake could easily spell doom for a smart animal. Being smart is a huge gamble.<br />
<br />
Second, big brains are also big. I don't mean to be circular, but large brains means bigger skulls are required. However, heads cannot just grow astronomically larger forever. There are limiting factors, such as the ability to remain quick, mobile, and agile enough to hunt high-calorie meals; the increased risk of missteps or falls with a larger unwieldy head; and the ability for newborns to fit through the birth canal without injuring or killing their mothers in the process of birth. Even today, giving birth is a serious medical risk for human mothers due to the massive size of infants' heads. Interestingly, childbirth is primarily dangerous only for humans, but not other animals.<br />
<br />
Although I had to part ways with Drs. Drake and Sagan on the topic of intelligent alien life, I am not alone in my thinking. In a famous 1995 <a href="http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~pine/mayr.htm" target="_blank">article</a> by the esteemed scientist Ernst Mayr, he argues that high intelligence is probably rare for life because (1) being really smart may not be as advantageous for life as is commonly assumed, and (2) it may be unlikely and/or difficult for nature to hit upon this solution. Only one species has ever done it, and it took much longer than one might expect if intelligence was a convergent evolutionary trait. Mayr argues that "high intelligence seems to require a complex combination of rare, favorable circumstances" to have evolved, implying that it is very unlikely for alien life to do so.<br />
<br />
Given these concerns, we can see that while intelligence has its obvious benefits that most can agree on, most people gloss over the extreme costs and risks and unlikelihood of developing intelligence for an organism. And subsequently, I believe this results in people drastically overestimating the probability that life on other planets will be intelligent, particularly high intelligence capable of producing advanced technologies and advanced civilizations that can communicate across interstellar space. Next, let's explore some more reasonable estimates for the FI term in Drake's equation to see where it leads in comparison to a modern Drake equation calculation.<br />
<br />
The FI term in the Drake equation, again, is the proportion (ranging from zero to one) of planets containing life that go on to develop intelligent life. By intelligence, it is meant high or advanced intelligence capable of developing technologies that can communicate across space. Drake originally estimated this term at one, while Sagan used a number near one. Using more current data and thinking, <a href="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/2915/full" target="_blank">a recent calculation</a> used an FI value range of 0.01 to 0.025. <strong>The author concluded that the number of advanced alien civilizations in our galaxy, right now, is somewhere in the range of near-zero (0.00127) to 245 civilizations</strong>. This calculation alone is a sobering estimate, as it suggests that even if the high end of the estimate were accurate, only 245 advanced alien civilizations exist in our galaxy. Since the Milky Way is 100,000 light years in diameter, this means if these civilizations were roughly evenly distributed (along a straight line), our closest alien neighbor would be over 400 light years away. If we consider the distribution throughout the galaxy as falling within a circular area (which would be more accurate), the distances apart are even greater. Searching out and finding such life would be effectively impossible given such huge distances; just communicating would be extraordinarily difficult since it would take 800 years or more just to hear a reply to one of our own messages.<br />
<br />
I think a better estimate for FI, also suggested by <a href="http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~pine/mayr.htm" target="_blank">Dr. Mayr</a>, is the number of species on Earth that have developed intelligence, out of the total number of species that have ever existed on Earth. Given that there are about <a href="http://animals.about.com/od/zoologybasics/a/howmanyspecies.htm" target="_blank">3 million to 30 million different species</a> alive today, and that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction" target="_blank">99.9% of all species</a> that have ever existed have gone extinct, then a high estimate for FI = 1 out of 3 billion, and a low estimate for FI = 1 out of 30 billion. If we use the high estimate, just to be optimistic, and apply this new term to <a href="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/2915/full" target="_blank">the more recent calculation</a> described above using their optimistic estimates, <strong>then the number of advanced civilizations right now in the Milky Way is 0.00000326, or 3.26 advanced alien civilizations per 1 million years</strong>. This is not good news for alien hunters.<br />
<br />
Of course, I would be more than happy to be completely wrong about this entire analysis, and it's fun to imagine what it would be like to find out we are not alone in the universe. What an awe-inspiring, incredible idea. What might be more awe-inspiring and incredible, though, is the idea that as far as intelligence goes, we just might be alone in this vast, mystifying universe.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-63746818541794891632012-12-29T08:58:00.002-08:002013-01-15T08:09:40.308-08:00The Fine-Tuning of the Universe (the "Goldilocks Enigma") and Why It's Wrong<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1301/IC443-DW.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="221" jea="true" src="http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1301/IC443-DW.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Recently, I've been noticing the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe" target="_blank">Fine-Tuned Universe</a> argument popping up in various popular media outlets, and being used as "evidence" in support of various poorly-reasoned arguments. A History Channel special entitled <a href="http://shop.history.com/special-presentation-proving-god-dvd/detail.php?p=363061" target="_blank">"Proving God"</a> used this argument to claim that the universe was intelligently-designed by a Creator of some sort. And a series of wild <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism" target="_blank">articles at Psychology Today</a> relies on the same argument to claim that human observers create the universe just through the act of observing it (the pseudo-scientific new-age philosophy underlying "Biocentrism"). In this post, I explain what this argument is, why it's wrong, how it's being misused, and why it doesn't prove that some god created the universe or that we humans create the universe just by our existence...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Fine-Tuned Universe is basically the idea that the conditions that allow life to arise and thrive in our universe are so improbable and unlikely that they appear to be "finely-tuned" or precisely adjusted by someone or something we don't understand (things are "just right" for life; this is also called the "Goldilocks Enigma"). The assumption then is that life or the universe was obviously tuned by an "All-Mighty Tuner" or supernatural deity that did the appropriate tinkering just for life to arise. Or alternatively, that things in the universe are so improbable and unlikely that there must be something mystical or magical or wonderful going on, needing a fancy philosophical explanation. As we will see, neither of these assumptions are logical, necessary, or appropriate.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The existence of life, and various other special features of our universe, are apparently only possible when certain <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_physical_constant#Constants_in_the_standard_model_and_in_cosmology" target="_blank">fundamental physical constants</a> have the particular and precise values that they have. Roughly speaking, we can think of most of these physical constants as governing the strength of gravity, the speed of light, the masses of particles, the rules governing their interactions, etc. Any slight modifications to any of these values, then, will result in a vastly different universe that does not have the properties conducive to the formation of stars, galaxies, planets, atoms, molecules, and ultimately, life. Even the illustrious physicist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe#Premise" target="_blank">Stephen Hawking</a> observed "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers...the remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." Computer and mathematical models of alternative hypothetical universes in which these values are slightly modified usually do not result in a universe that looks or behaves anything like our own. Scientific research seems to be fairly clear on this issue, and it is not in great doubt.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What IS in doubt is the idea that any one of these physical values could possibly be anything other than what they are. <b>We only have one universe to look at and observe</b>; but with no basis for comparison, and no way to calculate the probabilities that one physical constant value might be any greater or lesser than what it already is, what can we really conclude? There is absolutely no reason to think that, say, the value of gravity could be anything other than what it is. How would we even assign a probability to an alternative value of gravity, in order to claim that its value in our universe is "unlikely" or "improbable"?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let's assume for fun that I'm nine feet tall. We can calculate various probabilities about observing this particular value (say one in fifty billion) only because we have billions of other people of various heights to compare against, using physical measurements and then applying the appropriate statistics that all rely on comparative samples. But we have no such luck with the universe's physical constants. We have no other universes for comparison, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_physical_constant#Variation_of_the_constants" target="_blank">no one has ever seen</a> the physical constants of our universe take on any other values than the ones they already have, despite extensive research. So we have absolutely <b>no grounds to assume that such variation is even possible</b>, let alone provide a statistical calculation regarding their probabilities. The Fine-Tuning argument, then, is wrong and fallacious because <b>it assumes that variability exists in physical constants</b> when there is no reason to make such an assumption.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In regards to "Proving God" and other related intelligent-design arguments based on Fine-Tuning, we can now see why the apparent fine-tuning of the universe does not prove what their proponents think it does. "Apparent" fine-tuning does not mean there actually is any fine-tuning going on; this is just a poor assumption and misinterpretation of logic and statistics. Maybe there is a god or an intelligent designer of the universe, and maybe there isn't, but the fact that physical constants in our universe have precise values is not proof of this.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even if such evidence existed, it wouldn't imply a deity involved in the everyday lives of people, that cares about us, that there is a heaven or hell, or that souls exist, or anything mystical at all, as interpreted by most religions. Such evidence would only be suggestive of a hands-off <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe_theory" target="_blank">"clock-maker"-type deity</a> that set things in motion at the start of the universe and let things run from there (thinking that was popular during the Enlightenment). If people want to believe in an all-powerful creator or some version of intelligent design, they are going to have to look elsewhere for their "proof," as the Fine-Tuned Universe argument is full of holes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In regards to Dr. Lanza's (and Deepak Chopra's) new age "scientific philosophy" of <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism" target="_blank">Biocentrism</a>, in which the Fine-Tuning argument is used to claim that the universe is created by the simple acts of observation by humans, we again can see the obvious weakness in their arguments. Fine-tuning is only an apparent phenomena, not an actual one. It is not suggestive of anything mystical or magical going on, or really of anything in need of an explanation.<br />
<br />
I won't go any deeper into explaining why Biocentrism is silly misguided thinking, as that has already been done (<a href="http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanzas-notion-of-a-conscious-universe/" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/06/15/dr-lanza-and-biocentrism-time-to-get-out/" target="_blank">here</a> and elsewhere by many others). I'll just add that my repeated attempts to politely point out Dr. Lanza's erroneous thinking in the comment sections of <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism" target="_blank">his articles at Psychology Today</a> have resulted in virtually all my posts being deleted, and I'm not the only person to have complained about <a href="http://www.rationalape.com/2011/01/no-criticism-in-lanzaland.html" target="_blank">this problem</a>. Apparently, he does not appreciate any form of criticism (valid, constructive, or otherwise). Unfortunately, Dr. Lanza doesn't seem to understand that while criticism isn't fun, it is very important, and one of the hallmark features of modern science. Ideas that can survive brutal criticism and empirical testing are a primary reason modern science is so spectacularly effective in whittling away at the truth.<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Back to the Fine-Tuning argument. I think a major reason that this argument is so commonly used is that its logical problems are hidden behind layers of fancy words. Language can often be imprecise, sloppy, illogical, and misleading. We can naively ask "why does the universe have these particular values for physical constants?", but just because we can ask the question doesn't imply that it is a meaningful question, or that it has an answer, or that religion or new-age pseudo-scientific babblings are the answer. We might just as well ask "what does a square circle look like?" or "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" or any trillions of silly combination of words ended by a question mark. Just because we can string words together to form grammatically-correct questions doesn't mean the questions have any value or answer to them. These questions simply reveal the short-comings and imprecision of language, rather than being suggestive of a higher mystery to be solved by philosophy or religion. In any case, the Fine-Tuning argument just does not support the existence of a god or serve as proof for new-age pseudo-scientific philosophies, as suggested by their proponents.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-2493606472898609332012-12-20T11:31:00.001-08:002013-04-10T10:20:38.633-07:00Skepticism is Not the Same Thing as Science: An Eye Towards the Global Warming "Debate"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2012/11/pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-smart.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2012/11/pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-smart.jpg" eea="true" height="191" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Skeptics primarily use logic, reason, and critical thinking in order to make sense of the world. Skepticism is a very important quality to have for professional scientists (and, I would argue, for just about everyone). But being skeptical is not equivalent to being scientific, although the two usually make for good traveling companions. Science goes one step further than mere skepticism by giving the final word to data, to empirical evidence extracted from cleverly designed experiments, to proof. Evidence is the ultimate decider in any debate, scientific or otherwise. Period.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Unfortunately, a lot of modern "skepticism" seems to be resorting to mere criticism of ideas (again using only logic, reason, etc.) without grounding the arguments in empirical evidence. As an example, a recent "debate" occurring in the comments section of an article outlining the main <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/" target="_blank">arguments and evidence for human-caused global warming</a> was met with some intense skepticism (as we might expect given the target audience of self-proclaimed "skeptics"). However, in reviewing most of the counter-arguments and criticisms, here's what the skepticism and doubt about global warming seems to boil down to:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ul>
<li>mis-understanding the data and the scientific consensus on that data (the famous "hockey stick" graphs being the prime example, which have been <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#List_of_reconstructions_in_order_of_publication" target="_blank">analyzed and re-analyzed exhaustively</a> taking account of various critiques, and coming up with the SAME conclusions as the original works)</li>
<li>fear of the scientific consensus being propaganda, outright lies, or some vast conspiracy (evidence please?)</li>
<li>arguing that an overwhelming scientific consensus isn't compelling (good luck with that)</li>
<li>feeling that multiple sides of a debate deserve equal weight or consideration (even though some sides are backed by overwhelming empirical evidence and thus deserve much greater weight, while alternative arguments not backed by evidence are given more consideration than is due)</li>
<li>attacks on the credentials of the author (who was merely relaying the scientific consensus)</li>
<li>feeling that the evidence doesn't really point one way or another (even though the scientific consensus clearly says otherwise)</li>
<li>feeling of being "badgered" or "bothered" by the argumentative tactics of experts (this is what happens when you are wrong; it's called science)</li>
<li>fear of the economic and/or political implications of the scientific consensus (which has no direct bearing on the weight of the evidence)</li>
<li>questioning the quality or validity of the cited scientific sources (but then trying to back up their own arguments with shoddy sources)</li>
<li>agreeing that global warming is occurring but questioning whether it is human-caused (again, by mis-understanding the weight of the actual data and the scientific consensus supporting it)</li>
<li>arguing that climate is "complex" therefore all conclusions regarding its data are unreliable or questionable (actual scientists understand this and take account of it; complexity does not mean something cannot be scientifically or usefully studied)</li>
<li>mis-understanding the Scientific Method by assuming being skeptical is all there is to it (while neglecting the part about using real-world, empirical data to test theories)</li>
<li>hating and rejecting anything that comes out of Al Gore's mouth</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
None of these are actually compelling arguments or reasons to doubt the science of global warming, or the thousands upon thousands of high-quality peer-reviewed scientific works demonstrating that warming is occurring, that it is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html" target="_blank">human-caused</a>, and that it's likely to cause serious problems for humanity -- and potentially for many other life forms, as well.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's abundantly clear in any case that most of the doubters and deniers haven't read ANY of the relevant science (from the actual primary sources) or done any real empirical research on the issue. Almost never are they actually talking about, interpreting, or debating actual climate data. Most just seem to relish in questioning and critiquing everything they hear, see, or smell, and then not listening to the patient responses offered by the scientific community. And most seem content on regurgitating second-hand or tertiary work critiquing global warming, even work that is out-of-date, proven to be irrelevant, or already dealt with in the literature.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The doubters apparently believe that just being skeptical, logical, or rational is accomplishing something useful. In this case, it's just not.<b> News flash: Being a skeptic does not make you a scientist or an authority on the scientific method, or really an authority on anything.</b> It just makes you an amateur critic of science, at best. At worst, it makes you a useless crank.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The real, ultimate decider about climate change is not going to come from comment sections in articles or endless blog rants (like this one). The data already speaks for itself, and future data will continue to do so, one way or another. <b>Logic and reason are not the royal road to truth; data is.</b> If you find yourself unable to read or interpret the data for yourself, try asking someone who can, or try reading a book or taking a class, or even try asking the authors (gasp!). Most have spent lifetimes and/or careers learning the methods and subtleties in their craft and would be more than happy to help you understand what they found and why it's important. They generally know what they are doing; listen to them. You might learn something.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Empirical evidence collected, analyzed, interpreted and presented by professional scientists will be the judge in this debate. Reality is the ultimate judge. Non-scientist skeptics will continue to throw in their two-cents in regards to global warming, but no amount of ill-founded skepticism will change the data. So my message to the so-called skeptics: <b>Read the research yourself, from reputable primary sources, understand the data, and only then form your own intelligent opinion</b> before talking about things you clearly don't understand. It's easy to tear down others; try building something yourself.</div>
The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-4301391516275897202012-12-20T06:14:00.001-08:002012-12-20T07:37:33.423-08:00Telling Truth from Nonsense: "But what about" versus "If...then" Thinking<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.bigfoothunting.com/images/bigfoot_cripple_foot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.bigfoothunting.com/images/bigfoot_cripple_foot.jpg" eea="true" height="150" width="200" /></a></div>
Conspiracy theorists, pseudoscience proponents, and various peddlers of nonsense can often be spotted by how they argue. An insightful method I've seen recently for spotting low-quality arguments (otherwise known as "B.S.") is figuring out whether an argument falls into one of these two types: "But what about" versus "If...then" reasoning.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Here are some common examples of "But what about" arguments offered by Bigfoot believers that I've happened to notice recently:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ul>
<li>"But what about all the eyewitness reports of 'squatches?"</li>
<li>"But what about all the footprint evidence?"</li>
<li>"But what about the unidentified clumps of hair found in the woods?"</li>
<li>"But what about this clumpy pattern in the mud, where it looks like a primate-like creature laid down on their side under a log?"</li>
<li>"But what about all the recordings of strange sounds in the woods?!?"</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The argument type of "But what about..." is more commonly understood as a type of logical fallacy known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading" target="_blank">special pleading</a>, in which an arguer typically assumes one side of an argument to be true, and then demands the other side to explain some finding or strange occurence. The implication is that if the opposing side cannot explain it to their satisfaction, then by default the arguer's side is the correct one. Here's an example I just saw: A Bigfoot believer claims that dermal ridges (handprint lines) in some supposed Bigfoot footprint are in such a pattern that it could not possibly be human. Therefore, it was concluded, this is compelling physical evidence for Bigfoot. Basically, the argument is "But what about this footprint, it absolutely can't be human or be faked or be a misinterpretation, it must be proof of Sasquatches!"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The problem here is that strange or unexplained occurences do not necessary imply anything, since they are by definition unexplained. Anyone can pose a theoretical explanation (good or bad), but unless it's supported by some solid empirical evidence, it's just armchair theorizing with no necessary basis in reality.<br />
<br />
One of the major problems with relying on unexplained phenomena as supporting evidence is that once a phenomena IS explained, the whole chain of reasoning and argument falls flat on its face. Think of all the exposed Bigfoot footprint hoaxes, or Bigfoot sighting hoaxes. Shouldn't we be more skeptical of such claims when more and more hoaxes are revealed? Instead, people seem to be heading in the opposite direction.<br />
<br />
This is where "If...then..." thinking comes in handy. Suppose we are trying to explain a strange footprint. Someone makes a claim "It's Bigfoot." Well, IF this is a Bigfoot footprint, and Bigfoot really exists in large numbers, THEN there should be other footprints that are consistently of the same size, shape, pattern, etc. IF Bigfoot exists in large numbers, THEN we should expect to see some <a href="http://thoughtsonscienceandpseudoscience.blogspot.com/2012/12/an-updated-analysis-of-animal-roadkill.html" target="_blank">hit by cars</a>. IF Bigfoot exists, THEN some should have accidentally been <a href="http://thoughtsonscienceandpseudoscience.blogspot.com/2012/11/does-bigfoot-exist-further-statistical.html" target="_blank">killed by hunters</a>. IF Bigfoot exists, THEN some should have died of natural causes so that a body was recovered. IF Bigfoot exists, THEN we should have clear and undeniable photographic or videographic evidence by now. You see the difference in thinking here?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Using "If...then..." reasoning let's you explore the real-world implications of a claim or argument. Then evidence can be assessed as being either for it, against it, or neutral (unclear). If you are serious about understanding reality, avoid "But what about..." arguments, and use "If...then..." thinking to explore a claim. And remember, good solid irrefutable physical evidence (otherwise known as "data" or "facts") are the final decider in any debate.</div>
The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-42475787268779787242012-12-20T05:54:00.001-08:002012-12-20T19:13:35.244-08:00The Best Quotes of All Time, on Science and Life<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've been collecting my favorite science-related quotes for quite some time, and have decided to share, mainly because I want to see which ones I am missing. So head on down to the comments section and add your own....</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u><b>The Classics</b></u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span class="huge bqQuoteLink">“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”</span></div>
<span class="huge bqQuoteLink">
</span><span class="huge bqQuoteLink"> - Isaac Newton</span><br />
<span class="huge bqQuoteLink"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have."<br />
- Albert Einstein<br />
<br />
"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Isaac Newton </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Charles Darwin<i></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"<br />
- Isaac Asimov<br />
<br />
"Science is the father of knowledge."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Hippocrates</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Rediscovery in the library may be a more difficult and uncertain process than the first discovery in the laboratory."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Lord Rayleigh<br />
<br />
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."<br />
- Thomas Huxley<br />
<br />
"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge."<br />
- Carl Sagan<br />
<br />
"Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic."<br />
- Thomas Huxley<br />
<br />
"Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition."<br />
- Adam Smith<br />
<br />
"Facts are the air of scientists. Without them you can never fly."<br />
- Linus Pauling<br />
<br />
"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense."<br />
- Carl Sagan<br />
<br />
"Don't become a mere recorder of facts, but try to penetrate the mystery of their origin."<br />
- Ivan Pavlov<br />
<br />
"The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true...Cleverly designed experiments are the key."<br />
- Carl Sagan</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u><b>On the Mysteries of the Mind, the Brain, and Behavior </b></u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
"I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of men."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>
- Isaac Newton<span class="grand"> </span><br />
<br />
<span class="grand">"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."</span><br />
<span class="grand">- Albert Einstein</span><br />
<span class="grand"></span></div>
<br />
"What is man that his welfare be considered? An ape who chatters of kinship with the archangels while he very filthily digs for groundnuts. And yet I perceive that this same man is a maimed God. He is condemned under penalty to measure eternity with an hourglass and infinity with a yardstick and what is more, he very nearly does it."<br />
- James Branch Cabell<br />
<br />
"Man is the only animal for whom his own existence is a problem which he has to solve."<br />
- Erich Fromm<br />
<br />
"Human beings have a demonstrated talent for self-deception when their emotions are stirred."<br />
- Carl Sagan<br />
<br />
"You like the mind to be a neat machine, equipped to work efficiently, if narrowly, and with no extra bits or useless parts. I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt. Shake the machine and it goes out of order; shake the dustbin and it adjusts itself beautifully to its new position."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Robertson Davies</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
"When I investigate and when I discover that the forces of the heavens and the planets are within ourselves, then truly I seem to be living among the gods."<br />
- Leon Battista Alberti<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="grand">"I believe in general in a dualism between facts and the ideas of those facts in human heads."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="grand"> - George Santayana</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="grand">"The radical novelty of modern science lies precisely in the rejection of belief...that the forces which move the stars and atoms are contingent upon the preferences of the human heart."<br />
- Walter Lippmann<br />
<br />
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."<br />
- Carl Sagan<br /> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u><b>The Beauty and Wonder of Science and Life</b></u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be."<br />
- Charles Pierce<br />
<br />
"Some say they see poetry in my paintings. I see only science."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Georges Seurat</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is in some sense comprehensible.”</div>
- Albert Einstein</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true."<br />
- Niels Bohr<br />
<br />
"When you make the finding yourself -- even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light -- you'll never forget it."<br />
- Carl Sagan<br />
<br />
"What is a scientist after all? It is a curious man looking through a keyhole, the keyhole of nature, trying to know what's going on."<br />
- Jacques Yves Cousteau<br />
<br />
"In the life of a man, his time is but a moment, his being an incessant flux, his senses a dim rushlight, his body a prey of worms, his soul an unquiet eddy, his fortune dark, and his fame doubtful. In short, all that is of the body is as coursing waters, all that is of the soul as dreams and vapours; life a warfare, a brief sojourning in an alien land; and after repute, oblivion. Where, then, can man find the power to guide and guard his steps? In one thing and one alone: the love of knowledge."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Marcus Aurelius<br />
<br />
"If we lived forever, ... men would hardly feel the pity of things. The beauty of life is in its impermanence. Man lives the longest of all living things... and even one year lived peacefully seems very long. Yet for such as love the world, a thousand years would fade like the dream of one night."<br />
<div>
- Kenko Yoshida</div>
</div>
The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-91424024152694325322012-12-12T14:12:00.001-08:002012-12-18T05:58:54.998-08:00Where Are All the Bigfoot Roadkills? An Updated Analysis Using Mammal Roadkill Data<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/b0/ef/b0ef30b0b757cbd6cf5c80ac71ba978b.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img bea="true" border="0" src="http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/b0/ef/b0ef30b0b757cbd6cf5c80ac71ba978b.JPG" height="111" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In a <a href="http://thoughtsonscienceandpseudoscience.blogspot.com/2012/11/does-bigfoot-exist-statistical-evidence.html" target="_blank">previous</a> analysis of <a href="http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=415" target="_blank">Bigfoot population estimates</a> by the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO), I used human pedestrian car accident data to predict how many "Bigfoot roadkills" we might have expected to find over the last 60 years, if the BFRO estimates are accurate. I was able to conclude that at least dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of Bigfoots should have been hit and/or killed by cars by now, if indeed they do exist. However, there are several potentially valid criticisms that could make the use of human data for that comparison questionable: (1) humans are more often struck in urban or suburban areas, whereas Bigfoots supposedly live primarily in rural areas; (2) a disproportionate number of pedestrian accidents involve alcohol, either relating to drunk drivers or inebriated pedestrians, which probably doesn't really apply to Bigfoot vehicle strikes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To alleviate these concerns, and to show that my human-based estimates were still extremely conservative and the conclusions valid, in this post I re-analyzed the Bigfoot population estimates using comparably-sized mammals' vehicle strike data, and have found <strong>even more</strong> compelling evidence that Bigfoot doesn't exist...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<b>Roadkills in the U.S. - Some Raw Numbers:</b><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Over the last sixty years, there have been about 20 billion animal roadkills in the U.S. alone (40 million annually), consisting of basically every single species of animal on the continent, and not just mammals but also <a href="http://www.reptilechannel.com/reptile-news/herp/reptile-roadkill.aspx" target="_blank">reptiles</a>, <a href="http://scienceblog.com/community/older/2002/C/20025065.html" target="_blank">amphibians</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadkill" target="_blank">birds</a>. Even <a href="http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4170" target="_blank">fish</a> can sometimes be found on roadways! Mammals in general account for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadkill" target="_blank">81%</a> of roadkills. Large mammals specifically make up about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer-vehicle_collisions" target="_blank">26%</a> of all these reported animal deaths, suggesting that there are 10 million large mammals killed each year on U.S. roadways, so in total over the last 60 years, about <i>5 billion large mammals were killed by vehicle strikes in the U.S.</i> Large animals are struck and/or killed in Canada at the rate of <a href="https://www.defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/collision_facts_and_figures.pdf" target="_blank">4 to 8</a> <i>per hour</i>. <br />
<br />
These raw numbers are mind-bogglingly large, and right away makes one curious about how a supposed large mammal (Bigfoot), with an estimated population in the <a href="http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=415" target="_blank">thousands</a>, could possibly have <a href="http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=410" target="_blank">not a single vehicle strike</a> anywhere in the world, throughout all of modern history, in which a body could be recovered as physical proof. It sounds real fishy already.<br />
<br />
But let's take this analysis further, and be more exact using data on large mammal roadkill rates as a percentage of their populations. These are as comparable populations as we could ever hope to get, short of having actual non-human primates living in North America that <i>are not</i> Bigfoots. They are often of the same size, living in the same wildlife areas, sharing the same food types and habitats and water sources, etc. Taking this real-world data, we will then apply our estimated large mammal annual roadkill rate to Bigfoot's hypothetical population of <a href="http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=415" target="_blank">2,000 to 6,000 creatures</a> in North America, to see how many Bigfoot roadkills we should expect to have found over the last 60 years.</div>
<br />
<b>Panthers:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In 2007, <a href="http://www.tallahasseemagazine.com/January-February-2012/Ugly-Dead-Things/" target="_blank">15 Florida panthers</a> were killed by vehicle strikes, out of an estimated population of 80 to 100 panthers, giving a road kill rate of 15 to 19% for that single year. The previous year (2006), <a href="https://www.defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/collision_facts_and_figures.pdf" target="_blank">11 were killed</a> by vehicles, giving an annual rate of 11 to 14%. Before 1991, these panthers had estimated annual roadkills rates per population of <a href="http://www.geog.ufl.edu/Grad_Program/grad-application/coffin-2007-JTRG602.pdf" target="_blank">10%</a>. Recent mitigation efforts have reduced this number recently to <a href="http://pracownia.org.pl/pliki/roads_and_their_major_ecological_effects.pdf" target="_blank">as low as 2%</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<b>Deer:</b><br />
Over a two year period (1993-1994) in Ohio, there were <a href="http://www.culturechange.org/issue8/roadkill.htm" target="_blank">25,636 reported deer collisions</a> with vehicles out of a population of about 500,000. This gives deer an annual roadkill rate, at least in Ohio, of about 2.6%. In Florida, there are about 300 Key deer of which about <a href="http://www.culturechange.org/issue8/roadkill.htm" target="_blank">one is killed</a> by car strikes each and every week, giving an annual roadkill rate for this species of 17.3%. Across the U.S., there are up to <a href="http://deerdamagecontrolfence.com/deer_population.htm" target="_blank">1 million reported deer collisions</a> per year (with about <a href="http://www.culturechange.org/issue8/roadkill.htm" target="_blank">350,000</a> resulting in the animals' death), out of a population of about <a href="http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/regulations/count-deer-population.htm" target="_blank">25 million</a>, giving a nationwide annual roadkill rate for deer of 1.4%.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<b>North American Black Bears</b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are about <a href="http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/education/interactive/springscoast/blackbear.shtml" target="_blank">1500 black bears</a> in Florida, of which about <a href="http://www.defenders.org/black-bear/threats" target="_blank">150 were killed</a> each year over a recent five year period, giving a road kill rate of around 10% for these creatures in that region. Another estimate of black bear vehicle strikes in Florida suggests <a href="http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/critter_crossings/bear.cfm" target="_blank">50 are killed</a> each year, suggesting a 3.3% annual roadkill rate.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Roadkill Rates for Large Mammals in Yellowstone Park:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Researchers have conducted a <a href="http://www.icoet.net/downloads/98paper05.pdf" target="_blank">comprehensive and extremely thorough analysis</a> of animal roadkill rates in Yellowstone from the period of 1989-1996. This is exactly the type of data we need. Here are their results for annual roadkill rates on a population basis, per animal (I am including only large mammals):</div>
<ul>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Antelope (1.1%)</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Bighorn Sheep (0.2% to 0.3%)</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Bison (0.5%)</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Black Bear (0.1%)</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Coyote (0.8 to 1.0%) </div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Elk (0.2%)</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Grizzley Bear (0.05% to 0.12%)</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Moose (0.95%)</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Mule Deer (1.8%)</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Wolf (1.6%)</div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even for exceedingly rare, uncommon, and elusive species, for which no good population estimate existed at the time, roadkills were still found (for instance 2 bobcats, 9 Whitetail deer, and 1 raccoon). And these estimates may be low as applied to the entire United States because the speed limits in Yellowstone only go up to 45 and sometimes 55 miles per hour, and this study (among others) shows that speed limits have an effect on roadkill rates (higher speeds resulting in more hits, presumably because people are less able or likely to swerve out of the way to avoid an animal collision). In contrast, U.S. speed limits are usually 65 to 70 mph on most major roadways, increasing the likelihood of collisions with animals.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It should also be noted that according to this study, an animal's raw population size has <a href="http://www.icoet.net/downloads/98paper05.pdf" target="_blank">no discernible effect</a> on the proportion of animals killed by vehicles, meaning that if Bigfoot populations are big OR small, we would still expect them to have comparable hit rates (on an annual proportional basis) relative to other similarly sized mammals living in similar areas. So the <a href="http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=410" target="_blank">BFRO's claim</a> that "Every other large mammal in North America is far more abundant than bigfoots" does not explain away the lack of Bigfoot roadstrikes, as they suggest.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Estimating Bigfoot Annual Roadkill Rates:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If we take the median value for all of the above annual roadkill rates per population (19 independent estimates for large mammals), what do we find? [Note that I am using the median (middle) instead of the traditional average so that extreme values do not unfairly pull the estimate too high or too low]. <b>An overall estimated median for a large land-mammal roadkill rate, per year, as a percentage of population = 1.6%</b>. For those interested, the average value came out to 4.4%, which was noticeably higher due to the several high numbers of panthers killed. So let's move forward with our calculation using the more conservative median estimate of 1.6% annual roadkill rate for large mammals in the U.S.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If we apply this median rate to the hypothetical Bigfoot population estimates given by the BFRO of 2,000 to 6,000 creatures in North America, then here is what we should observe:</div>
<ul>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>roughly 32 to 96 Bigfoots should be killed by vehicle strikes <u>every single year</u> in North America.</b></div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>roughly 1,920 to 5,760 Bigfoots in total should have been killed by vehicles in North America over the last 60 years.</b></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But guess what? Not a single Bigfoot body has ever been recovered, from any cause of death, anywhere in the world, throughout all of modern history. <a href="http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=410" target="_blank">Not one</a>. How many non-fatal collisions with Bigfoot have been reported? Again, according to the BFRO, <a href="http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=410" target="_blank">zero</a>. How many near-misses with vehicles have been reported? Dozens, hundreds, thousands? Nope, <a href="http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=410" target="_blank">just a few</a>, according to the BFRO. The conclusion here is obvious: there is no Bigfoot, or else there would be compelling physical proof (a dead or injured Bigfoot) by now.</div>
The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.com30tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-69796815133396901512012-12-05T03:03:00.004-08:002012-12-28T05:23:17.340-08:00Why Eye Witness Accounts Are Not Good Scientific Evidence<br />
<div style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://th05.deviantart.net/fs4/PRE/i/2004/241/9/f/Eye_Witness.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://th05.deviantart.net/fs4/PRE/i/2004/241/9/f/Eye_Witness.jpg" height="159" id="il_fi" style="padding-bottom: 8px; padding-right: 8px; padding-top: 8px;" width="200" /></a>People think that because there are thousands of eye witness reports of Bigfoot sightings (or UFO's, or angels, or Loch Ness monsters, or unicorns, or whatever) there must be some truth to the matter. They admirably want to remain <a href="http://thoughtsonscienceandpseudoscience.blogspot.com/2012/12/are-you-open-minded-or-are-your-brains.html" target="_blank">open-minded</a> about things. Surely all those eye witnesses can't be wrong, right?</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
Let's use some simple math to show where this line of thinking leads people astray. Suppose we are saying to ourselves: "There were something <a href="http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=415" target="_blank">like 3,500 'credible' Bigfoot sightings</a> in the U.S. over the last several decades. Even if 90% of these eye witness reports are wrong or inaccurate, that still leaves 10% or around 350 accurate reports. Therefore, Bigfoot likely exists, and there are probably hundreds or maybe even thousands of them! Yay!!"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The problem here is that people are working with the wrong set of numbers. What we should be looking at instead as our starting number is the number of events in which a Bigfoot sighting is at least theoretically possible, and from that starting point figure out how many might be likely to be credible or reliable (and how many not). As an example using real data, we can check how many black bears there are, use this to estimate the number of black bear sightings by humans, and then use an estimated misidentification rate to see how many mistaken eye witness reports we might expect to see in which 'squatches are mistaken from black bears. We will try to use conservative numbers when estimating. Then we will compare our results with the actual count of eye witness reports...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are at least <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_black_bear#Current_range_and_population" target="_blank">735,000 black bears in North America </a>(excluding Alaska, Texas, and a few other states due to lack of data). If we assume that on average each of these bears gets sighted once per year (some get sighted multiple times, others don't get seen at all), then there are 735,000 events per year with the potential for a mis-identification by a human viewer. Over the last 60 years, this means that there were roughly 44.1 million sighting events of black bears by humans with the potential for a mis-identification.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let's be generous to witnesses and assume that 99% of the time a black bear is seen by a person, it is correctly perceived as a black bear. But 1% of the time, a misperception occurs, perhaps due to environmental factors like low light levels, fog or rain, far viewing distance, tree coverage, "eyes playing tricks", or whatever else. Sometimes, the black bear is misperceived as a brown bear, other times as a deer, still other times as other mammals, maybe as people, maybe as an alien. Occasionally, though, a black bear is misperceived as a non-human primate (let's say 1% of these misperceptions).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So taking 1% of 1% of 44.1 million viewing events leaves us with the prediction that <b>there should be about 4,410 reported instances over the last six decades of someone seeing a non-human primate when in fact what they really saw was a black bear</b>. It's an interesting coincidence that there are just about this many "credible" Bigfoot sightings reported; while the numbers aren't identical they are certainly close and of similar magnitude. And it's also a strange coincidence that the hypothetical Bigfoot habitat, which has been geographically-determined based on the spatial locations of eye witness reports, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02152.x/abstract;jsessionid=E9F991AF6C5C477DFA514F61F5AE87CA.d01t01?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+8+December+from+10%3A00-12%3A00+GMT+%2805%3A00-07%3A00+EST%29+for+essential+maintenance" target="_blank">coincides almost exactly with the habitat regions for black bears, to a degree that strains credibility</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The nice thing about this analysis is that it makes absolutely no assumptions regarding whether Bigfoot exists or not. It simply shows that <b>there are more than enough expected mis-identification possibilities to account for all the 'credible' Bigfoot sighting reports</b>, <b>without any of them actually being true</b>. And it seems likely that black bears are the likely culprit driving many (if not most) mis-identifications.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
...........................</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm an experimental psychologist by training, specializing in perception. If there is anything close to a scientific law in psychology, it's that what people report seeing, hearing, feeling, remembering, or experiencing is just not reliable. Perception is not a reflection of reality, it's a model, a mental representation constructed by our brains. Usually this model is fantastically accurate, but sometimes it's not. If we bring people into the lab, sit them in a dark room, and have them press a button whenever a dim light is flashed in front of them, their performance will almost never be perfect over repeated trials. Accuracy may be high, but it's rarely perfect.<br />
<br />
So even on the simplest possible perceptual task we can imagine (seeing a flash of light in a dark room), people still make mistakes and misperceptions about what was experienced (sometimes seeing the light when it is not there, sometimes missing the light when it really is there). They might even be absolutely certain and 100% confident that their perceptions were accurate, and still be wrong, I see it all the time just in the lab. Now imagine how many more perceptual errors we might expect when identifying an animal through trees, from a distance, in possible low light levels, with maybe poor eye glass prescriptions; it could be foggy or rainy, plus a million other intervening variables that complicate visual processing ability when identifying a moving blob.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The legal and law enforcement professions know all about this eye witness reliability problem. Eye witness inaccuracies are the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions, <a href="http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php" target="_blank">contributing to something like 75% of the legal cases that are later overturned through DNA testing</a>. Unfortunately, you just can't totally trust what people say, or report seeing. You can certainly believe them when they say they saw <i>something</i>; I don't think most people are lying or are stupid or anything like that. I think they literally saw what they say, in the sense that their perceptual system reported to their consciousness that a visual identification was made, a match was found in their heads, even if it happened to be the wrong one. But again, perception is not reality, it's just our brain's best attempt at <em>a representation of reality</em> given limited, noisy, and sometimes poor-quality data about what's out there in the world. This is well-understood in the psychological sciences, neurosciences, legal, and law enforcement professions. By now it should be common knowledge, but often isn't.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sadly, we must acknowledge that eyewitness reports are not good or reliable evidence, and they certainly don't count as good scientific evidence for proving the existence of mythological creatures for which no other good quality scientific proof can be fostered. </div>
The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-26636498918851015992012-12-04T22:29:00.002-08:002013-01-18T07:01:09.890-08:00Are You Open-Minded or Are Your Brains Just Falling Out? A Simple Test<br />
<div style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: justify;">
<img alt="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nm7DEqxgo-I/TGhj2o31g7I/AAAAAAAAATk/JutY0FllOM8/s320/MUSH.jpg" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nm7DEqxgo-I/TGhj2o31g7I/AAAAAAAAATk/JutY0FllOM8/s200/MUSH.jpg" height="200" width="177" /> </div>
I've noticed that most of the pseudoscience floating around today gets perpetuated by people claiming that they are being open-minded on an issue while the "scientific establishment" just doesn't want to disrupt the status quo or accept a paradigm shift or to shoot the goose that laid the golden funding egg or whatever. It's Mainstream Science that is closed-minded, not me, they say. I've seen this claimed by so many Bigfoot believers, climate change denialists, UFO hunters, anti-vaccine activists, etc. that it's started to rub me the wrong way. I appreciate that these folks think they are being open-minded, because it's definitely good to be open-minded about things, but like the old saying goes, not so open-minded that your brains fall out.<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So how do you know if you are too open-minded? How do you know if your brains are falling out? Here's a simple test for open-mindedness that everyone should take when thinking about an issue. I saw this idea on a comment board somewhere at <a href="http://skeptic.com/">skeptic.com</a> and had to borrow it. You'll find that it's spectacularly useful in cutting through layers of confusion, for debating issues, weighing reasonable arguments, etc.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The test is this: Pick a side of an argument (if you haven't already). Then ask yourself, <b>what would it take to convince me that my position is incorrect, that I am wrong?</b> What evidence or argument would it take to sway you to the alternative?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If your answer is "I dunno" or "Nothing would convince me" or some impossible evidential standard, then maybe you are not really being open-minded, reasonable, rational, critical, or appropriately skeptical. You certainly aren't being scientific, which requires empirical testing of all claims for refutation or verification. If you aren't dealing with a claim that is testable or falsifiable, then it is not a scientific hypothesis or theory, it's just a plain old regular everyday unsupported belief with nothing to back it up except more belief. If this is the case for your side of a debate, be open-minded enough to consider the possibility that perhaps your brains are falling out.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let's take Bigfoot as an example. I don't happen to believe in Bigfoot, I think the good solid compelling physical evidence just isn't there when it obviously should be. But I am more than happy to admit that I would gladly change my mind once solid irrefutable physical evidence appeared, like a body or major body parts (dead or alive or fossilized would suffice). What would it take a Bigfoot believer to disbelieve, to change his/her mind? There is almost never an answer given to this question, as it's never even considered or entertained by most. I sometimes find myself asking what's the point of arguing, or really of going over evidence and reasoned debate, since so many people are never going to change their minds anyway. They aren't swayed by evidence because their mind is made up, or they give proportionally-greater weight to evidence that is proportionally-crappier than real forms of actual evidence. And that's the problem. More often than not, in pseudoscience and in life, believers just want to believe. And that's not being open-minded, that's the close-minded version of your brains falling out.</div>
The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-15866632969704987862012-12-04T22:05:00.001-08:002013-01-18T07:01:55.653-08:00Why Bigfoot Population Estimates are Problematic<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/GhillieHoax.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/GhillieHoax.jpg" height="200" width="158" /></a></div>
<br />
The Bigfoot Field Researchers' Organization (BFRO) claims that the population of Bigfoot (sasquatches) in North America is approximately somewhere between <a href="http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=415" target="_blank">2,000 and 6,000 creatures</a>. How this estimate was exactly calculated is not discussed, although the primary contributing factor appears to be the Observability Ratio. Relying on this tool for their calculation is a serious problem.<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Observability Ratio is a tool used when scientists are trying to estimate real-world populations of actual animals that actually exist. If an observer sees only 300 organisms of a particular species during one sampling period, and if the observability ratio is about 20-to-1, then it can be assumed that there are actually closer to 300 x 20 = 6,000 organisms in the area.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm no professional animal field researcher, but I can promise you that two major issues make using the Observability Ratio for estimating Bigfoot populations extremely questionable and not scientifically valid:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ol style="text-align: justify;">
<li>Other actual physical supporting data should be used to corroborate the estimates (population estimates are almost never based <i>solely</i> on Observability Ratios, especially for creatures whose very existence is questionable). </li>
<li>Skilled and trained observers should be used to provide precise counts (and usually professional observers are used rather than amateur observers, utilizing very specific visual criteria for identification). Indeed, most animal population estimates are apparently derived from <a href="http://www4.ncsu.edu/~simons/Pollock%20et%20al.%20Environmetrics%202002.pdf" target="_blank">capture-recapture data or other physical methods</a>. We should not be relying on subjective unverifiable disorganized reports from the public, no matter how compelling the stories may sound, to estimate a population of cryptozoological mythical creatures.</li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If using Observability Ratios without supporting physical evidence were recommended, then we would have to seriously consider the widespread existence and large populations of not just Bigfoot, but also of ghosts, UFOs and aliens, the number of Nessies in Loch Ness, <a href="http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/50058129/ns/today-today_news/" target="_blank">unicorns in North Korea</a>, Santa Claus sightings by children, etc. As it is, the BFRO's Bigfoot estimates are almost certainly wild overestimates (or just plain meaningless). In any case, where's the good, solid supporting physical evidence for any of this?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Also consider that a population of<a href="http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=415" target="_blank"> 300 Bigfoots is estimated to be the <i>absolute minimum</i> number</a> that must exist in order to keep up a stable breeding population. Any more level-headed, reasonable estimates that suggest populations less than 300 can effectively be counted as zero. Given some of my previous population analyses <a href="http://thoughtsonscienceandpseudoscience.blogspot.com/2012/11/does-bigfoot-exist-statistical-evidence.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://thoughtsonscienceandpseudoscience.blogspot.com/2012/11/does-bigfoot-exist-further-statistical.html" target="_blank">here</a>, plus the fact that Bigfoot Observability Ratios are based on almost exclusively untrained amateur reports, plus the fact that Observability Ratios are unsupported by compelling physical evidence as corroboration for their numbers, taken in totality these points suggest Bigfoot isn't real, and the BFRO's population estimates of the creature are anything but scientific and probably wishful thinking.</div>
The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-62331065037281811042012-11-23T23:38:00.000-08:002012-12-18T06:05:48.297-08:00Does Bigfoot Exist? Further Statistical Analysis<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<img alt="http://ourbigfoot.com/sitebuilder/images/bigfoot_hunters_102010b-444x349.jpg" src="http://ourbigfoot.com/sitebuilder/images/bigfoot_hunters_102010b-444x349.jpg" height="156" width="200" /> </div>
<div style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In a <a href="http://thoughtsonscienceandpseudoscience.blogspot.com/2012/11/does-bigfoot-exist-statistical-evidence.html" target="_blank">previous post</a>, I used human pedestrian car accident data and animal roadkill data to show that Bigfoot could not possibly exist in the numbers estimated by the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO), making it extremely unlikely the mythical creatures exist at all. In this post I provide further statistical analysis to support this claim.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For this analysis, let's look at human hunting accident data and apply it to the hypothetical Bigfoot <a href="http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=415" target="_blank">population estimates</a> given by the BFRO. The thinking here is to take hunting accident rates from a comparable population (human primates wandering around the woods in hunting areas), and apply it to our hypothesized primate population (Bigfoots) that are also supposedly wandering around these same areas. This will allow us to predict how many Bigfoots should have been accidentally shot and/or killed over the last several decades, if indeed they do exist.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
In terms of human hunting accident rates, we are excluding self-inflicted wounds (which apparently are the majority) and cases in which nearby persons moved into a line-of-fire or were swung upon with a weapon, and focusing only on cases in which victims were shot out of the line-of-sight of the shooter or when victims were mistaken for game (the way a Bigfoot might be accidentally shot). There are currently about <a href="http://extranosalley.com/?p=16893" target="_blank">60 fatalities a year</a> that fit this criteria, with non-fatal accidents outnumbering fatal ones by a <a href="http://goarticles.com/article/Hunting-Shooting-Accidents-Statistics-and-Laws/2003054/" target="_blank">factor of eight</a>, giving a total of 540 accidents per year (fatal plus non-fatal) that qualify for our purposes. We are including non-fatal accidents together with fatal ones because Bigfoots do not have the benefit of modern medicine or technology, and so severely wounding one would be effectively the same as maiming or killing one, allowing a body to presumably be recovered. These are current estimates, with previous decades seeing <a href="http://extranosalley.com/?p=16893" target="_blank">two to three times</a> as many accidents per year. So if we multiply this rate of 540 by 1.5, we can get a rough rate of 810 human hunting accidents per year over the last 60 years. Divide this number by the number of human hunters in the woods each year (<a href="http://www.nssfblog.com/number-of-u-s-hunters-greater-than-expected/" target="_blank">approximately 14 million</a>), and the accidental shooting rate for humans in the woods on a per population basis is about 0.00579%.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If we apply this same accidental shooting rate to the hypothetical Bigfoot population estimates given by the BFRO (<a href="http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=415" target="_blank">between 2,000 and 6,000</a>), then somewhere between 7 and 21 Bigfoots should have been accidentally shot and/or killed by hunters in North America over the last 60 years. And this is just in North America, nevermind globally. Remember, too, that this analysis covers only accidental shootings and does not account for the possibility of purposeful Bigfoot shootings, which could raise these estimates. Also, keep in mind that humans are often wearing colorful, noticeable gear so as to specifically avoid getting shot, so a big hairy naturally-camouflaged creature would likely have considerably higher odds of getting accidentally shot in comparison to humans. So our conservative estimate predicts that over the last six decades, in the woods in North America, at least 7 to 21 or more Bigfoots should have been shot, maimed, and/or killed accidentally by hunters.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
How many Bigfoots have ever been shot and/or killed by hunters? Obviously, no Bigfoot bodies have ever been recovered, due to hunting accidents or otherwise. And apparently none have been wounded or even shot at, unless the BFRO has neglected to mention such incidences in their <a href="http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=411" target="_blank">lengthy FAQ</a> that painfully attempts to explain away this lack of evidence by endlessly blabbing about poaching laws and other irrelevant nonsense. Their primary explanation for why no Bigfoots have ever been recovered by hunters? <b>No Bigfoot has ever been shot by a hunter "because human hunters don't hunt for these animals"</b>. Seriously? OK, well human hunters typically don't hunt for other humans either, but that hasn't stopped thousands and thousands of people from being accidentally shot while in the woods.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Again, like our <a href="http://thoughtsonscienceandpseudoscience.blogspot.com/2012/11/does-bigfoot-exist-statistical-evidence.html" target="_blank">previous analysis</a>, we found clear statistical evidence that Bigfoots could not possibly exist in the numbers suggested by the BFRO, or there would certainly be actual, irrefutable physical evidence of such a creature by now. Even if such creatures existed in much much smaller numbers than suggested, then the BFRO would be forced to admit that a truly massive number of sightings and footprints are mis-identifications, hoaxes, or hallucinations. And if something like 90 or 95 or 99% of sightings and footprint evidence isn't actually good evidence, what is stopping us from concluding that 100% are questionable? The numbers just don't add up. We are forced to conclude, yet again, that the Bigfoot myth is just that, a myth.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-69328801089273914532012-11-19T08:21:00.001-08:002012-12-08T08:26:19.443-08:00Does Bigfoot Exist? Statistical Evidence Clearly Says No<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.homesaustin.com/Pictures/Sasquatch_Patterson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.homesaustin.com/Pictures/Sasquatch_Patterson.jpg" height="200" width="172" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Most people, including scientists, think that pseudo-scientific claims are essentially unfalsifiable, since a skeptic can't typically provide direct physical evidence proving the non-existence of something. But, luckily, pseudo-science proponents sometimes make scientifically testable or falsifiable claims, or at least making claims we can analyze with some serious scientific confidence. Here's an example involving 'squatches that I noticed while watching Animal Planet's <a href="http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/finding-bigfoot" target="_blank">Finding Bigfoot</a> television series.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bigfoot ("sasquatch") believers have estimated that there are between <a href="http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=415" target="_blank">2,000 and 6,000 bigfoots in North America</a>. Surely, a hairy lumbering 7 to 9-foot-tall giant primate living in modern North America, snooping around at all hours of the day and night in both rural and suburban areas, would have been struck by a motor vehicle by now, right? Not so, according to the <a href="http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=410" target="_blank">Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) FAQ</a>, which claims that this painful lack of evidence is explained away by simply saying "<span class="head4">Around humans their typical behavior is to flee or hide. They try to stay out of view or at least in the shadows when near people or moving vehicles." But that behavior describes many, many species of real animals that actually exist and nonetheless end up as highway spaghetti. If bigfoots really exist, where are all the bigfoot roadkills? Let's find out...</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="head4"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span class="head4"><br /></span><span class="head4">Humans are the most intelligent of all animals, and generally of the understanding that it's not a good idea to get in the path of a huge metal box going at a high rate of speed, like a motor vehicle. Nonetheless, human pedestrians manage to get themselves into motor vehicle accidents tens of thousands of times per year, with many accidents resulting in deaths. According to a <a href="http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810968.pdf" target="_blank">report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration</a>, in 2006 there were 67,573 car accidents involving pedestrians, resulting in 4,784 pedestrian deaths. With the U.S. population right at 300 million people in 2006, this means that 0.0225% of Americans managed to get hit by cars, and 0.0016% died from the incident. These are the annual pedestrian hit rates and the kill rates by vehicles for the human population in the United States.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="head4">Next, we can use these to estimate what should be the annual hit and kill rates for the hypothetical bigfoot population in North America. This will tell us how many bigfoot roadstrikes and roadkills we should expect to observe if bigfoots actually exist.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="head4">Non-human animals are surely more likely to be killed by vehicles, statistically-speaking, than humans who are intelligent, who build cross-walks, who are taught to look both ways before crossing streets, who typically don't cross freeways on foot, and who build pedestrian pathways to minimize the dangers of automobiles to people. Let's very generously assume that bigfoots are only twice as likely as humans to get hit by cars, since bigfoots are certainly less intelligent and presumably unlikely to be using crosswalks or sidewalks or wearing reflective vests in low-light conditions. Most good-sized animals probably have considerably higher hit and kill rates over humans, <a href="http://www.tallahasseemagazine.com/January-February-2012/Ugly-Dead-Things/" target="_blank">likely much much higher than only 2 times the rate of humans</a> (possibly up into single digit percentages or more for some species). But we'll be generous for now and see where the numbers take us. So now we have an estimated annual hit rate for bigfoots of 0.0450% and a kill rate of 0.0032%.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="head4"><br /></span><span class="head4">Those rates don't initially sound high, being well under 1%, but let's apply them to the BFRO's population estimates (from 2,000 to 6,000) over the last 60 years and see what we find. If the population of bigfoot has been around 2,000 over the last half century or more, our estimated annual hit rate suggests that there should have occurred at a bare minimum 54 car accidents involving a bigfoot, with at least four involving a bigfoot fatality. If the population is instead 6,000 then there should have been 162 bigfoot vehicle strikes resulting in a dozen bigfoot deaths. Remember these are extremely conservative estimates.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="head4"><br /></span><span class="head4">How many bigfoot roadway fatalities have there been? Obviously, none. Zero, zilch, nada. OK, so how many times has a bigfoot been hit by a vehicle that did not result in its death? And what about near-misses? Let's go to the <a href="http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=410" target="_blank">BFRO's FAQ</a> for their own answers to these questions: "</span><span class="head4">Only a very small fraction of the thousands of credible sighting reports describe near-misses with vehicles. No substantiated reports describe a collision with a bigfoot."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="head4">But wait! Our extremely conservative estimates based on comparably-sized primates living in similar areas (i.e., humans) over the last 60 years suggest that at the very least, at an absolute minimum, there should have been <i>several bigfoots killed by vehicles, </i>and<i> dozens upon dozens of non-fatal bigfoot vehicle strikes</i> leaving many maimed or wounded bigfoots to be recovered. By the <a href="http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=410" target="_blank">BFRO's own admission</a>, again, no carcasses have been recovered, no crippled or wounded bigfoots have been found, not a single report describes a collision, and there are almost no near-misses reported. Something is wrong here.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="head4">Now consider these numbers. </span><span class="head4">There are roughly <a href="http://www.thefreequark.com/2010/03/road-kill-and-wildlife-crossings/" target="_blank">400 million animals struck and killed</a> by motor vehicles each year in the U.S. alone. That means over the last 50 years, in the U.S., there were something like <i>20 billion animal roadkills</i>. And not a single one of those 20 billion carcasses were a bigfoot? How is that possible? </span><span class="head4">Seriously, what are the odds that not a single bigfoot has ever been maimed or incapacitated by a vehicle strike, <i>and</i> there are almost no near-misses reported, <i>and</i> not one bigfoot has been found among the 20 billion animals killed along U.S. roadways in the last half century? Surely any one of these events should have happened by now, but none have. </span><span class="head4">With these probabilities considered together, it's spectacularly and astronomically unlikely that not one of these events has happened yet, if indeed bigfoot truly exists. It's effectively impossible.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<span class="head4">This same sort of analysis applies not just to the lack of bigfoot roadkill, but also to the observations that <a href="http://thoughtsonscienceandpseudoscience.blogspot.com/2012/11/does-bigfoot-exist-further-statistical.html" target="_blank">no bigfoot has ever accidentally</a> (or purposefully) been shot by a hunter or caught in a trap; no bigfoot has ever accidentally drowned or slipped on a mountainside or died of natural causes in such a way that their carcass could be discovered by humans; and of course that not a single bigfoot has ever had a clear non-grainy photograph or video taken of it. All of these things, or at least some of them, or even just one of them, should have happened by now. The statistics are clear. The fact that not one of these events has happened yet tells us something important. The inescapable conclusion is that bigfoots don't exist, and we can say this with high scientific confidence.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
The Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.com17