Frequent Listener Feedback

Skeptoid answers some listener emails that present common flaws in scientific thinking.

by Brian Dunning

Filed under Feedback & Questions

Skeptoid #294
January 24, 2012
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe
 

Today we're going to go through a few pieces of Skeptoid feedback that represent a lot of common misconceptions about how science is done, and how knowledge is advanced. Often, when I have a conversation with someone, they'll express faulty logic such as ghosts or aliens must be real because there was an anomaly, I know something must be true because it happened to me or to a friend, or just having a fundamental misunderstanding of some science. Today we've got emails that cover each of these bases, and I'll give my responses to each.

Like a lot of people, Steve from Redmond, Washington has the whole "burden of proof" concept backwards. Generally speaking, in science, the burden of proof lies on the party making a conclusion that moves away from the null hypothesis. For example, in the question of alien visitation of Earth, the null hypothesis is that no strong evidence exists either for or against. If you assert that Earth has definitely not been visited, then you bear as much of a burden as does the person who asserts that Earth has been visited. Steve wrote in regarding the episode on the megalithic structures at Pumapunku, calling out my conclusion that there's no reason to introduce anyone other than the Tiwanaku for their construction projects:

...The stonework shows evidence of precision machining and repeatitive craftsmanship unlike any other site and this cannot be ignored the way you have. Further many of the carved stones are reportedly diorite and granite exceedingly hard materials.

Are you asserting that a culture barely out of the stoneage was capable of carving stone with a near diamondlike hardness with this level of precision with primitive tools? If so kindly explain how?

Debunking rumors requires you prove that such a thing is possible. You cannot simply handwave and say "maybe they found a way". You must scientifically show a methodology. If you cannot present a solution using their level of technology, you have debunked nothing.

Steve's made a number of errors. To begin with, there is no diorite or granite at Pumapunku, despite a lot of paranormalists promoting this statement to make the carving seem more impressive than it really was. Pumapunku is almost all clay and rubble, with facing stones of sandstone and a bit of andesite. It is very well carved, but it's hardly "unlike any other site". Pumapunku is not nearly as impressive as a number of other sites from the ancient world, such as the Greek Parthenon, the Palace of Darius at Persepolis, and the Udayagiri Caves in India. I did not ignore this in the episode at all, in fact I made these specific comparisons.

But his biggest error was in saying that my discussion failed because the burden of proof was on me. The null hypothesis of Pumapunku is that it is exactly what it appears to be, and what all the historical and archeological accounts show it to be: a city of the Tiwanaku culture dating from about the year 500. We do not need to be able to prove which of the many possible stonecutting techniques was used in order to observe that the stonecutting was indeed accomplished. It's right there. The null hypothesis need not be complete in every detail; it still remains the null hypothesis. We'd love to know which techniques they used, but they simply didn't leave enough evidence.

If there were any observations from Pumapunku that are irreconcilable with our knowledge of ancient peoples — for example, if the stones were indeed impossible to carve or too heavy to move — then that would change the null hypothesis. In that case, saying that Pumapunku was built by the Tiwanaku would be the extraordinary claim. But this isn't the case; there simply isn't anything there that is unexpected or surprising to archaeologists. Pumapunku is very beautifully done, but it's hardly the only case of human beings doing high quality or difficult work.

Jarek from Kettering, Ohio wrote in about my episode on Stalin's human-ape hybrids, which studied whether or not the Soviets ever actually tried to create such hybrid creatures like the popular urban legend claims. Like a lot of people, Jarek has made a value judgement based on faulty knowledge:

Because of the ear mouse, there has been a huge public backlash against any type of research mixing human and animal genes. Lots of states have passed laws banning human-animal hybrids. That might be a good topic to do an episode on. Scientists have lost public support on this issue and are now viewed as mad and unethical, and for once I agree with that assessment.

Jarek's is a fairly common misunderstanding of technology. The "ear mouse" he refers to was an experiment in growing replacement cartilage, performed in 1995. A strain of lab mouse was used that was immunocompromised, meaning that (among other traits) it would not reject foreign tissue. A biodegradable structure in the shape of an ear was placed under the mouse's skin, and was seeded with bovine cartilage cells. The idea was to see if the cartilage would grow, and it did; potentially showing that it may be possible to grow human transplant tissue the same way. There was no genetic connection between the mouse and the cells in the ear structure. The mouse was a perfectly normal mouse, and the cartilage was bovine. The reporting media didn't always get this right, and many people, such as Jarek, had the wrong idea that it was some kind of bizarre genetic hybrid creature.

It's quite common for people I speak with to reveal that their objection to some technology is based on a misunderstood concept. Objection to a technology, for any reason, is everyone's right; but I don't think many people would disagree that it's best to properly understand what it is you think you're objecting to. In this particular case, Jarek's casting a giant umbrella over a wide spectrum of biological research, some of which he might not object to if he understood it better.

Trying to breed a race of half-human creatures is pretty extreme, and few would probably support that; but what about the use of cell cultures to produce life-saving vaccines, or gene therapy to correct Parkinson's disease? These are more debatable ethics questions. It's often risky to use a single fat brush to paint an entire field of research as either completely good or completely bad.

Another common — in fact, almost universal — response to skeptical thinking is "My experience was X, thus X is correct and anything else is wrong." Maybe this is "ghosts are real" or "reflexology works", all based on uncontrolled personal experience. Here's an email from Naomi, a former nurse in Michigan, who wrote in response to the section in the detoxification episode where we discussed colon cleansing:

I suppose it may not matter to you, but I can state without reservation and in all good conscience that you are wrong in your assessment of bowel cleansing theory and (one) currently marketed product. I had a long career as a nurse; I've handled, well, let's see how to phrase this nicely: "Lots of bedpans with loads of...stuff" in them" and also have used one of these maligned products with great benefit. Frankly, I don't care what any organization or individual views as "truth." I prefer personal experience to someone else's opinion.

Working as a nurse, or anything else, does not guarantee scientific thinking. Personal experiences are uncontrolled, meaning they are subject to a vast, unknown number of variables. External factors, personal biases, preconceived notions, and misinterpretation of results all combine to make anecdotal personal experiences nearly useless as far as being reliable sources of information.

Of course Naomi's probably right to put more stock in her own experiences than in someone else's opinion, but there was no opinion component to the data discussed in my episode. When we want to know something, we can guess or form an opinion or even rely on anecdotes, but it's not a very good way. A better way is to design a test, where we eliminate variables by such processes as randomization, blinding, and statistics. What this process has shown us about colon cleansing is that it has no known health benefits, nor has anyone suggested a plausible reason that it might. It does, however, present considerable risk of infection and injury, and is at best an unnecessary expense.

A question I'd ask Naomi is how would she suggest confirming her experience to the satisfaction of the doctors? Does she think that designing a clinical trial would be a good idea? If she agrees, then it's easy to direct her to the literature that shows her experience has failed to be replicated once controls were applied to remove the variables that were present during her experience. If she doesn't agree that testing is an appropriate way to improve knowledge — and many alt-med proponents think this way — I'd remind her that virtually everything she depends on for transportation, communication, and even eating, is the result of research and testing.

Tip Skeptoid $2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time

Finally, here's an email that demonstrates the tendency of some true believers to cling to a desired conclusion, and to ignore or misrepresent any information they come across that contradicts it. James from the Ozarks wrote in about my episode on the Starchild skull, the skull of a child who died in Mexico some 900 years ago, and who probably had untreated hydrocephalus, which caused the skull to be grossly enlarged. Some, like James, insist that the skull is a human-alien hybrid; the only evidence for which is a mitochondrial DNA test they had done — which tests the maternal DNA — and found it to be human; thus, "compatible" with their hypothesis that it had a human mother and an alien father:

This article is full of inconsistent information bordering on out right lies. Current Dna Analysis of the Star child skull shows that the mother was human but the fathers DNA came back as no known species, the Nuclear DNA was placed against those of known species in a data base of millions of known species and there was no match. None! You should actually do research and get current findings before you make yourselves the authority on something you know nothing about.

The literature does not contain any record of a test such as James describes, nor any need for one. There was one other DNA test done, which looked for certain sequences unique to humans. It was indeed human, and in fact had both X and Y chromosomes. We know from the mtDNA test that its mother was an American Indian, and the fact that it also had a Y chromosome (which is passed from the father), that it had a father with a Y chromosome and who was able to breed with a human woman. This is not consistent with James' understanding. James has either not read the Starchild literature (the same thing he accuses me of), or he was not able to understand it and so morphed it in his own mind to conform to his desired conclusion that the skull is alien, or is deliberately disdainful of it. All three are possible, and all three show James to be ideologically motivated to insist upon the alien explanation.

With some people, you just have to move on.

Brian Dunning

© 2012 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Beck, E. "Sex and Genetics Before the Flood." The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics. The North Texas Skeptics, 1 Feb. 2008. Web. 21 Jan. 2012. <http://www.ntskeptics.org/2008/2008february/february2008.htm>

Chappel, M. "Colon Therapeutics 23-Oct-03." FDA.gov. US Food and Drug Administration, 23 Oct. 2003. Web. 25 Dec. 2009. <http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2003/ucm147792.htm>

Goldacre, B. "Be Fit: The Detox Myth." The Guardian. 8 Jan. 2005, Newspaper: 9.

Janusek, J. Identity and Power in the Ancient Andes: Tiwanaku Cities Through Time. New York: Routledge, 2004. 133-137.

Novella, S. "The Starchild Project." The New England Skeptical Society. The New England Skeptical Society, 1 Feb. 2006. Web. 14 Jan. 2010. <http://www.theness.com/index.php/the-starchild-project/>

Young-Sánchez, M. Tiwanaku: Ancestors of the Inca. Denver: Denver Art Museum, 2004. 32-34.

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "Frequent Listener Feedback." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 24 Jan 2012. Web. 26 Nov 2014. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4294>

Discuss!

Nice one, Brian.

Argumentation theory and the process through which humans change their beliefs and opinions is a very interesting subject.

If more people were aware of how their own opinions become formed, and the process through which they change (hint, it doesn't happen by winning or losing a perfectly logical argument), we might advance considerably as a society.

Phil, New York, NY
January 24, 2012 8:54am

"With all things being equal, the simplest solution is usually Extra Terrestrial." :P

Ben, South Dakota
January 24, 2012 9:59am

I think the comment:

"Current Dna Analysis of the Star child skull shows that the mother was human but the fathers DNA came back as no known species..."

Is referring to:

http://22050hz.blogspot.com/2010/03/we-finally-have-recovery-of-nuclear-dna.html

Here is my (a molecular biologist's) explanation of why it is a joke:

http://arthropoda.southernfriedscience.com/?p=2435

Michael Bok, Baltimore
January 25, 2012 9:06am

I'd like to underline one of the ways that pseudo-science tries to mislead- the presenting of false comparisons.

Referring to carvings in granite, Steve from Redmond insists that Bryan must recognize that primitive peoples would be incapable of "carving stone with a near diamondlike hardness". Some readers may be sucked in by the evocative power of the phrase "diamondlike hardness." However, this is a fraudulent comparison. The hardness of granite is rated at 550-650 on the Knoop hardness scale. Diamond is rated at 7000. Pine is rated at 10.

On the Knoop scale, the hardness ratings are proportional (unlike the Mohs scale). So it would be much more accurate to say that granite has a "pine-like hardness" than to call it "diamondlike". Granite is about half as hard as common tool steel, and nowhere near the hardness of diamond. But, boy, does "diamondlike hardness" sound impressive!

Derek, Santa Fe, NM
January 25, 2012 10:19pm

The rocks at stonehenge are made of Preseli Spotted Dolerite—a chemically altered igneous rock. It is medium grained dark and heavy rock, harder than granite.

So obviously Merlin had to carve them and giants had to move them.

Matt Sparks, Sacramento, CA
January 26, 2012 9:38am

I find his logic and reasoning highly effective, but note that there are two areas where people who pride themselves on skepticism retreat and instead demean and ridicule: American exceptionalism (to suggest that Americans do wrong things for wrong reasons usually invites scorn), and cognitive dissonance - when people are brought up to be invested in America as the force for good in the world, and see evidence it is not true, they get angry and dismissive.

So while Mr. Dunning is excellent in science and normal reasoning functions, in the past I have found him to be just another credulous American when it comes to political and national security affairs.

Mark Tokarski, Morrison, CO
January 26, 2012 9:51am

Wow.. I ended up reading the official web of Pye, the guy that claims the starchild skull is from a human alien hybrid. As most of this kind of people their only objective is to steal money: http://www.starchildproject.com/dna2011march.htm#6 but hey, at least he only asks for 7miilion USD!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF?!?

Pablo Colombo, Buenos Aires, Argentina
January 26, 2012 10:51am

I've never understood the concept of discussing the hardness of granite, diorite, or other igneous rocks. They're composed of individual mineral graines, each of which has its own hardness. The hardness of the agrogate structure--the rock--would depend on the hardness of those minerals. So it makes more sense, to me at least, to discuss the minerals, not the rocks.

And hardness isn't the only factor in carving. Diamonds are the hardest naturally occurring substance--but they're also brittle, and have well-defined clevage planes that will pop open with much less force than it takes to cut the stone. Drives gem cutters nuts, and it's the reason for the flat "rim" on a round-brilliant cut. In a rock, those clevage planes would allow the rock to be carved with much less force than it would take to cut the material, and by much softer materials.

The whole thing just shows that these people advocating the "Aliens did it!" hypothesis know nothing about geology.

Gregory, California
January 27, 2012 8:35am

Of course the Egyptians were carving and working granite thousands of years before pumpanuku existed.......but that must not count.

This falls into one of two catagories of response to historical building.

-One is to assume that "the past builders were so exceptional, that we can't duplicate their work today". Ie: we couldn't build the pryramid to the same precision today that they did back then. We could. We could even improve on the quality of construction significantly. Using modern technology and skills, we could do it in 2-3 years. Not to take anything away from the egyptians, they were amazing for the tools they had.....which brings us to view 2.

-"Old civilizations were morons who couldn't possibly have done...add feat here". We are so impressed with ourselves, we think our ancestors were idiots in comparison. The world is full of examples of the ingenuity of past man. There is nothing in the pyramids that can't be explained using the tools of the day. All this line of thinking exposes is that some modern people lack the intelligence to figure out what ancient men did. But this line is usually the defacto reason to include supernatural or extra-terrestrial reasoning into the mix.

Brandon, Canada
January 27, 2012 8:53am

I wonder if in 20,000 years humans when coming across our mega-structure artifacts (Bridges, Skyscrapers, Huge cargo ships, Hadron Gliders etc) might also think (when their knowledge of our time might be very broken and unsure), that we might have also had some Extra-Terrestrial help.

Assumptions and jumping to conclusions are the bane of any search for facts. The strict approach is if you don't know something then don't make half-assed guesses.

Be honest and say "I don't know" and science and discovery will be the richer for it.

John Blackhall, Wonthaggi
February 4, 2012 4:48pm

"American exceptionalism"? Without giving any details about this bias, why should anyone think it's of merit? It seems equally likely that you are biased to be negative and presumptive about all things US related. I won't subscribe to either of these assertions until I have convincing evidence one way or the other. When has Brian presented this bias and how did it affect his ealuation of the evidence? Humans are complex. You seem to be assuming more than you could possibly know.

rrpostal, Lawrence, Ks
February 7, 2012 7:41am

paying subscriber

I took issue with your description of personal experiences.

Scientists are of course persons and when they observe phenomena they do so personally. I bring this up with regard to the age old debate between rationalism and empiricism. Prior to the Scientific Method, empiricism was not honored. Personal experiences, observations, and feelings were all lumped together and deemed untrustworthy. Only officially sanctioned knowledge was considered right, and a person who used officially sanctioned knowledge when speaking was deemed rational. Anything else, including empiricism, was deemed irrational.

The Scientific Method changed knowledge from a priori to a posteriori. We do not discover what is already right to begin with. We throw ideas into our system of science, and what survives becomes knowledge. Knowledge begins with personal experience or observation, but the experience or observation must pass agreed upon rules and protocols.

We do not discover what is already right to begin with, because there is no way to prove knowledge we have, is knowledge we are supposed to have.

It is appropriate to criticize the nurse for using uncorroborated personal experience in a professional setting. I do not think it is appropriate to criticize personal experience in general, which is what you imply. We should all look forward to experiencing, sensing, and observing.

Thanks for all the work you put into these podcasts. I have gained considerably listening to them.

David McDivitt, Springfield, IL
May 26, 2012 3:41pm

Thanx David for misinterpreting what scientists do and immediately criticising Brian for his fair and critical response.

If you think that personal experiences in terms of alternate therapies have any equivalence to the science and refer to quack cures maybe you should read/listen to more of Brian's and his colleagues pods and essays.

It would be irrelevant that I could possibly think the moon is made of cheeses. That notion is equivalent to quack science. The stuff based on the ignorance or its target customers.

Is that moon blue or crater camembert? Lunar cheddar is out of stock.

Mud, Sutho cricket ground, NSW, OZ
July 26, 2012 8:28pm

"Common sense is not so common"
-Voltaire, France 1800's

Actually, a discusiion of common sense would probably be a much needed added ingredient.

The Stones are massive by any standards today or 15,000 years ago:
the indians in the area, since the time of the Spanish conquest have been telling people they did not make them:
The stone workmanship is unparalleled, even as compared to the stacked rounds found in ancient Greece.
Common sense dictates that how and who made the oldest monlithic part of the area:Puma Punka, as opposed to the old but different Tiwanaku.
is not known,
not by the skeptics and not by the Ancient Alien Clan.

steven, los angeles
September 10, 2012 5:43pm

Looking it up would be nice steven.

Magnanamous Dinoflagellate, sin city, Oz
July 5, 2013 3:14am

Listen Dunning (and Novella), the Starchild Skull is not hydrocehpalic! Read the report from Dr. Ted Robinson on the Starchild Project website. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!

Dave Smith, Preston
July 16, 2013 3:50am

Is Ted Robinson a PhD rather than a medico? Is that what you are trying to infer by referring to him as Dr..and Dr Stephen Novella as just "Novella"..

Were that the case, you should have lost the "Ted"..

PhD's are very particular and like to be referred to in the correct manner!

Molesey Dirtley, Greenacres by the sea Oz
September 3, 2013 3:46am

Brandon, Canada: 4700 years ago when the rest of the planet was still wandering about in animal skins the ancient Egyptians flattened a limestone hilltop, paved an area the size of six football pitches, piled up 2 million blocks of stone to the height of a 42-storey building, drove a narrow 300-foot long passage - utterly straight - through the rock, fitted the stone in the inner chamber with complete precision, built the outside of the Pyramid with eight (!) sides instead of four (look it up), made it earthquake proof, lined it up precisely with magnetic north, and got the whole job done in only 20 years using copper chisels, stone mallets and hemp ropes? Come on. Why not listen to what engineers today have to say about it? http://www.unacknowledged.info/who-built-the-pyramids/

Artur, Warsaw, Poland
September 17, 2013 2:04pm

Some folk just never give credit where credit is due.

The ancient egyptians did it because they wanted to and could. Whats astounding is we cant even fathom their economies when compared to our own. Experts may be able to but we mere mortals have a pretty tough time in dealing with how egypt supported these projects.

This is pronounced time and time again on skeptoid comments.

Further more, as surprising as the scale of operations were, they also had the required raw materials, man power and management.

The question still is not whether they did it its still how could they manage it when only viewed without all the data required to make an effective description.

Ive come across some pretty good explanations (only) with some great evidence (materials and techniques) that go to build a reasonable but still incomplete picture.

Please note the date guys. Its not the mid seventies with Leonard Nimoy on the telly or Eric von Daniken quacking ludicrous posits for self importance and edification.

We have still the remnants of archaeology quackery going around the world today (Visoko etc) and these provide a marvelous basis for egypto conspiracy.

Sorry, no aliens and no gods. Just smart inventive technological humans with an economy to match.

Remember, this tom foolery started as a means to hang on to ludicrous archaeology of the "religious story tellers".

Brian has covered a number of these and given the benefit of the doubt to at least their claims.

Moister Door, Greenacres by the sea Oz
September 17, 2013 4:32pm

Re Naomi's experience, I think it's worth adding some nuance: studies' conclusions are open to question. It's possible that a differently designed experiment will find something missed by previous experimenters, or find different results by eliminating errors or incorrect assumptions, or studying a different population or different age group, or a larger group, etc. Indeed different studies often draw different conclusions, hence the value of meta-studies. Scientific explanations do sometimes get overturned in favor of newer scientific explanations - though of course not nearly as often our as easily as free energy or alt health people might think.
For all that, I'd certainly put most weight on scientific studies and politely decline to have my bowels cleansed.

Chris Watkins, http://openista.net
October 3, 2013 4:40pm

Talking about stone - I'm pretty convinced that the ancients had techniques for manipulating and working stone as easily as we manipulate and work iron, steel, and other metals.

Those techniques were forgotten over the millenia.

For example - as far as I've been told, nobody can make Roman concrete as good as the Romans' stuff they used to make their structures. The ingredients are known, but not exactly what they did - and they didn't need no Martians to "help" them build anything.

In other words - "No Martians need apply".

To imply that our ancestors were too stoopid to invent and do things on their own, without "alien intervention" because they weren't White Western Europeans, is the epitome of "Eurocentrism".

Are you reading this Von Daniken??

Ron, Calgary Alberta Canada
October 21, 2013 12:33pm

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point).

Post a reply

 

What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid
 

Newest
Griffins
Skeptoid #442, Nov 25 2014
Read | Listen (10:34)
 
The Skookum Cast
Skeptoid #441, Nov 18 2014
Read | Listen (12:30)
 
That Elusive Fibromyalgia
Skeptoid #440, Nov 11 2014
Read | Listen (12:17)
 
A Skeptical Look at the News
Skeptoid #439, Nov 4 2014
Read | Listen (12:07)
 
The War of the Worlds Panic Broadcast
Skeptoid #438, Oct 28 2014
Read | Listen (11:56)
 
Newest
#1 -
Read | Listen
#2 -
Fukushima vs Chernobyl vs Three Mile Island
Read | Listen
#3 -
The Baldoon Mystery
Read | Listen
#4 -
Listeners Have Another Say
Read | Listen
#5 -
Tube Amplifiers
Read | Listen
#6 -
Hemp, Hearst, and Prohibition
Read | Listen
#7 -
Aromatherapy: Sniffing Essential Oils
Read | Listen
#8 -
Solving the Lead Masks of Vintem Hill
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid on Stitcher   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal

 
 


Follow @BrianDunning

Tweets about "skeptoid"

Support Skeptoid

Name/Nickname:  
City/Location:
Email: [Why do we need this?]To reduce spam, we email new faces a confirmation link you must click before your comment will appear.
Comment:
characters left. Abusive posts and spam will be deleted.