The 34th Skeptics Circle at The Second Sight

The 34th Skeptic’s Circle is posted at The Second Sight. If you’re naturally skeptical, don’t take my word for it, head on over and see for yourself: EoR has it going on!

Embellishments of memory: the unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony

ABSTRACT: In recent news: UFO study finds no sign of aliens. But there will be no shortage of people who subscribe to the notion that UFOs are aliens from other worlds. Indeed, there are many pseudoscientific claims that stem from the fallible nature of people to accurately recall or interpret what they observed when party to an event that is unusual or extraordinary. While these events might unusual and extraordinary to the observer, it doesn’t imply that there are explanations that cannot be prosaic or mundane or even fascinating but far from what is assumed or believed. A UFO might simply be an aircraft, military flares, a weather phenomenon, or oil wells burning on the horizon, as the Phoenix Lights and Campeche, Mexico UFO sighting in recent times would indicate. They could also be the work of a hoaxer, as the Prophet Yahweh would seem to be. This blog entry explores the nature of embellishment and exaggeration of eyewitness testimony.

Note: the term UFO in the context of this blog is synonymous with “alien spacecraft” unless otherwise noted.

It has been suggested on many occasions in discussions on the internet and elsewhere that the sheer quantity of eyewitness testimony is enough to support a wild claim, such as the notion that extraterrestrial intelligences are responsible for the sightings of UFOs in the world.

Oft mentioned are the so-called Disclosure Project‘s 400 witnesses of UFOs. These mentions are usually accompanied by citing the “credentials” of the witness (airline pilot, Army general, law enforcement officer, etc.) and making the assumption that these people are somehow more “credible” than the rest of society. Never mind that they are Homo sapiens, constructed of the same materials and subject to the same psychological faults as the rest of the species.

The UFO believers would have the rest of society believe what they do: that people with a higher station in life do not fall victim to the same fallibilities that the rest of society does and that their memories and observational abilities are somehow more reliable. With regard to observational ability within the scopes of their professions, I’ve no doubt that experts and professionals can be considered more reliable. I would expect a doctor, for instance, to notice something about health care that I might not. I would expect a law enforcement officer to recognize a crime in progress or suspicious behavior of another person much faster than myself. I would expect an airline pilot to be more observant than myself with regard to atmospheric conditions, the condition of his aircraft, and the behavior of other aircraft than I.

That last example is where the UFO believer hopes to grasp a bit of witness credibility with regard to UFOs. But the third hand accounts of UFO believers re-telling the anecdotes of these pilots has a flawed methodology aside from the fact that the accounts are often not even secondary but tertiary -the UFO believer tells an account of another UFO believer who alleges to have taken an account from the original observer and the primary source of the interview (the full transcript) is often not available. The additional flaws in the methodology include confirmation bias, lack of appropriate contexts, inconsistent and leading interview techniques, etc.

Confirmation bias is when the researcher begins with a desired outcome and organizes all of his questions to support this outcome. UFO believers rarely ask skeptical questions and criticize those that do.

The contexts that are ignored include the environment of the event, the circumstances surrounding the event, sometimes the observations of others regarding the event, the physical condition of the observer(s), etc. There are as many separate contexts as there are events and observers of events.

Ruling out other possibilities is important as well. Ask skeptical questions. In a crime, investigators will develop a list of suspects and people of interest. If there is DNA evidence, DNA samples get collected from anyone connected to the case (including investigators). These samples become the controls and are used to rule out the possibilities –even if there is a primary suspect.

But the thing that deserves mention the most is the fallibility of human memory when a person, regardless of their status or station in life, is faced with an event that is unusual to them, even if it isn’t unusual to the universe.

Human memory is fallible. I had a biology professor that said once, “everyone has a photographic memory; it’s just that most people are out of film.” It is this “film” that is the problem, because the film that is our memory isn’t the best quality for the majority of the human population. A recent article in Science News (4/19/2003) discusses how researchers have concluded that people recall more of what they hear if the speaker communicates with relevant hand gestures, suggesting that a single source of information input is insufficient for aiding in recall.

Seeing is believing

… it just isn’t necessarily what happened. Scientists researching the fields of criminalistics and cogitative abilities have determined in recent years (Wells & Olson, 2003; Wells, Olson, & Charman, 2003) that eyewitness accounts are far less reliable than many people may think. They also believe that major changes need to be instituted in how law enforcement and criminal investigators do things such as conduct line-ups and obtain testimony. They’ve discovered that even the most innocuous questions can be leading and influence the witness’s memory of the events.

For example, suppose a woman who observed a fatal traffic accident is rehearsing her testimony with a lawyer. The lawyer says, “How fast was the car going when it went through the red light?” At the time, she didn’t notice the color of the light, but the way the lawyer phrased the question plants the suggestion in mind that the car ran a red light. As a result, the woman may form an image of the traffic light in her mind’s eye—an image she didn’t really see at the actual event.

In investigating UFOs, the UFO “investigator” has a predetermined belief that UFOs are real. In addition, so may the witness. A recent poll conducted by Fox News (2003) shows that 34% of all Americans believe in UFOs. With this large a percentage, it is extremely probable that the UFO witnesses that go on record are already believers in the phenomenon. They may already assume that what they observed was a UFO and not something far more prosaic or mundane. The event was unusual to them; therefore they apply the most unusual explanation they can. It doesn’t help if the UFO investigator begins a question, “so when you saw the UFO, was it cigar-shaped or classic saucer-shaped?”

Belief isn’t restricted to status or station in society either. President Reagan was said to have consulted an astrologer. I know an airline pilot that considers himself a Wiccan and his wife believes she can conduct “spells” in the “craft.” They’re strange, but fun folks. The current U.S. President believes he is doing God’s work and that God wanted him to be President (Bush was quoted to have said as much, though I forget where).

Belief creates bias right off the bat. Another caveat to eyewitness testimony is that witnesses will very often share information, so that in the final testimony, what they actually observed and what they testify to are different. The perceptions as well as the misperceptions of the other witnesses are used to fill in the gaps of their own observations. When they get information from one another and from investigators, their own memory becomes contaminated.

But just seeing an event that is emotionally arousing can interfere with both memory and attention to detail (Hulse, Memon, & Allan, 2003) due to chemical substances released in the brain during states of arousal and stress. I would suggest that when one sees what one truly believes is an alien spacecraft; one is “aroused and stressed.”

Psychic Study of Eyewitness Reliability

Singer and Benassi (1980) conducted a study with college students that they had divided into two groups: one group was told that they were going to watch a magician pretend to be psychic; the other group was told they were about to see a demonstration of true psychic ability. Singer and Benassi’s stage magician wasn’t psychic and used cold reading techniques and other tricks to make it look like he was. Following the demonstration, both groups were asked their opinions and in spite of the fact that one group was told in advance it was fake, approximately two-thirds of both groups stated they believed the performer to be a genuine psychic.

They did the experiment again this time the experimenter told all students that the performer was a magician and not a real psychic before the performance. And yet, 58% still believed he had true psychic ability.

Sheep and Goats (a.k.a. Believers and Skeptics)

Believers and skeptics have preconceived notions prior to an extraordinary event (psychic reading, UFO sighting, magic show, etc.). Believers expect to see something “unexplainable, magical, alien, psychic, etc., where as skeptics expect to find the flaws in the demonstrations, pose questions that challenge the belief, expect earthly explanations for UFOs, etc.

In 1921, Eric Dingwall hypothesized that these expectations would distort eyewitness testimony: “The frame of mind in which a person goes to see magic and to a medium cannot be compared. In one case he goes either purely for amusement or possibly with the idea of discovering `how it was done,’ whilst in the other he usually goes with the thought that it is possible that he will come into direct contact with the other world.”

Later researchers (Wiseman and Morris, 1995) took Dingwall’s hypothesis and applied a test by showing a group of sheep and goats (believers and skeptics) a film which contained fake psychic abilities and then they were asked a set of questions to rate the “paranormal content” and measure their abilities to recall information.

The sheep, as expected, rated the paranormal content of the film much higher than did the goats. The goats, however, were able to recall more information that was significant to seeing through the tricks being performed.

With regard to the UFO phenomenon, I think what we have is a case of sheep and goats. The believers (sheep) expect to see alien space ships, and therefore see them whenever event occur that goats (skeptics) would typically find better, more earthly explanations for, if they bothered with the sighting at all.

In the end, we have a body of “sightings” that ETI-UFO believers look at as credible evidence for the existence of alien visitation to our planet. But what this really represents, for the most part, is the biased, one-sided accounts of “sheep” that saw exactly what they expected to see. Skeptics see things in the sky too. They just don’t bother with them or recognize them for what they are and, therefore, don’t report them.

Ufology

It’s interesting to note that the idea that the UFO phenomenon cannot be readily discounted due to the volume of eyewitness reports appears to have originated from J. Allen Hynek -the government skeptic turned believer- in the 1970’s. Allen Hendry was an early investigator for Hynek’s CUFOS and apparently a regular contributor to International UFO Reporter. Hendry argues in two articles in IUR (July 1977; June 1978) that it is valuable to identify those reports that can be considered “IFOs” from the UFOs. He points out those witnesses nearly always describe the same type of UFO -a “domed disk”- even when investigation reveals an identified source of the “ufo,” such as an advertising plane or celestial body. Hendry’s evaluation of this tendency to embellish or exaggerate notes that it isn’t one limited to hardcore believers, but one that has cropped up in all demographics.

Hendry also cites in the 1978 article a case in which rash of UFO reports in the Aurora, IL area in April 1978 were directly attributed to an ad agency in Chicago which confirmed that their plane was in the exact time and place of the sightings. In these sightings, witnesses described silent, slow moving craft that “twirled like a carnival ride” and was as “large as a football field.” One witness even claimed that his television went out for two hours and several witnesses “theorized” that the UFO was a “mothership.”

A couple things to keep in mind: the debunking in this case comes from an “ufologist” (Allen Hendry) and the event occurred just after movies like Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind cleaned house at the theaters.

Hendry also pointed out that in 300 UFOs that he was able to attribute to advertising planes, 91% of the witnesses reported that the “UFO made no sound.” Here’s an excerpt from Hendry in IUR.

…distorted observations regarding “domed discs,” “treetop heights,” gigantic size estimates, claims of being deliberately followed in cars, false assumptions that the ad plane’s sign turning-off equated to the “UFO” rushing away faster than the eye could follow, the causality attempted between the UFO and the TV interference, and most of all, the wholly unwarranted emotional reactions exhibited by the witnesses and the immediately, nearly universal reactions exhibited by the witnesses and the immediately, nearly universal conclusion that the ad plane was from outer space… The key issue here is not that the sighting was “only an ad plane,” because such a “solution” cannot in itself account for the independent witnesses’ behavior and inaccuracies. I do not see this IFO as the “garbage” to be weeded out while the “real” UFOs are retained as “data,” when there is a wealth of data present here about UFOlogy’s old bugaboo: the reliability of human testimony [emphasis mine].

Hendry was in no way trying to discredit the value of eyewitness testimony, but rather pointing out that its reliability cannot be taken as an a priori assumption. He has been quoted (though I cannot readily verify it) as saying, “Insulting ad hominem attacks on the witness’ basic reliability are one way to gauge the strength of a case.” I believe he was saying that if a debunker has to resort to attacking the witness as the only means of explaining the case, then it is more likely that the sighting is genuine.

Unfortunately, Hendry’s own data shows that witness reliability itself must be suspect. Also many sightings simply haven’t the data to draw from in order to investigate properly and, in such cases, it wouldn’t be logical to assign more points of probability –the witnesses are just as likely to be wrong as with those cases where there is enough data to investigate and subsequently identify the source of the observation.

References:

B.B. (4/19/2003) Gestures help words become memorable. Science News, Vol. 163 Issue 16, p254

Connell, Mary (2002)The Use of Eyewitness Research in the Courts. Presented at training seminars for Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Project

Dingwall, E. (1921). Magic and mediumship. Psychic Science Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 206-219.

Hendry, Allan (July 1977). “UFO or IFO? How IUR draws the distinction.” International UFO Reporter (IUR), pp 5-7.

Hendry, Allan (June 1978). “A Case For IFO Study: A Recent Example.” International UFO Reporter (IUR), pp 6-7.

Hulse L, Memon A & Allan K (2003) “Affecting memories: Emotional arousal and eyewitness testimony”. Fifth Biennial Meeting of SARMAC, Aberdeen, Scotland

Singer, B. and V. A. Benassi. (1980). Fooling some of the people all of the time. Skeptical Inquirer, Winter, pp. 17-24.

Wells, Gary L. and Olson, Elizabeth A.. (2003). “Eyewitness Testimony,” Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 277-295.

Wells, Gary L., Olson, Elizabeth A., and Charman, Steve D. (2003). “Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of feedback and delay,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 42-52.

Wiseman, R. J. and R. L. Morris. (1995) Recalling pseudo-psychic demonstrations. British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 113-125.

Bosnian Pseudo-archaeologist pulls wool over media eyes…

Bosnian Pseudo-archaeologist pulls wool over media eyes…

…and perhaps even my own, to some extent. I commented recently on the “Bosnian Pyramid” story with, perhaps, more optimism than skepticism a few days ago. But at least I was in good company. It seems that major media outlets were willing to print headlines like, “Scientists begin dig at Bosnian ‘pyramid’” (MSNBC), “Researchers Find Possible Evidence of Bosnian Pyramid” (Fox News), and “Dig for ancient pyramid in Bosnia” (BBC).

The real story seems to be how the media allowed itself to be duped. How the public is duped is understandable, we expect our major media sources to provide news that is fact-checked (okay, maybe we don’t expect these high standards from Fox…). Archaeology Magazine ran an article on 4/27/06 that discusses the media hype and points to some very questionable details about Semir (Sam) Osmanagic. In the earlier article on HOJ, I referred to him as “[a] Bosnian-American archeologist,” which is not exactly true. Indeed, it doesn’t appear to be true at all.

Apparently Osmanagic is what archaeologists commonly refer to as a “pyramidiot,” some one who finds undue significance in pyramid form and function and is a monger for the “mystery” surrounding them. Pyramidiots (different link) posit all sorts of silly notions like aliens built the pyramids at Giza, the Maya and Incan pyramids were constructed by a civilization that is related to that of ancient Egypt, etc.

These clues should have been more apparent in looking at Osmanagic’s site, the Bosnian Pyramid. He makes the pseudoscientific claim that nature is incapable of producing geometric shapes, which is echoed in claims that surround possible sites of Atlantis and the alleged “face” on Mars. He also presents his findings to the media, rather than for peer-review, generating a lot of hyperbole and attention, thus giving the impression of legitimacy.

The Archaeology article also quotes Osmanagic’s book, The World of the Maya, available online at www.alternativnahistorija.com. There, Osmanagic states, “The Mayan hieroglyphics tell us that their ancestors came from the Pleiades… first arriving at Atlantis where they created an advanced civilization.” He goes on to say that ancient cultures like the Maya, Inca, Sumerian, and Egyptian built temples that functioned as gateways to other worlds and dimensions.

Osmanagic offers as “proof of manmade” the “maze of tunnels” that he has allegedly discovered at the site as well as “stone blocks” that locals have been finding. In the 2 May 2006 news bit offered on his site, Osmanagic cites the fact that the pyramid has four sides that “match the points of the compass, facing north, south, east and west” as further evidence for artificiality. I’m starkly reminded of an individual that was making his internet rounds on sciforums claiming that Cydonia on Mars (including the “face“) was evidence of artificiality because of what appeared to be right angles.

The significance-junkie and mystery-monger will find no end to those willing to appeal to his sense of mystery or desire to find undue significance in natural coincidences. Maybe the Bosnian “pyramid” is man-made, but it doesn’t seem likely. Nor does it seem that there is a qualified and competent individual investigating the site for what genuine artifacts remain.

Chiro-Quackery? Is Chiropractic Care Science or Pseudoscience?

ChiroQuackery? Is Chiropractic Care Science or Pseudoscience?

There’s a great discussion going on at Anne’s Anti-Quackery & Science Blog between a pediatrician and a chiropractic “professional” that calls himself a “doctor.”

Clark Bartram of the blog, Unintelligent Design, posed the question, “how organs systems continue to function after transection of the spinal cord due to trauma” in response to Anne’s entry that questions the chiropractic industry with some well-known problems like the “fantasy” of subluxation and the occasional stroke that can result from simply cracking a neck. The “doctor of chiropractic,” Steven L. Vanden Hoek, responds to Bartram’s questions and criticisms with a list of studies and texts. This was about a month ago and Bartram hasn’t responded yet, but, as busy as he seems in the blogsphere, I can see how he may have forgot it.

Still, I’m eager to see what his response(s) may be. I’m not a medical professional and at the mercy of those with educations in the field when it comes to understanding the chiropractic industry and whether it’s just flim-flam or if there’s something to it. My gut tells me it’s poppycock, since there seems to be so much snake oil and salesmanship associated with it. Vanden Hoek’s own website looks like an advertisement more than a place to get information. Moreover, I’d trust a spinal manipulation to a medical professional that actually had to spend a significant chunk of his life educating himself (or herself) in the field of medicine. But I can’t say that I’d have as much confidence in someone that went to a trade school and came out in a few short years with a diploma that said “doctor.”

Maybe there’s a time and place to have a spinal manipulation, but chiropractors seem to be hobbyists compared to physicians; businessmen compared to actual doctors.

Skeptical links to chiropractic “medicine.”

Chiropractic’s Elusive “Subluxation”
Chiropractic’s Dirty Secret: Neck Manipulation and Strokes
Steer Clear of “Chiropractic Nutrition”
Chirobase – Your Skeptical Guide to Chiropractic History, Theories, and Practices
Operated by Stephen Barrett, MD, and Samuel Homola, DC
Improper Claims on Chiropractic College Web Sites
Skeptic’s Dictionary Entry
Do Chiropractors Treat Anything? Chiropractors claim they allow the body to heal itself. Medical professionals say that’s nonsense.
Subluxations not backed up by proof. Chiropractors still can’t prove that the misalignment” they claim to treat even exists.

Poetry in Science (or science in poetry?)

Poetry in Science

April was National Poetry Month and there were quite a few poems I noticed on the net with a science theme. Thinking about poetry in science, I was instantly reminded of a Feynman poem that I read in one of his books:

There are the rushing waves
mountains of molecules
each stupidly minding its own business
trillions apart
yet forming white surf in unison

Ages on ages
before any eyes could see
year after year
thunderously pounding the shore as now.

For whom, for what?
On a dead planet
with no life to entertain.

Never at rest
tortured by energy
wasted prodigiously by the sun
poured into space.
A mite makes the sea roar.

Deep in the sea
all molecules repeat
the patterns of one another
till complex new ones are formed.
They make others like themselves
and a new dance starts.

Growing in size and complexity
living things
masses of atoms
DNA, protein
dancing a pattern ever more intricate.

Out of the cradle
onto dry land
here it is
standing:
atoms with consciousness;
matter with curiosity.

Stands at the sea,
wonders at wondering: I
a universe of atoms
an atom in the universe.

— Richard Feynman

There were other poems about the blogsphere and internet that I noticed with a science theme. At Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted), there was this gem: Field Guide by James Gurley, dedicated to Ted Parker, ornithologist & conservationist, 1953-1993. Wonderful poem. She includes several others at Living the Scientific Life, but don’t miss The Microbe by Hilaire Belloc.

Along with The Obligatory poem from Emily Dickinson , Janet D. Stemwedel at Adventures in Ethics and Science notes the trivial fact that “nearly every Emily Dickinson poem can be sung to the tune of “The Yellow Rose of Texas”.” One of her readers responds that the source of this habit is from Dickinson’s childhood when she was exposed to hymnals of the same metrical pattern at church. But it was Stemwedel’s 4/26/06 entry that included Roald Hoffman’s an unusual state of matter that caught my eye. A nice touch was addition of outside links to the words monazite, cerium, lanthanum, thorium, yttrium, and phosphate!

Coturnix at Science and Politics posts a couple of zoological poems: The Axolotl and the Ammocoete by Walter Garstang and The Axolotl by David McCord. The Student Blog at HUNBlog uses a poem called Scenic Overlook to describe for students how poetry can use geological metaphor. HUNBlog has a section called StuBlog, which is geared for students. HUNBlog’s main purpose is science education and they seem to be doing a bang-up job.

Doubtless, there are other science-related poems out there, but these are the ones that I came across during the National Poetry Month of April 2006. Enjoy.

Pyramids in Bosnia

Pyramids in Bosnia

A Bosnian-American archeologist, Semir (Sam) Osmanagic, has begun a project to explore a 2,120 foot triangular mound in Visoko. The mound is called Visocica by the locals and excavations have uncovered what appears to be a network of human built tunnels.

The pyramid has been dubbed, “Bosanska Piramida Sunca (Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun) because of its similarity to the Pyramid of the Sun in the Teotihuacán Valley. Indeed, there are two other, smaller, pyramids, Moon and Dragon, which are linked by the team to the first and revealed by satellite and thermal imaging.

The Bosnian Pyramid website has numerous photographs and updates and includes the following:

…The hill is constructed using sandstone slabs that are buried 17 feet below the surface. Sandstone is not indigenous to the area, therefore the slabs had to have been moved to this spot.

…The shape of Visocica Hill is consistent with that of a pyramid, having four identical sides, with the exception of the front side which accesses a plateau. Nature does not make correct geometrical shapes like this and the rocks could not have been formed in this pattern by natural forces

…It is interesting that the blocks are covered with moss and so remain intact. Two blocks were discovered during the excavation we carried out and we can clearly see the sides of the two blocks and the area where they were joined together. We have done more cleaning on these joints and found that the sides between the joins are very finely ground.

Whenever I read or hear the words, “nature does not make correct geometrical shapes…” I’m immediately skeptical, since this has echoes of Bimini Roads or Yonaguni, where natural geology has mystery-mongers and significance-junkies convinced that a civilization flourished over 8,000 years ago to create monumental architecture that rivals that of Egypt.

Still, Osmanagic appears to have documented a fair bit of evidence that the site was certainly used by man. Whether it was entirely constructed or simply a set of natural features that were modified remains to be seen. I’m hopeful that this turns out to be a civilization that built architecture similar to that of Mesoamericans, since this could open a whole new field of study in archeology.

Review- Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life

Quite by accident, I discovered Alister McGrath’s book, Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, as I was browsing the stacks of my university library for another title. Having read much of the work of Richard Dawkins, my curiosity overcame my general disdain for theological writings and I promptly added the text to the pile under my arm & checked them out with the librarian.

McGrath begins his critique of Dawkins with very favorable words, citing how he “devoured with interest and admiration” Dawkins’ earlier series of books, which McGrath characterizes as “brilliant and provocative.”

Dawkins’ brilliance, it would seem, is limited in McGrath’s view to matters concerning zoology and biology but somehow less luminous for matters that concern McGrath’s beliefs with regard to religion and God. Indeed, the work seems to become more of an apologetic attempt to defend Christianity’s honor from the big, bad atheist.

McGrath criticizes Dawkins as well as Robert Ingersoll for asserting that “Darwinism is necessarily atheistic.” In his criticism of Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker, McGrath goes so far as to deride Dawkins for failing to include the word “God” in the index! This, he posits, is due to the Darwinian world that “Dawkins inhabits and commands” and that Dawkins “eliminates God altogether” in his work that is subtitled, Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. Many who have read the work have commented that Dawkins doesn’t so much “eliminate” God as he simply demonstrates that “design” is not necessary to explain the universe. McGrath is critical of Dawkins’ position that one must either accept Lamarckism, God, or Darwinism, but, since the first two fail as explanations, only Darwinism is left. But Dawkins, in the very quote that McGrath includes on the same page, states: “life in the universe is either Darwinian or something else not thought of.” Clearly, Dawkins isn’t saying that Darwinism is the only choice, but rather stating that Lamarckism and God do not offer viable explanations. To date, the Darwinian explanation along with its modern improvements provides us with the only viable explanation, though there may be “something else that is not yet thought of.”

McGrath further criticizes what he sees as Dawkins’ “absolute dichotomy between either Darwinism or God.” This assumption is reached by McGrath in spite of the statement “either Darwinian or something else not yet thought of.” Perhaps Dawkins does assert elsewhere that God doesn’t exist because Darwinism discredits him, though it isn’t apparent in the material cited by McGrath, who is critical, too, of Dawkins’ decision to choose an analogy that McGrath claims not to be “typical of the Christian tradition,” which is Rev. William Paley’s watchmaker analogy, popularized in his book Natural Theology. McGrath spends several pages exploring the history of this analogy, which are quite informative as we learn that Paley probably lifted his theory from naturalist John Ray of a slightly earlier time. However, Dawkins is right to criticize Paley’s work, regardless of McGrath’s opinion of its outdated nature, since it has been popularized by the pseudoscience of intelligent design (Dembski 2003). Admittedly, the Dembski article comes some years after The Blind Watchmaker, and others in Christianity may have “already rejected as inadequate” the watchmaker analogy, but it was and is still popular with certain influential fundamentalists of Christianity.

McGrath concludes at this point that “Dawkins’ atheism is inadequately grounded in the biological evidence,” yet he fails miserably in demonstrating this conclusion. Not one shred of actual biological evidence is discussed though it is thouroghly examined in The Blind Watchmaker as well as the earlier The Selfish Gene and, certainly, in The Ancestor’s Tale of Dawkins’ more recent work. McGrath seems content to say that the biological evidence Dawkins discusses cannot support his atheism, but he utterly fails to support the statement. Instead, McGrath is focused on the philosophical points that Dawkins involves himself with and refuses to digress on anything physical or tangible.

One of McGrath’s main criticisms of The Blind Watchmaker comes in his assertion that Dawkins’ Biomorph Programme is a “flawed” analogy that succeeds only in demonstrating the need for a creator to design the universe. Dawkins describes a computer program that was designed to take a target phrase and evaluate successive generations of 28 randomly ordered letters. It took the program only a few generations to get to the target phrase, “me thinks it is like a weasel.” The intervening generations were compared by the program to the target phrase and letters that were correct were correct and those that weren’t were allowed to mutate.

McGrath correctly points out that evolution hardly begins with a “target” of progression, but that wasn’t the point of the demonstration. McGrath also points out that the demonstration itself, including the computer and the program, were designed. True enough, but, again, this is irrelevant to the demonstration since the goal of the program was to demonstrate the process of cumulative selection as opposed to random selection.

Obviously it is that we need not “posit a God explanation” as implied by Dawkins’ work that really offends McGrath as it does many other Christian apologists. On page 58 of his book, McGrath poses the question, “[s]uppose we concede this point; what are its implications?” But McGrath doesn’t appear willing to answer the question. No exploration of existence without a god or creator is discussed. And, yet, he freely criticizes Dawkins for his alleged failure to take the “logical steps to conclude” the lack of necessity for a god. Other readers of Dawkins “brilliant and provocative” work would disagree and find that he very logically reaches the no-god conclusion. McGrath, however, simply goes on to enjoy a very informative discussion about Thomas Aquinas’ secondary causality argument.

Invoking the 13^th century CE view of theology by Aquinas seems only to have the point of illustrating the “God did it” argument, which McGrath asserts is logical since whatever science might say about the world, God could have made it that way, either directly of through “secondary causality.” I find this a bit of a cop-out from McGrath; particularly since the argument is concluded with the statement “there is no way that Aquinas’ approach can be described as a post hoc attempt to defend Christianity in response to a perceived threat from the new science of evolutionary biology.” This is the same Aquinas that advocated heretics be “separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death ( Summa Theologiae 1265-1272 II:II 11:3). Mentioning Aquinas’ opinion of heretics isn’t simply a device of character assassination. Aquinas was obviously moved to defend his religious beliefs from new paradigms that were emerging. Contemporaries like Roger Bacon was advocating empiricism and opposed the immorality of the church, so Aquinas didn’t need evolutionary biology to prompt him to basically assert that no matter what the Bacons of the 13^th century discover, it is all evidence of the glory of God.

McGrath’s inclusion of the “God did it” argument is almost juvenile, particularly with his conclusion that, since Aquinas pre-dates Darwin, it obviously must be a valid argument because he couldn’t have been attempting to refute Darwinism. Indeed, the inclusion of a self-validating argument that appeals to the wisdom of ancients like Aquinas presents precisely the failure he accuses Dawkins of: no logical progression. Where is the support for the claim that Dawkins fails to show a creator isn’t necessary? Is it in the words of a 13 ^th century CE theologian? Is it in the notion that no matter what science discovers about the universe, that’s the way God planned it?

Undeniably, a god or supreme deity cannot be excluded, but the sheer number of gods and deities that mankind has now and in the past makes pinning one or more down as the actual god of creation an impossible task, particularly since no god has ever been observed, nor is there any good evidence for one. A god can be assumed and speculated, but to suggest any specific deity is needed to explain the existence of the universe is intellectually dishonest. Particularly in the manner McGrath does, such as with capitalization of the “G,” which personalizes his deity with the very European notion of the anthropomorphic old, white guy formally known as Yahweh.

Citing Aquinas provides McGrath with no more credibility than if he cited the Flying Spaghetti Monster (and I challenge him to demonstrate that one has more evidentiary support than the other). Aquinas’ discussion of secondary causality is thought-provoking, but for the critical-thinker –the reasoned-thinker- the thoughts that are provoked in such discussions often include who caused the causer? Indeed, an infinite chain of “causers” becomes apparent, suggesting not one god, but an infinite number of gods that must be present in the universe. And, in a universe populated with an infinite number of gods, should we not expect to see more of them than stars, which are finite in number? What use would such a universe have with mere humans and other life forms? Particularly if each of the infinite number of gods were equally omniscient and omnipotent.

The logical conclusion that there is a god must also include that there are many gods, and that logic fails even for theologians. Dawkins’ assertion, therefore, is the true, logical choice: there simply is no necessity for a god in the universe. For a universe that is capable of creating a god, is certainly capable of creating itself without one.

Dawkins’ Engagement with Theology

McGrath refers to Dawkins “engagement with theology” as “superficial and inaccurate,” deriding Dawkins as often resorting to “cheap point scoring” on the subject of religious belief. McGrath quotes Keith Ward (1996) who characterizes Dawkins criticisms of religion as “systematic mockery and demonizing of competing views, which are always presented in the most naïve light” and McGrath criticizes Dawkins “tendency to misrepresent the views of his opponents” calling this “the least attractive aspect of his writings.” It would seem that McGrath finds that Dawkins’ characterization of faith to be the misrepresentation in question, though he fails at demonstrating how Dawkins is wrong. He says he’s wrong, but he doesn’t show why.

Faith as Blind Trust

“Faith means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence (Dawkins 1976: 198). McGrath asks, “why should anyone accept this ludicrous definition?” The first question the reader should ask in response is, “why is the definition ludicrous?” Perhaps it can be found in McGrath’s next query: “what is the evidence that anyone – let alone religious people – defines ‘faith’ in this absurd way?” For McGrath, this is, perhaps, one of the more offensive positions Dawkins has taken, and he criticizes in rapid-fire:

• Dawkins offers no defense of this definition
• The definition bears little relation to the religious sense of the word
• No evidence is presented that this is of a religious opinion
• No authority is cited
• McGrath doesn’t accept the definition
• McGrath has yet to meet a theologian that takes it seriously
• The definition cannot be defended from any official declaration of faith from any Christian denomination
• It is Dawkins own definition
• It is a definition constructed with Dawkins own agenda in mind
• The definition is represented as characteristic of those Dawkins wishes to criticize
• Finally, McGrath is worried that Dawkins really believes faith equates to blind trust ( McGrath 2005: 85)

It is at this point that McGrath’s readers may be following with bated breath in anticipation of a definition of faith that defies Dawkins’ own. Instead, we get one, single definition from a 19 ^th century theologian that focuses on “the heart and emotions,” but fails to contradict Dawkins.

[Faith] affects the whole of man’s nature. It commences with the conviction of the mind base on adequate evidence; it continues in the confidence of the heart of emotions based on conviction, and it is crowned in the consent of the will, by means of which the conviction and confidence are expressed in conduct (McGrath 2005: 86).

Of course, evidence adequate for the mind is often not the same as evidence that can actually be quantified or qualified. An assertion easily supported by noting the number of tarot readers, psychics, homeopathic healers, faith healers, UFO buffs, believers in alien abduction, and so on, that exist in modern society. It would seem that these people all have “faith” in the claims that are presented to them. I wonder if McGrath would suggest that there is evidence for tarot or alien-abduction. Perhaps.

The Oxford English Dictionary (2^nd edition 1989) provides the following definitions for faith:

Belief, trust, confidence.

1. a. Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine).

b. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority.

What is revealing is McGrath’s failure to show the evidence that exists in even the most simple matters of faith that exist for Christians: there is trust that Jesus was God incarnate; there is reliance in the doctrine of original sin; there is belief that an afterlife awaits those in good-favor; belief in immaculate conception; belief in resurrection; belief that Jesus walked on water and drove demons out of people and into swine. But not one shred of evidence exists to support a single matter of faith with regard to any of these.

Which brings us back to the question that all rational readers of Dawkins’ God should have asked: why is the definition of faith as blind trust ludicrous ?

McGrath, through Dawkins’ God, succeeds only in revealing his extensive knowledge of the philosophies and theologies of antiquity as well as expressing his disdain for atheism and the audacity of atheists, particularly Dawkins, that dare formulate opinions about the universe that exclude his particular god. There is no surprise that McGrath and other Christians (or believers of any religion or superstition where “faith” is required) would refuse to accept Dawkins’ definition of faith, since it points out the elephant in the room: there simply isn’t a shred of evidence to support the core beliefs of Christianity outside of a doctrine largely written by Bronze Age authors. This alone supports and provides the authority for Dawkins’ characterization of faith.

References:

Dawkins, Richard (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dawkins, Richard (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton.

Dembski, William (2003). Intelligent Design, Entry to Lindsay Jones’s Encyclopedia of Religion,http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm 2nd edition, found on the web at:

McGrath, Alister (2005). Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Ward, Keith (1996). God, Chance and Necessity. Oxford: One-World.

NEW: Richard Dawkins Interviews Alister McGrath

U.S. Marines Occupy Babylon – A Colonel’s offer for an apology

Among those who study archaeology or are at least familiar with the rich history of Mesopotamia, there’s been much concern for the archaeological sites of Iraq during the so-called "war on terror" that is being waged there. Sites like Ur, Uruk, Nimrud, Babylon and many others that are lesser known, but perhaps equally (if not more) important, have been affected.

 

A U.S. Marine Colonel has offered to issue an apology (one immediately wonders why not simply give an apology instead of an offer for one??) for the partial destruction of Babylon, where Nebuchadnezzar II was supposed to have built the famous Hanging Gardens, one of the " Seven Wonders of the Ancient World." U.S. Forces occupied the site and bull-dozed a large portion to create a helicopter pad. Sandbags were filled with matrix containing or artifacts, presumably potsherds and the like.

 

According to the online edition of The Independent’s article, U.S. and Coalition forces directly disturbed the site as follows:

 

* US Marines from the First Expeditionary Force first set up camp in Babylon in April 2003

* Soldiers filled protective sandbags with sand containing ancient artefacts

* 2,600-year-old pavements were crushed by heavy military vehicles

* Landing helicopters caused structural damage to some of the city’s ancient buildings and sandblasted fragile bricks in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar

* Archaeologists say gravel brought in to build car parks and helipads has contaminated key sites

* US troops have also been accused of causing damage to the 5,000-year-old city of Kish by the Iraqi Ministry for Tourism and Antiquities

 

 

In his offer to apologize (technically not an actual apology?), the colonel was quoted as saying, "If it wasn’t for our presence, what would the state of those archaeological ruins be?" I’m not offering this post to be a criticism of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, nor is it to deride our U.S. Forces -I was a member of the U.S. military for over 12 years and have very fond memories of my time served. Rather, I’m interested in the future of military operations in regions that have rich archaeological histories and how the military forces of the world operate with cultural preservation in mind. I’m certainly not saying that a military force should not occupy a strategic location that happens to be an archaeological site or that an opposing force would be at fault for assaulting such an occupying force -it’s very likely that the reason the site has archaeological significance is because it had strategic value in the past as well. And if a military force was moved to not assault a site because it was occupied by another, would that not motivate further occupation of archaeological sites as a way of shielding themselves?

 

But the way a military force operates around and in archaeological sites can still be managed to minimize damage to cultural heritage. If we aren’t moved to preserve culture in a foreign land, doesn’t this only give further credence to the assertion of selfish motives? The argument has been posited in many forums that the American military action in Iraq is about oil rather than the people. What better way to demonstrate this than by going out of the way here and there to preserve that people’s cultural heritage?

 

I was a part of the U.S. led coalition that invaded Iraq in 1990 in response to its unjust invasion of Kuwait. Unfortunately, I was in the Cradle of Civilization without any clue about its true significance -my archaeological calling coming much later in my life. But I can recall the destruction we were capable of and that of the opposing forces. Looking back, I see some of the damages that were done: rocket fire damaged the ancient ziggarat of Ur (picture coming); Tell al-Lahm was affected by American bulldozers; the ancient city of Der (modern Tell Aqar) was occupied and modified by the Iraqi military during the Iran-Iraq war which dug through the old temple, uncovered statues and obliterated contexts and provenience of artifacts and architecture.

 

A map of the sites threatened by military actions in Iraq shows the number of sites that are situated along the Tigris and Euphrates, a region that was populated for the same reasons it is today: agriculture and commerce. It may be that new levels will need to be added to the site plans of sites like Babylon and Uruk called the Coalition Levels.
 

18th Dynasty Tomb in Luxor

This has been in the news for several weeks now and isn’t new by any means, but I thought it would be nice to collect some information and links about the new discovery in Luxor, Egypt just 5 meters from the tomb of Tutankhamen. It’ll probably be years before any scholarly reports will be published on the tomb and anyone with an interest in Archaeology or Egyptology is probably like me, sitting at the edge of their chair with each new morsal of information.

The Egyptian State Information Service is calling the find a "cache of mummies," and is a vertical grave that starts about 3 m below the surface and is about 1.5 m wide and nearly 2 m in length. 20 airtight jars were also found along with the 5 wooden sarcophagi, which comprised the cache of mummies.

Archaeology Magazine’s online news page reported that the mummies "date to the 18th dynasty (1539 to 1292 B.C)"

The cache was discovered by The Institute of Egyptian Art and Archaeology at the University of Mephis , and their site reports that there are 7 sarcophagi and that the tomb is actually 25 m south of Tutankhamen’s. Director of the Institute and a member of the team, Dr. Lorelei Corcoran is quoted on their website as saying, ""We do not know as yet the names, titles or status of the individuals who may have been buried there … and will not know … until we can examine and analyze the material thoroughly. …"

Until then, we all wait with bated breath as the tomb, designated KV 63, is excavated and the artifacts analyzed.

-Carl Feagans

Does Scientism Exist?

The topic of “scientism” keeps coming up in conversations with both those who criticize the rigorous demands of the scientific method as well as through a short monograph on the internet (Menton 1991) with the title, Carl Sagan: Prophet of Scientism.

Interestingly enough, the term scientism exists among scholarly references and refers to the notion that science and the scientific method can be used to explain all that can be observed or experienced in the universe. This is consistent with logical positivism, which holds that there is an objectively knowable universe.

However, a different use of scientism has been co-opted, which implies that there are those within science that are to be derided as extremists or, at the very least, alarmists who reject critical thought and reason by denying “both the special revelation of truth and the existence of a sovereign, supernatural and external being (Menton 1991).” The assumption here is that science generally accepts the supernatural and spiritual “revelations” as valid methods of obtaining truths.

More often than not, the sources of these implications and assumptions originate with theistic proponents of creation mythology. Some, however, tactically avoid the direct association with creation and supernaturalism as if to provide plausible deniability if directly called on either to produce evidence or supporting references. It is, after all, difficult to logically prove that which cannot be tested, and the intellectual and educated theist wisely avoids this. The tactic, instead, appears to be to assert that there is a subculture called scientism, which is a moral and extremist faction of real science.

The overall thesis of this assertion seems to suggest that scientism as an extremist faction of science is somehow a danger to society, perhaps with its rampant atheism and certainly with its naturalistic and materialistic views of the universe.

Menton’s paper on the subject made Carl Sagan the focus of the anti-scientism movement (as it were). Menton accuses Sagan of being a “prophet” of scientism, which implies very clearly that the author believes this to be a new form of religion. Menton’s opening paragraph makes the unsupported claim that Sagan’s work consisted of “only a tissue of empirical science covering a great bulk of improvable speculation liberally laced with Sagan’s own philosophical and religious views of life.” Menton then states, very plainly, “Sagan’s religion […] is ‘scientism.'”

Menton’s article is short and falls even more short in delivering any support for either his claim that Sagan was a representative of a religion or that this religion of “scientism” actually exists. Menton’s derision of Sagan’s work goes little beyond merely stating that it is speculative and supported only be a “tissue of empiricism.” He does, however, criticize Sagan’s position (Cosmos 1996) that evolution is a fact and that it really happened. Menton is unconcerned with the enormous body of evidence that exists to support Sagan’s assertion and seems only interested in attempting to negatively affect Sagan’s credibility in the matters of science. In doing so, Menton invokes the words of Harlow Shapely, an apparent one-time professor of Sagan, who is alleged to have said, “some piously record, ‘In the beginning, God,’ but I say in the beginning hydrogen.” Menton then vastly oversimplifies Shapely’s contention by concluding that Shapely is suggesting hydrogen + time = H. sapiens as if the complex processes and mechanisms between hydrogen and civilization came about in a few days. I’m not sure what specific creationist beliefs Menton has, but it is interesting to note that he rejects the hypothesis that hydrogen, many billions of years, and untold energy can result in the universe as we know it. The irony is that he probably has little difficulty accepting that a mysterious, supernatural entity can speak the world into existence –complete with people in just a few days!

Menton mines several quotes from Sagan’s Cosmos, which he takes from their original contexts and juxtaposes with new a new context –the one of an atheistic scientist attempting to convert the masses to become godless heathens. Menton’s deception isn’t very subtle. He quotes Sagan from a 1980 newspaper article as saying, “I feel in order to survive we someday must be able to give up our allegiance to our nation, our religion, our race and economic group and think of ourselves more as just a temporary form of life under the creation of a power beyond our comprehension.” Menton cites the St. Louis Globe-Democrat as the source but immediately follows the quote with “Sagan concludes that if man is to worship anything greater than man himself, it should be something which amounts to the pagan worship of nature,” to which Menton follows with another Sagan quote mined from Cosmos (p243): “Our ancestors worshiped the Sun, and they were far from foolish. And yet the Sun is an ordinary, even mediocre star. If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to revere the Sun and stars?”

Perhaps Menton truly believes that Sagan’s position was that the sun should be worshipped and that a pagan religion was necessary. But a look at page 242 of Cosmos and reading on through 243 reveals the context of Sagan’s words. The chapter these pages reside in is titled The Lives of Stars and Sagan is describing the power of a star on the community of planets from which one is lucky enough to be able to support life. He was noting that the power of the sun did not go unnoticed to man and the footnote that was attached to the quote was this: “The early Sumerian pictograph for god was an asterisk, the symbol of the stars. The Aztec word for god was Teotl, and its glyph was a representation of the Sun. The heavens were called the Teoatl, the godsea, the cosmic ocean.” The very next paragraph that follows the quote begins with, “The Galaxy is an unexplored continent filled with exotic beings of stellar dimensions.”

Even Menton couldn’t have missed the literary devices of metaphor and hyperbole which Sagan effectively utilized to convey the enormity and power that a star has, even a “mediocre” one such as our Sun.

Menton was again disingenuous with Sagan’s words when he quoted UFO’s: A Scientific Debate (Sagan & Page 1972, p.xiv): “[s]cience has itself become a kind of religion.” Menton inserts the period that follows “religion” as if that is the end of the thought, leaving the reader with the impression that the “prophet of scientism” has spoke and the movement begun. But to add context and truth to the eight words quote-mined by Menton, it is important to note that “religion” is punctuated with a trailing comma and the sentence completes with, “and many pronouncements cloaked in scientific attire are blandly accepted by much of the public.” Clearly Sagan and Paige (the co-editor Menton so conveniently omits to credit) are providing an introduction to the thesis of the collection of articles to which they are the editors of in UFO’s, which is that science must contain skepticism and critical thought in order to balance the pop-culture appeal that it has attained.

What then is the purpose of criticizing notable figures of science with charges of “scientism” and of starting a “religion?”

For the theistic apologetics of creationism and it’s guise under the form of “intelligent” design, this question’s answer lies in an agenda to justify beliefs and promote doubt among believers. Indeed, the much talked about “wedge strategy” dictates, among it’s goals, to seed doubt among lay persons regarding the validity of the science behind evolutionary processes in order to further the creationist agenda.

References

Menton, D. N. (1991). Carl Sagan: Prophet of Scientism (Get the Facts). Retrieved 13106, from Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.: http://www.gennet.org/facts/sagan.html.
Sagan, C. (1986). Broca’s Brain. New York: Ballantine Books.
Sagan, C. (1996). Cosmos. New York: Ballantine Books.
Sagan, C., & Druyan, A. (1997). The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York: Ballantine Books.
Sagan, C., & Page, T. (1972). Introduction. In C. Sagan & T. Page (Eds.), Ufo’s: A Scientific Debate (p. xiv). New York: W W Norton & Co Inc.