In 2009, I was invited to attend the prestigious annual idea conference TED (Technology Entertainment Design) as a TED Fellow; the conference’s new fellowship program offers all-expenses-paid attendance for forty young world-changing individuals from across the globe. TED’s slogan is “ideas worth spreading,” and this is what they’re looking for in their speakers—as content producer Kelly Stoetzel describes, “We look for someone who will say, ‘Here’s what we can do to make things better.’”

One thing I love to point out about the TED community is how well skeptics and science educators are represented at the events. TEDTalks speakers include James Randi, Michael Shermer, Sam Harris, Carolyn Porco, Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Michael Specter, Brian Cox, and Phil Plait. I spoke on the TED Fellows stage at TED ’09 and the TED You stage at TED Active ’10.

My feeling is that the TED community and the skeptical movement have a common goal—making the world a better place—but the key to reaching it lies in the tools of skepticism. An essential part of finding ideas that improve human wellbeing is the ability to know what ideas are wrong. This is the strength of critical inquiry. It forces us to see the flaws in our own cognition so that we may attain a more accurate view of reality. Without skepticism, we are at the mercy of the biases of our fallible minds.

But skepticism can be a difficult idea to promote. Our tendency to de­fault to belief and intuition make magical thinking an easy sell. Mysti­cism is quick to find superstitions to fill the uncomfortable gaps in our knowledge; it’s an easy fix. Herein lies the difficulty—not in ignorance but in misinformation. Missing facts are easy enough to remedy through education, but once a belief has settled into our minds it’s difficult to remove. In fact, a misinformed individual will typically become more confident in his or her belief when presented with disconfirming information. So what do we, as proponents of critical thinking, do in the face of this disheartening reality?

Here is where my work as a writer and artist crosses over with promoting science-based thinking. Entertain­ment—whether in the form of books, television, film, music, or graphic novels—can be a powerful way to convey a message. One of the most important things to accomplish in entertainment and storytelling is to connect with your audience emotionally. An interesting plot just isn’t quite as good unless you feel emotionally invested in the characters. A technically proficient piece of music or artwork that doesn’t provoke an emotional reaction doesn’t really stand a chance against a piece that does, even if that piece isn’t as technically sound. The intellectual arguments in science and skepticism are often far superior to those made in belief-based schools of thought. Adding the strength of a good emotional argument may be a strategy that can help promote science-based thinking by getting people emotionally invested in the idea.

One of my favorite examples of the power of storytelling is the 2010 film Inception. Not only is it quite a good example of successful storytelling, but the plot itself is analogous to how good stories are told. The plot involves the main character, Cobb (Leonardo Di­Caprio), hired to place (by entering a fabricated dream-world) the idea into the mind of Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy) to break up his father’s company. The movie can be interpreted as symbolic of how movies are created. The idea to be incepted represents the message a film is trying to convey; Cobb’s character represents the director, whose job is to execute that successfully using a crew, cast, and setting. The other characters represent the cast and crew: Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), “The Point Man,” is the producer responsible for overseeing the details of the job. Ariadne (Ellen Page), “The Architect,” creates the settings for the dreams and can be viewed as the script writer. Eames (Tom Hardy) is “The Forger,” who can transform himself into different characters, like an actor; and Yusuf (Dileep Rao) represents the crew as “The Chemist” who does the practical job of getting the others into the dream-world. Saito (Ken Watanabe), who hired Cobb and his team, is the money behind the job, just like a movie studio. “The Mark” is Fischer, who must be convinced of the reality of the dream and implanted with the desired idea—representative of the audience of a film.

The characters set out to accomplish their job of incepting Fischer by boiling down the message to a very basic concept and then constructing a reality that will make him emotionally invested in that concept, manipulating him into thinking that he came to the idea himself. This is very similar to what actual storytelling does using characters, settings, and plot to guide the audience through a constructed reality with the goal of implanting a message in its members’ heads. Just like the dream worlds of Inception, stories feel real while you’re in them, and you leave with the seed of an idea growing in your mind that has been planted by the emotional impact of the world you experienced. Articles, lectures, and documentaries are great mediums for communicating ideas (and do involve a certain amount of creating an emotional impact), but there’s something very powerful and lasting about the effects fiction can have when executed successfully.

Science fiction, of course, has been a genre hugely successful at promoting science and skepticism through fiction. I’d like to argue that it doesn’t have to be the only genre we can turn to when looking to promote critical thinking through storytelling. One of my favorite counterintuitive examples of another genre promoting skepticism is the immensely popular fantasy series Harry Potter. For a story about a boy wizard who attends a school of witchcraft and wizardry, it contains a lot of content that promotes the ideas of both skepticism and secular humanism. The magic, witches, wizards, and mythological creatures are all simply part of an attractive setting; the actual plot does nothing to really promote the belief in the existence of the fantasy content.

The most skeptical of the trio of main characters is, without a doubt, Hermione. She is the problem solver in the group, always relying on her book smarts to get the group out of trouble; on numerous occasions it’s pointed out how lost the other main characters, Harry and Ron, would be without her. The characters are taught to think for themselves and to be cautious of their own assumptions or biases. For a story about magic, it certainly makes a point to demonstrate that there are more important abilities one can have. Near the end of the first book, as Harry and Hermione find themselves in one of the barriers placed between them and the philosopher’s stone, Hermione remarks how clever it is that one of them is simply a puzzle in logic.

“Brilliant,” said Hermione. “This isn’t magic—it’s logic—a puzzle. A lot of the greatest wizards haven’t got an ounce of logic, they’d be stuck in here forever.”

One of the main points of conflict in the Harry Potter series carries a strong secular humanist message. The antagonists are wizards who place value on so-called “pure bloods”—wizards who were born into magical families—over the “Muggle born,” wizards who come from non-magical families but are born with magical abilities. One of the main goals of the villains is to see the pure blood wizards gain their “rightful” status above other wizards as well as the non-magical humans (Muggles). The heroes of the story fight to stand up for the ideal that all humans deserve equal rights and that no class of people deserves to rule over another based on bloodline.

I’d like to note that many people have mentioned to me, after hearing one of my talks, a fan fiction called “Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality,” which involves an alternate storyline in which Harry is brought up by a scientist and uses critical thinking to investigate the magical world. I’ve heard great things about the story, but it misses the point of why I bring up the example of Harry Potter in the first place. The Harry Potter series is an example of using the fantasy genre—a world with magic and mythos—to promote critical thinking. The whole point is that it does this without having to inject any science fiction into the plot.

What I find so intriguing about this concept is that it exposes audiences and readers to nonscientist heroes who are critical thinkers, demonstrating that logic and reason are for everyone. It’s always great to see scientists as lead characters (such as Jodie Foster’s role as Ellie Arroway in the film Contact, based on the novel by Carl Sagan), but too often the heroes we’re presented with are nonscientists who simply use a token nerd character when a scientific solution is needed. I’d like to see more storytelling with characters of all types using critical thinking to solve the conflicts with which they are presented.

This is an important focus of my own work as a mangaka—a writer and illustrator of manga graphic novels. Manga is a type of comic book that originated in Japan and was made popular by its animated counterpart, anime. My latest series is Legend of the Ztarr (pronounced “star”), a swords-and-sandals space epic following the adventures of a young woman named Adora Ztarr. Our young protagonist is the daughter of a legendary rebel who died attempting to overthrow the op­pressive Emperor of the Known Uni­verse, Lord J’Nar. The story begins with Adora being recruited by her father’s still-loyal followers to fulfill the prophecy of the family sword: “The Sword of Ztarr, but once, shall slay and end The Holy Emperor’s reign.”

A key aspect of Adora’s character is that she uses her skeptical mindset to solve the problems with which she’s presented. Her power comes from her critical thinking abilities rather than just her swordsmanship and fighting skills. This is in contrast to the character of the evil Emperor and his loyal group of true believers, who concern themselves only with protecting their ideologies and preconceptions. But the antagonists aren’t the only characters who hold tightly to deeply held beliefs; our heroine makes her journey with a band of guardians who have their own variety of irrational ideas. Adora is left contending with the friction this causes as they attempt to work together against Lord J’Nar.

The goal is to create a series that serves as a skeptical epic with a sci-fantasy feel—swords, emperors, prophecies, star ships, and powerful mysterious objects—that can connect readers to the values of critical thinking using emotional rather than logical arguments. The advantage to using storytelling to promote a message is that it is primarily entertainment. Arguments that might otherwise be challenging to get across can travel more subtly on the backs of the drama, humor, and ro­mance of narrative. Magic and mysticism, already seductive through their emotional appeal, sell themselves easily this way and have made themselves pervasive in entertainment. The power of storytelling can instead be harnessed to open people to a world devoted to the idea of distinguishing between what is true and what we simply want to be true, of avoiding self-deception and empowering ourselves with the tools of critical inquiry. This is an idea worth spreading.

The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry held its CSICon New Orleans 2011 conference October 27–30 at the New Orleans Marriott. It was a welcome resumption, after an eight-year hiatus, of CSICOP conferences.

It featured a dozen symposia on everything from conspiracy theories and UFOs to evolution versus creationism and skepticism in the media; special talks by skeptical luminaries; an awards banquet; and a host of social and entertainment events. The latter included a “Smarti Gras” parade and New Orleans Halloween Party Saturday evening at a French Quarter bar after the special conference address by Bill Nye “The Science Guy.”

Read more about CSICon and register for 2012’s CSICon Nashville at the CSICon website.

Even before CSICon 2011 in New Orleans officially began, I was already having great conversations with skeptics from all over the country. While helping at the registration table I met Skeptical Inquirer readers and supporters from as close as a few blocks away from the conference hotel to as far away as the United Kingdom. It was amazing to see people from so many places convening in one place to celebrate reason, science, and skeptical inquiry.

Indre Viskontas reminds us immediatley dismissing someone’s story can be counterproductive to skepticism. (Photo: Brian D. Engler)

It sure is something to be surrounded by so many like-minded people. Dorion Cable, who authored a great write-up on CSICon 2011 on her Detroit-based blog (http://motorcityblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/csicon-2011-best-assignment-evar-by-dc.html), com­men­ted that she recalls no place other than CSICon that people have actually recog­nized her Flying Spaghetti Monster necklace. But even some non–conference-goers had their interest piqued by the high concentration of skeptics. One hotel employee remarked, “You guys have the guy from the X-Files and Bill Nye the Science Guy? My nerd self just freaked out.”

The first session after opening re­marks on Thursday was “The In­vesti­gators” panel with stellar talks from Joe Nickell, Massimo Polidoro, Karen Stollznow, and Ben Radford on various investigations they’ve undertaken. Be­cause the topic of women in the skeptics movement is of particular interest to me, I was happy that I was able to ask Karen Stollznow during the Q&A session after her talk if she has noticed any advantages or disadvantages to being a female paranormal investigator—a minority within a minority. She answered that she hasn’t noticed her gender making a big difference either way but that many of the people she meets tend to assume she is a believer.

PZ Myers sports a CSICon T-shirt during his talk on Sunday. (Photo: Brian D. Engler)

Meeting Karen after many years of exchanging the occasional email was a conference highlight for me. As I gushed on my Twitter page: “Finally met @karenstollznow in person! She’s just as awesome as I knew she’d be.” It was my conversations at CSICon about women in skepticism over dinner with Karen, Miracle Detectives star Indre Viskontas, and CFI Communications Director Michelle Blackley that in­spired me to get more involved in the movement and to start the blog We Are SkeptiXX (http://bit.ly/skeptixx).

Phil Plait’s talk on the “Death from the Skies!” panel on Friday had me in stitches. “How do you keep [asteroids from hitting the Earth]?” he asked his captivated audience. “Well, if you ask Hollywood ... you will get the wrong answer.” After showing a clip from the horribly inaccurate 1998 movie Arma­ged­don, Plait pointed out that perhaps the most ludicrous detail in the scene is the fact that it is violently raining on the asteroid as Bruce Willis attempts to get the bomb into place. What’s wrong with that? Just the little fact that asteroids don’t have their own atmospheres and therefore there is no weather on them. I was able to talk with Plait for a couple minutes and compliment him on his ability to make his talks so enjoyable. He told me of a college professor he once had who during his classes would literally play a recording of himself giving a lecture. The memory of having to sit through those “lectures” is one of the things that motivate Plait to ensure that all of his own talks are engaging and entertaining.

Margaret Downey, founder of the Freethought Society, was a smash hit at the Smarti Gras party as the Tree of Life. (Photo: Brian D. Engler)

Another highlight of the conference was once again seeing CSI Fellow James Randi—they sure don’t call him “The Amazing” for nothing. His talk during the “Sleights of Mind” panel on Friday was nothing short of inspiring. He re­minded us all that no matter how much pride we take in our skepticism and critical thinking skills, every one of us can fall prey to tricks and smoke and mirrors: “I don’t tell you how the tricks are done for a very simple reason ... I want you to know that you can be deceived.” One of my very favorite conference keepsakes is a picture I was able to snap of Randi “conjuring” CSI Fellow Richard Saunders’s famous origami Pigasus, the mascot of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF).

Another panel I really enjoyed was Saturday’s “Skepticism and the Media,” which featured William B. Davis of X-Files fame, Miracle Detec­tives star Indre Viskontas, and New York Times science writer Sandra Blakeslee. Led by CFI Communica­tions Director Michelle Blackley, it was the first CSI/CSICOP conference panel with a female moderator. After Davis’s engaging talk in which he admitted he once unknowingly agreed to moderate a panel of 9/11 Truthers—“You must do your homework!” he reminded us—Indre Viskontas wondered aloud, “How can I follow Cancer Man? Well, at least I wore my cigarette pants.” On a more serious note, she went on to remind us all that “It is counterproductive to dismiss someone’s story off the bat,” a mistake that she has seen some skeptics make. As Viskontas told Sharon Hill in her SI interview (Novem­ber/December 2011), “Once you’ve dismissed them, you’ve lost them. They don’t want to talk to you anymore.”

James “The Amazing” Randi conjures an origami Pigasus. (Photo: Julia Lavarnway)

CSI Fellow Richard Saunders, Life Member of the Australian Skeptics and the sole skeptical judge on Australia’s psychic-seeking reality show The One, was another delight to meet. I think ebullient is the best word to describe Richard. You’d be hard up to meet a more enthusiastic and personable skeptic. Richard not only allowed me to film him creating a JREF Pigasus (http://bit.ly/SaundersOrigami), he also invited me to appear on The Skeptic Zone podcast (http://bit.ly/skepticzone158). His Sunday presentation debunking Power Balance bands, in which he had some help from SI Deputy Editor Ben Radford in the form of audience participation (http://bit.ly/powerbalancedemo), was a big hit. (See also, “Power Balance Down and Out in Australia,” SI, September/October 2011 and “Power Balance Bracelets a Bust in Tests,” SI, January/February 2012).

My vote for “quote of the conference” came from SI Editor Ken Frazier during the close of his opening re­marks on Thursday: “One of the secrets we’ve kept from the public all these years is that skepticism is not just important, it’s also fun!” CSICon 2011 in New Orleans certainly proved the truth of Ken’s aphorism. Where else but CSICon would I have had the opportunity to have incredibly interesting conversations with luminaries in the skeptics movement while fast-dancing with the “big boss,” CFI president and CEO Ron Lindsay; rockin’ out to the Heathens (led by Inde­pendent Investigations Group founder Jim Underdown); eating ice cream with the eminent Massimo Polidoro; and admiring the awesomeness that was Steven Novella’s Dr. Horrible costume for the “Smarti Gras” party? I will most definitely be back at CSICon 2012, and I hope to meet even more of you SI readers and supporters there.

Bill Nye Wins In Praise of Reason Award; Novella Presented with CSI Balles Prize

Bill Nye “The Science Guy” received CSI’s In Praise of Reason Award. (Photo: Brian D. Engler)

Bill Nye “The Science Guy” received the In Praise of Reason Award, the highest award of the Com­mittee for Skeptical Inquiry, at the CSICon New Orleans 2011 conference awards banquet.

The In Praise of Reason Award is given in recognition of distinguished contributions in the use of critical inquiry, scientific evidence, and reason in evaluating claims to knowledge. Previous recipients include Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, James Randi, and Nobel laureate physicists Murray Gell-Mann and Leon Lederman, among others.

Nye has a long string of television credits that promote good science, starting with his Emmy Award–winning 1990s series Bill Nye the Science Guy. An aeronautical engineer by training and early experience, Nye drew on his scientific and engineering background as a solid foundation for his demonstrations of scientific principles that are at the core of his communication of science to the public.

Subsequent programs include The Eyes of Nye, 100 Greatest Discoveries, Greatest Inventions with Bill Nye, and Stuff Happens. His Bill Nye’s Climate Lab is a new permanent exhibit at the Oakland, California–based Chabot Space and Science Center.

Nye is now the executive director of the Planetary Society in Pasadena, California.

“If you think Bill is popular among skeptics, you should attend a science teacher conference where he is speaking,” said Eugenie C. Scott, a member of CSI’s Executive Council, in presenting the award. “The National Science Teachers Association draws upwards of 12,000 [to] 15,000 teachers; I think all of them attend his talks, because although the organizers schedule his lecture in the largest ballroom in the conference center, there still are people standing in the back and in the aisles.

“It is obvious why,” said Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education. “Ken Frazier spoke at the opening ceremonies about the sense of exhilaration that skeptics feel in enjoying science—and that skepticism is ‘fun.’ Hardly anyone has as much fun as Bill Nye when he is talking about, and especially when he is demonstrating, principles of science.

“If you have seen any of his programs discussing astrology or other, to quote Carl Sagan, ‘extraordinary claims,’ you will soon see why he was made a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He is a longtime skeptic and proponent of critical thinking—obvious in all of his television programs.”

* * *

Steven Novella is keeping his CSI Balles Prize tucked safely under his arm. (Photo: Adam Isaak)

Steven Novella was presented with CSI’s Robert P. Balles Annual Prize for Critical Thinking at the same awards banquet. The $1,500 award is given to the author of the published work or body of work that best exemplifies healthy skepticism, logical analysis, or empirical science.
The award, previously announced (SI July/Aug­ust 2011), was presented by CSI Executive Council member and Skeptical Inquirer Edi­tor Kendrick Frazier.

In his case, Novella was honored not for a particular article or publication but instead for his “tremendous body of work,” including the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe weekly science podcast, the Science-Based Medicine blog, his Neuro­logica blog, his Skeptical In­quirer column, “The Science of Medi­cine,” and his tireless travel and lecture schedule on behalf of skepticism.

“You may be the hardest worker in all of skepticism,” CSI Executive Director Barry Karr said when he first announced the award. “We are honored to present you with this award.”

Novella is a clinical neurologist, assistant professor, and director of general neurology at the Yale University School of Medicine. He is a fellow of the Com­mittee for Skeptical Inquiry.

It featured a dozen symposia on everything from conspiracy theories and UFOs to evolution versus creationism and skepticism in the media; special talks by skeptical luminaries; an awards banquet; and a host of social and entertainment events. The latter included a “Smarti Gras” parade and New Orleans Halloween Party Saturday evening at a French Quarter bar after the special conference address by Bill Nye “The Science Guy.”

Read more about CSICon and register for 2012’s CSICon Nashville at the CSICon website.

Margaret Downey and CFI–DC Executive Director Melody Hensley are all smiles at CSICon. (Photo: Brian D. Engler)

A Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) conference has been long-awaited since the last event held in 2003. The inaugural CSICon, the conference dedicated to scientific inquiry and critical thinking, was held October 27–30, 2011.

For such an event there simply is no better location than the French Quarter in New Orleans and simply no better time than the Halloween weekend. As I demonstrated in my talk “Making History,” New Orleans is the most “haunted” city in the country (or at least one of the many “most haunted”).

NOLA is famous for its music, cuisine, and Cajun and Creole culture, but it’s also a city teeming with pseudoscience and the paranormal. Jackson Square has art galleries and museums but also resident psychics offering tarot, palm, and astrology readings. The French Quarter is infamous for the reputation of Bourbon Street, Mardi Gras, and Southern Decadence, but it’s also known for its underbelly of voodoo, hoodoo, and Santeria. The city has a remarkable and vibrant history but is often best remembered for its folklore of ghosts, vampires, and Voo­doo Queen Marie Laveau. The conference was a haven of rationalism, inquiry, and skepticism amid the myths and legends of the Big Easy.

Paul Offit talks about the importance of vaccination during a special luncheon address. (Photo: Brian D. Engler)

CSICon featured an exciting array of dynamic speakers. These are people we’ve seen on television, whose writings we’ve read in books and copies of the Skeptical Inquirer, and who we’ve listened to on podcasts and radio shows. There were fascinating and informative talks presented by James Randi, Bill Nye, PZ Myers, Lawrence Krauss, and Indre Viskontas of the TV show Miracle Detectives. The conference was well-attended with over 300 people but intimate enough to enable personal conversations with speakers and fellow conference-goers.

CSI was well-represented by speakers from within its own ranks, including Fellows Phil Plait, Seth Shostak, Edzard Ernst, David Morrison, Dave Thomas, and Sandra Blakeslee; Execu­tive Council members Eugenie Scott, Scott Lilienfeld, and James Alcock; and Point of Inquiry’s Chris Mooney.

Current, critical, and classical topics were tackled, including creation and evolution, science and public policy, investigations, UFO claims, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine claims, and grassroots activism and outreach. Skeptical Inquirer Editor Ken Frazier, CSI Executive Director Barry Karr, and Center for Inquiry President and CEO Ron Lindsay presented stirring speeches about the history and future of skepticism.

David Willey entertains awards banqueters. (Photo: Adam Isaak)

This was also a time for commendation. During a banquet dinner, Bill Nye received the “In Praise of Reason” Award and Steve Novella was presented with the Robert P. Balles Annual Prize in Critical Thinking. For his decades of investigative work, Senior Research Fellow Joe Nickell was recognized with an asteroid named after him. (See separate stories.)

CSICon encouraged knowledge-sharing and networking, but it wasn’t all “work”; there was plenty of play with many unique extracurricular events. At the opening reception there was a performance by the Heathens, a band led by Jim Underdown of the Independent Investigations Group (IIG). David Willey, the “Mad Scientist,” presented “How Does a Thing Like That Work?,” an entertaining and interactive lecture consisting of the more visual and dramatic demonstrations from an introductory physics course.

One of the many highlights of CSICon was the Smarti Gras parade. It was a sight to behold—hundreds of skeptics in Halloween costumes led by a police escort and jazz band to the legendary Tipitina’s jazz club. In true New Orleans style, passers-by joined in with the merriment, cheering us along and even following the parade. We hope to have the same public reaction to our critical thinking!

David Willey takes a sledgehammer to the chest (wielded by his assistant) in the name of skepticism. (Photo: Adam Isaak)

This is what CSICon is about: showing that skepticism is not only important but also fun.

The party included music, dancing, jambalaya, and Halloween costumes. Blake Smith, of the IIG in Atlanta, won the best skeptically themed costume award for his “Occam’s Shaving Cream” outfit.

Unlike in other conference reports, the cuisine deserves a mention too. CSICon departed from the usual bland conference fare, offering crab cakes with a spicy remoulade, eggs benedict with andouille, and an ice cream buffet with freshly made waffle cones.

The conference concluded with CSI’s annual Houdini séance hosted by Joe Nickell. The session included talks by cold-reading expert Ray Hyman and psychic-buster Massimo Polidoro. Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, Houdini didn’t turn up, yet again.

Vonnie Galligher and CFI Vice President of Outreach Lauren Becker enjoy the Smarti Gras party. (Photo: Brian D. Engler)

Disappointed that the festivities were over, enthusiastic skeptics continued the revelry with a post-conference tour of the beautiful flora and fauna of the Louisiana swamps and marshes.

In general, the conference was a wonderful opportunity to learn and share learning, reconnect with old friends, and establish new friendships. Attendees left the conference armed with new information and perspectives, reinvigorated to step outside of the conference hall and take skepticism to the streets.

This was a highly successful and refreshingly different conference. Nego­tiations are already underway for next year. It is rumored that CSICon 2012 is being planned to be even bigger and better and that CSICon is poised to become a preeminent skeptical conference for years to come.

Joe Nickell Has Asteroid Named After Him

It was a surprise announcement at the beginning of the Friday night awards banquet at CSICon New Orleans 2011. Astronomer and CSI scientific consultant James McGaha came forward and announced that an asteroid has been named for Joe Nickell in honor of his distinguished work on behalf of science, skepticism, and critical inquiry.

Nickell, the tireless investigator, prolific writer, and author who is CSI’s senior research fellow, accepted the award. Asteroid 1999 CE10, discovered by McGaha on February 9, 1999, will henceforth be known as Joenickell. It is a main belt asteroid about five kilometers in diameter with a period of 3.44 years. The Inter­national Astronomical Union’s Com­mittee on Small Body Nomenclature oversees the official naming process using a set of well-defined guidelines.

Here is the citation:

31451 Joenickell = 1999 CE10

Named in honor of Joe Nickell (b. 1944), the Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. A noted author, investigator, and skeptic, Nickell has written more than 30 books on mysteries, frauds, forgeries, and hoaxes. He promotes scientific inquiry and reasoned investigation of extraordinary claims.

Nickell joins several other prominent skeptics in having asteroids named for them. Previously Martin Gardner, James Randi, Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan, and Philip J. Klass were so honored (SI, July/August 1998; May/June 1999). Philosopher and CSICOP founder Paul Kurtz and CSICOP itself (“for its contributions to science education and skepticism”) received the honor on CSICOP’s twentieth anniversary (September/Octo­ber 1996, p. 8). Others include PZ Myers, Philip Plait, Michael Stackpole, and Rebecca Watson (September/October 2008).

James McGaha (center right) announces an asteroid has been named after CSI senior research fellow Joe Nickell (center left) while Eugenie C. Scott, Bill Nye, and Steven Novella approve.

It featured a dozen symposia on everything from conspiracy theories and UFOs to evolution versus creationism and skepticism in the media; special talks by skeptical luminaries; an awards banquet; and a host of social and entertainment events. The latter included a “Smarti Gras” parade and New Orleans Halloween Party Saturday evening at a French Quarter bar after the special conference address by Bill Nye “The Science Guy.”

Read more about CSICon and register for 2012’s CSICon Nashville at the CSICon website.

Like its earlier CSICOP conference predecessors, CSICon New Orleans 2011 was rich with provocative ideas, good science, critical thinking, informed analysis, and penetrating criticism of claims poorly supported by scientific evidence. It was also filled with fun social events that allowed plenty of opportunity for interactions with fellow skeptics and to enjoy the camaraderie shared by those who defend good science and expose shams, frauds, and unsupported claims.

It began on a Thursday afternoon with opening remarks by Center for Inquiry President Ronald A. Lindsay, CSI Executive Director Barry Karr, and me, and ended on Sunday afternoon with a “Houdini Séance” conducted by Joe Nickell, Ray Hyman, and Massimo Polidoro. The sessions provided quite an intellectual feast for science-minded skeptics of every stripe.

Some of the many highlights for me included:

• Bill Nye “The Science Guy’s” special conference address, informative and in­spiring. He provided a cosmic perspective on human curiosity and exploration and a sterling defense of the need for good science and math education for a science-literate citizenry. He ended with a backlit photo from the Cassini mission of a close-up Saturn seen from outside its orbit inward, the planet Earth a tiny dot barely visible through its rings.

Lawrence Krauss delivers a special luncheon address. (Photo: Brian D. Engler)

• Chemistry Nobel laureate (and CSI Fellow) Sir Harry Kroto’s talk “Educa­tion as the New Dark Age Ap­proaches.” It excoriated parents who allow their religions to teach hatred toward others religions, lamented the rise of ideological-oriented nonsense (rather than common sense), and extolled natural philosophy (“the only philosophy we have devised to determine the truth with any degree of reality”). Kroto also called for more recognition of “true heroes” (those from the world of science, like Einstein, Darwin, Chandrasekhar, Maxwell, and Rosa­lind Franklin) and emphasized the importance of learning algebra and calculus (“the universe doesn’t speak any other language”).

• Chris Mooney’s talk (in a session on science and public policy) on the science of denial. He emphasized (as we have reported several other times recently) that corrections don’t change people’s false beliefs; in fact, they cause people to hold them all the more strongly, “doubling down” on them. Studies of “motivated reasoning,” the updated view of cognitive dissonance, show that we are not conscious of the vast majority of what our brains are doing and that our emotional reactions drive our memory retrieval. “By the time we are conscious of it we are defending ourselves—acting like law­yers.... This is how people work. We spin out all of the old rationalizations ... and create new ones.” And then there’s what he called the “smart idiot” effect, in which people who know more are more capable of showing bias and more skilled at coming up with arguments to defend their biased views. Thus things always polarize, a situation we now find endemic in political discourse.

• Indre Viskontas (neuroscientist and TV’s Miracle Detectives scientist; see the interview with her in our Novem­ber/December 2011 issue) on why we love stories and on using narratives to promote science. Why stories? Because we find them compelling. Stories or testimonials usually trump dry statistics because they are more easily remembered than facts. Likewise, stories become personal. Storytelling thus is a powerful tool for any message, including that of science and skepticism. In her role on the show, Viskontas says, “My job is to reframe the [claimed miracle] event in a way compatible with science. Some people might call me a skeptic.”

Phil Plait is dubious of Armageddon’s presentation of asteroids. (Photo: Brian D. Engler)

• Biologist and famed blogger PZ Myers’s passionate paean to the power of narrative storytelling (in stated strong agreement with Vis­kontas). Myers’s Myth Number One is that we “people of reason” are “soulless robots who don’t know how to communicate.” He rattled off a long list of scientist-atheists who are first-rate scientists and communicators. “This is a golden age of science writing,” he said. His Myth Number Two: “If you are credible or gullible you are so much better at stories.” The Bible, often extolled by even skeptics as at least full of good stories, got no praise from Myers. “Genesis is crap. It’s crazy town.... There was no global flood. This story makes no sense.” As for those who give it a pass by saying that Genesis is just a metaphor, he said, “Tell that to the people at Answers in Genesis.” Said Myers, “Our side has the good story,” and it has both truth and beauty, two values often ignored. He provided a sample story, a fossil find showing a mammoth bone carefully (and lovingly?) placed in the mouth of a fossil dog, “the best present you could give a dog” and a strong clue that “dogs have been our partners for thousands of years.” Another compelling story is that around 50,000 to 70,000 years ago a catastrophe of some sort reduced the entire world’s population to only about 1,200 people, including only about 500 in Africa. “We were close to extinction.... This is the story that science can tell you. It is underappreciated.” As he said, “Our stories are not only beautiful, they are true.”

• Investigator Massimo Polidoro’s “A Recipe for Testing Psychics” and his five rules: 1. Exactly define a claim (in writing). 2. Agree on a shared protocol. 3. Have the psychic perform a demonstration (which should be 100 percent successful, since there are no controls). 4. Add the control. 5. See what happens ... “and wait for the excuses.” In his twenty years experience, “only once has a person admitted [they were] wrong.”

Eugenie C. Scott addresses the banquet crowd before presenting Bill Nye with CSI’s In Praise of Reason Award. (Photo: Brian D. Engler)

• Physician Paul Offit’s stirring advocacy of vaccinations and condemnation of anti-vaccination campaigns, which undermine public health and endanger others. Offit, author of Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threat­ens Us All, said a lot of progress is being made, pointing out how the media came down hard on would-be presidential candidate Michele Bach­mann when she made an outlandish claim about the HPV vaccine, which can prevent cervical cancer. At his hospital in Phila­delphia, the flu vaccine is mandatory for all employees. He said the measles vaccine will get some public attention when unvaccinated people start dying of that disease.

• The symposium “Sleight of Mind” by neuroscientists Stephen Macknik and Susana Martinez-Conde and science journalist Sandra Blakeslee (coauthors of a recent book of the same title), plus James Randi on the neuroscience of magic. Macknik and Martinez-Conde have been studying how the world’s great magicians employ ancient principles that can now be explained using the latest discoveries of cognitive neuroscience. Illusions dissociate perception from reality and reflect what the brain is actually doing. The scientists described numerous cognitive illusions, demonstrated the power of manipulated awareness, and showed that different effects are due to different circuits of the brain. Randi, the hero of his fellow skeptics, worked with the authors in their studies and followed their joint talk with his own personal views on the subject. “Magicians have to be aware of how they themselves think,” he said, lamenting that “some magicians don’t know at base how their tricks work.” As for why he and other magicians don’t tell you how their tricks are done, he gave his stock answer: “I want you to leave here knowing that you can be deceived.” That is an invaluable lesson, he said. He called Macknik and Martinez-Conde pioneers in their field and “heroes” of his.

The X-Files’s William B. Davis presents on skepticism in the media. (Photo: Brian D. Engler)

• The symposium on alternative medical claims featuring physician/skeptic luminaries Steven Novella, Har­riet Hall, and Edzard Ernst. Hall punctured the acu­puncture myth, including the widespread belief that acupuncture is an ancient practice (“current practices developed in the twentieth century”) and showing that sham acupuncture works just as well. Novella ardently advocated science-based medicine and described a litany of biases that contribute to self-deception among patients and practitioners as well. Physi­cians themselves are susceptible to such clinical pitfalls as pattern recognition, relying on personal experience, elevating experience over evidence, failing to consider alternatives, be­coming confused by nonspecific symptoms, and falling prey to confirmation bias (“I’ve seen it work”). Throw in problems with re­search such as publication bias, research bias, the decline effect, and the fact that preliminary studies are not as rigorous, and it is no wonder that, as medical re­searcher John Ionnidis has written, the majority of medical studies are wrong. Ernst has published a thousand papers in peer-reviewed journals, including 300 systematic reviews. “Many of these publications have disappointed en­thusiasts of alternative medicine,” he noted. “Some were outraged.” He and his colleagues have examined studies funded by NCCAM, the National Center for Comple­men­tary and Al­tern­ative Medi­cine, and (as did authors of our January/February 2012 cover article on the topic) found many highly questionable. Re­gard­ing their studies of chiropractic, he found “questionable whether such research is worthwhile.” Rigorous studies of “energy medicine” were negative, hardly surprising since they were testing “implausible treatments.” When Prince Charles, an advocate of alternative medicine, complained about Ernst to the chancellor of his university, Ernst lost most of his funding and team. Ernst defended himself successfully but at high cost. He said his work has “generated substantial bodies of evidence,” much of it undermining assertions of alternative medicine, and made him “some friends, lots of enemies.”

CSI’s Barry Karr gives welcoming remarks. (Photo: Brian D. Engler)

This is just a brief taste of the sessions that made CSICon New Orleans 2011 such a treat. There were also lively sessions on “The Investigators” (Joe Nickell, Massimo Polidoro, Karen Stollznow, and Ben Radford), “Death from the Skies” (Phil Plait, David Morrison, and Seth Shostak), “Science and Public Policy” (Chris Mooney and Ron Lindsay), “Feeling the Future” (Ray Hyman and James Alcock), “Evo­lu­tion and Creationism” (Eugenie Scott and Barbara Forrest), “Skepti­cism and the Media” (Indre Viskontas, San­dra Blake­slee, and William B. Davis), “Super­stitions and Hauntings” (Amar­deo Sarma, Stuart Vyse, and Joe Nickell), “UFO Claims” (Robert Sheaf­fer and James McGaha), “Con­spiracy Theories” (David Thomas, Robert Blaskiewicz, and Ted Goert­zel), “Inde­pendent In­vestigation Groups,” “Grass­roots Activ­ism and Outreach,” “Educating the Next Genera­tion,” and a characteristically mind-bending lunch talk about frontiers of modern physics by physicist Lawrence Krauss.

It was exhausting but exhilarating, and we can hope there will be many more CSICons to come.

Matter

To put antimatter pseudoscience in perspective, we first need to recall a few things about the genuine article. Atoms of the chemical elements that form the matter of the world around us are themselves constructed from just three varieties of fundamental particle: protons, which carry a positive electric charge; electrons, which carry an equal amount of negative charge; and neutrons, which have no charge at all, although, like the other two, they have magnetic properties. The hydrogen atom is the simplest of all. It consists of a single electron bound by electrical attraction to a nucleus consisting of a single proton. It is therefore electrically neutral. Atoms of heavier elements just have more electrons bound to their nuclei consisting of an equal number of protons and a variable number of neutrons. They are, then, normally neutral.

Another Matter

Even before all this was established, the idea was entertained that a kind of mirror matter might exist made of particles with reverse “signed” attributes like charge and magnetism. Thus Arthur Schu­ster (Schuster 1898), observing that electric charge plays an important role in nature, asked the rhetorical question, “If there is negative electricity, why not negative gold?” Some thirty years later, English physicist Paul Dirac showed that if quantum mechanics and special relativity—the two cornerstones of modern physics—are to hold simultaneously, it must be possible for counterparts of the three fundamental particles to exist that have the same mass as, but opposite electric, magnetic, and other properties to, the originals. These he called “antiparticles.” We might then legitimately ask: If there are antiparticles, why not antimatter?¹ Foreseeing this possibility, Dirac (Dirac 1933) intimated: “We must regard it as an accident that the earth (and presumably the whole solar system) contains a preponderance of negative electrons and positive protons. It is quite possible that for some of the stars it is the other way about. . . . There would be no way of distinguishing them by present astronomical methods.” Positively charged antielectrons, produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays, were duly discovered (and soon afterwards found emerging from some radioactive substances). A few decades later negatively charged antiprotons were produced in the laboratory by directing fast-moving protons into metal targets. Anti­neutrons, displaying opposite magnetic properties to neutrons, were almost immediately added to the list, and nuclei of heavy antihydrogen (which consist of one antineutron and one antiproton) followed ten years or so later. Very recently, a few antihelium nuclei have been seen.

Antimatter Pseudoscience

Were this the whole story it would not be such an inviting field for pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. However, Dirac had also shown that antiparticles and their corresponding particles annihilate each other on contact, thereby releasing, via Einstein’s famous equation E=mc², the energy equivalent of twice their mass. And if antiparticle annihilation produces enormous quantities of energy, why not antimatter bombs and antimatter power generation? Clearly intrigued by the former possibility, members of the U.S. Air Force began to appear at scientific conferences on antimatter in the early 1990s. So did the late science fiction writer Robert L. For­ward,² who had a background in research and a reputation for including only reasonably hard science in his novels. In 1996 a few very fast-moving antihydrogen atoms—antielectrons electrically bound to anti­protons—were produced at the CERN laboratory in Geneva (CERN 1996). Could this breakthrough lead to limitless power sources or unbelievably destructive bombs? Some sections of the world media evidently thought so and ex­ploded with headlines like “Scientists create the fuel of science fiction,” and “Antiworld flashes into view.” Even Sir Joseph Rotblat, world-renowned physicist, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and one of the architects of the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty, warned of antimatter bombs thousands of times more devastating than the hydrogen bomb (Rotblat 1996).

Hollywood’s visions of powerful antimatter bombs are pure fantasy.

NASA and Hollywood Fantasies

Things ratcheted up several more notches when in 2004 the San Francisco Chronicle published the article “Air Force Pursuing Antimatter Weapons” (Davidson 2004). This concerned a talk given by a certain Kenneth Edwards, director of the U.S. Air Force’s Revo­lutionary Munitions team, at a conference organized by NASA as part of its Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program. His report—sprinkled with Old Testament biblical references and maps showing missiles zigzagging over the Middle East—talked enthusiastically of revolutionary antimatter energy sources, rocket propulsion systems, and hand-held (yes indeed!) antimatter weapons.

We haven’t heard much of Edwards in recent years. We have, however, heard a lot about the 2009 movie version of Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons. In Brown’s book a lump of antimatter produced by the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is stolen and used to create mayhem in the Vatican as an act of revenge against the church for its persecution of Galileo. CERN had had an embarrassing mishap the previous year when the LHC had to be switched off for serious repairs shortly after it was inaugurated. Evidently thinking that all publicity is good publicity, it allowed the Hollywood promotional machine to take over its premises and use its good name as a platform to sell the movie, the lead actors, and their preferred brands of fashionable consumer goods. It also, apparently, chose not to point out on that occasion that the LHC has exactly the wrong characteristics for making antimatter anyway. Rather than having too little energy to function as efficient producers of anti­particles, its colliding protons have far too much. Even the 1996 antihydrogen atoms, made from antiprotons emerging from less violent collisions in a much lower energy accelerator, were moving so fast that they zipped through the laboratory in nanoseconds and annihilated on encountering the first obstacle they met.

Collecting Antiparticles for Research, Fuel, and Bombs

Here is the big problem: Whether you just want to study antiparticles closely or use them in fuel cells or bombs, you must hold large numbers of them still rather than have them self-destruct in nanoseconds. For this you need some kind of bottle. An antiparticle striking the walls of any ordinary bottle will, of course, instantly annihilate. It is not too difficult, however, to construct “bottles” with “walls” made of electric and magnetic fields, which will send any approaching electrically charged anti­particle backward if it is moving slowly enough. Since antiparticles will also annihilate if they hit any gas molecules remaining in the bottle, its air must be pumped out to a level such that few will be lost in this way in the course of a given experiment. Even at one billionth of the pressure of the atmosphere, each cubic centimeter of air contains many billions of molecules, so this is not easy.

Particles and antiparticles of either charge can nevertheless now be bottled without much trouble. In late 2010, again at CERN and again without recourse to the LHC, simultaneously bottled antiprotons and antielectrons were once more induced to bind to­gether into a small number of antihydrogen atoms (Hangst 2011, Yamazaki 2011). This time they were moving very slowly—only a few hundred meters per second. At such low speeds, a configuration of electric and magnetic fields could be found that was able to bottle even these electrically neutral entities, albeit for only a fraction of a second. This has triggered yet another wave of pseudoscientific speculation about antimatter fuel and weaponry.

General view of the experimental hall at CERN where physicists from sixteen countries carry out real science experiments on antimatter. (photo: CERN)

Running the Numbers

How are we to deal with these fevered imaginings? In his book Superstition, Robert Park (Park 2008) demolished Gerald O’Neil’s 1974 fantasy of solving the world’s overpopulation problem by accommodating the surplus in space colonies. This he did by what he calls “running the numbers.” Let’s try to highlight the absurdity of these antimatter fantasies by doing the same.

First we can discard the idea of collecting antiatoms (antihydrogen, for example) for such purposes instead of their component antiparticles. Getting the latter to bind together presents enormous technical headaches, which is why it has taken so many years to synthesize a mere handful of antihydrogen atoms. Moreover, there is no concomitant gain in the resulting annihilation energy yield, since it is the unbound components that annihilate anyway. We can also reject antielectrons and antineutrons as fuel or bomb material since the former have only about 1/2000 the mass of antiprotons (and therefore produce that much less energy per annihilation)³ and the latter because after about fifteen minutes, they decay into antiprotons anyway. We are thus left with antiprotons as our fuel or high explosive.

Suppose then that we had bottled every antiproton ever produced at CERN since 1956, the year they were first observed. How much energy would be released if we opened the bottle and allowed them all to annihilate? A rough guess at CERN’s aggregated antiproton yield since 1956 is about one hundred trillion (10¹⁴). Cur­rent technology limits the largest number that can be bottled as de­scribed above to about 10 million (10⁷). Even with the best vacuum presently achievable, these will only survive against annihilation by air molecules for a few weeks. Let us nevertheless put our faith in technological advances, dismiss such objections as the product of insufficiently imaginative minds, and do our energy calculation as if we could indeed have bottled all 10¹⁴ antiprotons produced at CERN over the fifty-five years since 1956.

The energy equivalent of the proton and antiproton masses amounts to a few ten-billionths (3×10^-10) of a joule.⁴ One joule will power a one-watt flashlamp bulb for one second. Our 10¹⁴ bottled antiprotons would therefore produce 30,000 joules, just about enough energy to light a sixty-watt bulb for eight or nine minutes. Trying to solve the world’s energy problems by antimatter annihilation evidently brings an entirely new dimension to the idea of doing things the hard way.

Now let’s calculate how long it would take to accumulate enough antiprotons to get the explosive power of a large hydrogen bomb, say ten megatons, with an energy equivalent of around forty thousand trillion (4.18×10¹⁶) joules. Pres­ently we can bottle about two million antiprotons per minute, equivalent to six ten-thousandths (6×10^-4) of a joule. The accumulation time needed for our 10 Mt bomb is therefore seventy million trillion (7×10¹⁹) minutes.

This is roughly 10,000 times the age of the universe—rather a tall order, you might think. Technophiles will nevertheless again argue that future improvements should be taken into account. Let’s be generous and allow them a factor of 20 billion or so to cover this, bringing the accumulation time down to a mere 7,000 years. So to have made such a bomb available now, with these quite impossible improvements, we would “only” have had to start accumulating around the dawn of recorded history. No time out for equipment maintenance or breakdowns; no holiday, meals, or comfort breaks for the operators of course; just continuous accumulation, day and night, week after week, month after month, year in, year out, century after century.

In the ASACUSA experiments, very high power, high quality laser beams are used to probe antimatter/matter hybrid atoms. (photo: Masaki Hori)

Still More Problems

There is one overriding consideration I haven’t yet mentioned: any antiparticles we make in the laboratory, we create out of energy itself (E=mc² is here working backward, so to speak). So when they annihilate we only get back energy we originally used up. Not all of it by any means. Nature is not so kind as to give us back even the energy we ex­pended, having decreed that antiparticle creation is a hopelessly inefficient way of storing energy.

What this suggests is that we would be better off going and getting a few bucketfuls of the stuff from one of those antimatter stars. Here I refer you once again to Robert Park’s book (Park 2008) in which he shows that travel to even a nearby star within a human lifetime would consume many thousands of times the entire annual energy production of Earth. And as if this wasn’t enough, astrophysicists, far and wide in the cosmos though they have looked, have never seen even a hint of any such stars.

Back to Real Science

Why this should be so is one of the great mysteries of modern physics. It is as if nature provided herself with two Lego kits for assembling different worlds but then left one of them in the box. To the best of our knowledge the instruction manuals—the laws of nature—are identical for the two kits. Have we perhaps misunderstood these laws?

When all else fails, read the manual is worthwhile advice for anyone faced with computer hardware behaving in similarly mysterious ways. Likewise, a guiding principle of real science is that our understanding of even well-established natural laws should always remain open to question. Careful re-reading of what might be called the fine print of these laws may yet reveal some minute asymmetry between matter and antimatter that has so far escaped our attention but that on a cosmic scale results in the world we see rather than the one we expected to see. Such is indeed the aim of current space-based (AMS 2011) and laboratory (Hangst 2011; Yamazaki 2011) experiments.⁵ But that, of course, is another matter.

Notes

1. The media normally make no distinction between antiparticles—the fundamental building blocks of antimatter—and antimatter itself (antiatoms, antimolecules, antistars etc.). In this article, I use antimatter in the latter, more correct sense.

2. Bob Forward was both likeable and knowledgeable, and I got on well with him on the few occasions we met. His pet project was neither power generation nor weaponry but an antimatter space propulsion system, in which annihilating antielectrons (which are usually and illogically known as positrons) heat a working rocket propellant instead of being used as a primary fuel.

3. NIAC, buried by NASA in 2007, was resurrected in 2011. Ap­parently following up Forward’s antielectron idea (www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/antimatter_spaceship.html), it nevertheless estimated in 2006 that “only” ten trillion trillion antielectrons (ten milligrams) would be needed for a manned trip to Mars along these lines. This is outside the scope of the present article, but their subsequent silence implies that even this relatively modest scheme got nowhere.

4. 2mc², with m=1.67×10^-27 kg and c=3×10⁸ m/s.

5. In antimatter research things are currently moving somewhat faster than a speeding bullet. Since March 2011 when I began to write this article, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS above) has been launched to the International Space Station, antihydrogen atoms have been bottled on the order of fifteen minutes, the anti­proton has been “weighed” with precision equivalent to weighing the Eiffel tower on a machine sensitive enough to detect a sparrow landing on it, and a kind of Van Allen belt of trapped antiprotons has been detected near Earth. Not surprisingly, some reports of these items of science news have indulged in the usual hand-waving fantasies about weapons, power, and space propulsion. Discussion of these developments must, however, await a future article.

References

AMS 2011. http://ams.cern.ch/.

CERN. 1996. Atoms of antimatter. CERN Courier 36 (2): 1–3.

Davidson, K. 2004. Air force pursuing antimatter weapons, Program was touted publicly, then became official gag order. San Francisco Chronicle (Oct 4).

Dirac, P.A.M. 1933. Nobel Prize lecture. Avail­able at http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1933/dirac-lecture.html.

Hangst, J. 2011. ALPHA collaboration gets antihydrogen in the trap. CERN Courier 51(2): 13–15. Available at http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/45129.

Park, Robert. 2008. Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science, Princeton University Press.

Rotblat, Sir J. 1996. Private view. Finan­cial Times (Jan 13/14).

Schuster, A. 1898. Potential matter—A holiday dream. Nature 58: 367.

Yamazaki, Y. 2011. At the cusp in ASACUSA. CERN Courier 51(2): 17–19. Available at http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/45130.

Figure 1. The author researches ginseng at the Museum of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

The Origins

One of the oldest forms of medical practice, Chinese medicine had ancient antecedents that are lost to history. Archaeological evidence of magical practices—including divination to determine the will of one’s ancestors, who were considered a major cause of illness (along with environmental factors, such as snow and, especially, wind)—dates from as early as the Shang Dynasty (1766–1122 BCE). Still, the system that would develop into traditional Chinese medicine stems from the Han Dynasty (206 BCE–219 CE) (Ancient Healing 1997, 278, 282–83).

China’s oldest medical text, the Huangdi Neijing (or “Yellow Emperor’s Inner Canon”), stems from circa 200 BCE, when it was probably compiled by several different people rather than the mythical Huang Di (who supposedly lived from 2698 to 2598 BCE—a convenient one hundred years). It influenced future generations of medical theorists and is still cited in support of today’s Chinese medicine (Ancient Healing 1997, 282). (It also laid the foundation for most Asian medicine—that of Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and other Asian countries—although India de­veloped its own medical system, Ayur­veda [Monte 1993, 20].)

Traditional Chinese medicine is based on a pair of central concepts. The first, the Doctrine of Two Principles, holds that there are two opposing forces—yin and yang—that combine in various ways to create all phenomena. Yin and yang’s attraction creates an energy called qi (pronounced “chee”), which is held to be the life force permeating the entire universe. In the body, where it supposedly flows through certain channels called meridians, an imbalance of qi causes illness.

The second key concept in Chinese medicine is that of the Five Elements: wood, fire, earth, metal, and water, each associated with a particular planet, one of the five Chinese seasons, and a pair of the body’s organs, among other associated qualities. Traditional Chinese medicine is a complex system that combines these two main concepts with other diagnostics. Various treatments—the use of herbs, acupuncture, and other means—are intended to balance qi and thus restore health (Monte 1993, 19–29; Porter 1997, 94–113; Ancient Healing 1997, 296–98).

Materia Medica

An entire floor of the Museum of Traditional Chinese Medicine is de­voted to eastern materia medica (Latin for “medical matter”), the herbs and other natural substances used for making traditional medicines. The impressive collection of 2,850 substances in­cludes 300 taxidermy specimens; fish, starfish, turtles, owls, snakes, and bear, for example, all have their purpose. Powdered deer antler, for in­stance, is prescribed for women’s menstrual problems. Among several ancient pharmacopoeia to survive in some version, the principle one is a sixteenth-century herbalism text by a physician named Li Shih-chen. It de­scribes nearly 2,000 herbs and provides some 10,000 herbal remedies (Shealy 1996, 32).

Among the museum’s extensive collection of herbs (the bulk of the materia medica) is a display of both eastern ginseng (Panax ginseng) and Amer­ican ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) (Figure 1). I found this of particular interest because as a boy growing up in eastern Kentucky I knew rural “’sang” hunters who dug, dried, and sold the root to meet the East’s insatiable demand for an herbal remedy used to treat any lack of vitality, including impotence. In China, I sampled ginseng tea in tea houses and “tonic soup” in restaurants (including “pigeon with ginseng,” said to be efficacious for “regulating one’s energy, strengthening one’s body,” ac­cording to the menu description).

Ginseng’s root is often forked, giving it a vague semblance of a person’s body. It is probably because of this shape (the English word ginseng is de­rived from a Chinese term meaning “man root”) that medicinal properties were first attributed to the plant. The genus name Panax is Greek for “all-heal,” the same origin as panacea (Chevalier 1996, 25, 116; Encyclopedia Britannica 1960, s.v. “ginseng”).

Whereas western herbalists typically prescribe a single herb at a time, Chinese and other Asian therapists may concoct a mixture of medicinal substances—vegetable, animal, mineral—tailored to a particular person and condition. Each ingredient is based on its qi or energy value (said to be hot, warm, cold, cool, or neutral) (Shealy 1996, 72).

While herbs have a definite place in modern science-based medicine—some mainstream medical compounds are derived from plant sources—the efficacy and safety of each plant must be determined through double-blind clinical trials before it can be deemed suitable for medical use. Although many people believe “natural” medicines are inherently safe, the fact is that there are important safety issues of drug interaction, contamination, dosage, and other concerns, including the fact that use of an ineffective medicine means that expected health benefits are not realized. There is also the risk of long-term adverse effects with some herbs (Porter 1997, 92–93).

Figures 2–3. The author undergoes “cupping” treatment (shown here), together with acupuncture, at a Beijing clinic. (Photos by Joe Nickell)

Acupuncture

Even more important than herbalism is acupuncture, “the preeminent form of therapy in Chinese medicine” (Monte 1993, 23). Among the oldest therapies still in use, it consists of inserting needles at any of over 350 “acupoints,” which are supposedly located along in­visible meridians through which qi flows. The purpose is to drain any excess of qi, remove blockages, and stimulate the flow of qi, thus correcting imbalances and thereby treating illnesses (Porter 1997, 19; Shealy 1996, 31).

Acupuncture, however, has begun to be subjected to the rigors of science with generally negative results. The existence of neither qi nor the meridians through which it is supposedly carried has been proven, notwithstanding the claims made from faulty studies. As to the efficacy of the treatment, evidence is mounting that previous positive studies are flawed and that acupuncture lacks intrinsic clinical value.

Researchers have demonstrated that “sham” acupuncture (i.e., phony treatments using incorrect acupoints or needles that retract like the blades of stage knives) can work as well as real acupuncture. (See Steven Novella’s “What Is Acupuncture?” SI, July/August 2011). In fact, acupuncture ap­pears to be no more successful in relieving pain than can be attributed to the placebo effect, and there is no credible evidence that acu­puncture is effective in treating any other medical condition (Slack 2010).

Some additional Chinese medical treatments are related to acupuncture. There is acupressure, a needle-less form that “involves the surface stimulation of acupoints digitally, manually, or with tools held in the hand” (Raso 1996, 4); moxibustion, the burning of moxa (dried leaves of Artemesia vulgaris) to apply heat to acupuncture points (Shealy 1996, 31); and cupping, where­by a vacuum is created in a cup (by burning combustible material inside it) that is quickly placed on the patient’s body, often at an acupoint (see Figures 2 and 3).

Acupuncture, herbalism, and other aspects of traditional Chinese medicine are viewed with nationalistic pride, not unlike the art of Chinese brush calligraphy, and criticism of it is often met with some defensiveness. Nevertheless, the practice appears to be slowly declining in China—just as, ironically, it has been gaining favor among New Agers in the West. Meanwhile, as an advanced doctoral student at the Beijing Uni­versity of Chinese Medi­cine admitted to me, Chinese traditional medicine and Wes­tern medicine are not well integrated but function in a rather parallel manner; the practice is to use both. In other words, one might be given a Western diagnosis that included labwork followed by prescription of an antibiotic and also separately be given acupuncture treatment, based on looking at the patient’s tongue and taking his or her pulse, coupled with an herbal concoction. One hopes that in both hemispheres, science-based medicine—not “Western” medicine—will prevail.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the Chinese Research In­sti­tute for Science Popularization (CRISP) in Beijing, especially Zhang Yunjing and Hu Junping; the Center for Inquiry (CFI), especially CEO Ron Lindsay and CSI Executive Director Barry Karr. CFI Libraries Director Timothy Binga and librarian Lisa Nolan also helped with this project.

References

Ancient Healing: Unlocking the Mysteries of Health & Healing Through the Ages. 1997. Lincoln, Illinois: Publications International.

Chevalier, Andrew. 1996. The Encyclopedia of Medicinal Plants. New York: DK Publishing.

Encyclopedia Britannica. 1960. Chicago: Encyclo­pedia Britannica.

Monte, Tom, and the editors of East West Natural Health. 1993. New York: Perigee Books.

Porter, Roy, ed. 1997. Medicine: A History of Healing. New York: Barnes & Noble Books.

Raso, Jack. 1996. The Dictionary of Metaphysical Healthcare: Alternative Medicine, Para­normal Healing, and Related Methods. Loma Linda, California: The National Coun­cil Against Health Fraud.

Shealy, C. Norman, ed. 1996. The Complete Family Guide to Alternative Medicine. Shafts­bury, Dorset, England: Element Books.

Slack, Robert. 2010. Acupuncture: A science-based assessment: A position paper from the Center for Inquiry Office of Public Policy.

Ford claimed that on February 8, 1928, he went into a trance and, talking in the voice of “Fletcher,” his spirit guide, he said that a woman identifying herself as the mother of Harry Houdini was anxious to speak. The spirit stated that her son, Harry, had hoped for years to receive one particular word from her, the word forgive, and added that “his wife knew the word, and no one else in all the world knew it.”

Forgive was, presumably, the last word uttered by Houdini’s mother on her deathbed and did probably refer to one of Houdini’s brothers, Leopold, who had been “guilty” of marrying Sadie, the ex-wife of Nathan, another Houdini brother. To the magician, this behavior had appeared morally inexcusable and led to the “removal” of Leopold from his life. He could have not forgiven his brother unless his mother told him to; however, her death came before the matter could be discussed.

On learning of Ford’s message, Bess promptly wrote the following to Ford:

Strange that the word forgive is the word Houdini awaited in vain all of his life. It was indeed the message for which he always secretly hoped, and if had been given to him while he was still alive, it would I know have changed the entire course of his life—but it came too late. Aside from this there are one or two trivial inaccuracies—Houdini’s mother called him Ehrich—there was nothing in the message which could be contradicted. I might also say that this is the first message which I have received which has an appearance of truth.

A poster for Houdini's campaign against fraudulent mediums.

Ford’s supporters announced that Bess’s letter confirmed the authenticity of the message, since the word forgive could only be known by Houdini, his mother, and his wife. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, typically, considered the message genuine and “an outstanding case.” The public, however, remained skeptical. The press, in fact, reported that the keyword had already appeared in print nearly a year before, on March 13, 1927, in the Brooklyn Eagle. In an interview she had given to the paper, Bess had specified that any authentic communication purporting to come from Houdini would have included the word forgive. Further­more, it was not true, as the “spirit” of Houdini’s mother had said, that “no one else in all the world” besides her, Houdini, and Bess knew of the word; at the time of her death, in fact, her magician son was touring Europe with his wife. The son who was at Mrs. Hou­dini’s deathbed was Theodore.

A few months later, on January 5, 1929, Ford announced that he had received the tenth and final code word of a message from Houdini. The following day, accompanied by members of his church, Ford went to Payson Avenue, where Bess had moved after Houdini’s death. They found Bess lying on a couch, suffering from a fall down a flight of stairs—probably provoked by a drinking habit she had developed. In an account written for the New York Evening Graphic before Ford’s visit, Bess was described as being in a “semidelirium,” calling for Hou­dini to return. She blacked out from time to time and was “under constant care of physicians.” It was in this state, then, that Ford’s message was read to her; it stated: “Rosabelle, answer, tell, pray-answer, look, tell, answer-answer, tell.”

A séance was fixed for January 8, shortly after noon. Ford went into a trance and began speaking through what he claimed was Houdini’s voice. The voice repeated the message and then said: “Thank you, sweetheart, now take off your wedding ring and tell them what ‘Rosabelle’ means.” Bess, lying on a sofa, took off her ring and began to sing: “Rosabelle, sweet Rosabelle, I love you more than I can tell. Over me you cast a spell. I love you, my sweet Rosabelle.”

A portrait of Houdini with his wife, Bess. photo: http://houdinihimself.com

Ford, still speaking as Houdini, ex­plained that “Rosabelle” was the song sung by his wife in their early days. The other code letters in the message formed the word “believe.” Before leaving, the purported voice of Houdini said: “Spare no time or money to undo my attitude of doubt while on earth. Now that I have found my way back, I can come often sweetheart. Give yourself to placing the truth before all those who have lost the faith and want to take hold again. Believe me, life is continuous. Tell the world there is no death. I will be close to you. I expect to use this instrument [Ford] many times in the future. Tell the world, sweetheart, that Harry Houdini lives and will prove it a thousand times.”

The secret code was the one used by Houdini and Bess when, in the early days of their career, they used to present in their show a telepathy act similar to others of the time. The code consisted of ten units with each unit standing for a digit and each digit, in turn, representing the position in the alphabet of a letter in the coded message:

Pray = 1 = A

Answer = 2 = B

Say = 3 = C

Now = 4 = D

Tell = 5 = E

Please = 6 = F

Speak = 7 = G

Quickly = 8 = H

Look = 9 = I

Be quick = 10 or 0 = J

Double-digit letters were indicated by combinations of the code words. For example, the fourteenth word, N, would be signaled by the phrase “pray (1), now (4).” In Ford’s message the nine words following “Rosabelle” formed the word Believe in this manner: Answer (B), tell (E), pray-answer (L), look (I), tell (E), answer-answer (V), tell (E).

Ford’s group insisted that Bess issue another statement. It was written on Bess’s personal stationery but by someone else, as the handwriting reveals. She was then asked to sign it. It read: “Regardless of any statements made to the contrary, I wish to declare that the message in its entirety and in the agreed-upon sequence, given to me by Arthur Ford is the correct message pre-arranged between Mr. Houdini and myself.”

Not everybody was convinced, however. Magician, mentalist, and friend of Houdini Joseph Dunninger went to Bess’s house and reminded her that the “secret code” had not been secret since its publication, the previous year, on page 105 of Houdini, His Life Story, the authorized biography written by Harold Kellock and based on Bess’s “recollections and documents.”

“I have seen it stated in the papers,” Doyle would later write to Kellock on this point, “that this accounts for Ford getting a posthumous message. This, however, I am sure you realize, is not correct. It was not the cipher that formed the test, but it was the message which was written in the cipher, and Ford could not have got that out of your book.”

The medium Arthur Ford at the bed of a sick Beatrice Houdini. She can be seen in the bed with her head bandaged.

Bess, however, had stated to the New York World on January 9: “I had no idea what combination of words Harry would use and when he sent ‘believe’ it was a surprise.” Also, the fact that Houdini had had four lines of the song “Rosabelle” engraved inside Bess’s wide gold wedding ring was hardly a secret.

“The Message is a Hoax!”

Two days after the séance, the notorious scandal-sheet, the New York Evening Graphic, headlined: “HOUDINI MESSAGE A BIG HOAX!—‘Séance’ Prearranged by ‘Medium’ and Widow.” The allegation was that Bess herself had given Ford the code in order to promote a lecture tour that the two were supposed to do together. The news caused an uproar, and Bess, still ill, wrote a moving letter to Walter Winchell, a columnist of the Evening Graphic:

This letter is not for publicity, I do not need publicity. I want to let Hou­dini’s old friends know that I did not betray his trust. I am writing this personally because I wish to tell you emphatically that I was no party to any fraud.

Now regarding the séance: For two years I have been praying to receive the message from my husband; for two years every day I have received messages from all parts of the world. Had I wanted a publicity stunt I could no doubt have chosen any of these sensational messages. When I repudiated these messages no one said a word, excepting the writers who said I did not have the nerve to admit the truth.

When the real message, the message that Houdini and I agreed upon, came to me and I accepted it as the truth, I was greeted with jeers. Why? Those who denounce the whole thing as a fraud claim that I had given Mr. Arthur Ford the message. If Mr. Ford said this I brand him a liar. Mr. Ford has stoutly denied saying this ugly thing, and knowing the reporter as well as I do I prefer to believe Mr. Ford. Others say the message has been common property and known to them for some time. Why do they tell me this now, when they know my heart was hungry for the true words from my husband? The many stories told about me I have no way to tell the world the truth of or the untruth, for I have no paper at my beck and call; everyone has a different opinion of how the message was obtained. With all these different tales I would not even argue. However, when anyone ac­cuses me of giving the words that my husband and I labored so long to convince ourselves of the truth of communication, then I will fight and fight until the breath leaves my body.

If anyone claims I gave the code, I can only repeat they lie. Why should I want to cheat myself? I do not need publicity. I have no intention of going on the stage or, as some paper said, on a lecture tour. My husband made it possible for me to live in the greatest comfort. I do not need to earn money. I have gotten the message I have been waiting for from my husband, how, if not by spiritual aid, I do not know.

And now, after I told the world that I have received the true message, everyone seems to have known of the code, yet never told me. They left it to Mr. Ford to tell me, and I am accused of giving the words. It is all so confusing. In conclusion, may I say that God and Houdini and I know that I did not betray my trust. For the rest of the world I really ought not to care a hang, but somehow I do, therefore this letter. Forgive its length.

Sincerely yours,

Beatrice Houdini

When it became known that Ford was using a copy of Bess’s signed statement in some of his advertisements, Bernard M.L. Ernst, Houdini’s and then Bess’s lawyer, saw the possibility of a lawsuit against Ford. In reply, Bess wrote to him:

I wish to say that I did sign the letter. . . . I did not say that I believed that the message came through spiritual aid or that I believed in spiritualism. I did say the words I heard were the words I expected to hear, etc. . . . I had a copy of the original letter I wrote to him somewhere but I am too ill to look for it and I really don’t care. I never said I believed the letter came from Houdini. I never said I believed in spiritualism and I still say the same. I don’t care what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle or Will Goldston say or do. I don’t and never did believe the message genuine nor did I believe in spiritualism. I will write you clearly later if you will just give me a chance to get well. I don’t care what you do to or about Mr. Ford.

The cover of a 1928 booklet detailing Houdini's spirit exposés.

Ernst didn’t bring Ford to court, but the medium was, nonetheless, expelled from the United Spiritualist League of New York. At least for a short while; shortly afterward he was reinstated “on the ground of insufficient proof” as to his possible fraud.

Bess disavowed Ford’s message countless times. “There was a time,” she told an interviewer later in her life, “when I wanted intensely to hear from Harry. I was ill, both physically and mentally, and such was my eagerness that spiritualists were able to prey upon my mind and make me believe that they had really heard from him.”

On March 19, 1930, Bess also asked Ernst to issue a statement reading thus: “For three years she had sought to penetrate beyond the grave and communicate with her husband, but had now renounced faith in such a possibility: she denied that any of the mediums presented the clew [clue] by which she was to recognize a legitimate message.”

And so Houdini, who for a little while had appeared to have returned from the afterlife, was finally let to rest in the only inescapable prison that was able to hold him: death.

In the early 2000s, a new kind of paranormal-themed show appeared on television. This “reality-based” genre of programs featured individuals or teams of nonscientists who undertook investigations of alleged paranormal phenomena. The Syfy network’s Ghost Hunters, the most popular of these shows in the United States, boasts over two million viewers per episode (Seidman 2009) and has launched two spinoff shows. The show’s group, The Atlantic Paranormal Society (TAPS), directly influenced the formation of other similar groups (Brown 2008). Within a few years, multiple cable television networks hosted shows that portrayed people directing and participating in self-styled investigations into UFOs, monster reports, and strange, spooky activity around the world.

Also in the first decade of the twenty-first century, amateur research and investigation groups (ARIGs) sprang up in communities across the United States. Many represented their activities as scientific. Interested in seeing how ARIG ideas about being scientific compared to those of the scientific community, I conducted a review of 1,000 websites representing ARIGs in the United States (Hill 2010). How many are there and in what manner do these groups use science to promote themselves and fulfill their mission?

Defining ARIGs

ARIGs are unique in that they examine areas on which no organized academic research or inquiry is focused—perceived paranormal events. They are led by and composed of people who have little or no scientific training. In these two ways, they significantly differ from other amateur science programs for which nonscientists gather specific material data for established science-based research programs.¹ ARIGs are typically hobbyist groups held together by their interest in the subject. Mem­bers are serious about their research activities, but jobs limit their participation. Involvement in these groups is an example of a “serious leisure” activity (Stebbins 1992): like-minded individuals diligently pursue an activity to fulfill certain social and personal aspects of their lives.

I limited my study to groups who use the Internet. The Internet provides an efficient way for ARIGs to recruit new members, exchange information, and solicit cases from the public to investigate. ARIG websites reveal their mission, goals, methods, philosophy, and typical results. While these groups are also marketed through local word of mouth or media appearances, a web presence often provides the first point of contact for those who may be seeking help to explain a suspected paranormal experience.

Considering the above observations, I define ARIGs by the following characteristics:

1. Not under the auspices of an academic institution or headed by working scientists
2. Focused on investigation of unexplained or paranormal events such as reports of hauntings, mystery animals, unidentified aerial ob­jects, natural anomalies, and parapsychological phenomena
3. Undertaking activities that do not provide a primary form of income for participants
4. Self-forming and independent (but may hold affiliation with a larger organization)
5. Promoted via the Internet

Characterizing ARIGs in the United States

Prior to my research, word of mouth in the paranormal and skeptical communities suggested that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of ghost hunter, UFO seeker, and monster tracker groups across the country, but no one had attempted to formally count them all. Counting these groups is difficult because they are ephemeral—as easy to let die as to set up.

Before social networking tools, it was difficult to connect with others who were interested in fringe topics. Such groups historically recruited via bulletin boards and advertisements; they were maintained through mailed newsletters, desktop journals, and physical gatherings. The Internet lowered the barriers to group formation.

I collected 1,600 ARIG web ad­dresses through various Internet search methods and index sites. At this point, I realized there were many more I had yet to count. I accepted that 1,600 would serve as representative of the population, and the list was randomized and numbered. Information was then collected on the first 1,000 active sites. Data collected included the group name, home state, subject category, and scientificity (whether or not they claimed to use science or scientific methods), as well as several features ob­served that were common (use of psychics) or unique (specialized in cases with children or animals, for example).

My results showed that almost all U.S. states had four or more groups active at the time of the survey. There was at least one group in every state, with the overall numbers roughly correlated to population density across the United States. Ohio and Pennsylvania had the highest tallies at eighty-one and eighty, respectively. Because many groups will travel to adjoining states, there are overlapping “coverage” areas among ARIGs.

ARIG subject areas resolved into four categories: ghosts, cryptozoology, UFOs, and general paranormal (including natural anomaly occurrences or cases of alleged psi phenomena). Values are shown in Figure 1. Many groups stated they would investigate all categories and were labeled “paranormal.” Out of 1,000 groups, 879 identified with the category of “ghosts.” An additional eighty-one included ghosts within the broad “paranormal” category. These counts affirm that ghost hunting is incredibly popular and trendy.

Figure 1

Only five specialized in UFOs or UFOs in combination with other anomalous phenomena (but not ghosts). One of the five is the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), which claims thousands of members with a director plus investigators in every state. (Several states are combined under “New England.”) Over the past few decades, UFO research consolidated under MUFON, which provided unified methods of investigation, training, state-to-state cooperation, and sharing of results.

In contrast to the UFO research centralization, the ghost groups are smaller, diffuse, and independent. There are a few preeminent groups with which individual groups can be affiliated, such as TAPS or Ghost Adven­tures Crew (GAC)²; however, they do not direct group functions but rather only provide a set of standards to which groups must adhere to maintain affiliation.

Thirty-five groups specialize in cryptozoology, mostly focusing on Bigfoot reports. Cryptozoology groups may be local or have members dispersed across the country. There is no overarching organization.

I used the Internet browser’s search feature on each site’s main page to locate the text string “scien” returning results for “science” and “scientific,” if it existed, on the page. Use and context of these terms determined the group’s “scientificity.” If the use of these words was not positive (i.e., was anti-science), then the scientificity was counted as “no.” If positive or neutral, the scientificity was “yes.” If the terms were not used at all, scientificity was labeled “not specified.”

A total of 526 ARIG websites (52.6 percent) displayed scientificity by explicitly using “science” or “scientific” in reference to their mission, methods, or goals. An additional twenty-seven sites used “scientific” to refer to their equipment only. Twenty designated their group as “semi-” or “quasi-” scientific or strongly suggested science by use of oblique references such as “not an exact science.” Only nineteen ARIGs were completely nonscientific or anti-science, advocating a completely psychical or subjective ap­proach. The remaining 40.8 percent of sites did not specify. (See Figure 2.)

Figure 2

ARIGs’ ‘Scientific’ Methodology

Indicator surveys consistently show that “science” is held in high regard in our society (National Science Founda­tion 2009). Every party with a claim wants science to support its side. This, I suspect, is a main reason why the majority of ARIGs attempt to cultivate a serious, science-like image. Manner, language, and procedure of science are imitated in order to appear sophisticated and credible (Degele 2005; Haack 2007).

Two primary means ARIGs use to portray a scientific image are jargon and use of technology. Use of science jargon, or “scientese” (Haard et al. 2004), was common to ARIGs that exhibited scientificity. Several sites have specific sections pertaining to the “science” of their activities. Commonly used terms in­clude words such as frequency, resonance, energy, quantum, magnetic, environmental, and electricity. Yet the sites lack operational (or even common) definitions for these terms. Vague and confusing language is ubiquitous: ghosts “use energy,” are made up of “magnetic fields,” or are associated with a “quantum state.” Scholarly references to scientific works are nonexistent, but Einstein and Edi­son are frequently and explicitly connected to current ideas about communication with paranormal entities as if credibility can be bolstered by naming people popularly associated with science and technology.

The word scientific is also used liberally. Certain groups will proclaim their “scientific methods” citing a “scientific approach” and “scientific research” to obtain a “scientific solution” with “scientific proof.”

ARIGs that claimed to use “a scientific method” equated the process most often with a systematic protocol of observation and collection of empirical data. ARIG methodology, as outlined on their websites, includes the following: eyewitness interviews, site visit(s) with equipment setup, collection of data in usually one but possibly multiple days and/or nights, analysis of the data, presentation of the results to the client (if there is one), and a write-up or record of the investigation.

For ghost investigations, “scientific” collection of data consists of gathering temperature readings, electromagnetic field anomalies, photographs, sound recordings, and other “energy” readings. This process often includes highly subjective methods such as psychics, dowsing rods, and Ouija boards to help guide investigators in equipment setup. The most common evidence cited by ARIGs for hauntings was electronic voice phenomena (EVP), where indistinct sounds recorded during the investigation are presumed to be communication with entities. I was hard pressed to find any data tables, graphs, maps, or documentation of the results, which one would expect to find in a typical scientific report.

To establish a body of knowledge as “scientific” and to maintain science as a unique and respected endeavor, the scientific community subscribes to an ethos defined by ideals or norms (Ziman 2000). Merton (1942) established these norms as communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism.

The first of Merton’s norms, communalism, encompasses sharing knowledge and data, allowing others to reproduce the work. While ARIGs post their investigation reports online; these reports do not at all resemble scientific reports. Typically, they are not detailed enough for others to duplicate the process, are unreferenced, do not build on the work of others or any established scientific knowledge, and are not valuable beyond perhaps being a record of the investigators’ impressions on that occasion. Many investigation results are confidential on the request of the client, therefore no findings are released.

The use of psychics or sensitives violates Merton’s norm of universalism since only certain gifted individuals can “sense” the sprit present or communicate with the entity. The nongifted cannot confirm or deny such an observation. In haunting cases, the investigator is encouraged to be his or her own instrument, recording psychic or sensory impressions. This constitutes a full-on invitation to engage in biased, subjective, and unverifiable reporting.

The most egregious error made by ARIGs is their bias, which not only violates the norm of disinterestedness but also negates the entire investigation and its conclusions. While claiming open-mindedness, ARIGs are composed of those who hold a preconceived view of a phenomenon and set out to support it (Potts 2004). In stark contrast to scientific writing, ARIG websites will frequently state certainty in their goals or conclusions. Their mission is to “prove” a phenomenon they believe exists or to provide “irrefutable” evidence of same. Even more pretentious are those who wish to “adapt existing scientific laws to reports of the paranormal” or create a “bridge between the science and the paranormal.” That language is a signal of how far removed ARIG participants really are from the established scientific community.

Skepticism is often given token lip service. Several ARIGs say they welcome skeptics. However, what open-minded skepticism really means to them is that one is open to the paranormal conclusion as the correct conclusion. The ARIG explanation too frequently defaults to the paranormal after an incomplete examination of alternative natural causes (Baker and Nickell 1992, 101–105; Radford 2010, 11–32). They express resentment of the scientific community for not seeing what they, as paranormalists, view as obvious—that their evidence is convincing. While there are some explicitly nonparanormalist (skeptical) investigation groups, they are few.

ARIGs overwhelmingly display neither understanding of nor adherence to scientific norms. Another dramatic contrast to conventional scientific attitudes is the number of ghost investigation groups that are Christian-based, openly declaring their belief in angels, life after death, and demon infestations directly alongside their descriptions for collecting empirical data.

Equipment

Use of technology is pervasive for AR­IGs. It is de rigueur to include a page on the website dedicated to equipment used. High-end, expensive, or unique instruments seem to be considered status symbols, with some groups advertising the largest or newest array of devices.

Ghost hunter groups rely on their equipment to record spiritual evidence. Several groups express the notion that new technology is the key to a breakthrough in paranormal research. Yet at no site and in no ghost investigation reference book did I encounter a coherent, referenced explanation for the various equipment used and data gathered. ARIGs matter-of-factly state that the equipment records environmental disturbances related to paranormal activity without considering normal variance or calibration.

Reliance on equipment mimics the current television portrayal of paranormal investigation. Television shows give us a simplified and optimistic representation of science (Collins 1987). Science, viewed by laypersons, is about the symbols (such as paraphernalia and certain personal characteristics of scientists) and end products (Toumey 1996). Use of equipment suggests ob­jectivity—others can see the ob­tained numerical data from which the results are concluded.

Public Acceptance of “Sciencey” Things

Science has considered but provisionally rejected claims of ghosts, cryptids, and alien spacecraft. Yet the public has a high interest in such ideas. To them, seemingly paranormal phenomena are unknown and deserve serious attention. When most respectable scientists eschew paranormal topics, self-styled experts outside of science step in to provide support and legitimacy for public interest (Westrum 1977). We can say with certainty that there are presently well over 1,000 of these groups active in the United States to serve these interests.

Specialized skills and high standards characterize scientific work. However, hardly any ARIG lists formal scientific training as a desired qualification of its members. ARIG members generally do what appear to be respectable, convincing, and “sciencey” things. The public mostly relies on heuristics, looking for cues that suggest a source of information is knowledgeable and sophisticated. Because much of the public has little understanding of the rigor and practices of science, it is easy for nonscientists to adopt a hollow likeness of science that misrepresents it. The average observer would not have the background knowledge to determine that ARIG portrayal of a “high-tech” paranormal investigation is ineffectual and without a sound foundation in scientific principals. ARIGs deliver sham inquiry—a process that gives the im­pression of scientific inquiry but lacks substance and rigor.

Those who are anxious about the current state of science education, especially informal science education, may have a justifiable concern about how “reality” popular television portrays the scientific endeavor and who gain public credibility as investigators or scientific researchers. ARIGs often promote their paranormalist viewpoint as scientifically based, especially in community presentations or lectures at educational facilities. While scientifically minded observers can readily spot the anemic and shoddy scholarship of popular paranormal investigation, the public, unaware of the fundamental errors ARIGs make, can be persuaded by jargon and “sciencey” symbols.

Notes

1. Such as Galaxy Zoo or the Audubon bird count surveys.

2. Ghost Adventures Crew claims over 600 members (www.webcitation.org/5y3t6VBdK). Neither TAPS nor GAC require any scientific training for affiliated members.

References

Baker, R.A., and J. Nickell. 1992. Missing Pieces: How to Investigate Ghosts, UFOs, Psychics, & Other Mysteries. Buffalo, New York: Prome­theus Books.

Brown, A. 2008. Ghost Hunters of New England. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England.

Collins, H.M. 1987. Certainty and the public understanding of science: Science on television. Social Studies of Science 17(4): 689–713.

Degele, N. 2005. On the margins of everything: Doing, performing, and staging science in homeopathy. Science, Technology, and Human Values 30(1): 111–36. doi:10.1177/0162 243904270711.

Haack, S. 2003. Defending Science—within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism. Am­herst, New York: Prometheus Books.

Haard, J., M.D. Slater, and M. Long. 2004. Scientese and ambiguous citations in the selling of unproven medical treatments. Health Communication 16(4): 411–26.

Hill, S.A. 2010. “Being Scientifical: Popularity, Purpose, and Promotion of Amateur Re­search and Investigation Groups in the U.S.” [Thesis] Master of Education—Science and the Public, State University of New York at Buffalo.

Merton, R.K. 1942. Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1: 115–126.

National Science Foundation. 2009. Science and Engineering Indicators 2010.

Arlington, Virginia: National Science Board (NSB 10-01). Available at www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/start.htm.

Potts, J. 2004. Ghost hunting in the twenty-first century. In J. Houran (ed.) From Shaman to Scientist: Essays on Humanities Search for Spirits. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press.

Radford, B. 2010. Scientific Paranormal Investi­gation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries. Corrales, New Mexico: Rhombus Publishing Co.

Seidman, R. 2009. Ghost Hunters continues ratings success. Available online at http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/09/04/ghost-hunters-continues-ratings-success/26220.

Stebbins, R.A. 1992. Amateurs, Professionals, and Serious Leisure. Montreal; Buffalo: McGill-Queen University Press.

Toumey, C.P. 1996. Conjuring Science: Scientific Symbols and Cultural Meanings in American Life. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Westrum, R. 1977. Social intelligence about anomalies: The case of UFOs. Social Studies of Science 7(3): 271–302.

Ziman, J.M. 2000. Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means. New York: Cambridge Uni­versity Press.

Sybil Exposed: The Extraordinary Story Behind the Famous Multiple Personality Case. By Debbie Nathan. Free Press, New York, 2011. ISBN: 978-1439168271. 320 pp. Hardcover, $26.

Horror stories can reveal and feed a society’s darkest fantasies. The Monk, the famous Gothic novel published by Matthew Lewis in 1796, is a striking example. With its portrait of lascivious monks and murderous nuns, The Monk reflected negative stereotypes about Catholics that were widespread in England during the late 1700s. It also helped to reinforce and perpetuate those prejudices for decades to come.

Sybil, published by Florence Rheta Schreiber in 1973, is another famously lurid book that both reflected and shaped the nightmares of its time. Gothically dark but with gleams of light, it recounted the supposedly true story of psychiatrist Cornelia Wilbur and one of her patients, a fragile young woman pseudonymously called Sybil to protect her identity. During eleven years of psychoanalysis Wilbur encountered sixteen of Sybil’s “alternate personalities,” which had supposedly developed during childhood in reaction to horrendous sexual and physical abuse by Sybil’s mother. The book recounted how Sybil dealt with these traumatic memories under Wilbur’s healing influence and gradually integrated her “alters” into a single stable personality.

A national best seller, Sybil was turned into an award-winning 1976 television miniseries with Sally Field as Sybil and Joanne Woodward as Wilbur. Soon afterward an epidemic of Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), also known as Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), swept across the United States, persisting through the 1980s and into the early 1990s. Only a handful of MPD/DID cases had previously been reported in the scientific literature. After Sybil, the number skyrocketed into the thousands.

The impact of Sybil was huge. For decades afterward its spellbinding narrative was accepted as factual. Schreiber declared in the book’s preface that it was a “true story,” and Wilbur herself vouched for its accuracy during television appearances and professional conferences. However, it is now clear that neither Sybil nor Wilbur should ever have been believed. In Sybil Exposed: The Extraordinary Story Behind the Famous Multiple Personality Case, investigative journalist Debbie Nathan has revealed the true story of Sybil, whose real name was Shirley Mason.

Drawing from archives that only recently have been opened to the public, Nathan presents a description of Shirley/Sybil and Wilbur that is both compassionate and devastating. With a wealth of facts and extensive footnotes, Nathan demonstrates that Sybil, both the book and the miniseries, were packed with lies and distortions. Marketed to the public as nonfiction, Sybil instead should have been shelved next to The Monk among the Gothic horror novels and other dark fantasies.

Sybil Exposed presents overwhelming evidence that Shirley/Sybil never enacted multiple personalities until she met Wilbur. The young patient’s florid symptoms emerged and morphed over a period of years as she and Wilbur en­gaged in a complicated dance of mutually reinforced self-deception. Ac­cord­ing to her own admission, Shirley pretended to have alter personalities because she wanted Wilbur’s attention. The doctor quickly became fascinated by the personalities and began planning how she might attain professional fame and money by publishing about them. Wilbur then began using suggestive questions and barbiturate injections to extract ever more bizarre allegations of childhood abuse from her increasingly disoriented patient. Meanwhile she recruited Florence Schreiber to write a popularized book about the case.

Eventually Wilbur collaborated with Schreiber to create a narrative full of fabrications. For instance, according to the book, Shirley’s father once confessed to Wilbur that Shirley’s de­ceased mother had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. However, documented evidence clearly shows that this supposed confession never took place. Nor is there a shred of reliable evidence that Shirley’s mother had schizophrenia or any other psychotic disorder. Wilbur apparently allowed the phony confession to be inserted into Sybil to lend it more credibility.

Few topics in modern psychiatry arouse more controversy than MPD/DID. Many mental health professionals question whether the disorder even exists. According to these skeptics, MPD/DID is usually or always a socially created condition, fostered and reinforced in patients by suggestive therapists such as Wilbur. These skeptics contend that much of the supposed evidence for MPD/DID is based on shaky stories, weak methodology, and questionable data sources.

Sybil Exposed provides support for the skeptics; furthermore, the strange history of Wilbur and Sybil is by no means an isolated example. Like the House of Usher in Poe’s Gothic masterpiece, the edifice of MPD/DID stands on cracked foundations and has been shaken again and again by scandal and strange doings. For instance, a leading MPD/DID researcher, Ben­nett Braun of Rush-Presbyterian Hospital in Chicago, was sued by a string of patients in the mid-1990s after he diagnosed them with MPD/DID and convinced them that they were members of Satanic cults. The story of Braun and his bizarre approach to psychiatry was unforgettably depicted in The Search for Satan, a PBS Frontline documentary by award-winning director Ofra Bikel.

The sad and twisted events presented in Sybil Exposed and The Search for Satan illustrate why many mental health experts are skeptical regarding MPD/DID. This raises the point of whether this questionable disorder, repeatedly associated with fraud and charlatanry, should be listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association, the so-called bible of psychiatry. The time has probably come to remove MPD/DID from the main part of the DSM and exile it to the special appendixes reserved for experimental, controversial, or culture-bound diagnostic categories.

When MPD/DID is relegated to psychiatry’s back pages, professionals fascinated with the disorder can still study and discuss it to their hearts’ content. Or perhaps it will eventually disappear into the twilight, to be remembered only as the specter of an embarrassing Gothic episode in the history of psychiatry.