Dismissing bad science – Biorhythms and the U.S. Government

I subscribe to the feed from Online Books from the University of Pennsylvania, a terrific compendium of books that are available for free on the Internet. Many have had their copyright lapse, many are government documents. There are hours, perhaps days of digging and enjoyment to be had browsing these publications.

I came across this new release “Biological Rhythms: Implications for the Worker” by the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. My first thought was that this was perhaps more kooky investigations into biorhythms. With the allegations that the U.S. government spent taxpayer money on remote viewing experiments and other parapsychological phenomena testing in the interests of national security, I feared that they had also bought into the idea of biorhythms. Heck, they have such a hard time getting rid of the lie detectors as a “valuable tool” (Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation Summary here .PDF Full document.) that perhaps they still long for the easy (but really offbase) explanations and excuses.

It wouldn’t be my first run in with a public office touting the values of baseless theories. Years ago, I noticed a mention of biorhythms and moon phases listed on a Mine Safety page run by a state government agency. This was back in the days when the web was not widely utilitized by the gov’ment to provide public information. I was livid that these unsupported theories would be suggested in an official capacity as a potential contributor to mine accidents. I emailed the webmaster. He basically said: “Well, I feel there is something to it and the latest accident at XXX mine coincided with *guess what a certain lunar/ biorhythm phase. Sorry it offends you but I’m keeping it on.” (Those were also the days when upper level management would pass around urban legends as warnings to employees. Even after I cited valid sources that contradicted their so called “true story”, they refused to recant. Ego and all.)

I was in no position to push the matter further. Later, when web information had more oversight, the site was revamped and this information was, thankfully, removed. (The dude who always fell for the ULs was gone too.)

We may indeed be seeing valid information, healthy skepticism, and reason burn off this attitude of ignorance. Viewing this recent public document, I was pleasantly surprised to see the following:

From: Biological Rhythms: Implications for the Worker [OTA-BA-463]

Box 1-A-Biorhythms Are Not Biological Rhythms
The scientific study of the biological rhythms of the body should not be confused with the theory of biorhythms. No evidence exists to support the concept of biorhythms; in fact, scientific data refute their existence. Based on a theory first proposed by the German scientist Wilhelm Fliess in 1897 and popularized in the 1970s, biorhythm theory postulates that three cycles act in a concerted fashion to guide activity: 23-day cycle that influences physical strength, endurance, energy, and physical confidence; a 28-day cycle that influences feelings, love, cooperation, and irritability; and a 33-day intellectual cycle that influences learning, memory, and creativity. According to biorhythm theory, these three cycles are linked to an individual’s birth date and fluctuate in a constant fashion throughout his or her life. Each cycle has a high and a low point. By mapping the high and low points of the respective cycles and how they coincide or diverge, the theory states, performance can be charted, and critical days when performance can be expected to be highest or lowest can be predicted.

Although a theory that provides a system for predicting human behavior and scheduling activities has appeal, none of the contentions of biorhythm theory can be supported. No biological process with such a relationship to the calendar date of birth has ever been identified, nor have any studies attempting to validate biorhythms been able to do so. Thus, for example, attempts to validate the hypotheses using retrospective airplane crash reports and athletic scores have consistently failed. While there clearly are human biological rhythms with cycles that can be measured in days (the menstrual cycle being an example), there is no evidence for the existence of any of the three biorhythms, let alone any predictive interaction. Given its nonfactual basis, biorhythm theory is relegated to the realm of other popular pastimes, such as numerology, that can serve as a source of entertainment but have no substantive or predictive value.

SOURCE D.C. Hoiley, C.M. Winget, C.M. DeRoshia, et al., Effects of Circadian Rhythm Phase Alteration on Physiologica land Psychlogical Variables: Implications to Pilot Performance (Including a Partially Annotated Bibliography.), NASA technical memorandum TM-81277 (Moffet Field, CA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration March 1981).

I guess there are reasonable people in the government after all. Hope for us all!

What is the nature of the Fortean – Darwinism connection?

This is a really interesting question. After just grabbing at the loose thread, I feel like there is a whole sweater left to unravel! I’d like more info on Fort, Darwinism and the creationist connection. I’m looking for help from readers far and wide.

I already have the works of Fort but am interested in any biographical sources you have read (or written) and might recommend to help understand the philosophy of Forteanism.

I have plenty of premium sources on evolution but am interested in just how Darwin’s ideas may have been hijacked to serve certain cultural agendas. How does that play into the way the idea of “Darwinism” has been used as the catch word for all that is wrong with scientists and their so-called “holy” ideas.

For creationism in general, I’d like to see how this relates to dealing with anomalous biological/zoological and even geological topics. I have a good background in the methods, means and characters of the creationism movement so I don’t need more on that. But, if you have something pertinent and new, I’d appreciate if you can send PDFs or links to me via the comments. If you don’t want your comment to be displayed, just note that and I won’t display it online.

I’ve really enjoyed the comments and discussions with those who have volunteered their two-cents. Thanks.

Interdisciplinary ideas

I just get an idea in my head and write about it once in a while. Thanks for tuning in. This blog is one of WordPress’ Growing Blogs. I’ve had over 5100 views since I began at the end of last year. Most of the comments have been positive. Thanks to all the readers for that.

I can’t write every day like some people. And, I’m not just going to list cool links because you can get those off The Anomalist. But, here’s a nice article that highlights what I think is the major hurdle to big scientific discoveries. Academia has forced researchers into such tight niches that they can’t communicate to other scientists outside their own field. Interdisciplinary science is the way to go to investigate problems like climate change (earth systems science), earthquake prediction (see the Whispers… series of posts) and many anomalies we know and love. Tenure and funding are always on the minds of those in academia. With all the paperwork and bureacracy, they have little time to be innovative and little incentive to work with those in other fields. I think the problem has been recognized and interdisciplinary studies will continue to expand. Here’s to hoping, and more discoveries.

Fortean = anti-evolution? Shouldn’t be.

The topic of creationism nearly makes me retch. I hate arguing about it, I hate even acknowledging that the fight even exists because it shouldn’t. I must vent so indulge me.

The debate between creationists and evolutionists rages on these days over at Cryptomundo in a post opened solely for the two teams to duke it out. I would opine that it was a mistake to do that. These aren’t kids who will give up fighting and make nice. It could end up with hard feelings and people leaving in a huff. I gotta keep telling myself not to read those types of posts and comments, and for all that’s logical and sane, quit responding to the commentary! Alas, I didn’t listen to myself and entered the fray.

The question I wish to examine though is: Why is creationism associated with Fortean topics?

I received a comment to my initial blog page that touched on this very topic. I commend “Shez” for the info. See the post and comment here.

I see anti-evolutionism feeling (of which creationism is one kind) creep into to the discussion of cryptozoology most of all. Explorers claim that if they find a living dinosaur or a supposidly extinct animal, a mokele-mbembe, ropen or plesiosaur, that it will crush the theory of evolution. I hear that if Bigfoot exists, it will be the “missing link”(absolutely hate that term) or it will be a thorn to Darwinists. But I also hear it in other Fortean circles, such as that of William Corliss’ Science Frontiers newsletter (of which I am a huge fan), where he remarks on biological “misbehaviors”, so to speak, as challenges to evolution.

In the case of cryptozoology, I’ve observed interested persons come from different backgrounds and perspectives. Some are scientists, like myself, or nature lovers and curious observers who find the natural world fascinating, awe-inspiring and mysterious in its own right. Then I see the paranormalists and mystery mongers who love the question more than the thought of an answer (which would just ruin everything!). Then, there are true Forteans who carry a disdain for science as dogma. The last is the most curious as, from the comments of “Shez”, Fort himself didn’t buy into any dogma, not the priests of science or the priests of the church. But, some serious Forteans (including creation scientists and some paranormalists) seem to want it both ways. They criticize science whole-heartily but want so badly to be part of that community, be accepted and respected, taught in schools as part of the curriculum, included in textbooks, be the established truth.

For the Forteans who have Charles Fort’s anti-establishment attitude, they likely take offense to the certainty that science holds in evolution. The problem, as I see it, is the same for Forteans as it is for the average person who has trouble with evolution. Evolution appears to be limiting, narrow or strained. But, the idea of evolution is simply just this: populations change over time. It is supported by the history of life on earth. The mechanisms and nuances are debated and contested – natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, genetic drift, etc. There is NO claim that we fully understand how things work out but it is clear that we came from a common ancestor and have changed (in terms of populations) over a very long time.

“Creationists used to get enormous pleasure out of the lack of walking whales…That was before paleontologists started digging up whale feet”. Carl Zimmer “Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea”, p. 324.

I do not proclaim that there is a God or not. Since it is very difficult to imagine what was before time or what is at the end of universe, the concept of a creator is probably the easiest way we humans have of grasping the whole of existence. For the sake of argument, let’s suppose there is a god. He forms the building blocks of the universe and things are put into motion in the confines of various laws of nature. Chemical laws, elements, physics, properties of water, behavior of molecules, etc. are established. Living things are put together and function by virtue of a set of instructions inherant to every one and passed on via copying to offspring. Production of offspring is influenced by what is happening in their environment at the time. Some live to reproduce, others die and don’t get the chance.

God or not – this is the way things work. We know this to be true. It’s absurd if we deny that populations don’t change over time. Science does not acknowledge that a creator has a role in the process since it does not deal with the supernatural.

With the above view, there is scads of room for novel ideas about the details of natural processes and boundless room for all types of organisms carving out niches here, there and everywhere. Why the animosity? The idea obviously touches a nerve.

I can’t comprehend it. Unless, it is due to attitude and willingness to ignore the facts to accommodate an idea that one wishes were true. I cringe when I see a Fortean comment to the tune of “Ha! This observation doesn’t jive with evolutionary theory, therefore, those snobby scientists are wrong and the whole idea of evolution should be condemned!” I thought we wanted to be inclusive!

As I’ve said before, I’ve been to both sides on many issues, this one included. I learned the Genesis story long before I had biology classes. Sadly, I didn’t learn much evolution in school, not even in college (although by paleontology class, you were expected to have a general idea of shared traits). I learned much of it on my own. It was then that I realized two things: 1.) It’s no wonder no one knows much about evolution, we aren’t given proper instruction, and 2.) Genesis is only a story (actually two stories that contradict each other), a metaphor for the beginning of life just like there exists for every other religion and mythology. Evolution happens and it is just as secure as every other scientific axiom.

There is little value in evolution vs creationism debates. The same issues get rehashed over and over. Same examples. Both sides use different definitions for evolution, theory, evidence, and random. Logic is on one side, belief is on the other. One side collects evidence every day. One side holds on to one book in various translations. Check out this graphic courtesy of Wellington Grey Blog.

No doubt, cryptozoology has an element of belief or hope. However, evidence, not belief, holds sway. Perhaps Forteans are so frustrated with the scientific establishment discarding evidence of anomalies, shunning the ideas, ridiculing those who wish to study it, that they are contemptuous of everything science represents or holds dear. Science fails to adequately recognize some things but no method is perfect. Let’s face it: science has done a good job of figuring out the way the natural world works. Religion has not. I say leave religion and belief out of our attempts to explain the natural world. One and all.
Sidenotes:

• When I met Judge John Jones (of Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School Board), I told him how wonderful it was to get a touchdown for our side (science as the method to explain the natural world). His decision was an awesome piece of work. It should be force fed to all those who ever try to bring this horrid topic up again at any school board meeting. It’s settled. Move on.
• I really enjoy studying anomalies of nature. But, I don’t consider myself a Fortean at all. I think Charles Fort had a neat idea of presenting the ignored data and challenging why it was discarded, but I think his dismissal of scientists and all that is methodological was presumptuous, abrasive and tiresome.
• I heartily recommend the following book for those new to the concept of evolution: “Get a Grip on Evolution” by David Burnie. Time-Life Books, 1999. It’s easy to read and explains it all for young adults and grownups alike.
• Everyday, research goes on and results are produced using evolution as a basis. Those results lead to more results, and so on, eventually to discoveries that benefit society. Where does creationism lead us in the lab? God did it. No further research or experimentation necessary. End of science.

What would convince me?

“[If]…something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a forth, and so on, it ceases to be revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it….it is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief upon such evidence.”

Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794)

One must spend time and thought on both (or multiple) sides of the issue in order to make an informed decision. I can honestly say I have been on both sides of many topics of the paranormal persuasion at various points in my life.

During and after college, I had discovered the skeptical side. It was difficult, but eye-opening, to see that the stories and “evidence” that I had assumed were valid were actually highly questionable and not too useful to answer the questions that needed to be answered in order to make these topics scientific.

In my professional career, I frequently practice the exercise of sorting fact from fiction and deciding what likely occurred. I learned, thanks to legal tutelage, what does or does not constitute strong evidence. I still have much to learn, for sure, but, I’ve been thinking about the following: 1.) What it would take to convince me of the reality of certain strange phenomena? and 2) Which theories have discounted in my own mind as worthless? I feel sure some of you will disagree!

Bigfoot, Monsters and the Cryptozoo
This topic is my personal favorite. I have been interested in animals since I could toddle after my first dog. I collected bugs, pondered over my wildlife card library, excelled in biology in school, took additional animal science classes in college (not my major), and worked in a vet hospital. The thought of new species out there is ever fascinating to me What would it take to convince me that something as earth-shattering as Bigfoot is out there? Nothing less than a body, preferably alive or at least fresh. You can’t study an organism based on a story someone tells you. How can we determine exactly what this creature is unless we can compare it to what we already know. That takes some detailed study of a body. It’s not pretty (it may not even be moral if Bigfoot is more human than we care to ponder) but it’s valid; it gets us answers we can use.

A recent skeptical guest post on Cryptomundo generated scads of back and forth about the value of eyewitnesses and the voluminous sightings reports bolstering the reality of Sasquatch. It’s just no good. We can name a new species on the basis of a bone or tooth but not on hearsay. So, a body is a necessity for any cryptozoological beast.

Ghosts
My love for ghost stories and haunted houses runs deep. Those are stories so good, they OUGHT to be true. Frankly, I don’t know what to think about hauntings and phantasms of the living. So, I suspend judgment as I do for many other things. What would convince me they are real? Well, can’t have the corporeal evidence. Can we capture the incorporeal manifestation in some way? Not the “Ghostbusters” way but a genuine recording of a physical change in the environment that is associated with an entity. (Temperature and EMF meters aren’t going to cut it. Neither will EVP.) More than that, I would require a darn good theory about how these things could be. This must answer why only some people experience the entities and why ghostly events are so fickle. I suspect we may get closer to these answers in my lifetime (hopefully a long one) but it may not be the Gothic, romantic version of the great stories. It may be a condition of the environment and/or the observer and have nothing to do with surviving into the beyond. We’ll see.

Aliens
There is no doubt UFOs are out there. We just have to figure out what they are. I’m not leaning toward the belief that they are extraterrestrials. Maybe they are future humans? (I like that one but it makes little sense.) I’m going to pull out the ultimate cop-out for this one – I’d have to see it for myself. I don’t mean just having my own encounter, I mean me and the whole world experiencing an undeniable confrontation. I want the scientific community to move toward a consensus. I want astronomers to say, “Yes. An alien civilization has been surveying our world.” Then, I’d be scared along with everyone else on earth. Until then, I’ll try not to think about it and move on with life.

Psi
That’s easy. Produce consistent results and/or a reasonable, testable theory. I will leave judgment of the evidence to professionals. Easier said than done, they’ve been trying for decades.

In summary, it boils down to the following:
1. Physical evidence. There must be something to be studied, dissected, tested by others.
2. Experimental evidence. Scientific experimentation has worked exceptionally well to figure out our world. We should not give any idea a ‘bye’ in this process.
3. A viable theory. We can’t get anywhere without a working explanation. “It just is.”, is not helpful to understanding.

Here are some examples of certain topics that have failed to meet these criteria after years of trying: astrology, homeopathy, creationism, spontaneous human combustion, alien abduction, demon possession. As they have been presented, they are almost certainly false. My opinion only. Your mileage may vary.

Poor professional manners

My “Mooning” post generated a rant from an unconventional “writer, scholar, …ologist” and his followers. I get another copy of the same comments practically everyday. I won’t post them because they are ad hominem attacks with no substance behind them. Since they contain poor grammar as well as veiled threats, the incoming address has now been labeled spam.

I will not post his name but it strikes me as very odd that one would attempt to be heard or gain respect via a spam attack. Gain attention, perhaps. But, indeed, the wrong kind. I would expect better from a “professional”.

I appreciate the comments from others, for and against, that I have received for my posts. I have replied to some of you directly or edited the reply slightly to correctly portray our off-blog discussion. It is very hard to put your ideas out there for criticism and to take your blows but it is necessary in order to refine and strengthen one’s view.

“Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.” Thomas Huxley

I’m not a fan of the “skeptic” label since it holds some negative connotations. I have a mild, genial type of skepticism that is pretty open to hearing about your view (even if I don’t accept it) and I won’t be dismissive of new ideas with a sound basis. Those who rant and rave about my skepticism must not be very fun people to be around. Seems that if you disagree with them, they will have no patience for you.

“I am too much of a skeptic to deny the possibility of anything.” Thomas Huxley

Contrary to popular notions about scientists being closed minded or know-it-alls, the true nature of science is ever-changing. You can’t have progress if you cling to one theory, so in love with it that you can’t let it go no matter how much evidence shows that it is faulty.

Call me naïve or overly polite but if I was to rebut an argument or challenge another’s position, I should be prepared to support my position with some references or evidence. I would hardly think that name calling, stereotype-labeling, and shouting (or the internet equivalent of such) would be very convincing nor would it get my point conceded. Of course, I could be trying to make the point that I am a pompous ass, in which case that would work. But, I can’t think of any circumstances right now when I would do that.

Once upon a time, back in college, I asked a professor a rather obvious question about plate tectonics to which he didn’t know the answer. I was stunned. It seemed so obvious that question would have an answer but he didn’t hesistate to say “I don’t know. Science doesn’t know.” Therefore, the lesson I learned was that we don’t know even some basic things about the world.

Many professionals of all topics claim to be experts – a word I detest. I can’t ever feel comfortable labeled as an expert in anything because the more I learn, the more questions I have and the more I realize what isn’t known. Here is a definition of expert that I can agree with:

“An expert is someone who knows some of the worst mistakes that can be made in his subject, and how to avoid them.” Werner Karl Heisenberg

I’d never consider myself or claim to be some “scholar” on any topic. This avoidance of “expertism” is not shared by all. There are many experienced, well-read, even well-respected professionals out there with various letters after their names or publications to their credit who simply mess up and make mistakes. Worse, there are those who get paid to express a certain view and use their credentials to buoy that view no matter how ridiculous.

Now I’m not talking strictly about “scholars” of paranormal, fringe or Fortean topics. And, I’m not saying that I know any more about my personal spammer than what I can Google about him. My point is: what happened to reasonable discussion, logical argument and fair debate? Regardless of your publications, credits, income, status, titles bestowed upon you by yourself or others, etc., we can all be civilized and argue our position in an educated fashion.

“The deepest sin of the human mind is to believe things without evidence” Thomas Huxley