SGU Episode 56

This episode is in the middle of being transcribed by Hearmepurr (talk) as of 2023-02-07, 07:52 GMT. To help avoid duplication, please do not transcribe this episode while this message is displayed.

This episode needs: transcription, time stamps, formatting, links, 'Today I Learned' list, categories, segment redirects. Please help out by contributing!

How to Contribute

SGU Episode 56
August 15th 2006
(brief caption for the episode icon)
SGU 55                      SGU 57
Skeptical Rogues
S: Steven Novella
B: Bob Novella
R: Rebecca Watson
E: Evan Bernstein
P: Perry DeAngelis
Links
Download Podcast
Show Notes
Forum Discussion

Introduction

You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.

S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptic Guide to the Universe. This is your host, Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Today is Tuesday, August 15^th, 2006. Joining me this evening are Rebecca Watson...

R: Hey everybody!

S: Bob Novella...

B: Hey everyone!

S: Evan Bernstein...

E: Hi out there!

S: ...and Perry DeAngelis.

P: Right.

S: How are you all this evening?

P: Very good.

B: Good Steve.

E: Excellent. Fantastic.

S: We have a great interview this week. Ken Fader, a Skeptical Archaeologist. We'll be on in just a moment, but first a couple news items and emails.

News Items

Attitudes toward Evolution Survey (0:54)

• Put the blame where it belongs: God and the Republican Party

S: I know you all have seen the survey about attitudes towards evolution that was published recently, where the United States finished almost dead last in terms of support for evolution.

P: How unusual.

S: The United States came out around 40% false, 20% not sure and 40% true.

P: I blame religion.

S: The only country that did worse than us was Turkey.

R: Take that Turkey. Sorry.

S: The Scandinavians that were towards the top, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, were near the top at around 80%.

P: Very fair and bright people.

E: In many ways.

P: Yeah, you know, I mean, what are you going to do? So we're a bunch of backward baboons. I mean, isn't that proof enough?

R: And didn't that survey show that England was kind of creeping up on us too?

S: The UK was near the top. They were around 70%.

R: Their numbers have gotten worse in the past few years.

S: It's a long way to go, though. So they're going to long fall before they get to us.

R: I think we're importing our religion.

E: Is this the first time they've done a survey like this? For instance, 20 years ago, maybe only 30% of the population believed in the truth of evolution and maybe we've increased since then.

S: It's been remarkably steady over the last 30, 40 years.

E: Yeah.

P: So the seaming rise of the religious right hasn't really impacted the number. That's surprising.

S: It hasn't. It actually has not.

P: That's surprising.

S: It's good to know. There's no way we beat out Turkey.

P: That's wonderful.

E: One down, 40 to go.

B: I want to blow this country. It's disgusting.

S: And move to Iceland?

P: Yeah, that's all. Blow this bird and move to Iceland. Why not?

S: No, but this country needs us, right? Where else we're more needed than it is.

B: I could do the podcast from Iceland.

S: We could.

R: Also, they have, they have Bjork.

P: I think that's true. That's true. They do.

Water Tree (2:51)

• Water spouting tree mystery solved

S: Other skeptical news this week. You guys heard it. I know you guys have seen the mysterious water spouting tree in San Antonio, Texas.

R: You could ever imagine that a tree could have water in it. (laughter) It's a miracle! Run for your lives.

P: This was only leaking. I said, we were talking about this briefly off air and Rebecca said it was owned by a woman. In fact, she's correct. [inaudible] is the owner of the tree. I, like I said, I've seen it on television. It's squirting like, the best way I could explain is if you were to squirt water through your teeth at a pretty good clip. That's how the water's coming out of the tree.

S: Yeah, the steady stream of water. This is a hundred year old red oak tree. And so far-

P: It's in San Antonio, Texas.

S: -they're not really sure how this is happening. The leading hypotheses so far are that there is some kind of water pressure under the tree, whether it's well or just an underwater spring. And there must be some channel in the tree for whatever reason. And it's pushing the water up through this channel and out a hole on the side of the tree. Of course, the popes are subscribed to the hypothesis that this is miracle water.

E: Miracle water.

R: A perfectly logical hypothesis. Don't dismiss it.

S: Lucille insisted God bless the tree for the water to come out. And I say whatever god makes is good.

E: And did she mention which god?

S: She did not.

E: It's too bad.

P: Poseidon?

R: Let's not go running to science without first considering the possibility that it's magic.

P: Occam's razor would lead you right to the conclusion that it's Jesus.

S: How can you argue with this logic? She says: "Water runs down. It don't run up." So there you go. It must be an miracle.

E: Except in Neil Adams's world.

S: That's almost as profound as no atoms.

P: That's penetrating logic. I must admit. It's hard to get by.

R: Can it also just be a burst water pipe?

S: That was a suggestion too. There might be a burst water pipe underneath there. Something is putting this water under pressure. That's all you need.

P: And they ruled out broken water mains. And a hydrologist who tested the water said he couldn't tell the difference between the water issuing from the tree and the aquifer in the area.

S: Right.

P: Under the underground water base.

S: So it's just the water table.

P: Like you said, there's obviously some kind of pressure under there. Some channel in the tree.

R: Maybe a magical channel. Just putting that out there, not saying it's bad.

S: Obviously, I mean, come on. We all know this isn't god. Obviously it's leprechauns, please. Let's not avoid the obvious conclusion here.

B: I'm convinced.

S: Now-

P: Druids, tree sprites.

Questions and E-mails (5:48)

S: Your emails keep pouring in. We appreciate it. We have lots of very great and interesting and provocative emails.

R: You know, they're okay, but I'd like to see a few more emails praising me. That's all. Is that too much to ask?

S: You're below your quota.

R: Yeah, I really am. I don't know what's happening in the vast. I went on vacation and when I came back, everybody had just forgotten about me.

S: Yeah, you got to work harder.

R: Ah, work. Works for suckers and you.

Email #1: Abiogenic Origin for Oil (6:17)

I work in the oilfield industry, and I thought of a controversy for you. Have you ever heard of the abiotic or abiogenic origin of oil (see for instance en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin)? It seems to be prevalent in some Russian oilfield related circles. I do not believe it to be sound science, but it is intriguing to see it appear every now and then, albeit rarely, in otherwise 'informed' circles. Is this a topic that is sometimes discussed in the skeptics' community? Best regards,
–Stephane Virally Paris, France

S: The first email comes from Staphane Verale from Paris, France.

R: Isn't that Stefan?

S: Whatever. (laughter) It's S-T-E-P-H-A-N-E. It looks like Staphane to me. Whatever.

E: It could be Stephanie.

S: Probably not, though.

P: It's got to be anything but Staphane.

S: I don't know. It's French.

P: Du-mas. So what did Stevie have to say?

S: All right, all right, Staphane. (laughter)

P: From now on, you have to send your emails phonetically.

E: Phonetically.

S: If you want us to actually pronounce your name. He writes: "I work in the oil field industry and I thought I have a controversy for you. Have you ever heard of the A-biotic or A-biogenic origin of oil?" And he gives a link. "It seems to be prevalent in some Russian oil field related circles. I do not believe it is sound science but it is intriguing to see it appear everywhere now and then albeit rarely and otherwise informed circles. Is this a topic that is sometimes discussed in the skeptics community?"

P: Oh, yes. We were talking about it last night. I was saying how do oil, I don't even understand what he's talking about.

R: Well, I'm assuming it means oil that just pops up out of nowhere, right?

E: No, oil that is not.

R: A-biogenically.

P: It just leaks out of a tree. What is he talking about?

E: Oil that is not organic.

B: Right, right.

P: Okay. Okay.

S: Bob, straighten this guys out.

B: Well, not surprised he's heard it in Russia, that it's Department of Russia. The way it was first deposited in the 50s by Russian and Ukrainian scientists. Basically, as the name suggests that it's the hypothesis that oil primarily comes from non-biological sources. It's not much support for this theory. The idea of a biogenic hydrocarbons or petroleum is that it is not created by-log from biological organisms that is created naturally from materials that were in the earth billions of years ago that it is cooked up under high temperature and pressure in the mantle, not in the cross but in the much deeper mantle and slowly makes its way up to the surface where we can get at it. The idea is some people say, well, how could that be? There's biological material inside hydrocarbons, inside petroleum. These people say that bacteria, that there's a thriving immense community of bacteria in the mantle of the earth and that these bacteria actually live off this material. Therefore, it makes sense that we would find some of their biological remains in the hydrocarbons, the biogenic origin of oil, which most geologists subscribe to, is organic life is either in the sea floor or in the bogs and swamps, settled to the bottom and then over years it gets buried under sediment and with moderate pressure and heat, you've got hydrocarbon molecules being created and that's pretty much what the geological community believes. It seems all the evidence is pointing to it now, it's important to point out that abiogenic hydrocarbons, it does happen. Scientists do believe that yes, this does happen but it's minimal. The bottom line, I've got a great quote here from geologist Dale Allen Fyfer and he's summed it up very nicely. He said "The theory of organic origin of oil evolved gradually and has been refined through many decades of investigation and observation. It does its superb job of explaining the observed phenomenon and predicting new discoveries and it's consistent with the mechanics of geology. The abiotic hypothesis remains just that a hypothesis which is failed in prediction and so cannot be elevated to a theory. It is completely ignored by the oil industry worldwide and even within Russia and that's the final testament to its failure."

R: I guess that's a big no.

S: Doesn't make predictions, that's the bottom line.

B: So it's not, you really can't even call it a theory. And one of the reasons why this is so controversial is the fact that if the a-biogenic origin of oil is correct, that would mean that the oil reserves of the earth would be immense. We would literally, couldn't possibly use it all in many, many centuries or even thousands of years there would be so much of it.

P: Sounds like cold fusion right do, right?

E: Oh yeah.

R: Yeah. It's amazing how pseudoscience can work its way into any field of study.

B: And not only that, there's also a thriving conspiracy theory around this. As you could imagine, people are saying that they know that this is how it's created and that there's lots of hydrocarbons and petroleum available but of course they don't, they want to artificially inflate the price so they're not admitting it. It's just a huge-

P: I hate they.

S: They are stupid. The conspiracy theorists must believe that all working scientists are these maniacal mad scientists working for evil corporations. That's got to be their view of the scientific community.

R: Whoa, Steve, you're saying they're not? You just destroyed my worldview.

E: Well scientists invented the world mwahahahaha.

S: Alright, let's go on to our next email.

Email #2: Dinosaur Petroglyphs (12:01)

Do you have any idea what this petroglyph might be depicting? Creationist websites claim it is a dinosaur. See www.bible.ca/tracks/native-american-dino-art.htm. Thanks very much.
–Peggy Hall

S: This one comes from Peggy Hall and Peggy writes: "Do you have any idea what this petroglyph might be depicting?" She gives a link which will of course have on our notes page. "Creationists websites claim it is a dinosaur." Petroglyphs are pictures written or spatially scratched on the surface of stone. These are common in the Americas, they were left behind by many American Indian tribes. Many of them depict animals. Animals that they hunted. There are many that are basically outlines of human hands. Again, believe that people often would sign their work by basically tracing their hands.

P: They're bored and trace their hands on the rock.

S: Or we just do it for fun.

R: I do that all the time.

P: I know.

R: There are a lot of petroglyphs that nobody really knows what they are.

S: That's true. Although the creationist literature and creationists websites are full of references to a few petroglyphs that purport to depict dinosaurs. The one that Peggy sent is probably one that's been around for a long time.

R: It's kind of cute.

S: It's kind of cute. It's basically an oval with a few lines coming off of it. You can imagine that one of the lines is a leg, one is a neck. I guess the other one would have to be a leg that merges with a tail because it really aren't two separate lines. I don't know if that was meant to look like a dinosaur or if it's something else entirely, some more abstract or crude figure. One of the possibilities here is that this petroglyph and maybe some others are genuine. They are ancient and they were made by Native Americans centuries ago. But they're just not depicting dinosaurs. They're just something else. They're vague enough where it doesn't have to be a dinosaur. But there are other petroglyphs that are clearly dinosaurs. They cannot be a misinterpretation of something else. There is sufficient detail that you know this is a picture of a Brontosaurus. Some even have the little triangular spikes along the back of the spine. There's enough detail. They look a little cartoonish. The problem with these as evidence, of course the creationist websites are citing these as proof positive that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. The problems with this line of evidence are twofold. First, you can't date these petroglyphs because the rock is as old as the rock is. There's really no method for saying how long ago these pictures were scratched into them. The carbon dating doesn't apply and the rock's as old as they are. They can't be dated. Second is that all of the petroglyphs allegedly depicting dinosaurs were discovered after dinosaurs were discovered. Only after the pictures of dinosaurs were in the popular consciousness. It's not as if these were discovered a couple hundred years ago when they were in the record as existing as known archaeological findings and then only later were dinosaurs discovered and said, hey this is a dinosaur. So that is a problem for the utility as evidence. Actually is a third reason which is an all archaeologist who studied petroglyphs know and accept this, all petroglyph findings are contaminated by modern fakes. Some obviously so, there never were intended to be hoaxes or to portray themselves as possibly ancient petroglyphs. They're just like people adding their own graffiti or art to the wall of petroglyphs. The public has access to all of these areas. There are none that are where there is the security or whatever is so tight that the public could not get access to them. So the evidence is totally contaminated which means that they're certainly not sufficient of a line of evidence to establish the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.

P: Totally feeble.

S: Yeah, it is feeble.

P: It really is.

R: I just keep looking at the pictures and they have one of the triceratops. It looks like a cow to me. It definitely looks like a cow. And some of the other ones, I've got one word, peyote.

S: Peyote.

R: You know?

S: So I was thinking lame, that was my way.

R: And they say you draw a lot of crazy stuff.

S: Let's do one more email before we go on to our interview.

Email #3: Acupuncture (16:47)

In response to the question of which phenomena that were once denied by skeptics but have since become scientifically verified: I think acupuncture is a perfect example (and one of a very few I could think of). It was as ridiculed and placed in the same category as current pseudoscientific practices but has since been accepted by physicians and the scientific community as effective. Now in regards to the theory of why it works, you could say the 'chi' model is still in the realm of pseudoscience, but nonetheless the actual practice seems to work.
–Haig Shahinian, California

S: This one comes from Haig Shahinion from California and Haig writes "In response to the question of which phenomenon that were once denied by skeptics but have since become scientifically verified, I think acupuncture is a perfect example. And one of the very few I could think of. It was ridiculed and placed in the same category as current pseudoscientific practices but has since been accepted by physicians in the scientific community as effective. Now in regards to the theory of why it works, you could say that the chi model is still in the realm of pseudoscience but nonetheless the actual practice seems to work." This was in fact the only submission that we got. Last week we were given the question, 40 years ago what was dismissed by skeptics which has since been scientifically proven to be true. And we couldn't think of anything. And I asked our listeners to send in examples. This was the only example that was set in. And I have to honestly say I disagree with this example of acupuncture.

P: Definitely.

S: Acupuncture is a complex example because saying acupuncture is like saying chiropractic or is like saying almost like saying alternative medicine. It's actually a huge collection of claims. Some of which, most of which, are and remain purely pseudoscientific. The notion that there is life force, chi flowing through the body and you can manipulate it by sticking needles in the nodes where these lines of life force cross which is the theoretical basis of, it's actually a superstitious basis of acupuncture. That's a pre-scientific notion that is purely superstitious and pseudoscientific. The idea that there are any health benefits or positive benefits to acupuncture, it's a little bit more complicated. But it's important to note that there are a great many health claims made for acupuncture and the majority of them are purely pseudoscientific. It's not supported by any evidence or any theoretical basis. Now when you start to talk about symptom relief, the question gets a lot mudier. A lot of people think that acupuncture is effective for pain, nausea, addiction has been claimed. And in fact, if you look at all of the studies that have been published for these symptom claims for acupuncture, still it is not proven. Still it remains mostly negative.

P: Symptom relief is so vague. So many things can relieve your symptoms, not the least of which is time.

R: It's also really, really difficult to do a double blind experiment with acupuncture.

S: Yeah, absolutely.

R: The limits of finding somebody who knows what they're doing but doesn't know enough about what they're doing to know where they're going to put the needles.

S: Well, the placebo was often called sham acupuncture. And actually most of the time in most of the studies, they employ actual acupuncturists who then just put the needles in the wrong place, rather than the "correct place".

R: But of course the problem with that is that then the acupuncturist knows who's going to have a damn treatment.

S: Exactly right, which is, that has yet to be factored out. So it really needs to be triple blinded. But unfortunately they haven't figured out how to do that yet.

R: The dreaded triple blind.

P: But the bottom line is, the thing is still based on chi. It's magical thinking.

S: Well, that's where you get a little bit more complex because it's possible. Let's say that, of course, the whole chi thing is pseudoscience and wrong. But what if you are actually sticking needles into the body?

P: So as you said, at least something's happening. It's not like homeopathy.

S: So it's not impossible that by chance, they hit upon something which has some kind of physiological effect which can be exploited for some symptom relief. Now the prevailing speculative hypothesis to how it could be working is the counter irritation theory. It's basically that you're stimulating one neurological pathway and that's inhibiting other neurological pathways. To give you an everyday example to explain is if you bang your elbow against something hard and it hurts, what do you typically do?

E: You rub it.

S: You rub it. That's your natural instinct. Rubbing it makes it feel better. It deadens the pain. Because you're activating these non-painful sensory pathways and they're inhibiting the painful sensory pathways and it makes the pain less severe. So perhaps acupuncture has that kind of non-specific effect. It's no more effective than rubbing what hurts, basically. So that's certainly that is possible. Whether or not it has a measurable clinically significant effect in chronic pain has really yet to be established. Now proponents always point to the studies that are published that are positive but you have to realize there are hundreds of studies with acupuncture and of course out of any set of hundreds of studies you can pick out the positive ones. If you look at all of the studies actually at the bulk of them are negative and there does seem to be a pretty good correlation where the better design studies have a greater tendency to be negative. Again, there are still, yes, there are a couple of positive studies but none of them without significant flaws. Either they're not properly blinded or there was a huge dropout rate. The data is very weak and it certainly has not risen to the point that it's established scientifically. And even if it turns out that there's some measurable counter irritation effect it does not validate the bulk of the claims that are being made for medical acupuncture. And so there's also a danger in thinking about it as one big thing.

P: But the goal of sticking in those needles according to the acupuncturist is to manipulate the chi. And remember, chi spelled backwards is crap.

E: And there are also 365 of these meridian points on the body supposedly one for each day of the year.

S: Well, that's classic origin of acupuncture but over the intervening centuries the number of points is multiplied to the thousands. So now it's hard to find a place on the body that isn't the acupuncture point. None of the studies really convincingly show that where you stick the needles makes a difference. And whenever the studies are negative the pro acupuncture is say, well, that's because the sham acupuncture was actually accidentally real acupuncture because where they were sticking the needle also works. And there could be a sort of non specific effect to the whole process of getting acupuncture. Often you see the acupuncturist you lay on the table and I've actually spoken to acupuncturists about this and like one of them told me that he actually said, by the time you stick the needles in, actually most of the therapeutic effect it has already occurred. And the patient's in like an incense filled room with pleasant music. They're laying on the table. You actually palpate the points that you're going to insert.

R: You're palpating.

S: Yeah, so you get relaxation, a little bit of gentle massage and and sure, that's going to have some, you're going to feel better when you go through that process and the fact that they're sticking needles and you may be completely incidental to the beneficial effect.

E: Well, I hear you lose a little bit of weight with each acupuncture treatment. You're a little lighter in the wallet. So you leav a little bit lighter.

S: One final little comment about acupuncture while we're on this topic is a lot of people will cite the cases of acupuncture anesthesia and basically people having surgery with nothing but acupuncture. And so far, no one has been able to substantiate any case of that. That in fact, that these are either hoaxes or the anesthesia included a little bit of morphine in the IV fluid, which they should get the time.

P: Oops.

S: There's a great story.

P: Yeah, that's a good story.

S: The great story told by a colleague of mine at Yale who actually went to China to investigate a specific surgeon who claimed he was able to do surgery under acupuncture anesthesia alone. And he was in the operating room observing the procedure. The patient who was behind the sterile blanket to keep the surgical field sterile was saying something. He was saying something in Chinese. He didn't understand. He was saying a single word over and over again. I think it was pong. Pong, pong, over and over again. And the neurologist who's my colleague said to this translator, what is that guy saying? So he leaned closer to the guy so he could hear what he was saying and then said, oh, he's saying pain, pain, pain. So the translator then said something in Chinese to the surgeon. The surgeon then yelled at the patient and the patient shut up. That was acupuncture anesthesia. So which is interesting because it's only in this culture, could something like that exist and that the Asians have a much higher pain threshold than Westerners do. And also their submissiveness to authority like the authority of the surgeon is also much greater. So I think that plays a lot into this cultural phenomenon. But there does not appear to be even a single, substantial case of like, actual pain relief to the degree that you could do surgery without drugs under acupuncture. So that's basically a myth. Well, let's go on to our interview.

Interview with Ken Feder ()

• Kenneth Feder, American professor and author of Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology

Name That Logical Fallacy ()

• _Fallacy_Topic_Event_

First, I want to say I love your podcast and it is my favorite skeptical podcast.

I have an example of what I think is a logical fallacy, but I'm not sure what type it is.

In a discussion of artificial nails, one person in the group insisted that rich women (especially those with 'old money') never get fake nails. The person said she could always spot fake nails and she never saw them on the rich women she knew.

Several people argued with her and one person called her argument the 'toupee fallacy' - she knew a man who insisted he could always spot a toupee, so he always knew whether or not a guy had one. She told him he couldn't know that - he probably could spot an obvious toupee, but how did he know that there weren't people he saw who looked like they had their own hair but were actually wearing a very realistic toupee.

Is this a valid logical fallacy? If so, what category of fallacy is it?

Thanks.
Laurel Kristick
Oregon, USA

Science or Fiction (h:mm:ss)

Item #1: At a currently ongoing meeting of the International Astronomical Union in Prague, astronomers have decided to strip Pluto of the title of planet. Henceforth Pluto will be designated an ice dwarf. Item #2: NASA has lost the original footage of the Apollo 11 crew landing on the moon. A search for the lost footage is under way. Item #3: A new study finds that women's sex drive plummets once they are in a stable relationship.

Answer	Item
Fiction
Science

Host	Result
Steve

Rogue	Guess

Voice-over: It's time for Science or Fiction.

Skeptical Puzzle ()

Last Week's puzzle:

He was born in the late 1800's in the eastern region of the Austro-Hungarian empire (Ukraine). After fighting in WWI he studied medicine in Vienna. By age 21, he began a private practice as an 'analytic psychiatrist' and was considered a pioneer in the study of human sexuality.

During his research, he believed he had discovered a 'unique energetic life force'. He claimed it was present in all of nature, and was a death defying entity. He attempted to apply his 'life force' theory to research in medical endeavors such as cancer treatment, although he was largely ignored and often criticized by the mainstream scientific community - criticism he took as personal attacks.

He immigrated to the United States just as World War II was beginning. His advocacy of the alleged therapeutic benefits of his life force based inventions (such as a life force detector) caused him legal trouble with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. He died on at the age of 60 in a US Federal Penitentiary. He was jailed for criminal contempt because he refused to obey an injunction against selling quack medical devices.

Who was he, and what was the name of the life force he claimed to have discovered?

Answer: Wilhem Reich, Orgone


No new puzzle this week, but there will be puzzles in future episodes.

S: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is produced by the New England Skeptical Society. For information on this and other podcasts, please visit our website at www.theskepticsguide.org. Please send us your questions, suggestions, and other feedback; you can use the "Contact Us" page on our website, or you can send us an email to info@theskepticsguide.org. 'Theorem' is produced by Kineto and is used with permission.

References