To the Editors,
Regarding Michael
Shermer's articles in your November and December, 2001 issues (Baloney Detection
- parts I and II); I have some concerns, and a rebuttal--of sorts. Please
feel free to use any part of this letter, if it still seems appropriate.
I'm likely to ramble, as I have a fair amount to say, though I'll try to be
brief.
I believe strongly in
Mr. Shermer's assertion that we need to test the validity of our own
assumptions, rather than accepting the beliefs of others as fact. I also
think Sagan's idea, that people need to have some kind of "Baloney
Detection" system to sort out what is reasonable or scientifically valid from
what is fanciful and speculative, is entirely accurate. I therefore
applaud what Michael Shermer is trying to do. However, after careful
reading and comparison, I find many flaws in Mr. Shermer's reasoning, and these
are disturbing since they encourage people to rule out potentially sound ideas,
without establishing a logical basis for such action. Let it be known
that I can detect a fair amount of baloney in Michael Shermer's
article.
Indeed, I find that
making a point by point comparison with the list of logical fallacies found in
my Basic Logic book from College (Machina - Basic Applied Logic ©'82)
leaves Mr. Shermer's article looking rather suspect, as some of his points
reduce to logical fallacies (or a combination thereof) in the degenerate
case. His very first point is a clear re-statement of the ad
hominem fallacy, of which he seems especially fond. Some of his
other points can likewise be easily mis-applied. This makes his
recommendations an unsuitable platform to advocate as appropriate for
open-minded people, especially in these enlightened times. There is a real
danger for people to believe in pseudo-science because they don't know any
better, but we should take care not to compound the problem by resorting to
logical fallacies and clinging to outdated beliefs, or advocating this for the
Scientific community.
I am
of the opinion that most ordinary people live as though the profound discoveries
of the early 20th century never happened. The implications of Relativity
and Quantum Mechanics should force people to re-evaluate some elements of
"common-sense" reasoning, especially the linear aspects of conventional logic,
in favor of what Jung calls Paradoxical Logic. Instead of either-or, we
should be thinking in terms of multiple probabilities. Mr. Shermer gives
this concept some vague attention at the end of his second article, but
what he says is somewhat misleading. It is quite understandable that
this subject is a difficult conceptual landscape for some to navigate,
but for Science to grow strong, it must incorporate known truths into its
knowledge-infrastructure.
Thus, where I am
sympathetic when ordinary folks have a hard time with difficult concepts, I hold
professionals to a higher standard, and I regard it as deplorable that
so much mechanistic reductionism is at work, in the world of Science
today. Saddest of all, the Life Sciences appear to have the
worst case of this malady. In this vein, I find several of Mr. Shermer's
comments rather discouraging since it appears he would have us keep
the status quo, or even wipe out some of the progress we've made towards
understanding a reality which shows us it is more complex than we imagine again,
and again. Rather than asking us to limit ourselves to what we
already know, I would rather see Scientific American encouraging people to
boldly explore new avenues of inquiry, and new ways of thinking about
things. What we have learned in the past few years exceeds decades, or
even centuries, of work in some areas (e.g.- Cosmology).
If he wants to be a
watchdog of the truth, Mr. Shermer should take note of how much we now know
is real, which was once thought to be insubstantial or non-existent. What
is real includes far more than the naked eye can see. In my opinion, true
logic goes way beyond the principle of mutual-exclusion, and includes all that
is possible, excluding only that which we know can not be true. Sometimes,
like Sherlock Holmes, we will discover that what we first thought very unlikely
is what's real, after all. Of course, our knowledge always changes,
as new discoveries and clearer measurements will eventually supersede
earlier understandings. Mr. Shermer's article seems to suggest that
we should rule out what we can't clearly demonstrate. Does this mean that
we should assume there was no magnetism or electricity, before we came to
understand and harness these forces? We know that this doesn't help us
find what is real.
Does Michael Shermer do
Scientific American readers a disservice, by asking us to disbelieve what we do
not understand, rather than assuming it is merely something which we do not yet
comprehend, can not yet verify the existence of, or do not know the value
of. I have questions about a good many things which it would seem Mr.
Shermer might just dismiss. For example, he speaks as though he knows
the origin of artifacts from Ancient Egypt, and it makes me wonder. I read
an article by a Materials Scientist, which described the maker's marks left by
various fabrication techniques, and the relative occurrence of different kinds
of marks on Egyptian stone artifacts of various ages. It seems that we
have only developed the techniques in the last 50 years, to duplicate some of
the maker's marks reported to be on some rather old and well known artifacts
(i.e.- the tomb in the King's chamber), and we use ultrasound to do it.
Does Mr. Shermer propose that we need to actually find an ancient milling
machine, to know that some kind of advanced technology was used.
This is not to say
that I necessarily believe what I read to be accurate. Nor do I claim to
know how it was done. I would like to see this subject examined further,
however, to have a team of scientists look for makers' marks, and watch modern
people attempt to re-create some of the work they find, down to the last
detail. I am willing to believe that some ancient humans were smarter than
we think. Just because we pursued a certain route to high technology, it
doesn't mean that ancient people would be incapable of developing certain
technological marvels of their own. So what, if we have to re-write our
timeline, concerning the emergence of culture? Whether ETs were involved
is not an issue for me, at this time. Some things which are of great
scientific interest need to be examined with an open mind, however. We
should not let the outlandish explanations of a few radical thinkers deter us
from studying the legitimate issues that remain to explore.
Also, Mr. Shermer should
get his terms straight, if he is going to be accurate. His statement about
the likelihood of UFOs is technically inaccurate. I believe he meant to
say that there is only an 0.1 probability that someone, somewhere, saw an IAC
(Identifiable Alien Craft). I would say that the likelihood that someone,
somewhere, saw something flying in the sky which they could not identify (a
UFO), is far closer to the 0.9 probability he ascribes to other events.
I'm surprised that nobody has pointed out this bit of vocabulary, during his
speaking engagements.
I currently have no
career in Science, so I have nothing to risk by speaking my mind on this
subject. I have often wanted to de-bunk the scientific establishment, but
for now I'm more interested in expanding people's vision of what is real (or
possible). My recent studies have focused on the subject of observability
and verifiability, in a Quantum-Mechanical context. This subject matter is
really what makes Shermer's article(s) so poignant for me. My current
research involves the role of the Zero-Brane in our Cosmological origins, and
the process by which measureability arises. My findings raise
questions which are clearly Epistemological in nature, and I'm relatively
certain that Mr. Shermer will find fault with my work (given his views), if he
takes the time to read it. Both how I came into my knowledge and what
I am learning about puts my work squarely into speculative areas which he finds
objectionable, but its truth value remains consistent, with or without his
assent.
I'm sure there will be
many like Mr. Shermer, who will reject my work out of hand, because I often
mix the scientific and the speculative. On the other hand, I do hope
that there will be those who will examine the findings themselves, and attempt
to either verify my work or disprove it. My earlier work involving a
Cosmology based upon the Mandelbrot Set was largely pseudo-scientific, by the
standards of Mr. Shermer's article, but that idea also remains as valid as it
is, or is not. The only "pseudo" aspect of that work is a by-product of
the fact that I tried to show that my theory described an evolution of the
universe similar to Big Bang cosmology, where I should have been more bold, and
told it like it is. I didn't have a plausible explanation for the
departure, however, at the time. The real result (not
made-to-fit) describes a cosmological scenario more like the
consensus we see emerging. The exciting part is that my current work
with the Zero-Brane seems to finally explain why the Mandelbrot Set
appears isomorphic to Cosmology.
Regards,
Jonathan J.
Dickau
8 Lynn
Road
Poughkeepsie, NY
12603
Phone:
845-462-5581
E-mail: jond4u@bestweb.net
© 2002 - Jonathan J. Dickau - all rights reserved
Single copies of this document are allowed, for
reference or for personal use, but reproduction
for commercial purposes is not permitted.
Go To
Doubting the Doubter
(why I have become critical of skeptics)
Return to
Feature Articles
Return to
Independent
Thinking
Sent to the Editors at Scientific American
on February 7, 2002
Posted here on February 28, 2002
Thank You
-jd