tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-56105099093903577552024-03-18T14:01:03.924-07:00Future and CosmosOur future, our universe, and other weighty topics. Posts on cosmology,
philosophy, science, physics, astronomy, extraterrestrial life, cosmic evolution, the anthropic principle, cosmic fine-tuning, the Singularity, the Big Bang, the origin of life, evolution, the future of man, psychic phenomena, memory, and the soul, including a critique of science overconfidence. Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.comBlogger1204125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-19094989826782577672024-03-16T09:55:00.000-07:002024-03-16T14:26:13.543-07:004 Reasons Why Very Much of Protein Complex Origination Is Physically Inexplicable <p><span style="font-size: large;"> <span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: inherit;">Humans have more than 20,000 types of protein molecules, partially specified by about 20,000 genes, each of which lists the amino acid sequence used by a protein. Each protein uses a different sequence of amino acids. Different types of proteins combine to form teams of proteins called protein complexes. Individual proteins might be called building blocks of protein complexes, although such a term might mislead you, because a building block such as a brick is very simple, while a protein typically consists of hundreds of well-arranged parts and thousands of well-arranged atoms. </span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Although scientists have identified most of the proteins that exist in the human body, the task of identifying all the protein complexes and which proteins they are made up is a task that is very largely unfinished. The latest version of the <a href="https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/51/D1/D539/6830667">CORUM database</a> of protein complexes (version 4.0) lists 5204 protein complexes, but that number is only a small fraction of the total number of protein complexes that exist.</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">In this post I will explain some reasons why the origination of protein complexes are in general inexplicable by material science. By "origination" I mean the first-ever appearance of such a protein complex, and also the most recent origination of such a complex. I will start with an explanation of why the origination of proteins is physically inexplicable. If there is any reason why the origin of a protein is physically inexplicable, that is also a reason why the origin of a protein complex using that protein is physically inexplicable. </span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><b>Reason #1: We Have No Credible Physical Explanation for the Origin of Most of the Genes Corresponding to Particular Proteins</b></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">A gene is part of the DNA in the chromosome, a part that specifies the amino acid sequence of a particular type of protein molecule. Since a gene does not specify the three-dimensional shape of a protein molecule, one might say that a gene kind of half-specifies how to make a particular type of protein molecule. No type of protein molecule can exist until their first exists a gene specifying the amino acid sequence of the protein. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Let us look at </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">rather straightforward calculations leading to the conclusion that </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">there exists no credible explanation for the origin of genes. </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">There are 20 amino acids used by living things. The median amino acid length of a human protein is 375 amino acids. So to calculate the chance of a set of amino acids randomly forming into the exact set of amino acids used by a functional protein such as an enzyme, the correct figure is 1 in 20 to the three-hundred-and-seventy-fifth power. This is a probability of about 1 in 10 to the four-hundred-eighty-seventh power. Very precisely, we can say that the chance of a random sequence of amino acids exactly matching that of a protein with 375 amino acids is a probability of 1 in </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;">7.695704335 X 10</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;">487</span></sup></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;">. </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">That is a probability similar to the probability of you correctly guessing (with 100% accuracy) the ten-digit telephone numbers of 48 consecutive strangers. The calculation is shown in the visual below</span><b style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">:</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht_VIXACx7_eqnrkak-y4ksnlEv9Q6CRlpLt0BoWfMwhAs8uZajaTV58YYJus2YO47YRbwVZHM59Cg9frsGnpvpV7ARdKaYJ09G28QqjsBKsRPwBfB-Lvfi9i3Dhhgu6Z8_37Z_CMUafAsbz0jIn4OUfL_qodzpwSt046t667kU7uYR04eHiaiwgF-8mAq/s320/temp.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="283" data-original-width="320" height="283" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht_VIXACx7_eqnrkak-y4ksnlEv9Q6CRlpLt0BoWfMwhAs8uZajaTV58YYJus2YO47YRbwVZHM59Cg9frsGnpvpV7ARdKaYJ09G28QqjsBKsRPwBfB-Lvfi9i3Dhhgu6Z8_37Z_CMUafAsbz0jIn4OUfL_qodzpwSt046t667kU7uYR04eHiaiwgF-8mAq/s1600/temp.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div><p></p><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;">Now, for a protein such as an enzyme to function properly, it must have a sequence of amino acids close to its actual sequence. Experiments have shown that it is easy to ruin a protein molecule by making minor changes in its sequence of amino acids. Such changes will typically “break” the protein so that it will no longer fold in the right way to achieve the function that it performs. A biology textbook <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26830/#__NBK26830_dtls__" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">tells us</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, "</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Proteins are so precisely built that the change of even a few atoms in one amino acid can sometimes disrupt the structure of the whole <span style="color: #642a8f;">molecule</span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: black;">so severely that all function is lost."</span></span> And we <a href="https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/protein-structure-14122136/" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">read</a> on a science site, "Folded proteins are actually fragile structures, which can easily denature, or unfold." Another science <a href="https://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/1biochem/proteins4.html" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">site</a> tells us, "Proteins are fragile molecules that are remarkably sensitive to changes in structure." But we can imagine that a protein molecule might still be functional if some minor changes were made in its sequence of amino acids.</span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;">Let us assume that for a protein molecule to retain its function, at least half of the amino acids in a functional protein have to exist in the exact sequence found in the protein. Under such an assumption, to calculate the chance of the functional protein forming by chance, rather than calculating a probability of 1 in 20 to the three-hundredth-and-seventh-fifth power, we might calculate a probability of 1 in 20 to the one-hundred-eighty-seventh power (187 being about half of 375). This would give us a probability equal to about 1 in 10 to the two hundred and forty-third power, a probability of about 1 in 10<sup>243</sup>.<span style="color: #333333;"><span face="arial, sans-serif"> </span></span>The calculation is shown below.</span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; margin-bottom: 0in;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjheRf0g4TbXHaY_hd5qSSo21gtd7i90pOClSK2v385iuF54CpBz4I0-2jgqUD_enys_pQfe4rig27nvdukFg4qM0iCMIkzVWYkl2jyDZsx76lbaPL4VqZh-vFVz4L2Wcog62LhBAnX1FodOEog3mpo-5fX7x8ZjKZnRyBMsmVWyEpIwqbfQoKq-EFEpLJL/s320/temp2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="281" data-original-width="320" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjheRf0g4TbXHaY_hd5qSSo21gtd7i90pOClSK2v385iuF54CpBz4I0-2jgqUD_enys_pQfe4rig27nvdukFg4qM0iCMIkzVWYkl2jyDZsx76lbaPL4VqZh-vFVz4L2Wcog62LhBAnX1FodOEog3mpo-5fX7x8ZjKZnRyBMsmVWyEpIwqbfQoKq-EFEpLJL/s1600/temp2.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br />Very generously assuming that only half of the amino acid sequence of a gene is necessary for a functional protein to arise from the gene, we are still left with an utterly prohibitive probability: a probability so low that we should never expect an event with that probability to ever occur in the history of the universe. The probability above is about the probability of you correctly guessing the 10-digit phone numbers of 24 consecutive strangers. It would seem that some miracle of luck would be required for there ever to appear any gene specifying a functional protein molecule. </span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>The difficulty involved here is one totally unknown to Darwin, who had no idea that the basic components of living things are protein molecules, most with hundreds of well-arranged amino acids, and thousands of well-arranged atoms. If you think that we can explain the origin of genes by imagining merely one gene arising from another, a look at the topic of what are called orphan genes should discourage such optimism. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: "times new roman", serif;">An orphan gene is one that seems to exist uniquely in the DNA or genome of some particular species. Apparently no other organism has that same gene. The scientist quoted previously </span><a href="https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com/users/24561-richard-buggs/posts/14227-the-unsolved-evolutionary-conundrum-of-orphan-genes" style="background-color: transparent; font-family: "times new roman", serif;" target="_blank">explains</a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: "times new roman", serif;"> it this way:</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;">“<span><i>Orphan genes are found every time a new genome is sequenced. Their ubiquity has been one of the biggest surprises of genomics over the last 20 years. Many researchers had hypothesised that the number of orphan genes found would steadily diminish as more and more genomes were sequenced – but this is not the case. Orphan genes continue to comprise a sizeable proportion of each new genome sequenced</i></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "lora" , "palatino" , "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">.”</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span>I</span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span>n the quote above and the quote below, the scientist seems to suggest two things: (1) that the existence of so many orphan genes was not expected or predicted under orthodox assumptions; (2) that orphan genes are receiving little attention, as if they were some kind of embarrassment that is being swept under the rug. The scientist <a href="https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com/users/24561-richard-buggs/posts/14227-the-unsolved-evolutionary-conundrum-of-orphan-genes" target="_blank">states</a> this:</span></span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;">“<span><i>Orphan genes are 'the hard problem' for evolutionary genomics. Because we can't find other genes similar to them in other species, we can't build family trees for them. We cannot hypothesise their gradual evolution; instead they seem to appear out of nowhere. Orphan genes receive comparatively little attention from the research community. I suspect this is partly because they are such a difficult problem.”</i></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;">The paper <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26776433_More_than_just_orphans_Are_taxonomically-restricted_genes_important_in_evolution" target="_blank">here</a> also alerts us that biologists are not paying proper attention to this issue. Referring to orphan genes, the paper states the following:</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;">“<span><i>It is surprising that orphans have been completely ignored by most comparative genomics studies...Balanced and careful consideration of both commonalities and differences is vital for any proper comparative approach. We believe that (as in case of taxonomy) comparative genomics requires balanced consideration of both commonalities and differences. Oddly enough, most attention at present has been paid to genes which are shared and highly conserved throughout evolution, and not to those which are unique or lineage-specific.”</i></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;">It seems from the statement above that our evolutionary biologists are guilty of great confirmation bias, the type of bias in which one eagerly seeks out evidence for one's beliefs, while failing to look for evidence that contradicts such beliefs. </span></div><div style="background-color: white; margin-bottom: 0in;"><p><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><b>Reason #2: We Have No Credible Physical Explanation for How a Transcription Event Could Promptly Find the Right Gene to Make a Particular Protein (a "Needle From the Haystack" Type of Event) </b></span></span></p><p style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Cells are constantly creating new proteins to replace proteins that disappeared because of the short lifetimes of proteins. The page <a href="http://book.bionumbers.org/how-fast-do-rnas-and-proteins-degrade/" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a> has a chart showing the lifetimes of human proteins, and we see a bar graph showing most of the proteins have a half-life between about 10 hours and 70 hours. A muscle protein might live for three weeks, but a liver protein might live for only a few days. To create new proteins, a cell uses a process called gene transcription. In this process a particular gene in DNA will be converted to a messenger RNA molecule that helps to build the new protein. </span></p><p style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Cell transcription occurs quickly. The source <a href="https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(16)30208-2.pdf" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a> lists a time of ten minutes for a gene to be transcribed by a mammal, but another source lists a speed of only about a minute. The great majority of that is used up by the reading of base pairs from the gene, with typically more than a 1000 base pairs being read each time a gene is transcribed. The finding of the correct gene to read in DNA seems to occur in only seconds, not minutes, or at most a few minutes. </span></p><p style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Descriptions of DNA transcription fail to explain a huge issue: how does a cell find the right gene in DNA so quickly? Human DNA contains more than 20,000 genes, each of which is just a section of the DNA. The DNA is like an extremely long necklace of many thousands of beads, and a typical gene is like a group of several hundred of those beads. We should actually imagine multiple such necklaces, because DNA is scattered across 23 different chromosome pairs. Now if genes had gene numbers, and DNA was a set of numbered genes in numerical order, it might be easy to find a particular gene. So if a cell knew that it was trying to find gene number 4,233, it could use a binary search method that would allow it to find that gene pretty quickly. </span></p><p style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">But no such method can be used within the human body. Genes do not have gene numbers that can be accessed within the human body, and DNA is not numerically sorted. DNA has no indexes that might allow a cell to find some particular gene that it was trying to find within DNA. So we have an explanatory "needle in a haystack" problem. Or we might call it a "needle in the haystacks" problem, because human DNA is scattered across 23 different chromosome pairs, as shown in the diagram below:</span></p><p style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSJSLhX8m2tWR5qV4Vv4_zqyzKknID5zIuXna96gavsYd2p4tLt-UHVbFGtfZYB6AyaKSw7_2bh12lXrreVFB_BNT90w-fDzIpl9X1fFu5RSMH7DOYnBrskkhMtFLv0GVT-3VhL3bY0HR66RecR_i0HZwy0JFt3jDIL0uzdFrkbStw9q7psgKSfabTma-_/s320/temp3.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="246" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSJSLhX8m2tWR5qV4Vv4_zqyzKknID5zIuXna96gavsYd2p4tLt-UHVbFGtfZYB6AyaKSw7_2bh12lXrreVFB_BNT90w-fDzIpl9X1fFu5RSMH7DOYnBrskkhMtFLv0GVT-3VhL3bY0HR66RecR_i0HZwy0JFt3jDIL0uzdFrkbStw9q7psgKSfabTma-_/s1600/temp3.jpg" width="246" /></span></a></div><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span><p style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"></p><p style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">A<span> </span><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21050/" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">scientific text</a><span> </span>tells us some information that makes this explanatory problem seem more pressing:</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><i><span style="font-size: large;"><span>"</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">One might have predicted that the information present in genomes would be arranged in an orderly fashion, resembling a dictionary or a telephone directory. Although the genomes of some bacteria seem fairly well organized, the genomes of most multicellular organisms, such as our </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Drosophila</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> example, are surprisingly disorderly. Small bits of coding </span><a aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" class="def" href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/mboc4/A4754/def-item/A5084/" role="button" style="color: #2f4a8b; cursor: help; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-decoration-line: none;">DNA</a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> (that is, DNA that codes for </span><a aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" class="def" href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/mboc4/A4754/def-item/A5688/" role="button" style="color: #2f4a8b; cursor: help; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-decoration-line: none;">protein</a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">) are interspersed with large blocks of seemingly meaningless DNA. Some sections of the </span><a aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" class="def" href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/mboc4/A4754/def-item/A5222/" role="button" style="color: #2f4a8b; cursor: help; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-decoration-line: none;">genome</a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> contain many genes and others lack genes altogether.<b><span> </span>Proteins that work closely with one another in the cell often have their genes located on different chromosomes</b>,<span> </span><b>and adjacent genes typically encode proteins that have little to do with each other in the cell</b>. Decoding genomes is therefore no simple matter. Even with the aid of powerful computers, it is still difficult for researchers to locate definitively the beginning and end of genes in the DNA sequences of </span><a aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" class="def" href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/mboc4/A4754/def-item/A5014/" role="button" style="color: #2f4a8b; cursor: help; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-decoration-line: none;">complex</a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> genomes, much less to predict when each </span><a aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" class="def" href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/mboc4/A4754/def-item/A5215/" role="button" style="color: #2f4a8b; cursor: help; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-decoration-line: none;">gene</a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> is expressed in the life of the organism. Although the DNA sequence of the human genome is known, it will probably take at least a decade for humans to identify every gene and determine the precise </span><a aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" class="def" href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/mboc4/A4754/def-item/A4807/" role="button" style="color: #2f4a8b; cursor: help; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-decoration-line: none;">amino acid</a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> sequence of the protein it produces. Yet the cells in our body do this thousands of times a second."</span></span></i></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">We have here a very severe navigation problem. A cell is somehow able to find the right gene in only seconds or a few minutes when a new protein is made, even though DNA and chromosomes seem to have no physical organization that could allow for such blazing fast access to the right information. In an<span> </span><a href="https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/how-does-a-cell-know-what-kind-of-cell-it-should-be/4012667.article" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">article</a><span> </span>on Chemistry World, we read this:</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><i><span style="font-size: large;"><span>"</span><span>How does the machinery that turns genes into proteins know which part of the genome to read in any given cell type? ‘To me that is one of the most fundamental questions in biology,’ says biochemist Robert Tjian of the University of California at Berkeley in the US: ‘How does a cell know what it is supposed to be?"</span></span></i></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Biochemist Tjian has spoken just as if he had no idea how it is that a cell is able to navigate to the right place to read a particular gene in DNA. Later in the article we read this:</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; line-height: 2.027rem; margin: 0px 0px 28px; padding: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"For one thing, the regulatory machinery ‘is unbelievably complex’, says Tjian, comprising perhaps 60–100 proteins – mostly of a class called transcription factors (TFs) – that have to interact before anything happens. ....</i><span><i>As well as promoters, mammalian genes are controlled by DNA segments called enhancers. Some proteins bind to the promoter site, others bind to the enhancer, and they have to communicate. ‘</i><b style="font-style: italic;">This is where things get bizarre, because the enhancer can sit miles away from the promoter,’ says Tjian – meaning, perhaps, millions of base pairs away, maybe with a whole gene or two in between.</b><i><span> </span>And the transcription machinery can’t just track along the DNA until it hits the enhancer, because<span> </span></i><b><i>the track is blocked</i></b><i>. In eukaryotes, almost all of the genome is, at any given moment, packaged away by being wrapped around disk-shaped proteins called histones.<span> </span><b>These, says Tjian, ‘are like big boulders on the track’: you can’t get past them easily.</b>...</i></span><span style="font-style: italic;"> ‘<b>Even after 40 years of studying this stuff, I don’t think we have a clear idea of how that looping happens,’</b><span> </span>says Tjian. </span><span style="font-style: italic;">Until recently, the general idea was that the TFs and other components all fit together into a kind of jigsaw, via molecular recognition, that will bridge and bind a loop in place while transcription happens. ‘<b>We molecular biologists love to draw nice model schemes of how TFs find their target genes</b><span> </span>and how enhancers can regulate promoters located millions of base pairs away,’ says Ralph Stadhouders of the Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. ‘<b>But exactly how this is achieved in a timely and highly specific manner is still very much a mystery.</b>’ "</span></span></span></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Later in the article Tjian says he was shocked b</span>y the speed at which some of the process occurs. He expected it would take hours, but found something much different:</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>"</span><span style="color: #444444;">The residence times of these proteins </span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; text-size-adjust: 100%;">in vivo </span><span style="color: #444444;">was not minutes or hours, but about six seconds!’, he says. ‘I was so shocked that it took me months to come to grips with my own data. How could a low-concentration protein ever get together with all its partners to trigger expression of a gene, when everything is moving at this unbelievably rapid pace?’ "</span></span></span></i></p><p style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"></p><p style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The rest of the article is just some speculation, which Tjian mostly knocks down, and the article itself calls "hand-wavy." We are left with the impression that no one understands how cells are able to instantly find the right gene.</span></p><p style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Reason #3: We Have No Credible Explanation of How Any Protein Molecule Could Reach the Three-Dimensional Folded State Needed for Its Function</b></span></p><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">A fundamental question is: how do protein molecules get their three- dimensional shapes? This problem is known as the protein folding problem. We might have an answer for this if it happened that each amino acid stored in it three numbers specifying the 3D position that it should go to. We can imagine a setup in which an amino acid would store three different numbers: one representing the X-axis coordinate that the amino acid should exist at, another representing the Y-axis coordinate the amino acid should go to, and a third representing the Z-axis coordinate the amino acid should go to. We can imagine some complicated molecular machinery that would read such numbers, and drag each amino acids to the appropriate X, Y and Z coordinates (a particular point in 3D space) that the amino acid should go to. Under such a system, a 3D protein molecule like the one below might be constructed from a one-dimensional string-like chain of amino acids. </span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuOEQti_CLnJ8su26b6uNlfjWpXmGCUpMjSzT71pNvTRgRmoQKelDZ_Sgv88TTPPaFD89wikRfnLADKbQcAWCGwmIv-1ehyphenhyphendBdaqQJ5bedq5wfLHMe4dWqusOGBjBDZ-3_y21WM9T0aUY4jKo_680AizbhzZjTFir1sEmU7hP9GN0XhlbhSFNUJPIyQ8fr/s1299/protein_molecule_AI_image_generator_made2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1299" data-original-width="1238" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuOEQti_CLnJ8su26b6uNlfjWpXmGCUpMjSzT71pNvTRgRmoQKelDZ_Sgv88TTPPaFD89wikRfnLADKbQcAWCGwmIv-1ehyphenhyphendBdaqQJ5bedq5wfLHMe4dWqusOGBjBDZ-3_y21WM9T0aUY4jKo_680AizbhzZjTFir1sEmU7hP9GN0XhlbhSFNUJPIyQ8fr/s320/protein_molecule_AI_image_generator_made2.jpg" width="305" /></a></div><br /></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">But that is not at all the way nature works. An amino acid does not store any numbers. An amino acid stores neither 3D coordinate numbers, nor any other type of number. So how do the more than 20,000 types of protein molecules in our bodies get their intricate 3D shapes?</span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">Around the year I was born, the question was a profoundly troubling one for materialist biologists. It seemed around then that nature was making very many thousands of intricate hard-to-achieve 3D molecular shapes, and no one knew how it was happening. The materialist biologist was therefore like some owner of a private island who kept seeing endless varieties of intricate sand castles being constructed on the beaches of the island, without any explanation of who was doing it. </span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Eventually an idea arose that helped make materialist biologists feel much better. The idea was that the three-dimensional shape of each protein molecule was somehow determined by its one-dimensional sequence of amino acids. The idea was originally presented under the name of the Thermodynamic Hypothesis. The idea was that there was one particular 3D shape under which some polypeptide chain would use the least amount of free energy, and that polypeptide chains migrated to this state, which corresponded to their folded 3D shapes. This Thermodynamic Hypothesis was stated <a href="https://web.iitd.ac.in/~amittal/1973_Anfinsen_Science.pdf" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">like this</a> by Christian B. Anfinsen in 1973: </span>"This hypothesis states that the three-dimensional structure of a native protein...is the one in which the Gibbs free energy of the whole system is lowest; that is the native conformation is determined by the totality of inter-atomic interactions and hence by the amino acid sequence, in a given environment." Later the same idea was called Anfinsen's Dogma, and was stated as simply the idea that the three-dimensional structure of a protein molecule is determined by its one-dimensional amino acid sequence. </span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Anfinsen's Dogma is represented by the visual below:</span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ-U_ihwnIKDXkuqHHNnuV7PbIGdYV8jZXnLLolwZLEasNlOJzCEnLTRf8CDY8pHzaEImPWQ5l5eYXl_rz1mU1VXV51L8YtM3bU4tufUHKAdVkpVtzgbJ6gANEdo-5Zmm0jBQ0Bea8ZKpU6JqL3tekxs20oOd-5YwvdLzAKPCZUxjk_aNLjrtopvJA3Q/s711/anfinsens_dogma.jpg" style="color: #2288bb; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img alt="Anfinsen's Dogma" border="0" data-original-height="711" data-original-width="572" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ-U_ihwnIKDXkuqHHNnuV7PbIGdYV8jZXnLLolwZLEasNlOJzCEnLTRf8CDY8pHzaEImPWQ5l5eYXl_rz1mU1VXV51L8YtM3bU4tufUHKAdVkpVtzgbJ6gANEdo-5Zmm0jBQ0Bea8ZKpU6JqL3tekxs20oOd-5YwvdLzAKPCZUxjk_aNLjrtopvJA3Q/w321-h400/anfinsens_dogma.jpg" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(238, 238, 238); box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1) 1px 1px 5px; padding: 5px; position: relative;" width="321" /></span></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">There were some reasons why Anfinsen's Dogma never was plausible. In 1969 scientist Cyrus Levinthal calculated that a protein with about 100 amino acids could be folded into about 3 to the 198<sup>th</sup> power shapes. If a protein molecule were to try so many shape permutations looking for and finding some state in which "the free energy of the state is lowest," it would have to explore so many possibilities that it would take very many years – eons actually. But instead a particular protein will very rapidly form into a characteristic three-dimensional shape, in a very short time – seconds for small proteins, and minutes for large proteins. So it never made any sense to think that protein molecules reached their 3D shapes because they were finding some ridiculously hard-to-find state of minimum free energy. This discrepancy between the calculated ridiculously long time protein folding should take (under a "thermodynamic hypothesis" such as Anfinsen postulated) and the actual very short time it does take is known as Levinthal's paradox.</span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">But Christian B. Anfinsen claimed to have done some experiments supporting his dogma. He did some experiments in which he took one of the simplest proteins (something called ribonuclease), and caused it to lose its folded shape, by a process called denaturation. Anfinsen claimed that he had observed ribonuclease revert back to its folded three-dimensional shape. He claimed that this was evidence that the three-dimensional shape of the protein was a mere function of the amino acid sequence. This was always weak evidence for a claim that protein molecules in general get their three-dimensional shapes solely as a consequence of their amino acid structure and the laws of chemistry and physics. One reason was that ribonuclease has only 124 amino acids, but most protein molecules have far more amino acids. The average number of amino acids in a human protein molecule is about 470, and many types of human protein molecules have much more than 500 amino acids (many types having nearly 1000 amino acids, and quite a few types of protein molecules having more than 1000 amino acids). </span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Although his experimental evidence for Anfinsen's Dogma was weak, Anfinsen won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1972, along with two other scientists, specifically for his experiments with ribonuclease. We should not be too impressed by this fact. We must remember that when scientists really, really want to believe something, they may tend to award some prize for experimental or observational activity that claimed to back up the cherished belief. The awarding of the Nobel Prize to Anfinsen and his colleagues was part of the social construction of the triumphal legend that Anfinsen's Dogma had been backed up by experimental work. </span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">A 2012 <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsob.120088" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">paper</a> has a statement suggesting that scientists were lazy about trying to produce some other experiments that would support Anfinsen's Dogma. It states this:<span style="font-family: inherit;"> "<span style="color: #333132;">In the half-century since the annunciation of the Anfinsen postulate, there has appeared no evidence which contradicts it, but neither, seemingly, has there been any systematic experimental work on other proteins which would have further established its validity." We should not take the first half of that statement too seriously, because scientists often claim that is no evidence contradicting some beloved dogma, when there does exist very much such evidence. </span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #333132;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #333132;">A 2018 <a href="https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-018-0217-6" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">paper</a> ("</span></span><span style="color: #333132;">Modeling protein folding <i>in vivo</i>") suggests that the assumptions of Anfinsen were incorrect, and were derived from biased experiments dealing with a set of simpler-than-average proteins. </span><span style="color: #333333;">The paper states the following, using the term "in vitro" to mean "in a lab setting," "native conformations" to refer to the 3D shapes of protein molecules, and "denatured" to refer to proteins that have lost their characteristic three-dimensional shape, and reverted to a simpler string-like or chain-like one-dimensional shape:</span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: #333132;"><i><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: #333333;"><i><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, serif;">"</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">These models arose from studies conducted in vitro on a biased sample of smaller, easier-to-isolate proteins, whose native structures appear to be thermodynamically stable. Meanwhile, the vast empirical data on the majority of larger proteins suggests that once these proteins are completely denatured in vitro, they cannot fold into native conformations without assistance. Moreover, they tend to lose their native conformations spontaneously and irreversibly in vitro, and therefore such conformations must be metastable."</span></span></i></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Palatino, serif;"><i><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">Referring to "premature optimism," the paper discusses a kind of "rush to uncork champagne bottles" involved with the Anfinsen experiments:</span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: #333333;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></i></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #333333;">"The most famous of these studies were the experiments by C. Anfinsen and colleagues, which observed that some small proteins, notably pancreatic ribonuclease (RNAse A), will fold spontaneously to their native conformations from an apparently completely denatured state after the restoration of favorable conditions in vitro; such an ability was postulated – in our opinion, with premature optimism – to be inherent to most proteins. These ideas gave rise to the 'thermodynamic hypothesis' stating that 'the three-dimensional structure of a native protein in its normal physiological milieu...is the one in which the Gibbs free energy of the whole system is the lowest' [</span><a aria-label="Reference 17" data-test="citation-ref" data-track-action="reference anchor" data-track-label="link" data-track="click" href="https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-018-0217-6#ref-CR17" id="ref-link-section-d23399668e391" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #004b83; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-skip-ink: auto; text-decoration-thickness: 0.0625rem; text-underline-offset: 0.08em; word-break: break-word;" title="Anfinsen CB. Principles that govern the folding of protein chains. Science. 1973;181:223–30. PMID: 4124164">17</a><span style="color: #333333;">]. In other words, under physiological conditions all proteins were assumed to be able to fold spontaneously into their native conformation."</span></span></i></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: large;">The paper states the following, using the term "in vitro" to mean "in a lab setting," "denatured" to refer to proteins that have lost their characteristic three-dimensional shape, and reverted to a simpler string-like or chain-like one-dimensional shape, and the term "native conformation" to refer to the three-dimensional shape that protein molecules have in living organisms:</span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></i></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><p style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #333333; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="font-size: large;">"Simple and elegant as these models are, they fail to adequately accommodate some common empirical observations. The first one is the widely observed protein physical instability in vitro: most protein preparations that are initially isolated from cells in an active native conformation are not stable in vitro and inevitably denature and lose such native conformation (reviewed in [<a data-test="citation-ref" data-track-action="reference anchor" data-track-label="link" data-track="click" href="https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-018-0217-6#ref-CR13" id="ref-link-section-d23399668e436" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; color: #004b83; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-skip-ink: auto; text-decoration-thickness: 0.0625rem; text-underline-offset: 0.08em; word-break: break-word;" title="Manning MC, Patel K, Borchardt RT. Stability of protein pharmaceuticals. Pharm Res. 1989;6:903–18. PMID: 2687836">13</a>,<a data-test="citation-ref" data-track-action="reference anchor" data-track-label="link" data-track="click" href="https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-018-0217-6#ref-CR14" id="ref-link-section-d23399668e436_1" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; color: #004b83; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-skip-ink: auto; text-decoration-thickness: 0.0625rem; text-underline-offset: 0.08em; word-break: break-word;" title="Chi EY, Krishnan S, Randolph TW, Carpenter JF. Physical stability of proteins in aqueous solution: mechanism and driving forces in nonnative protein aggregation. Pharm Res. 2003;20:1325–36. PMID: 14567625">14</a>,<a data-test="citation-ref" data-track-action="reference anchor" data-track-label="link" data-track="click" href="https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-018-0217-6#ref-CR15" id="ref-link-section-d23399668e436_2" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; color: #004b83; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-skip-ink: auto; text-decoration-thickness: 0.0625rem; text-underline-offset: 0.08em; word-break: break-word;" title="Manning MC, Chou DK, Murphy BM, Payne RW, Katayama DS. Stability of protein pharmaceuticals: an update. Pharm Res. 2010;27:544–75.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-009-0045-6
. PMID: 20143256">15</a>,<a aria-label="Reference 16" data-test="citation-ref" data-track-action="reference anchor" data-track-label="link" data-track="click" href="https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-018-0217-6#ref-CR16" id="ref-link-section-d23399668e439" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; color: #004b83; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-skip-ink: auto; text-decoration-thickness: 0.0625rem; text-underline-offset: 0.08em; word-break: break-word;" title="Wang W. Advanced protein formulations. Protein Sci. 2015;24:1031–9.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.2684
.">16</a>]). The second is the body of experimental observations that even seemingly stable proteins, once experimentally denatured in vitro in isolation from other cell components, are often unable to fold back into their native conformations upon return to physiological conditions [<a data-test="citation-ref" data-track-action="reference anchor" data-track-label="link" data-track="click" href="https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-018-0217-6#ref-CR29" id="ref-link-section-d23399668e442" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; color: #004b83; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-skip-ink: auto; text-decoration-thickness: 0.0625rem; text-underline-offset: 0.08em; word-break: break-word;" title="Lumry R, Eyring H. Conformation changes of proteins. J Phys Chemistry. 1954;58:110–20.
https://doi.org/10.1021/j150512a005
.">29</a>,<a data-test="citation-ref" data-track-action="reference anchor" data-track-label="link" data-track="click" href="https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-018-0217-6#ref-CR30" id="ref-link-section-d23399668e442_1" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; color: #004b83; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-skip-ink: auto; text-decoration-thickness: 0.0625rem; text-underline-offset: 0.08em; word-break: break-word;" title="Ahern TJ, Klibanov AM. Analysis of processes causing thermal inactivation of enzymes. Methods Biochem Anal. 1988;33:91–127. PMID: 3282153">30</a>,<a data-test="citation-ref" data-track-action="reference anchor" data-track-label="link" data-track="click" href="https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-018-0217-6#ref-CR31" id="ref-link-section-d23399668e442_2" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; color: #004b83; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-skip-ink: auto; text-decoration-thickness: 0.0625rem; text-underline-offset: 0.08em; word-break: break-word;" title="Tomazic SJ, Klibanov AM. Mechanisms of irreversible thermal inactivation of Bacillus alpha-amylases. J Biol Chem. 1988;263:3086–91. PMID: 3257756">31</a>,<a data-test="citation-ref" data-track-action="reference anchor" data-track-label="link" data-track="click" href="https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-018-0217-6#ref-CR32" id="ref-link-section-d23399668e442_3" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; color: #004b83; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-skip-ink: auto; text-decoration-thickness: 0.0625rem; text-underline-offset: 0.08em; word-break: break-word;" title="Nury S, Meunier JC. Molecular mechanisms of the irreversible thermal denaturation of Guinea-pig liver transglutaminase. Biochem J. 1990;266:487–90. PMID: 1969266">32</a>,<a data-test="citation-ref" data-track-action="reference anchor" data-track-label="link" data-track="click" href="https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-018-0217-6#ref-CR33" id="ref-link-section-d23399668e442_4" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; color: #004b83; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-skip-ink: auto; text-decoration-thickness: 0.0625rem; text-underline-offset: 0.08em; word-break: break-word;" title="Lawton JM, Doonan S. Thermal inactivation and chaperonin-mediated renaturation of mitochondrial aspartate aminotransferase. Biochem J. 1998;334:219–24. PMID: 9693123">33</a>,<a data-test="citation-ref" data-track-action="reference anchor" data-track-label="link" data-track="click" href="https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-018-0217-6#ref-CR34" id="ref-link-section-d23399668e442_5" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; color: #004b83; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-skip-ink: auto; text-decoration-thickness: 0.0625rem; text-underline-offset: 0.08em; word-break: break-word;" title="Gao YS, Su JT, Yan YB. Sequential events in the irreversible thermal denaturation of human brain-type creatine kinase by spectroscopic methods. Int J Mol Sci. 2010;11:2584–96.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms11072584
. PMID: 20717523">34</a>,<a aria-label="Reference 35" data-test="citation-ref" data-track-action="reference anchor" data-track-label="link" data-track="click" href="https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-018-0217-6#ref-CR35" id="ref-link-section-d23399668e445" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; color: #004b83; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-skip-ink: auto; text-decoration-thickness: 0.0625rem; text-underline-offset: 0.08em; word-break: break-word;" title="Goyal M, Chaudhuri TK, Kuwajima K. Irreversible denaturation of maltodextrin glucosidase studied by differential scanning calorimetry, circular dichroism, and turbidity measurements. PLoS One. 2014;9:e115877.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115877
. PMID: 25548918">35</a>]. This phenomenon is observed for all classes of proteins, though it becomes more obvious and almost universal for proteins of larger sizes. It has been shown that many such proteins require the assistance of molecular chaperones for successful folding (reviewed in [<a aria-label="Reference 36" data-test="citation-ref" data-track-action="reference anchor" data-track-label="link" data-track="click" href="https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-018-0217-6#ref-CR36" id="ref-link-section-d23399668e448" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; color: #004b83; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-skip-ink: auto; text-decoration-thickness: 0.0625rem; text-underline-offset: 0.08em; word-break: break-word;" title="Saibil H. Chaperone machines for protein folding, unfolding and disaggregation. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2013;14:630–42.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3658
. PMID: 24026055">36</a>])...We are now witnessing the emergence of a third observation that casts doubt on the applicability of the thermodynamic folding model to the majority of proteins: despite the tremendous intellectual and computational efforts invested into modeling of protein folding in silico, software based on the current thermodynamic theory of folding is able to model the folding paths of only very short proteins, and the process is slow [<a data-test="citation-ref" data-track-action="reference anchor" data-track-label="link" data-track="click" href="https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-018-0217-6#ref-CR41" id="ref-link-section-d23399668e461" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; color: #004b83; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-skip-ink: auto; text-decoration-thickness: 0.0625rem; text-underline-offset: 0.08em; word-break: break-word;" title="Freddolino PL, Schulten K. Common structural transitions in explicit-solvent simulations of villin headpiece folding. Biophys J. 2009;97:2338–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2009.08.012
. PMID: 19843466">41</a>,<a data-test="citation-ref" data-track-action="reference anchor" data-track-label="link" data-track="click" href="https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-018-0217-6#ref-CR42" id="ref-link-section-d23399668e461_1" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; color: #004b83; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-skip-ink: auto; text-decoration-thickness: 0.0625rem; text-underline-offset: 0.08em; word-break: break-word;" title="Jiang F, Wu YD. Folding of fourteen small proteins with a residue-specific force field and replica-exchange molecular dynamics. J Am Chem Soc. 2014;136:9536–9.">42</a>,<a aria-label="Reference 43" data-test="citation-ref" data-track-action="reference anchor" data-track-label="link" data-track="click" href="https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-018-0217-6#ref-CR43" id="ref-link-section-d23399668e464" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; color: #004b83; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-skip-ink: auto; text-decoration-thickness: 0.0625rem; text-underline-offset: 0.08em; word-break: break-word;" title="Perez A, Morrone JA, Brini E, MacCallum JL, Dill KA. Blind protein structure prediction using accelerated free-energy simulations. Sci Adv. 2016;2:e1601274. PMID: 27847872">43</a>]. In other words, the model in which a polypeptide with a random starting conformation slides down the energy funnel towards the thermodynamic minimum, reducing its free energy at every step in the process, does not appear to yield successful in silico recapitulation of the folding pathways for the majority of proteins."</span></i></span></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Palatino, serif; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #333333; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">The limited success of the AlphaFold software (in attempts at protein folding prediction) does not invalidate any of the statements above. The AlphaFold software is able to predict the shape of many proteins not by any thermodynamic calculation process that tends to validate Anfinsen's Dogma, but instead by a frequentist "pattern matching" approach that relies on some vast database of known 3D protein shapes and their corresponding amino acid sequences. In discussions of the protein folding problem, it is very important to not mix up two very different problems:</span></span></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #333333; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #333333; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">(1) The protein folding problem, which is the problem of how it is that one-dimensional polypeptide sequences (chains of amino acids) very quickly within organisms fold into a three-dimensional shape needed for the function.</span></span></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #333333; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">(2) The protein folding prediction problem, which is the problem of what computer techniques can be used to accurately predict the three-dimensional shape of a protein molecule, giving its one-dimensional polypeptide sequence. </span></span></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #333333; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #333333; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The AlphaFold software has made progress on the second of these problems, not the first. News reports about the AlphaFold software will often inaccurately describe it as having made progress on the "protein folding problem" (the first of these problems), but such reports should be only reporting that progress has been made on the second of these problems (the </span>protein folding prediction problem). </span></p></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Later attempts to replicate Anfinsen's work with ribonuclease have raised grave doubts about how valid his research was. A very interesting <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/23/14/7759/htm" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">paper</a> published in the year 2022 was entitled "The Anfinsen Dogma: Intriguing Details Sixty-Five Years Later." In it a team of scientists reported many a problem in trying to replicate Anfinsen's work with ribonuclease. They seemed to get only a small fraction of the success that is generally claimed in accounts of Anfinsen's experiments. </span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Referring to what have been called metamorphic or "moonlighting" proteins which seem to be able to assume different 3D shapes, a <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acschembio.8b00276" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">paper</a> states this about Anfinsen's "one sequence, one structure" dogma:</span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="font-size: large;">"Moreover, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR)-based and computational studies have demonstrated that each protein sequence can have considerable structural plasticity, such that the 'one sequence, one structure' dogma does not capture the complex nature of a protein’s structure. In fact, this flexibility is an intrinsic feature that contributes directly to the biological function of many proteins."</span></i></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">At the www.researchgate.net site (an "expert answers" site similar to Quora.com), there is a <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_Anfinsen_and_Levinthal_still_considered_valid_in_protein_folding" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">page</a> handling the question "Are Anfinsen and Levinthal still considered valid in protein folding? The question is basically asking whether Anfinsen's Dogma is any kind of explanation for the biologically vital process of protein folding. A Michael Crabtree of Oxford University claims<span style="font-family: inherit;"> "</span><span style="color: #111111;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Anfinsen's conclusion - that protein structures are encoded within their sequence - is still the main hypothesis for how proteins fold." Be suspicious when a scientist does not claim that something is proven, but merely claims that it is "well-established" or "not controversial," for scientists often use such phrases to describe dubious claims that are not actually well-established. And when a scientist does not claim that something is well-established, but merely says that it is the "main hypothesis" to explain something, that means very little, because his "main hypothesis" to explain something may be a very bad one. Crabtree's response is then vigorously disputed at length on the page by </span></span><span style="color: #111111;">Boguslaw Stec PhD. He states this:</span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: #111111;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #111111;">"</span><span style="color: #111111;">As you see there are significant developments that no longer support a simplistic notion of sequence-folding-function direct relationship. The best proof is an entire career of Baker who is the most prominent protein modeler in the world now. He showed a complete failure of the energy based optimization schemes for protein modeling."</span></span></i></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="color: #111111;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></i></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #111111;"><span style="font-size: large;">Stec makes this sobering observation:</span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="color: #111111;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></i></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="color: #111111;">"</span></i></span><span style="color: #111111;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>This is mostly in line with a sobering recent realization of NIH in the US that around 90% all biology science results are NOT repeatable. Scientist publish what worked not a majority of experiments that do not, even if this is the same experiment."</i></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: #111111;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: #111111;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">After describing at some length why Anfinsen's Dogma does not hold up well in experiments, Stec offers this idea as an alternative:</span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: #111111;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #111111;">"</span><span style="color: #111111;">It looks like life is tinkering on the edge between stable and unstable world. What it practically means is that proteins are self organized systems that do not have any uniform organizing principle. The only universal principle is a utilitarian need for life (function)." </span></span></i></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="color: #111111;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></i></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #111111;"><span style="font-size: large;">Self-organization is a phrase that is routinely used by people lacking a theory of organization explaining how some very organized thing got organized. Stec makes it sound rather like proteins are little minds seeking out biological functions, but that cannot explain why sequences of amino acids (polypeptide chains) are able to form so very quickly into the correct three-dimensional shapes needed for biological function. Claiming self-organization in this case is no more credible than trying to explain the origin of well-written functional paragraphs by claiming that the letters self-organized into paragraphs. </span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #111111;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #111111;"><span style="font-size: large;">Very much undermining Anfinsen's Dogma is the fact that a large fraction of all protein molecules require other protein molecules (called chaperones) in order for them to achieve their folded state. Such an idea discredits the simplistic "amino acid sequence determines 3D folded shape" idea. A Stanford University press release <a href="https://news.stanford.edu/pr/00/chaperones104.html#:~:text=%22Somehow%2C%22%20she%20says%2C,in%20order%20to%20fold%20properly." style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">states this</a>:</span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: #111111; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #111111;">"</span><span style="color: #111111;">Scientists have determined that TRiC chaperones are common in people and other mammals. Estimates are that 10 percent of all mammalian proteins need TRiC in order to fold properly. Another 20 percent bind to the smaller chaperone, Hsp70."</span></span></span></i></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: #111111; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #111111;">That already give you 30% of protein molecules requiring other protein molecules for them to fold properly, undermining Anfinsen's idea that all you need is the amino acid sequence to get the proper folding for a protein molecule. An encyclopedia <a href="https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/biology-and-genetics/genetics-and-genetic-engineering/chaperones" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">page</a> concurs, stating that<span style="font-family: inherit;"> "2</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">0 to 30 percent of polypeptide chains require the assistance of a chaperone for correct folding under normal growth conditions."</span></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Further evidence against Anfinsen's Dogma comes in the fact that a large fraction of all human proteins are what are called "Intrinsically Disordered Proteins," a poor name for a large class of proteins that can each assume many different shapes. A much better name would be "shape-shifting proteins" or "morphologically plastic proteins." Besides such shape-shifting proteins (called IDPs), a protein with a characteristic 3D shape may have some particular part of itself that takes on different shapes, such a part being called an "</span></span></span>Intrinsically Disordered Protein Region or IDPR." A rough analogy of proteins with such IDPRs might be a person with a magically shape-shifting face, who always looks the same below the neck, but whose face can shift between different faces. <span style="font-family: inherit;"> It has been estimated that up to 40% of human proteins are either either such shape-shifting proteins (IDPs) or proteins that have shape-shifting regions (IDPRs). A scientific </span><a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2019.00010/full" style="color: #2288bb; font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">paper</a><span style="font-family: inherit;"> tells us this about such IDPs and IDPRs:</span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; color: #282828; font-family: MuseoSans, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;"><i>"IDPs/IDPRs, which are characterized by remarkable conformational flexibility and structural plasticity, break multiple rules established over the years to explain structure, folding, and functionality of well-folded proteins with unique structures. Despite the general belief that unique biological functions of proteins require unique 3D-structures (which dominated protein science for more than a century), structure-less IDPs/IDPRs are functional, being able to engage in biological activities and perform impossible tricks that are highly unlikely for ordered proteins. With their exceptional spatio-temporal heterogeneity and high conformational flexibility, IDPs/IDPRs represent complex systems that act at the edge of chaos and are specifically tunable by various means....</i></span></span></span></span><i><span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; color: #282828; font-family: MuseoSans, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;">Overall, IDPs/IDPRs are complex systems with sophisticated structurally and functionally heterogeneous organization. They are uniquely placed at the core of the structure-function continuum concept, where instead of the classical (but heavily oversimplified) 'one gene–one protein–one structure–one function” view, the actual protein structure-function relationship is described by the more convoluted 'one-gene–many-proteins–many-functions' model [</span><a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2019.00010/full#B92" style="animation: 0s ease 0s 1 normal none running none; background-color: #f7f7f7; box-sizing: border-box; color: #1db5c3; font-family: MuseoSans, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; hyphens: auto; outline: none; scroll-behavior: auto; text-decoration-line: none; transition: none 0s ease 0s; word-break: break-word;">92</a><span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; color: #282828; font-family: MuseoSans, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;">, </span><a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2019.00010/full#B93" style="animation: 0s ease 0s 1 normal none running none; background-color: #f7f7f7; box-sizing: border-box; color: #1db5c3; font-family: MuseoSans, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; hyphens: auto; outline: none; scroll-behavior: auto; text-decoration-line: none; transition: none 0s ease 0s; word-break: break-word;">93</a><span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; color: #282828; font-family: MuseoSans, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;">]."</span></i></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">What we have in the case of Anfinsen's Dogma is an example of what has repeatedly occurred in the history of modern biology: the social construction of a dubious achievement legend, one hoisted up triumphantly largely for ideological reasons, so that biologists could claim they understood some great mystery of nature they did not at all understand, and could avoid believing in something they did not want to believe in. It works like this:</span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">(1) Biologists will make observations of some type of extremely impressive phenomenon in nature, or some class of phenomena. </span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">(2) One or more biologists will come up with some simplistic half-baked hypothesis that purports to offer a naturalistic mechanistic explanation for the phenomenon or class of phenomena. Typically such a hypothesis is stated through the repetition of some "sound bite," slogan or catchphrase such as "energy minimization," "natural selection," or "synapse strengthening."</span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">(3) It will be claimed that a few miscellaneous observations or experiments lend support to the hypothesis. </span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">(4) Limitations or defects of the observations or experiments will be ignored, and a grand chorus of biologists will start proclaiming in unison that the hypothesis is a suitable explanation for the phenomenon or class of phenomena. </span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">(5) Gigantic reasons for rejecting the hypothesis will be ignored or swept under the rug. </span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">(6) Illogical aspects of the hypothesis (or aspects contrary to facts) will be ignored or swept under the rug. </span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">(7) A triumphal legend will be socially constructed by the biologist community that the impressive phenomenon or class of phenomena has been explained, because of the hypothesis offered, and the weak cheesy evidence presented in favor of it. </span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;">This is exactly what happened in the case of Darwinism, which never offered a credible explanation for the more impressive wonders of biological innovation occurring in natural history, merely offering the cheesy sound-bite slogan of "natural selection" and an implausible appeal to random mutations. </span><span style="color: black;">This is also what happened in the case of the main phenomena of the human mind, none of which are credibly explained by brain activity, for reasons I explain at great length in the posts of the blog <a href="http://www.headtruth.blogspot.com/" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a>. </span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Do not be fooled by claims that Levinthal's Paradox or the protein folding problem has been solved. Such claims are merely additional examples of the countless times scientists have made triumphant declarations that they solved problems they did not actually solve. Each claim that Levinthal's Paradox or the protein folding problem has been solved typically involves appeals to dubious speculative physics, appeals that have not been substantiated by experiments. The different claims of this type all disagree with each other, each presenting a different speculative framework. C</span>laims that Levinthal's Paradox or the protein folding problem has been solved are as dubious and speculative as when some scientist claims to have solved the origin of life, the origin of consciousness or the puzzle of what could have caused the origin of the universe. </span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">A scientific</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><a href="https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/76390330/1_s2.0_S0079610717300846_main.pdf" style="color: #2288bb; font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">paper</a><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">states this, using "native conformation" to mean the characteristic 3D shape of a protein molecule:</span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: large;"><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">"</span>The problem of protein folding is one of the most important problems of molecular biology. A central problem (the so called Levinthal's paradox) is that the protein is first synthesized as a linear molecule that must reach its native conformation in a short time (on the order of seconds or less). The protein can only perform its functions in this (often single) conformation. The problem, however, is that the number of possible conformational states is exponentially large for a long protein molecule. Despite almost 30 years of attempts to resolve this paradox,<b> a solution has not yet been found</b>. A number of authors (see, e.g., Ben-Naim, 2013; Onuchic and Wolynes, 2004; Finkelstein et al., 2017) believe that there is a solution, but they disagree on the reasons. Other scientists (see, e.g., Berger and Leighton, 1998; Davies, 2004) believe that the paradox is not yet resolved."</i></div></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;">The phenomenon of protein folding is one of the most important things that goes on in nature, and your biological persistence from day to day vitally depends on protein folding occurring each day. Most protein molecules are short-lived. For example, the proteins in brain synapses have an average life of less than two weeks. Your body requires for protein folding to continuously occur, so that short-lived protein molecules can be continually replaced by newly created protein molecules that almost all require just-the-right protein folding to work right. The <a href="https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2016/sc/c5sc03826j#:~:text=The%20majority%20of%20the%20proteins,half%2Dlife%20is%208.7%20hours." style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">paper</a> "Systematic study of the dynamics and half-lives of newly synthesized proteins in human cells" tells us this: "</span><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.79)">The majority of the proteins quantified have half-lives within the range of 4–14 hours. About 6% of all quantified proteins (49) have half-lives <4 hours, while 51 proteins have long half-lives (>14 hours); the median half-life is 8.7 hours."</span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">The long-winded discussion above leads to the conclusion that physical science is unable to explain how protein folding occurs. Since such folding occurs with most protein molecules, this counts as a gigantic reason for concluding that physical science lacks any explanation for the origination of protein molecules. </span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.79)"><b>Reason #4: Physical Science Is Unable to Explain the Improbable Appearance of So Many Useful Protein Complexes, Often So Complex They Are Called "Molecular Machines"</b></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.79)"><b><br /></b></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.79)"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Although scientists have identified most of the proteins that exist in the human body, the task of identifying all the protein complexes and which proteins they are made up is a task that is very largely unfinished. The </span><a href="https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/51/D1/D539/6830667" style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">CORUM database</a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"> of protein complexes lists 5204 protein complexes, but that number is only a small fraction of the total number of protein complexes that exist. Figure 2 of the document <a href="https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/51/D1/D539/6830667#supplementary-data">here</a> has a graph showing that roughly 10,000 types of proteins are used to make up these roughly 5000 protein complexes that have been identified by the CORUM database. The same figure shows there is little reuse of protein types within protein complexes. Specifically:</span></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.79)"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">About 5000 proteins are members of only one protein complex.</span></span></span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.79)"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">About 2000 proteins are members of two protein complexes.</span></span></span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.79)"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">About 750 proteins are members of three protein complexes.</span></span></span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.79)"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">About 600 proteins are members of four protein complexes.</span></span></span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.79)"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">About 450 proteins are members of five protein complexes.</span></span></span></span></li></ul></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.79)"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">The link <a href="https://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/8004f7ff-494f-4620-a354-bd0f39b9449e/gr2.jpg">here</a> (Figure 2 of the paper <a href="https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(11)01080-4">here</a>) takes you to a very impressive diagram that gives a map of protein complexes in the humble fly <i>Drosophila melanogaster. </i>The groups of circles with the same color are particular protein complexes.<i> </i> While there are very many small protein complexes consisting of only a few proteins, there are also quite a few protein complexes that each consist of dozens of types of proteins, including the complexes that are labeled as "mediator complex," "Snap/SNARE complex," "nucleolus," "proteasome complex," "actin cytoskeleton complex," "histone acethyltranserase complex." and so forth. </span></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.79)"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></span></span></span></div><div><span style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.79)"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Such a situation makes it pretty much impossible to explain the formation of the more complex protein complexes by any kind of random combination effect. I can explain why. Consider the likelihood of getting the word "cat" from a random combination of tokens. If you are dealing with only the 26 lowercase characters of the English alphabet, the chance of such a thing is equal to 1 in 26 to the third power, or 1 in </span></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222; font-size: large;">17576. But if you consider all of the alphanumeric characters, the chance is much smaller, namely 1 in 36 to the third power, or 1 in 46656. </span></div><div><span style="color: #222222; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #222222;">Now, consider some situation in which you need a particular arrangement of three particular proteins out of 20,000 types of proteins, to make a particular protein complex. The chance of getting that arrangement from a random combination of three of those proteins is roughly 1 in 20,000 to the third power, roughly 1 in 8 trillion or 1 in 8,000,000,000. When we start dealing with protein complexes consisting of many proteins that have to be arranged in the right way, the probability of getting the right arrangement from a random combination becomes much smaller. C</span><span style="color: #222222;">onsider some situation in which you need a particular arrangement of ten particular proteins out of 20,000 types of proteins. The chance of getting that arrangement from a random combination of ten of those proteins is roughly 1 in 20,000 to the tenth power, which equals about 1 in 10 to the 43rd power. You can do calculations to determine such numbers using the Large Exponents Calculator <a href="https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/algebra/large-exponent-calculator.php">here</a>. </span></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-5XdmZnqzrwwFah9dE_yGrtbfv_lHnZQCRSnnwaYjsj7u5ry9W8Ito7Adk-lSvq_lgDZ60T0ykqdGmnE-nYx4gKZebzxRMmIf7C7EL4um4QIuJtWqiWY1etz8TLnvZcQPlBMW2xBai1vYledP9FF80eHlDtjkhF_uGUl9V70rKJoVPst7oVK3HmAJFLw7/s466/temp.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="423" data-original-width="466" height="290" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-5XdmZnqzrwwFah9dE_yGrtbfv_lHnZQCRSnnwaYjsj7u5ry9W8Ito7Adk-lSvq_lgDZ60T0ykqdGmnE-nYx4gKZebzxRMmIf7C7EL4um4QIuJtWqiWY1etz8TLnvZcQPlBMW2xBai1vYledP9FF80eHlDtjkhF_uGUl9V70rKJoVPst7oVK3HmAJFLw7/s320/temp.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><div><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><br /></span></div>A probability like that (</span><span style="color: #222222;">1 in 10 to the 43rd power) </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">is so small we would expect it to never happen in the lifetime of a human. The explanatory problem becomes much worse when you consider that it is not merely necessary for a human body to once or twice create one of the protein complexes needed for life. Such protein complexes must be continually created in very massive numbers for the human body to function properly. The average protein complex only lasts for a relatively short time. Most of the protein complexes needed for life exist in very massive numbers, with there typically existing billions of each of the type of protein complexes. </span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: large;">In my post "</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, Palatino Linotype, Palatino, serif; font-size: large;">Some Accidentally Unachievable Molecular Machines in Your Body" I give examples of incredibly complex protein complexes in the human body. These included the apoptosome. </span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;">A </span><a href="https://pdb101.rcsb.org/motm/177" style="color: #2288bb; font-family: "times new roman", serif; text-decoration-line: none;">page</a><span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;"> describes the action of the individually useless proteins of the apoptosome coming together to form a functional protein complex:</span></span></div><p style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="font-size: large;">"The process of programmed cell death, also known as apoptosis, is highly regulated, and the decision to die is made through <b>the coordinated action of many molecules</b>. The apoptosome plays the role of gatekeeper in one of the major processes, termed the intrinsic pathway. It lies between the molecules that sense a problem and the molecules that disassemble the cell once the choice is made. <b>Normally, the many subunits of the apoptosome are separated and inactive,</b> circulating harmlessly through the cell. When trouble occurs, <b>they assemble into a star-shaped complex</b>, which activates protein-cutting <a href="http://www.pdb.org/pdb/101/motm.do?momID=56" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #337ac7; text-decoration-line: none;">caspases</a> that get apoptosis started."</span></i></span></p><p style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: large;">Another <a href="https://www.bumc.bu.edu/busm/2016/10/04/study-reveals-protein-structure-of-the-human-apoptosome/" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">site</a> that includes a 3D rotating animation of the apoptosome structure above says this:</span></span></p><p style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="font-size: large;">"<b>The apoptosome is revealed as a wheel-like complex with seven spokes</b>. On top of <b>the wheel is a spiral-shaped disk that allows for docking</b> and subsequent activation of proteases, which then target cellular components. When active, <b>the apoptosome is revealed to be a dynamic machine</b> with three to five protease molecules tethered to the wheel at any given time."</span></i></span></span></p><p style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">The apoptosome protein complex is shown below:</span></span></span></p><p style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiKVC_iBQJL_YuUlSo_jO4tuVPpGh5s2MUwRp5a568rBXwFiElltNOOcIhmMqEbHGlPhiKnBMcd_DMLVu3PYda3uRoI1GkBRf-ynorOORMl6dqfSqgkhFZBOhxvWeQwZE9z8fs6vH6FJZkHz6s5lkukkFge58BOf3m_zuIW4Rv9sxAGMYiP-JtdwEgUefI/s765/temp.jpg" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img alt="apoptosme" border="0" data-original-height="765" data-original-width="637" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiKVC_iBQJL_YuUlSo_jO4tuVPpGh5s2MUwRp5a568rBXwFiElltNOOcIhmMqEbHGlPhiKnBMcd_DMLVu3PYda3uRoI1GkBRf-ynorOORMl6dqfSqgkhFZBOhxvWeQwZE9z8fs6vH6FJZkHz6s5lkukkFge58BOf3m_zuIW4Rv9sxAGMYiP-JtdwEgUefI/w333-h400/temp.jpg" width="333" /></span></a></p><div><p style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span><span face="sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: large;">(Image credit: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosome#/media/File:Apop_atomic_model.jpg">Wikipedia Commons</a>, derived from Yuan <i>et al.</i> 2010, <a href="https://www.cell.com/structure/pdf/S0969-2126(10)00134-6.pdf">Structure of an apoptosome-procaspase-9 CARD complex</a>)</span></span></span></p><p style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: large;">Shown above is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosome">apoptosome</a> protein complex involved in programmed cell death. Note the references in the chart to propellers, which remind us how much the complex resembles a product of engineering. There are very many other types of protein complexes in the human body with similar complexity. In my post <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/09/some-accidentally-unachievable.html">here</a> I discussed several other protein complexes of comparable complexity, including the spliceosome, the proteasome, and RNA polymerase II. How is it that these teams of proteins so organized and specialized arise? Scientists do not know. It is not true that they arise because some specification for making them is read from DNA. DNA does not specify which proteins belong to particular protein complexes. DNA has no specification of the structure of protein complexes. We cannot credibly imagine such protein complexes massively arising from chance cominbations of proteins. The odds against that are prohibitive, for reasons discussed above. </span></span></p><p style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: large;">Below are some quotes in which scientists confess their ignorance about how biologically necessary protein complexes arise:</span></span></p><p style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></span></p><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span> </span><span><i>"<span style="color: #202020;"><span>The majority of cellular proteins function as subunits in larger protein complexes. However, <b>very little is known about how protein complexes form</b> </span></span><span style="color: #202020;"><span>in vivo</span></span></i><span style="color: #202020;"><span><i>."</i> Duncan and Mata, "</span></span></span><span style="color: #202020;"><a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002398">Widespread Cotranslational Formation of Protein Complexes,</a>" 2011.</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #202020; font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #1a1a1a;">"<i>While the occurrence of multiprotein assemblies is ubiquitous, the understanding of pathways that dictate the formation of quaternary structure remains enigmatic.</i>" -- Two scientists (<a href="https://portlandpress.com/biochemsoctrans/article-abstract/46/1/197/66505/Co-translational-control-of-protein-complex?redirectedFrom=fulltext">link</a>). </span></span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #1a1a1a;">"</span><span style="color: #2a2a2a;"><i>A</i></span></span></span><span style="color: #262626;"><i> general theoretical framework to understand protein complex formation and usage is still lacking</i>." -- Two scientists, 2019 (l<a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1911028117">ink</a>). </span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #262626;">"<i>Protein assemblies are at the basis of numerous biological machines by performing actions that none of the individual proteins would be able to do. There are thousands, perhaps millions of different types and states of proteins in a living organism, and the number of possible interactions between them is enormous...The strong synergy within the protein complex makes it irreducible to an incremental process. They are rather to be acknowledged as fine-tuned initial conditions of the constituting protein sequences. These structures are biological examples of nano-engineering that surpass anything human engineers have created. Such systems pose a serious challenge to a Darwinian account of evolution, since irreducibly complex systems have no direct series of selectable intermediates, and in addition, as we saw in Section 4.1, each module (protein) is of low probability by itself." -- S</i>teinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjerm,<i> </i></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">"</span></span><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071">Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems,"</a><span> Journal of Theoretical Biology.</span></span></li></ul><div><span style="font-size: large;">I may note that you do not explain the appearance of biologically necessary protein complexes by simple phrases such as "bonding" or "protein-protein interaction." Part of the mystery is why proteins are continuously forming into biologically necessary protein complexes, special arrangements so unlikely to occur by chance. Something equally mysterious would be happening if little stones and sticks at the edge of the incoming tide kept forming into useful messages over and over again. You would not credibly explain such a wonder by merely saying that it occurs because of random arrangement, and you do not explain the continuous appearance of vast numbers of biologically necessary protein complexes in your body by merely appealing to random arrangements produced by the bonding of individual proteins. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">We cannot at all explain the formation of protein complexes by imagining that they tend to form from proteins with corresponding genes that are nearby in DNA. In my <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/09/some-accidentally-unachievable.html">post</a> "Some Accidentally Unachievable Molecular Machines in Your Body" I give some examples of impressive protein complexes in the human body, and give tables showing that they are not made up of proteins corresponding to genes that are contiguous or nearby within DNA. In the examples listed in that post, it is quite the opposite situation, with the protein team members of the protein complexes being constructed from very widely scattered genes found on different chromosomes in the nucleus. For example, the splicesome protein complex is constructed from more than a dozen types of proteins corresponding to very widely scattered genes in Chromosome 1, Chromosome 4, Chromosome 5, Chromosome 9, Chromosome 11, Chromosome 17, Chromosome 19 and Chromosome 22. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Scientists have no credible explanation for how it is that proteins form into very organized protein complexes that are so often necessary for the proteins to have any useful function. An honest and very thorough researcher into these matters will be left with an overwhelming impression that there is some unfathomable force of biological organization acting throughout the world of biology to achieve purposeful effects of magnificent biological engineering that are utterly beyond any low-level mechanistic explanation. I call such a force the Global Organizing Activity of a Life-force, or GOAL. For more on the rationale for believing in such a reality, see my post <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2021/08/goal-and-soul-postulating-what-we-need.html">here</a>. A sufficiently deep study of these topics will tend to lead a person towards suspecting how very insufficient are claims that there was merely some "long, long ago" design that helped produce the wonders of biology, and will tend to lead a person towards suspicions that there is some continuous biological dependency of human bodies on some ongoing purposeful agency beyond the mechanistic understanding of biologists. </span></div></div></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-71799347987554286052024-03-15T09:52:00.000-07:002024-03-15T09:52:18.486-07:00Astray Authorities #4<p> Here is the latest in a series of videos I am making. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9NKqKBPMMUg" width="320" youtube-src-id="9NKqKBPMMUg"></iframe></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-44081453578073444612024-03-12T06:00:00.000-07:002024-03-12T08:15:05.128-07:00Spookiest Years, Part 14: The Year 1877<p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>I<span>n previous posts in this intermittently appearing "Spookiest Years" series on this blog </span><span>(</span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/09/spookiest-years-part-1-year-1848.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/10/spookiest-years-part-2-year-1850.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/10/spookiest-years-part-3-year-1851.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/10/spookiest-years-part-4-year-1852.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/11/spookiest-years-part-5-year-1853.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/11/spookiest-years-part-6-1854-1855.html">here</a>,</span></span><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span> </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/11/spookiest-years-part-7-years-1860-1861.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/12/spookiest-years-part-8-years-1868-1869.html">here</a><span>,</span><span> </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/12/spookiest-years-part-9-year-1871.html">here</a>,<span> <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2024/01/spookiest-years-part-10-year-1872.html">here</a>, <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2024/01/spookiest-years-part-11-year-1873.html">here</a>, <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2024/01/spookiest-years-part-12-year-1874.html">here</a>, </span></span><span> and <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2024/02/spookiest-years-part-13-year-1876.html">here</a></span><span>),</span><span> I had looked at some very spooky events reported between 1848 and 1876.</span><span> Let me pick up the thread and discuss some spooky events reported in the years 1877.</span></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On page 51 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v10_n5_feb_2_1877.pdf">February 2, 1877 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist,</i> we have an example of an early account of a near-death experience. The previous page tells of a William Tennet of New Brunswick, New Jersey who seemed to sink into a death-like state lasting many hours or days. Tennet finally recovered, and had speaking difficulties, requiring rehabilitation. Eventually he told this story of what happened during his death-like experience:</span></p><p><i><span style="font-size: large;"><span>" </span><span>‘ I was conversing with my brother,’ said he, on ‘ the state </span><span>of my soul, and the fears I had entertained for my future </span><span>welfare. I found myself in an instant in another state of </span><span>existence, under the direction of a superior being, who </span><span>ordered me to follow him. I was accordingly wafted along, </span><span>I know not how, till I beheld at a distance an ineffable glory, </span><span>the impression of which on my mind it is impossible to </span><span>communicate to mortal man. I immediately reflected on </span><span>my happy change, and thought, well, blessed be God, I am </span><span>safe at last notwithstanding all my fears. I saw an innumerable host of happy beings surrounding the inexpressible glory, in acts of adoration and joyous worship, but I </span><span>did not see any bodily shape, or representation, in the </span><span>glorious appearance. I heard things unutterable. I heard </span><span>their songs and hallelujahs of thanksgiving and praise with </span><span>unspeakable rapture. I felt joy unutterable and full of glory. </span><span>I then applied to my conductor, and requested leave to join </span><span>the happy throng, on which he tapped me on the shoulder, </span><span>and said, ‘ You must return to the earth.’ This seemed like </span><span>a sword through my heart. In an instant I recollect to have </span><span>seen my brother standing before me, disputing with the </span><span>doctor. The three days during which I had appeared lifeless seemed to me not more than ten or twenty minutes.</span></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-size: large;"><span>The idea of returning to this world of sorrow and trouble </span><span>gave me such a shock that I fainted repeatedly.’ He added : </span><span>‘ Such was the effect on my mind of what I had seen and </span><span>heard, that if it be possible for a human being to live entirely above the world, and the things of it, for some time </span><span>afterwards, I was that person. The ravishing sounds of the </span><span>songs and hallelujahs that I heard, and the very words that </span><span>were uttered, were not out of. my ears when awake for at </span><span>least three years. All the kingdoms of the earth were in </span><span>my sight as nothing and vanity, and so great were my </span><span>ideas of heavenly glory, that nothing which did not in </span><span>some measure relate to it could command my serious attention.’"</span></span></i></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>We have here (from a man who beyond doubt had a very close brush with death) a near-death experience account very much like the near-death experience accounts reported in 1975 and later years, including the "you must return to the earth" element so commonly found in such accounts. The account is one of quite a few such accounts I have collected dating from before 1975. You can read the other such accounts using the link</span><span> </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/search/label/pre-1975%20near-death%20experience">here</a><span>, and continuing to press Older Posts at the bottom right. </span> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v11_n15_oct_12_1877.pdf">page 67</a> of the February 9, 1877 edition of <i>The Spiritualist</i>, we have another account that should interest those who study near-death experiences and out-of-body experiences. We have an account by William Q. Judge claiming that he was able to willfully produce out-of-body experiences or telepathic interactions with others. He states this:</span></p><p><i><span style="font-size: large;">"In my
sleep at night, through intense desire and will, I have gone
long distances. Once, while down in New Jersey, sixty
miles from here, I have come up to this city, and been
visible to friends in Mdme. Blavatsky’s house. To her house
in spirit I have frequently gone.....</span></i><i><span style="font-size: large;">Now here I have to take the evidence of others. They
say that while my body snored, my double, or simulacrum...or whatever you may name it—that is, a visible counterfeit presentment of me—could be seen walking
down the passage to the kitchen.... And now as to another kind of experiment. The projection of my mind upon others seemed a good thing to try.
Accordingly, I seized every chance that presented itself, and
success often rewarded me. Many times have one or two
persons whom I had not previously mesmerised been perfectly aware that even from a distance I was directing my
mind upon them, and I have often compelled my child to do
certain little things by only looking at her, and mentally
commanding the things to be done....A man owed me some money, and failed to pay as
agreed. One day, resolved to compel him, I stood up, and
for fifteen minutes directing myself to wherever he might
then be, I commanded him violently, as it were, to come
down and pay a certain part of it. The next day he came in
and paid that sum; and, on questioning him, it appeared
that at the time I tried the experiment, he suddenly thought
of me, went out to collect a bill in order to pay me, and
succeeded."</span></i></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On page 115 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v10_n10_mar_9_1877.pdf">March 9, 1877</a> edition of <i>The Spiritualist,</i> we have this account of prophetic dreams that came true:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"Macnish, in his Philosophy of Sleep, quotes a
curious dream of his own, which bears on the question of clairvoyant or
prophetic dreams. Being in Caithness, he dreamed that a near relation
residing three hundred miles off had suddenly died. He awoke in a ' state of inconceivable terror.' He wrote to inquire, and, till he heard,
was in a state of 'most unpleasant suspense.' Three days elapsed
before an answer came, and then it was to the effect that the
person in question had had a fatal attack of palsy the very day
on the morning of which he dreamed his dream. He was
in a perfect state of health before the stroke. It came on him like a
thunderbolt. The death of Mr. Perceval, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, was foretold by a prophetic dream, thrice repeated to Mr.
Williams, of Scorrier House, near Redruth, in Cornwall, on the night
of May 11th, 1812...Moore, in his work on </i>Body and Mind<i>,
relates that an intimate friend of his own, a diplomatist, had engaged
a passage to South America by a steamer which was to leave May 9th,
1856. A few days after the passage was taken a lady, well known to
both, dreamed of the loss of the vessel. The dream was very vivid, and
was twice repeated. Circumstances prevented M. de S. from going by
that particular vessel, which was lost in accord with the dream. This
was told to Moore some weeks before it was verified....Gerald Massey, in a lecture
reported May 17, 1872, says, ' On waking up at seven o’clock my wife
informed me that my mother was dead. Asked how she knew. She
said she had seen in a dream the black-edged envelope put under the
bedroom door. At eight o’clock the veritable letter came.' ’’</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On page 266 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v10_n23_jun_8_1877.pdf">June 8, 1877 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist,</i> we have this account by G. W. F. Wiese of events at a seance occurring about a month ago:</span></p><p><i><span style="font-size: large;"><span>"3</span><span>rd sitting, May 2nd (five persons present).—Raps were </span><span>heard distinctly after we had sat about a quarter of an hour. </span><span>The table rose above the ground, waving and undulating to </span><span>the right and left. The medium asked whether the spirit </span><span>could lift the table free off the ground, if we did not touch </span><span>it at all. This was answered in the affirmative by three raps, </span><span>and half a minute afterwards the table rose free from the </span><span>ground up to our hands, which we kept joined about a foot </span><span>above the surface of the table. This was repeated twice. </span><span>The spirit promised to produce musical sounds on the cords </span><span>of the 'zither' after three more sittings. </span><span>A question put in thought by a lady was answered to her </span><span>satisfaction."</span></span></i></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>This is one of innumerable accounts from the 19th century of observations of levitating tables, and one of countless accounts saying that a question asked only in someone's mind was answered correctly. In the typical such account the claim is that after the question was asked, the alphabet was repeatedly recited, and note was made of mysterious raps that were heard after particular letters were spoken, with the sequence of such letters being read as an answer to the mentally posed question. We are told that in the meeting on May 4 </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">"The table rose up and floated in the air whilst our hands were joined about a foot above it, nobody touching it.." We read this account:</span></span></p><p><i><span style="font-size: large;"><span>"We now felt a cool wind touching our hands and after</span><span>wards our heads at various times, coming back to us when </span><span>we asked for it. Then the table rose by itself from the floor </span><span>till it touched our hands, and floated to and fro underneath fo</span><span>r a short time."</span></span></i></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On page 271 of the same edition we have this interesting account by H. G. Atkinson:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i><span>"</span></i><span><i>A gentleman has just relating to me the case of a friend </i></span><i>with an arm cut off from the shoulder, who is certain that he has a </i><i>spiritual arm, which lie sees and actually feels with his other hand. He </i><i>can touch anything, and even pull up things with the spiritual or </i><i>phantom arm and hand. He says the spirit pervades the whole body, </i><i>and has the same form, so will exist after the body dies. His surprise </i><i>is that others do not see the spirit arm as he does. The relator says he h</i><i>as inquired of another person whose legs are cut off, and who has </i><i>exactly the same impression in respect to his legs, that though bis body </i><i>cannot stand upright his spirit still can. Neither the relator nor the </i><i>maimed persons know anything of Spiritualism."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On the same page Charles Long gives this account:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"</i><span><i>Suddenly, I perceived </i></span><i>among the trees in front of us, and a little to the right, a misty transparency</i><i> like a column of smoke. It gradually seemed to condense, </i><i>and glided, while yet undefined, upon the pathway before us, where it appeared</i><i> almost instantaneously to take shape as a gentleman of the last</i><i> century. The apparition was dressed in a three-cornered hat, a red </i><i>velvet coat with targe lace ruffles at the breast and sleeve..</i><span><i>.After thus standing on the path for perhaps a minute, the
ghost (if such indeed it was) dissolved into mist, which slowly faded
away. My companion did not see anything, but felt a cold shudder run
through him, though I had not then informed him of what I saw." </i></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On page 65 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v11_n6_aug_10_1877.pdf">August 10, 1877 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist</i>, we have an account by a chemist named A. Comera, who gives his address. Comera tells of seeing an apparition that was seen repeatedly, for long periods of time. We read this:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>“ The facts I allude to took place about fifteen months ago. My wife, waking me up suddenly in the middle of the night, cried out, 'Michael,
Death !’ I opened my eyes and beheld V----- on his knees on my
chest, looking fixedly at me. Without being the least put out by the
unexpected apparition, nor astonished at the singular fashion in which
it presented itself, I cheered my wife, saying, ‘ Holloa, why here is my
friend V—— ! What brings you here ? ’ I then begged V----- to get
off me, and to sit down; for, in fact, he incommoded me dreadfully; he
weighed so heavily on my chest. V----- sat himself down on the side of the bed, and told me that he
was just dead, and as soon as it was over he determined to pay me a
visit on account of our old friendship. Then he added, ‘I will come
during three days and three nights, and will teach you the key twist (tour de cle). You know I mean that Italian fencing thrust {coup
d’escrime) which you never could get hold of at the time when you were
my pupil. This thrust will be of service to you, for before very long
you will be challenged to a duel, and this thrust will get you out of
the affair (te tirera de I’affaire).' "</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Comera then says he saw this apparition by his side "the whole of the day," and soon learned that this V----- had died just before the apparition first appeared. Comera says he learned a fencing maneuver from the apparition, which soon came in handy because of a sword fight Comera got into. You could entitle the whole account "The Ghost Who Taught a Fencing Lesson." </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On page 131 of the September 14, 1877 <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v11_n11_sep_14_1877.pdf">edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist</i>, we read this:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"The following phenomenon was witnessed at the death-bed of
an old lady who recently died in this city, and was related to the
writer by two members of the party present. Between the hours of
four and five in the morning, while four women were watching in the
chamber of death, loud knockings were heard by all of them on the
head-board of the bedstead. Soon beautiful music was heard outside
of the back window, which approached nearer and nearer, until it
entered the room and filled it with melody. After these sweet sounds
had entered the room, one of the ladies asked another if she heard
anything. ‘ Yes,’ said she, 'I heard beautiful music.’ The two
other watchers heard it distinctly ; so did the dying one, who feebly
spoke and said, Sweet music ; sweet music." </i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On page 162 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v11_n14_oct_5_1877.pdf">October 5, 1877 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist,</i> we read a Thomas Colley give a long report of viewing astonishing phenomena. He states this, using some rather "purple prose":</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"I have just witnessed the most marvellous materialisation
phenomenon I have ever heard of or can conceive....Dr. Monck, under control of ' Samuel,' was, by the light of the lamp—-the writer not
being a yard away from him—seen by all to be the living gate
for the extrusion of spirit forms from the realm of mind into this world of matter: for standing forth thus plainly before
us, the psychic or spirit-form was seen to grow out of his left side. First several faces one after another, of great beauty appeared, and in amazement we saw, and as I was suffered to stand close up to the medium, even touching him, I saw most plainly—several times, a perfect face and form of an exquisite womanhood partially issue from Dr. Monck, about
the region of the heart. Then, after several attempts, a full
formed figure, in a nebulous condition at first, but growing
solider as it issued from the medium, left Dr. Monck, and
stood, a separate individuality, two or three feet off, bound to
him by a slender attachment as of gossamer, which at my
request, Samuel in control severed with the medium’s left
hand ; and there stood embodied a spirit form of unutterable loveliness, robed in attire spirit-spun—a meshy web-work from no mortal loom, of a fleeciness inimitable and of transfiguration whiteness truly glistening....I saw him receive back the lovely
birth of the invisible spheres into his very person ; and, as
I gazed for the last time on the sweet face of the disintegrating
spirit, within three or four inches of the features, I marked
its fair aspect, eyes, hair, and delicate complexion, and
kissed the dainty hand, as, in process of absorption, it dissolved, and saw the angel face disappear and fade, as it was
drawn, positively, into the bosom of the medium. Gazing
thus closely, with awe and breathless interest, did I, there-fore, watch the departure of our angel friend, and, through the living gate and avenue of the medium’s very self, did I, with feelings indescribable, mark the steps of her progress to regain, through the living organism and body of Dr. Monck, her home in the viewless spheres."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">This rather sounds like the same phenomenon that was documented very carefully by <span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">Schrenck-Notzing in <a href="https://archive.org/details/phenomenaofmater00schr/page/n6/mode/1up">his 1923 book</a> <i>Phenomena of Materialization</i>, as I discuss in my post <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-world-class-scientists-saw-ghosts.html">here</a>. </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Schrenck-Notzing spent four years investigating Marthe Beraud (referred to in the book as Eva C.) under very carefully controlled conditions, and produced an extremely detailed book describing a vast assortment of inexplicable phenomena he observed in her presence. The book includes more than 50 clear photos of the seemingly paranormal. Schrenck-Notzing makes frequent reports of things such as "spirit hands" appearing and disappearing, "materialized heads" appearing out of parts of Beraud's body, and equally astonishing things. Schrenck-Notzing took careful precautions to prevent fraud, such as placing the medium in a small "cabinet" (actually just a small corner of a room with a curtain in front of it) that was always carefully checked, and even often arranging for a full body examination before the phenomena were produced. Under conditions that should have prevented all possibility of fraud, the most inexplicable phenomena were produced on many different days. Below is a photo from that book (from the page <a href="https://archive.org/details/phenomenaofmater00schr/page/n515/mode/1up">here</a>). </span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-g99xJRdvOM9wkUMxNKLyoBleN8NbT40P1nNyMIXa_EquwROEaRc8o0ADIXRulelRtfFNeFJD-YGZ-E9NUMC-y2iwnVYaw8ce03SC31Bxl2Dm3rc2Z4zmAKFufoFcSwHddaA4NtkGAbbw_sN3PmNXpFXxV97Fzr7eIuOI4YC411xoW5ZuNM1ZZ8T594WM/s684/temp2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="materialization" border="0" data-original-height="684" data-original-width="481" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-g99xJRdvOM9wkUMxNKLyoBleN8NbT40P1nNyMIXa_EquwROEaRc8o0ADIXRulelRtfFNeFJD-YGZ-E9NUMC-y2iwnVYaw8ce03SC31Bxl2Dm3rc2Z4zmAKFufoFcSwHddaA4NtkGAbbw_sN3PmNXpFXxV97Fzr7eIuOI4YC411xoW5ZuNM1ZZ8T594WM/w281-h400/temp2.jpg" width="281" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;">In the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v11_n15_oct_12_1877.pdf">October 12, 1877 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist</i>, page 174, we have this account by Alfred Russel Wallace (co-founder of the theory of evolution by natural selection) of seemingly miraculous writing on a slate:</span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"The sitting was at a private house in Richmond, on the</i><div style="font-style: italic;">21st of last month. Two ladies and three gentlemen were</div><div style="font-style: italic;">present, besides myself and the medium, Dr. Monck. A</div><div style="font-style: italic;">shaded candle was in the room, giving light sufficient to see</div><div style="font-style: italic;">every object on the table round which we sat. Four small</div><div style="font-style: italic;">and common slates were on the table. Of these I chose two,</div><div style="font-style: italic;">and after carefully cleaning and placing a small fragment of</div><div style="font-style: italic;">pencil between them, I tied them together with a strong</div><div style="font-style: italic;">cord, passed around them both lengthways and crosswise, so</div><div style="font-style: italic;">as effectually to prevent the slates from moving on each</div><div style="font-style: italic;">other. I then laid them flat on the table, without losing</div><div style="font-style: italic;">sight of them for an instant. Dr. Monck placed the fingers</div><div style="font-style: italic;">of both hands on them, while I and a lady sitting opposite</div><div style="font-style: italic;">me placed our hands on the corners of the slates. From</div><div style="font-style: italic;">this position our hands never moved, till I untied them to</div><div style="font-style: italic;">ascertain the result. After waiting a minute or two, Dr.</div><div style="font-style: italic;">Monck asked me to name any short word I wished to be</div><div style="font-style: italic;">written on the slate. I named the word 'God.' He then</div><div style="font-style: italic;">ask me to say how I wished it written. I replied, ' lengthways of the slate;' then if I wished it written with a large</div><div style="font-style: italic;">or small ' g,' and I chose a capital 'G.' In a very short</div><div style="font-style: italic;">time writing was heard on the slate. The medium’s hands</div><div style="font-style: italic;">were convulsively withdrawn, and I then myself untied the</div><div style="font-style: italic;">cord (which was a strong silk watch-guard, lent by one of</div><div style="font-style: italic;">the visitors), and on opening the slates, found on the lower</div><div style="font-style: italic;">one the word I had asked for, written in the manner I had</div><div style="font-style: italic;">requested, the writing being somewhat faint and laboured,</div><div style="font-style: italic;">but perfectly legible. The slate with the writing on it is</div><div style="font-style: italic;">now in my possession. The essential features of this experiment are—that I myself cleaned and tied up the slates, that I kept my hand on</div><div style="font-style: italic;">them all the time, that they never went out of my sight for</div><div style="font-style: italic;">a moment, and that I named the word to be written and</div><div style="font-style: italic;">the manner of writing it after they were thus secured and</div><div style="font-style: italic;">held by me."</div><div style="font-style: italic;"><br /></div><div>We have on the same page an Edward T. Bennett stating, "I was present on this occasion, and certify that Mr.</div></span><div><span style="font-size: large;">Wallace’s account of what happened is correct." A very similar account is given on page 2 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/banner_of_light/banner_of_light_v42_n1_29_sep_1877.pdf">September 29, 1877</a> edition of the Banner of Light, by a John Wetherbee. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">On page 192 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v11_n16_oct_19_1877.pdf">October 19, 1877 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist</i>, we hear this startling story of a prophetic apparition:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"While we were gazing, and talking, and calling, Rhoda herself came down stairs, where she had left Lucy asleep, and
stood with us, while we all saw, in the full blaze of the sun,
the woman with the child in her arms slowly sink, sink,
sink, into the ground, until she disappeared from sight.
Then a great silence fell upon us all. In our hearts we all
believed it to be a warning of sorrow—of what we knew not.
When Rhoda and Lucy both died, then we knew. Rhoda
died the next autumn, Lucy a month later." </i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">On page 198 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v11_n17_oct_26_1877.pdf">October 26, 1877 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist</i>, we hear this account of materialization, similar to the one previously quoted, and similar to the effect documented so carefully in the <i>Phenomena of Materialization</i> book mentioned above:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"By degrees a faint cloud of white, at
first like a fine white mist, appeared by his left side, and in
the course of a minute or two, during which the medium
gasped and shuddered convulsively, a small, but perfectly
formed figure of a child, a little under or about four feet in
height, grew by his side. This figure seemed to be united
to the medium by a line of white mist, but the light was
not good enough to enable me to say positively that it
was so.
The child was, undoubtedly, a separate entity, distinct
from the medium."</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Later (on page 201) in the same edition a different witness makes these claims, which remind you of the "I'm melting!" scene in <i>The</i> <i>Wizard of Oz:</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"I have seen hands, and arms,
and the face only, and I have seen full forms appear and disappear. I
have seen a tall man appear, and after many minutes with us, and in a
good light, I have seen him gradually sink down, and become invisible,
all but a few inches of form, and then that seemed to snap out. I have
seen a full form dissolve, and leave the garments suspended as if held up
by a hand; and I have seen the form shrink away to nothing visible,
and leave the garments lying along the floor. These not long after disappeared."</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The years 1877 and 1878 were the years in which there occurred the "Watseka Wonder" case, one of the most astonishing and evidential cases in the history of the paranormal. It was a case in which a living human seemed to be possessed for months by the spirit of a deceased person. I described the case at length in my previous <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-minds-seem-to-borrow-bodies.html">post</a> "When Minds Seem to Borrow Bodies." </span></div><p></p></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-79499798485147884162024-03-08T05:00:00.000-08:002024-03-09T12:47:19.574-08:00Scientists Too Often Give Us Their Laziest Efforts When Writing About the Paranormal<p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;"><span>It seems that when mainstream scientists other than parapsychologists write about the paranormal, they usually give us their laziest efforts, failing to be diligent in either scholarship or logic. It's as if their rule was: when writing about the paranormal, just "phone it in." </span></span><span><span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;">An example of the lazy responses scientists gave to the US Congress UFO hearing is <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/ufo-hearings-reaction-scientists-space-1815778">a tweet by physicist Brian Cox</a>, in which he stated, <span style="font-family: inherit;">"</span></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space-collapse: preserve;">I watched a few clips and saw some people who seemed to believe stuff saying extraordinary things without presenting extraordinary evidence." </span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;"> How very lazy, to scold people based on impressions got after you just "watched a few clips" rather than watching the entire hearing (easily available on youtube.com) or reading a f<a href="https://picdataset.com/ai-news/full-transcript-of-subcommittee-hearing-on-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena/">ull transcript</a> of the testimony. In the post <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/08/astronomers-can-give-scrambled.html">here</a> I mention some extremely lazy-sounding writing by two astronomers who discussed UFOs in a manner leaving us with the impression that the astronomers had dashed off their literary efforts without thinking very carefully, and gave us the impression that they had never seriously studied the topics of UFOs. Then there's a certain widely-quoted psychologist who seems to resort to very lazy "shame the witnesses" gaslighting most of the times he is asked by the press to comment on some type of report of the paranormal. </span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;">Recently I read an additional example of an astronomer writing about the paranormal, giving us what sounds like his laziest and lamest efforts. The example was an <a href="https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/the-key-to-fighting-pseudoscience-isnt-mockery-its-empathy/">article</a> by astrophysicist Paul Sutter entitled "The key to fighting pseudoscience isn’t mockery—it’s empathy." The title is self-contradictory. "Pseudoscience" is a mocking abusive term skeptics use about any observational reports that they do not wish to admit are real. Sutter's continual use of the abusive term "pseudoscience" throughout his article to refer to various observational reports or theories he does not wish to believe in is itself an example of mockery, not empathy. </span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;">Sutter writes a long lazy article that seems scholarship-free, rather as if he couldn't be bothered to do a Google search. He shows not the slightest evidence of having studied any reports of anomalous phenomena such as UFOs or apparitions. There is nothing surprising about this. What we should always remember is that the vast majority of physical scientists have never seriously studied any of the vast literature documenting observations of inexplicable phenomena. Such scientists follow a "nothing spooky allowed" rule that controls their speech and their reading. One of the worst mistakes you can make is to assume that scientist specialists are generalist scholars. The vast majority are not. When a physical scientist such as an astronomer makes one of his rare mentions of the paranormal, you should remember that in all likelihood such a scientist has not read even one of the 100 top books he should have read before speaking on such a topic. </span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;">The subtitle of Sutter's article makes this claim: "Evidence shows that shoving data in peoples’ faces doesn’t work to change minds." No, that isn't true. Citing facts may not work as well as someone might hope, but presenting facts does help to change many minds. Why would someone such as Sutter wish to cite so ridiculous a principle? The answer is probably that Sutter does not want to get into arguing about evidence because he has not done any of the relevant study he should have done if he wanted to combat the opinions he does not want people to believe in. Of course, if you have not bothered to study any of the literature about the paranormal, then the most convenient principle you can cite is a principle that excuses you from presenting any facts, under the lame excuse that facts don't persuade people. </span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;">Sutter's article gives us some paragraphs that give us the old Portrait of the Noble Objective Scientist portrayal that scientists like to trot out whenever convenient. In this portrayal scientists are portrayed as having some special intellectual virtue that the average man does not possess. We read this:</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;">"<i>I</i></span></span><span style="background-color: #f0f1f2; font-family: opensans;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i>t involves skills like rigor, where we take our own statements seriously and follow them to their full logical conclusions. Or humility, where we learn to accept that any statement can be proven wrong at any time. There’s also fundamental skepticism, in that we allow the evidence to dictate our beliefs. Science is characterized by a spirit of openness, by requiring that methods and techniques be shared and publicized so that others can critique and extend them, and connectedness, which is a sense that statements we make must connect with the broader collection of scientific knowledge. Lastly, science persists in a constant state of evolution, where we always refine our beliefs and statements given new evidence or insights.</i></span></span></p><p style="background-color: #f0f1f2; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: opensans; margin: 20px 0px;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i>These qualities together make the scientific method work on a day-to-day basis. And while any individual scientist will fall short at one or more of these qualities for at least some—or, sadly, the entirety—of their careers, the practice of science is to always strive for these noble goals."</i></span></p><p style="background-color: #f0f1f2; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: opensans; margin: 20px 0px;"><span style="font-size: large;">This idealized "Normal Rockwell" portrait does not match the reality of what is going on these days among scientists. In particular:</span></p><p style="background-color: #f0f1f2; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: opensans; margin: 20px 0px;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-size: large;">In fields such as neuroscience, cosmology and evolutionary biology, there is a very notable lack of rigor in experimental methods. In experimental neuroscience these days there is a massive preponderance of Questionable Research Practices, with such practices being more the norm than the exception. Cosmology and astrophysics are massively infected by speculation-driven analysis revolving around dubious dogmas such as dark matter and dark energy and primordial cosmic inflation, things never observed. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">There is very little humility among today's physical scientists, and much more of the opposite of humility: hubris. Physical scientists massively claim with great dogmatism to understand great mysteries of nature they do not at all understand, such as the origin of species and the origin of the universe's physical structure and the origin of human minds. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Today's physical scientists have "fundamental skepticism" about various things they prefer not to believe in (such as paranormal psychic phenomena) but the opposite of such skepticism (credulous dogmatism) when dealing with any belief dogma that is cherished within their belief community, such as the idea that Darwinian ideas explain the origin of species and the idea that brains explain minds, and the groundless dogmas of dark matter and dark energy, not directly established by any observations. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Instead of there being a situation today where "</span><span>we always refine our beliefs and statements given new evidence or insights," physical scientists for two hundred years have displayed the exact opposite behavior: a refusal to modify beliefs and statements in the face of massive evidence for paranormal phenomena such as ESP. </span></span></li></ul><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span>The gigantic failure of the majority of physical scientists to seriously study two centuries of written reports of paranormal phenomena (often written by scientists and doctors) makes a mockery of Sutter's claim that mainstream scientists have some special "deep soul" that makes them superior to researchers of paranormal phenomena, particularly given that such reports are of the utmost relevance to explanatory boasts such scientists make. Such a failure makes such scientists seem largely like "heads in the sand" folks or "horse blinder" people or "see only what they want to see" guys rather than those with some special intellectual virtue. </span></span><span>The Venn diagram below tells the truth about the shortfalls of today's scientists:</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7TBtOAAl4NNc8S8nLk0qYdsC3Rbg_kEz-JQIbsxzRX14Sv5Q23j_CWF6BZ7HEP296Ac51JGaouVIXWNDvgx_jaV6CbmECn0LaTsDMlpbbTzkp5W-F_BzWK3nWuFyYCfQAvhAK2Vo3QvIDeukeaxutnLTMemIthQuAWt2tngk8ZJ8BFimd4fon4PeI1abm/s563/good_science_versus_academia_practice.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="good science versus academia reality" border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="563" height="290" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7TBtOAAl4NNc8S8nLk0qYdsC3Rbg_kEz-JQIbsxzRX14Sv5Q23j_CWF6BZ7HEP296Ac51JGaouVIXWNDvgx_jaV6CbmECn0LaTsDMlpbbTzkp5W-F_BzWK3nWuFyYCfQAvhAK2Vo3QvIDeukeaxutnLTMemIthQuAWt2tngk8ZJ8BFimd4fon4PeI1abm/w400-h290/good_science_versus_academia_practice.jpg" width="400" /></a></div></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span>A good rule is: do not trust scientists making generalizations about the virtuous tendencies of scientists. Such statements are no more reliable than statements in which Republican congressmen lecture you about the virtuous behavior of </span><span>Republican congressmen, or statements in which</span><span> Democratic senators lecture you about the virtuous behavior of Democratic senators. The table below helps put into perspective what is going on in the belief communities that physical scientists belong to. </span></span><span style="font-size: large;">Below are some cases of social groups in which all members were conditioned to believe certain dogmas, with various forms of sanctions for any deviation from the group orthodoxy.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span></span><br /><table border="1" bordercolor="#000000" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="width: 433px;"><colgroup><col width="202"></col><col width="213"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr valign="TOP"><td width="202"><span><b>Social Group</b></span></td><td width="213"><span><b>Dogma Mandated by Social Group</b></span></td></tr><tr valign="TOP"><td width="202"><span>Ancient Roman senators</span></td><td width="213"><span>The belief that Rome is destined to rule the world, and that local rebellions must be quickly crushed.</span></td></tr><tr valign="TOP"><td width="202"><span>Medieval clergymen</span></td><td width="213"><span>The belief that the Church is the supreme holder of truth, and that heretics must be destroyed.</span></td></tr><tr valign="TOP"><td width="202"><span>Southern US slaveholders, circa 1830</span></td><td width="213"><span>The belief that people with dark skin are fit only to serve as slaves.</span></td></tr><tr valign="TOP"><td width="202"><span>German officials, World War II</span></td><td width="213"><span>The belief that Germans are destined to rule as the master race.</span></td></tr><tr valign="TOP"><td width="202"><span>Soviet Union officials, circa 1950</span></td><td width="213"><span>The belief that history is essentially a class struggle that is reaching its climax in the creation of communist worker's paradises such as the Soviet Union.</span></td></tr><tr valign="TOP"><td width="202"><span>American government and military officials, circa 1965</span></td><td width="213"><span>The belief that much of Vietnam must be thoroughly bombed to prevent Communist expansion.</span></td></tr><tr valign="TOP"><td width="202"><span>Modern physical science professors</span></td><td width="213"><span>The belief that biological innovations have appeared merely because of random mutations and natural selection, the belief that the brain is the sole source of the human mind and self, and the belief that spooky things suggestive of a human soul (such as ESP or apparition appearances or genuine out-of-body experiences) cannot ever occur.</span></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></div></div></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Sutter then gives us this ridiculous statement about the study of apparitions:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"For example, if you’ve ever watched a ghost-hunting show, well.. first of all, I’m sorry. But you can tell it’s pseudoscience because, while ghost hunters use lots of fancy equipment and jargon, they don’t apply skepticism and rigor to their own statements. They don’t rule out more plausible explanations, and they don’t follow their thinking to its logical conclusion. If we can detect the presence of ghosts, then that must mean they interact with the material world, which would entail that their presence should manifest in any number of obvious ways."</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Scientists have been seriously studying apparition sightings for more than 140 years, since the time the Society for Psychical Research published its massive two-volume work <i>Phantasms of the Livin</i>g, with a total of about 1300 pages, which you can read <a href="https://archive.org/details/phantasmsoflivin01gurn/page/n5/mode/2up">here</a> and <a href="https://archive.org/details/phantasmsoflivin02gurn/page/n5/mode/2up">here</a>. Work on this topic continues, and I recently received (in response to my query) an email from psychology professor Chris A. Roe sending me some very interesting recent scientific papers on this topic, including <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-open/article/phenomenology-and-impact-of-hallucinations-concerning-the-deceased/1AA7D2F7BB52C491462566785D752E02">this</a> one. </span><span>The study with about 1000 respondents found 34% reported a sense of presence from a deceased person and a higher percentage (46%) reporting a visual experience involving the deceased, along with 43% reporting an auditory experience. The 2021 study has this interesting quote, using the term "ADC" for "after-death communication":</span></span></div><div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">"<i>Surprisingly, 36.4% of our respondents reported that they were not alone at the time of their ADC, and of these, 21.0% asserted that the ADC was witnessed by their companions. Also related to the perceived evidentiality of the experiences, 24.4% of respondents stated that they had received information that was previously unknown to them (often concerning circumstances of the deceased's passing.)"</i></span></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Numerous other scientific studies indicating the reality of apparition sightings are discussed in my post <a href="https://orbpro.blogspot.com/2023/12/12-possible-ways-deceased-might-signal.html">here</a>. Citing TV ghost hunting shows to try to discredit the study of apparitions is a silly thing to do. And Sutter hasn't said anything to discredit such shows, which he probably never has watched. His claim that if ghosts existed they would be making themselves manifest "in any number of obvious ways" is a lame piece of reasoning. We do not know how ghosts would interact with the world if they existed. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Sutter is not making sense when he states the following: </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"There’s more—way more. UFOlogy, cryptozoology, ancient aliens, flat-Earth conspiracies. These beliefs and practices may look like science from the outside, or at least share a small subset of its features, but they lack the deep soul that separates science from other branches of human inquiry."</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">There is no "deep soul" that distinguishes something like modern-day astrophysics from the study of UFOs or the study of archeological evidence that may suggest ancient alien visitors. Modern-day astrophysics hinges upon wildly speculative ideas such as dark matter and dark energy and primordial cosmic inflation, which have never been directly observed. The study of UFOs is based on UFO sightings that <i>have</i> been massively observed. So for an astrophysicist to play "holier than thou" comparing his kind to UFO scholars makes no sense. As for the theory of ancient alien visitors, one of the first people to advance it was the astronomer Carl Sagan, who advanced it in his book <i>Intelligent Life in the Universe</i>. The idea was very respectable among astronomers until a layman (Erich von Daniken) started making lots of money writing books advancing the theory. Perhaps jealous that a layman had mined this goldmine first, astronomers then senselessly declared the theory a taboo. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">In the "Why Pseudoscience Succeeds" section of his article, Sutter goes into disparagement mode. He attempts to argue that people believe in the things he calls pseudoscience because it comforts them. You could make exactly the same type of argument to disparage many of the things mainstream scientists believe in. In particular:</span></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-size: large;">You could argue that the reason why biologists believe in the groundless boast that Darwin explained the origin of species is because this makes biologists feel better by allowing them to position themselves as Grand Lords of Explanation who understand deep mysteries of human existence, and also because such a belief comforts them when they are troubled by massive evidence of design and purposeful engineering within biological organisms, evidence that troubles them because it contradicts their atheist assumptions. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;"><span>You could argue that the reason why biologists believe in the groundless idea that the human brain explains the human mind (<a href="https://headtruth.blogspot.com/">despite so much evidence to the contrary</a>) is that such a belief allows them to </span><span> </span><span>to position themselves as Grand Lords of Explanation who understand deep mysteries of the human mind, and also because such a belief comforts them when they are troubled by massive evidence that human minds have very many capabilities and experiences that such minds could only have if they are God-given souls, </span><span> </span><span>evidence that troubles them because it contradicts their atheist assumptions.</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;"><span>You could argue that the reason why astrophysicists such as Sutter believe in the dubious dogmas of dark matter and dark energy is that s</span><span>uch a belief allows them to </span><span> </span><span>to position themselves as Grand Lords of Explanation who understand deep mysteries of how the universe got its current structure. </span></span></li></ul><div><span style="font-size: large;">I may note that it makes no sense to claim that people believe in UFOs because it comforts them. A person believing in UFOs will typically believe that our planet is being visited by mysterious powers that may or may not be benevolent. Such a belief is as likely to scare someone as it is to comfort someone. </span></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">You do not discredit beliefs by speculating about a person's psychological motives for holding such beliefs. After mentioning ghosts and UFOs, Sutter claims this:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"Ultimately, pseudoscience provides answers. Plausible-sounding, reasonable-enough answers. The world is harsh, confusing, and unfair. Pseudoscience gives comfort, explanation, and predictability. Pseudoscience makes the world appear more stable and understandable and relatable."</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">No, people who claim that UFOs are real and that apparitions are real are not offering "predictability" and do not make "the world appear more stable and understandable." A world in which ghosts or UFOs are appearing is not more predictable, more stable and more understandable than a world in which no such things happen, but instead a world less predictable and more mysterious. So there is no credibility in Sutter's armchair psychologist explanations for why people report paranormal phenomena.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Very frequent use of the term "pseudoscience" (such as we see in Sutter's article) is a sign of investigative laziness. Good scholars investigate in depth theoretical and observational claims, and when they think such claims are unwarranted, they explain how those making the claims fell short. When people are too lazy to do such work, they may just write vacuous pieces using the term "pseudoscience" over and over again. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Sutter proposes what he calls "radical empathy" with people who report the paranormal. What he actually means by this "empathy" is a kind of disparaging belittlement. Under the "radical empathy" he suggests, the skeptic says to himself something like, "I put myself mentally in the shoes of the person believing in the paranormal, and try to understand the psychological comfort factors that are causing such beliefs." Such "empathy" is just a pleasant word Sutter is using for what seems like a recommendation to shame the witnesses and those who study their accounts whenever such accounts offend mainstream scientists. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Writing on the paranormal, Sutter seems to have given us only his lamest and laziest efforts, which includes some </span>"armchair psychoanalyst" stuff. His article shows not the slightest evidence of having studied human reports of paranormal phenomena. A look at <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=W-kF-cMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra">Sutter's papers</a> on Google Scholar (and a look at about <a href="https://www.livescience.com/author/paul-sutter">200 articles</a> he has written for LiveScience.com) fails to show any evidence of him studying seriously any claims of paranormal phenomena. The first article that comes up in that list of LiveScience articles finds Sutter <a href="https://www.livescience.com/space/cosmology/there-may-be-a-dark-mirror-universe-within-ours-where-atoms-failed-to-form-new-study-suggests">promoting the idea</a> there is some " 'dark mirror' universe," an idea that may make you wonder whether Sutter is throwing stones from a glass house in accusing others of pushing pseudoscience. On the first page of those articles we also see Sutter <a href="https://www.livescience.com/space/the-1st-life-in-the-universe-could-have-formed-seconds-after-the-big-bang">making the supremely ridiculous claim</a> that life could have formed seconds after the Big Bang, on the grounds that "perhaps it's possible to have life without chemistry." Wow, that idea sounds a billion times more unbelievable than UFOs or ancient aliens. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjem3mUSDgumgSy8DY-JJG4dzXGqxgRiY_pO8Fi_2riVs_DarWfUgeQQodEAch3Hnq0a78HC4y8hbBFRn2QIHNvi61dsWcGuqyBun5V-1-nVcwTisKVz0qET4vJ3RUcJt6sSb56sTksAiCleNtlBPjDmcnSIfV2k0irGhCXRdZNnhVqa1iw_wCktZXMa3Od/s1124/scientistt_bias.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img alt="scientist bias" border="0" data-original-height="680" data-original-width="1124" height="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjem3mUSDgumgSy8DY-JJG4dzXGqxgRiY_pO8Fi_2riVs_DarWfUgeQQodEAch3Hnq0a78HC4y8hbBFRn2QIHNvi61dsWcGuqyBun5V-1-nVcwTisKVz0qET4vJ3RUcJt6sSb56sTksAiCleNtlBPjDmcnSIfV2k0irGhCXRdZNnhVqa1iw_wCktZXMa3Od/w400-h243/scientistt_bias.jpg" width="480" /></span></a></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Postscript:</b> In an <a href="https://undark.org/2024/03/08/interview-paul-sutter-science-trust/">interview</a> appearing today to promote a new book he wrote, Sutter sounds far more candid than he did in the article I quote from above. He states this:</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">"<i><span style="background-color: white; color: #0a0a0a; font-family: "Heldane Text", "Times New Roman", serif;">We, as a community of scientists, are so obsessed with publishing papers — there is this mantra 'publish or perish,' and it is the number one thing that is taught to you, as a young scientist, that you must publish a lot in very high profile journals. And that is your number one goal in life. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #0a0a0a; font-family: "Heldane Text", "Times New Roman", serif;">And what this is causing is an environment where scientific fraud can flourish unchecked. Because we are not doing our job, as scientists. We don’t have time to cross-check each other, we don’t have time to take our time, we don’t have time to be very slow and patient with our own research, because we are so focused with publishing as many papers as possible. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #0a0a0a; font-family: "Heldane Text", "Times New Roman", serif;">So we have seen, over the past few years, an explosion in the</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #0a0a0a; font-family: "Heldane Text", "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8#:~:text=Rising%20rates,2022%2C%20it%20exceeded%200.2%25" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #0a0a0a; cursor: pointer; font-family: "Heldane Text", "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: inherit;">rise of fraud</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #0a0a0a; font-family: "Heldane Text", "Times New Roman", serif;">. And different kinds of fraud. There is the outright fabrication — the creating of data out of whole cloth. And then there’s also what I call 'soft fraud' — lazy science, poorly done science. Massaging your results a little bit just so you can achieve a publishable result. That leads to a flooding of just junk, poorly done science."</span></i></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i><span style="background-color: white; color: #0a0a0a; font-family: "Heldane Text", "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></i></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #0a0a0a; font-family: "Heldane Text", "Times New Roman", serif;">But when asked at the beginning of the interview to name "the biggest problem with science today," Sutter says, "</span></span><span style="color: #0a0a0a; font-family: Heldane Text, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I think it’s an inability for scientists to meaningfully engage with the public." Huh? So that's a bigger problem than "an explosion in the rise of fraud" and scientists </span><span style="font-size: large;">not doing their job, and producing "lazy science, poorly done science" and "a flooding of just junk, poorly done science"? </span></div><p></p>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-82204947016941117862024-03-06T12:54:00.000-08:002024-03-06T12:54:50.917-08:00Astray Authorities #2<p>Here is the latest in a series of videos I am making. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VbVnHyEiYNw" width="320" youtube-src-id="VbVnHyEiYNw"></iframe></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-15365768035570532952024-03-04T06:00:00.000-08:002024-03-05T09:14:26.620-08:00Do Most Humans Have a Spooky Encounter With the Deceased at Some Time in Their Lives?<p><span style="font-size: large;">There are very many case reports of people claiming to have seen apparitions of the deceased. A very interesting question to consider is: what percent of humans will ever have an experience like seeing an apparition of the deceased or hearing a voice of a deceased person or seeing or feeling something they regarded as being caused by a deceased person ? Will it be just a small percentage of humans that have such an experience? Or could it be that a very large fraction of the population will have such an experience at some time or another - a fraction as high as 33% or higher? Could it even be that most humans will have a paranormal or seemingly inexplicable encounter with the deceased at some point in their lives?</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgLUNnH_Rmlzmt2Lu_gafzp37YPjBQCnNRxJ0Dqr2p0zFVk_lpEwzf-7x0niUisalHdgLT_6R6hdvUffl7e2Jz-PzazWWSf2GTU8Ym_A3QOQVrq3AJ6tWzkGEonZmxeD_Lm9eJwBbUYF09jPZ4lfyi7FivkFfpUkKOOqfiuWHPXMeeYg3LWYR6MDpdLKIN/s1536/temp.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="1536" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgLUNnH_Rmlzmt2Lu_gafzp37YPjBQCnNRxJ0Dqr2p0zFVk_lpEwzf-7x0niUisalHdgLT_6R6hdvUffl7e2Jz-PzazWWSf2GTU8Ym_A3QOQVrq3AJ6tWzkGEonZmxeD_Lm9eJwBbUYF09jPZ4lfyi7FivkFfpUkKOOqfiuWHPXMeeYg3LWYR6MDpdLKIN/s320/temp.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">AI-generated art depicting an apparition</span></i></div><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">To try to estimate such a thing, I will need to examine reports of percentages of the number of humans who report seeing apparitions of the deceased or report having encounters or contact with the deceased. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><b>Survey Type 1: Surveys of the General Public</b></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"> </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: large;">Some relevant studies are below (I extracted all the numbers below from the original source materials):</span></span></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><ul style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><li><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: inherit;">I</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">n Arcangel's study of 827 people,<span> </span><a href="https://archive.org/details/afterlifeencount0000arca/page/277/mode/1up">596 (72%) responded</a><span> </span>that they had had an "afterlife encounter." We<span> </span><a href="https://archive.org/details/afterlifeencount0000arca/page/284/mode/1up">read</a>, </span><span style="color: #222222;">"69% of respondents listed some form of visual encounter (Question 4), 19% were Visual only, </span><span style="color: #222222;">13% were a combination of Visual/Auditory, 8% Visual/Sense of Presence and 8% Visual/Auditory/Sense of Presence."</span></span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Erlendur Haraldsson <a href="https://archives.parapsych.org/bitstream/123456789/3/1/2008_PA_Convention_Proceedings.pdf#page=376">surveyed</a><span> </span>902 people in Iceland in 1974, finding that 31% reported seeing an apparition or having an encounter with a dead person. He did<span> </span><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=A+New+Survey+of+Psychic+Experiences+in+Iceland&btnG=">another survey in Iceland in 2007</a><span> </span>with a similar sample size, finding that 42% r</span></span>eported seeing an apparition or having an encounter with a dead person, with 21% reporting a "visual experience of a dead person," along with 21% reporting an out-of-body experience. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">A large survey included some questions about paranormal experience, such as asking whether they had ever "felt as though you were really in touch with someone who had died." According to Table 1 of the paper <a href="https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/3238938/hvs-libre.pdf?1390830065=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DPsychic_Experiences_In_the_Multinational.pdf&Expires=1708216198&Signature=GTVE-FcovvJXVFjVjWaQwRBFwRA6sbZqiR71mgw2efS0mRWuozUC6tgam5~KaVTWUzKcHAJ7JtdwElt5-gMcWn3pbUiSAtLsJdO~4oSiVl7-cLqrhEqKKGMC~1LIfFhvjxdqMWU7bZvp7Mt9Wrg1KIwFe4wZ5WB2ocu9NP15gW-tOaE5mejusT-zRf2~P5vqH-GymVlEtkcCQL84~djyrAQ~fgtrEpx~ESjfyxzkmQJrF-M9N~6a6t7VXp60BOU8ct1tsdugZvh6OfQBq72O6XfSKjKj5YIU3oXlRwMeByGxMVw4TeSFrG61DsA3a1ycRJE5M8aakGJ52jsYFWwQkw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA">here</a>, the number answering "Yes" to this question was 24% in France, 34% in Italy, 30% in the United States, and 25% in Europe overall. 54% of those in the US reported having an experience with telepathy. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">A 1973<span> </span><a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1384890">survey</a><span> </span>of 434 persons in Los Angeles, USA found that 44% reported encounters with the deceased, and that 25% of those 44% (in other words, 11% of the 434) said that a dead person "actually visited or was seen at a seance."</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">As reported in the<span> </span><a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spr_proceedings/spr_proceedings_v10_1894.pdf">1894 edition</a><span> </span>of the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research (Volume X, Part XXVI), an 1890's "Census of Hallucinations" conducted by the Society for Psychical Research asked, "Have you ever, when believing yourself to be completely awake, had a vivid impression of seeing or being touched by a living being or inanimate object, or of hearing a voice ; which impression, so far as you could discover, was not due to any external physical cause?" As reported in Table 1<span> </span><a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spr_proceedings/spr_proceedings_v10_1894.pdf">here</a><span> </span>(page 39), the number answering "Yes" was about 10%. Because the question did not specifically refer to the dead, ghosts or apparitions, the wording of the question may have greatly reduced the number of "yes" answers from people experiencing what seemed to be an apparition of the dead or a sense of the presence of the dead. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">In the<span> </span><a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spr_proceedings/spr_journal_v34_1947-48.pdf">March-April 1948 edition</a><span> </span>of the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, page 187, there appeared the result of a survey asking the same question asked in 1894: "Have you ever, when believing yourself to be completely awake, had a vivid impression of seeing or being touched by a living being or inanimate object, or of hearing a voice ; which impression, so far as you could discover, was not due to any external physical cause?" According to page 191, 217 out of 1519 answered "Yes." This was a 14% "yes" rate higher than the rate of about 10% reported in 1894. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">A 1980 telephone<span> </span><a href="https://openurl.ebsco.com/EPDB%3Agcd%3A11%3A13233819/detailv2?sid=ebsco%3Aplink%3Ascholar&id=ebsco%3Agcd%3A17385623&crl=c">survey</a><span> </span>of 368 participants found that 29% reported "post-death communication." </span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">The British Medical Journal published in 1971 a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1799198/pdf/brmedj02669-0049.pdf">study by Rees</a> that involved almost 300 subjects, one entitled "The Hallucinations of Widowhood." Rees reported that 39% in his survey reported a sense of presence from a deceased person and 14% </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">reported seeing the deceased, along with 13% hearing the deceased.</span></span></li><li><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">A 2015 Pew Research <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/30/18-of-americans-say-theyve-seen-a-ghost/" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">poll</a> found that 18% of Americans said they've seen or been in the presence of a ghost, and that 29% said that they've felt in touch with someone who died. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">A Groupon <a href="https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20181010005634/en/" style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;" target="_blank">survey</a><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman", serif;"> of 2000 people found that more than 60% claim to have seen a ghost.</span></span></span></li><li><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><a href="https://archive.org/details/ultimatevaluesof0000mccr/page/132/mode/1up">A 1976 survey</a> of 1467 people in the US asked people if they had ever "felt as though you were really in touch with someone who had died?" 27% answered "Yes." The same survey found that large percentages of the population reported experiences such as ESP or clairvoyance, as you can see in the answers below. </span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtNMbqRSm2zus0BZSWep-HiCcTFagz6P2ZprdkYULQAhc0G3yEXOFy226TB93aBtV0E-sCtU8WhOOMhpKPqh0XzpaHaAvevVJtyXSfXg_TGVSXOh2zurk47jsfFnDMP9N1dVaxB1DNdkp9S0lr8KQ0ntYaN4qKcNcewnwyK9O0EP86SAJVDXkKnapoLl2H/s615/temp3.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="how many Americans experience the paranormal" border="0" data-original-height="615" data-original-width="579" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtNMbqRSm2zus0BZSWep-HiCcTFagz6P2ZprdkYULQAhc0G3yEXOFy226TB93aBtV0E-sCtU8WhOOMhpKPqh0XzpaHaAvevVJtyXSfXg_TGVSXOh2zurk47jsfFnDMP9N1dVaxB1DNdkp9S0lr8KQ0ntYaN4qKcNcewnwyK9O0EP86SAJVDXkKnapoLl2H/w376-h400/temp3.jpg" width="376" /></a></span></div><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: large;"><i>From the work <a href="https://archive.org/details/ultimatevaluesof0000mccr/page/132/mode/1up">here</a></i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">Below is a quote from the abstract of a</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"> </span><a href="https://www.sgha.net/library/JP2009rl2_Haraldsson.pdf" style="color: #2288bb; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">paper</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"> entitled "Alleged Encounters With the Dead: The Importance Of Violent Death In 337 New Cases" by Haraldsson: </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><i>"Personal encounters with the dead are reported by 25% of Western Europeans and 30% of Americans. Three hundred thirty-seven Icelanders reporting such experiences were interviewed at length. Ninety percent of them reported sensory experiences (apparitions) of a deceased person; 69% were visual, 28% auditory, 13% tactile, and 4% olfactory. Fewer than half of the experiences occurred in twilight or darkness. In half of the cases the experiencer was actively engaged or working. Disproportionately prominent were apparitions of those who died violently and crisis apparitions observed close to the time of death of the person who was perceived, although in the majority of cases, the percipient did not know that the person had died."</i></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><b>Survey Type 2: Deathbed Visions or Deathbed Apparitions</b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">It seems that the chance of someone reporting an apparition of the deceased (or a voice or sense of presence identified as coming from a deceased person) greatly increases in the last days and last hours of a person's life.<span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.16px;">The first major reference to this phenomenon that I can find in the literature of parapsychology is t</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; letter-spacing: -0.16px;">he fascinating 1906 paper "Apparitions of Deceased Persons at Death-Beds" in pages 67-100 of the February 1906 </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222; letter-spacing: -0.16px;">Annals of Psychical Research</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; letter-spacing: -0.16px;">, (Volume 3), which can be read </span><a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/annals_of_psychical_science/annals_of_psychical_science_v3_january_june_1906.pdf" style="background-color: white; color: #2288bb; letter-spacing: -0.16px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">here</a>. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The main work on this topic (one finding a strong effect) is the work "At The Hour of Death</span>" by Osis and Haraldsson, which can be read <a href="https://archive.org/details/athourofdeath0000osis">here</a>. A <a href="https://www.jpsmjournal.com/article/S0885-3924(16)30302-5/pdf" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">survey</a> of family members of deceased Japanese found that 21% reported deathbed visions. A study of 103 subjects in India <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21375116/" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">reports this</a>: "Thirty of these dying persons displayed behavior consistent with deathbed visions-interacting or speaking with deceased relatives, mostly their dead parents." A <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22530295/" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">study</a> of 102 families in the Republic of Moldava found that "37 cases demonstrated classic featu<span style="font-family: inherit;">res of deathbed visions--reports of seeing dead relatives or friends communicating to the dying person." </span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">We read the following on a</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"> </span><a href="https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/deathbed-visions-research" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">page</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">of the Psi Encylopedia:</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><i>"In 2017, Una MacConville carried out a study with Irish health care professionals. The carers reported that 45% of their patients spoke of visions of deceased relatives, often joyful experiences that bring a sense of peace and comfort."</i></span></span></p><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> A 1949 book <a href="https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.85094/page/n262/mode/1up" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">states this</a>: </span><br /></span><div><p><i><span style="font-size: large;">"It is a commonplace truth, observed by many physicians and clergymen, that a dying person, when conscious near the moment of death, acts or speaks as if he saw standing near loved ones who have already died. Dr. Russell Conwell told Bruce Barton in the interview quoted earlier in another connection, that he had witnessed this phenomenon 'literally hundreds of times.' "</span></i></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><b>Estimating the Lifetime Likelihood of a Person Reporting an Encounter With the Deceased</b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Let us imagine you were to ask a large and varied group of people this question: "Have you ever felt an extremely severe pain much worse than a headache, one that lasted for more than ten minutes?" You would get a particular percentage answering yes, maybe 20%. But if you wanted to estimate the percentage of people who will have such pains at least once in their lifetimes, you should at least double whatever percentage you got answering yes. There are two reasons why:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">(1) The people answering would have an average age that was only about half of their expected lifetimes. So to estimate what percentage of these people would have such pains at least once in their lifetime, it would be reasonable to double the percentage answering yes. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span>(2) It is well-known that at the end of someone's lifetime he would have a much higher chance of having "</span></span><span>an extremely severe pain much worse than a headache, one that lasted for more than ten minutes." This gives an additional reason why you should at least double whatever percentage you got from asking the above question to a varied group with a variety of ages. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">For similar reasons, in estimating the percentage of people who will at some time in their lives have what they will report as a spooky encounter with the deceased, we should roughly double an average of the percentages reported in the first section of this post (the Survey Type 1 section). Those percentages came from surveys of people with a varied mixture of ages ranging from 18 to 80 or more. We can assume that the percentages of people who will have such experiences at least once before they die will be roughly twice as high as the fraction who report having had such experiences at least once in their lives. And the fact that such reports seem to be all the more frequent at the end of life gives an additional reason for doing such a doubling when estimating how many will have such experiences at some time in their lives. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Doing a doubling of the figures listed in the first section of the post, we end up with an estimate that most humans at some point in their lifetime will have what will seem like a paranormal encounter with the deceased. It would seem that a majority of humans will experience such encounters at some point in their lives. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There is a strong additional reason for thinking such a thing. There is a strong reason for suspecting that the survey results given above are underestimations, because of self-censorship by survey respondents. We must remember that authorities in our culture have a long history of shaming, gaslighting, misrepresenting and attempting to pathologize people who report experiences of the paranormal. For many decades and centuries such authorities (including professors, skeptics and clergy) have attempted to portray people reporting paranormal experiences as neurotic, psychotic, liars, fakes, fools or people dabbling with the diabolical. Consequently we should assume that there is a significant degree of self-censorship in which many people who had paranormal experiences do not report them, for fear of "getting in trouble" or being embarrassed, shamed, ridiculed or gaslighted. To help limit such self-censorship, all surveys of paranormal experience should be secret-ballot type surveys, but probably most of the surveys above were not surveys that guaranteed confidentiality and anonymity to respondents. Because of the self-censorship factor, the number of people experiencing the phenomena asked about in the surveys above could easily be 25% or 50% larger than the numbers reported in the surveys. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf_hKvfJvY6qquP9RxM_dothglZ5vQPjqo8ln_D7bmn0yFU6g8QpRGfHys31G0hiVEMrcssAGInR8it_GcpvD9JHTyn91CzdTNsTHrF673Ief8EVySAqyjYyr8qQR7C79GHMt3aEpulQivlP-eCc-b7swIjI1_qL5rnOPn48JeueKjBG2Mx5FqDNe657XW/s606/gaslighting.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img alt="gaslighting of the paranormal" border="0" data-original-height="329" data-original-width="606" height="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf_hKvfJvY6qquP9RxM_dothglZ5vQPjqo8ln_D7bmn0yFU6g8QpRGfHys31G0hiVEMrcssAGInR8it_GcpvD9JHTyn91CzdTNsTHrF673Ief8EVySAqyjYyr8qQR7C79GHMt3aEpulQivlP-eCc-b7swIjI1_qL5rnOPn48JeueKjBG2Mx5FqDNe657XW/w400-h217/gaslighting.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><i><span style="font-size: medium;">Examples of gaslighting</span></i></div></div><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There is one other reason for suspecting that the percentage of people who will experience what they regard as an encounter or contact with the deceased may be 50% or higher. The reason is that questions asking about such experiences usually are phrased in a way that may pick up only a minority of relevant experiences, or fail to pick up a large fraction of such experiences. For example, in the surveys mentioned above we had questions such as whether you have seen a ghost or whether you have had a visual experience with a deceased person. But very many people report spooky experiences that would not produce a "yes" answer in such surveys, even though someone may suspect that the experience was caused by some contact with a deceased person. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There are very many reported experiences of this type, having a great variety (as I discuss in <a href="https://orbpro.blogspot.com/2023/12/12-possible-ways-deceased-might-signal.html">this</a> post). For example, at the moment of mentioning a deceased person, someone may report lights in the room flickering. Or someone may report a framed photo of a deceased person mysteriously falling. Or someone may report a case like the one <a href="https://orbpro.blogspot.com/2024/02/another-event-that-was-like-invisible.html">here</a>, in which a circuit breaker mysteriously switches off, or a light mysteriously switches on, while that person was thinking about a deceased person, or maybe on the deceased person's birthday. Or someone may find some type of object associated with a deceased person mysteriously appearing or being displaced in a way that seems naturally inexplicable. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In short, because of all the reasons and data discussed above, we have a strong rationale for suspecting that most human beings at some point in their lifetimes will have at least one experience that they regard as a mysterious or paranormal encounter with the deceased. Such experiences may therefore be reasonably regarded as experiences of the majority, rather than some small minority. The fact that such experiences that may well occur to a majority of humans are ignored or "swept under the rug" by our academia authorities is a sad commentary on the dysfunctional belief communities of such authorities, in which it is often true that never-observed things (constructs of theorists) such as dark matter or dark energy or abiogenesis are treated as cherished darlings, and many types of very abundantly observed things are senselessly denounced as impossibilities. </span></p></div></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-63705390222130494542024-02-29T06:00:00.000-08:002024-03-06T15:13:45.962-08:00Scientists and Science Writers Keep Shoveling False Narratives About Life in Space and Life's Origin<p><span style="font-size: large;">More baloney has been written on the topics of life in outer space and the origin of life than almost any other topic. The baloney keeps getting shoveled at a breathtaking pace. For evidence of this, you need merely look at the recent stores reported in so-called "Science News" feeds. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">One example is a recent <a href="https://www.livescience.com/space/asteroids/this-might-be-the-seeds-of-life-organic-matter-found-on-asteroid-ryugu-could-explain-where-life-on-earth-came-from">story</a> at livescience.com entitled " 'This might be the seeds of life': Organic matter found on asteroid Ryugu could explain where life on Earth came from." The story is rubbish for several reasons:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">(1) Scientists do not believe that life ever existed on the asteroid Ryugu or on any other asteroid. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">(2) There is no scientific concept of any such thing as a "seed of life," in the sense of something causing life to arise from non-life. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">(3) The term "organic matter" merely refers to any matter containing carbon. Even the simplest life requires a vast level of organization and a vast level of functional information. You no more get such a thing from mere matter containing carbon than you get a jet aircraft from assorted scraps of metal gathered from a junkyard. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We hear this nonsensical quote in the Livescience.com article, one coming from the co-author of a paper that fails to report the finding of any interesting subunits of living things: "' <span face=""Open Sans", "Open Sans-fallback"" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">This organic matter might be the small seeds of life once delivered from space to Earth' team member and Tohoku University Graduate School of Science assistant professor Megumi Matsumoto said in a statement." The scientist is talking about the paper <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adi7203">here</a>, which has nothing the least bit impressive to report. The paper does not report finding even a single amino acid in the asteroid it studied. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span face=""Open Sans", "Open Sans-fallback"" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">The subunits of one-celled life are organelles. The subunits of such organelles are protein complexes. The subunits of such protein complexes are protein molecules, consisting typically of hundreds of amino acids. The subunits of protein molecules are amino acids. None of these things was found in the paper reported. So for one of its authors to be boasting about finding "small seeds of life" is hogwash. </span></span><span face=""Open Sans", "Open Sans-fallback"" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">I may wonder: do today's scientists attend seminars in which they are coached in how to use trick language to make it sound like they found something important when they found nothing important?</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span face=""Open Sans", "Open Sans-fallback"" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">Also recently in the science news was a bogus news headline claiming that s</span></span><span face=""Open Sans", "Open Sans-fallback"" style="color: #333333;">cientists are convinced that life has already been discovered on Mars. We are given a phony news story claiming that the Perseverance rover on Mars has found some sign of life. No such sign was found. Perseverance has not even found a single amino acid on Mars. The story mentions something about some water possibly being found underground, but water does not equal life. </span><span face=""Open Sans", "Open Sans-fallback"" style="color: #333333;">The article links to only one scientific paper, one entitled "</span><span face="Open Sans, Open Sans-fallback" style="color: #333333;">Ground penetrating radar observations of the contact between the western delta and the crater floor of Jezero crater, Mars." That paper uses the term "life" exactly zero times, and makes no use of the word "biological."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span face="Open Sans, Open Sans-fallback" style="color: #333333;">Late in 2023 we began seeing headlines such as this one: "</span></span><span style="color: #333333;">JAMES WEBB SPOTS POSSIBLE SIGNS OF LIFE ON DISTANT PLANET -- </span><span style="color: #333333;">THIS COULD BE A BIG DEAL." The claim was made in many a science news story that dimethyl sulfide had been detected on planet </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span>K2-18 b.</span></span><span style="color: #333333;"> The claim was not a strong one, because the <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.05566.pdf">relevant science paper</a> did not flatly claim that dimethyl sulfide had been detected. It merely claimed "p</span><span style="color: #333333;">otential signs of dimethyl sulfide." Moreover, the paper detected a "show stopper" in regard to life: it failed to detect any sign of water. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">It is generally agreed that water is absolutely necessary for any form of life of life to exist. The non-detection of water at K2-18 b is a reason for thinking that life does not exist there. But did the press stories pick up on the failure to find water? No, and one of them reported the exact opposite of what was found in regard to water. The <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/tantalising-sign-possible-life-faraway-123835711.html" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">story</a> on www.yahoo.com very much misinformed us by stating this:</span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="font-size: large;">"<span style="color: #1d2228;">The ability of a planet to support life depends on its temperature, the presence of carbon and probably liquid water. Observations from JWST seem to suggest that that K2-18b ticks all those boxes."</span></span></i></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #1d2228;">No, actually, what the paper reported is that water was not found at </span></span></span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #1d2228;">K2-18b. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #1d2228;">A BBC "Science Focus" <a href="https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/how-did-life-on-earth-begin">story</a> recently gave us this very false "almost finished" narrative about research into the origin of life:</span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="color: #1d2228;">"</span></span><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, Palatino Linotype, Palatino, serif;">While we don’t know exactly how life began, we have a lot of clues. </span><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">Let’s start with the easiest bits: what is life made of and where did those components come from? Living organisms contain thousands of chemicals: like proteins and nucleic acids that carry our genetic information. These chemicals are complex, but we now know that their constituent parts form quite readily."</span></span></i></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, Palatino Linotype, Palatino, serif; font-size: large;">No, we do not have "a lot of clues" about life's origin. The constituent parts of proteins (amino acids) do not "form quite readily," and the evidence the article cited for such an opinion (the Miller-Urey experiment) did nothing to show that such amino acids "form quite readily," because it was not a realistic simulation of the early Earth, as I discuss <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2019/12/soup-sham-myths-of-miller-urey.html">here</a>. The article also refers us to some mere computer experiment which is irrelevant because it did not physically simulate the early Earth. From such evidence the author makes the untrue claim that "</span><span style="font-size: large;"><span face="open-sans" style="color: #333333;"> t</span><span face="open-sans" style="color: #333333;">he implication is that the young Earth was a factory of biological chemicals." No such implication can be logically drawn from the items cited, and there is no reason to believe that the early Earth was any such thing. The idea that billions of years ago there was some "primordial soup" filled with "building blocks of life" is a false narrative not supported by any experiments realistically simulating the early Earth. And calling things like amino acids "biological chemicals" is a piece of misleading trick language designed to blur the immense gulf between lifeless chemicals and living things. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span face="open-sans" style="color: #333333;">At the phys.org site we recently had the ridiculous <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-life-earth-atmospheric-haze-key.html">headline</a> "</span></span><span style="color: #333333;">How did life get started on Earth? Atmospheric haze might have been the key." We hear of an experiment that does nothing to overturn my previous claim that no realistic experiments simulating the early Earth have established that there ever would have been any </span><span style="color: #333333;">"primordial soup" filled with "building blocks of life." We read a discussion of the paper <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.06212.pdf">here</a>. That paper did an experiment in which a little steel chamber filled with gas was zapped with electricity for two seconds. What's wrong with that? Well, for one, there were no small steel chambers billions of years ago. A small steel chamber is something that will exponentially exaggerate the effects of electricity jolts inside it, causing effects maybe millions of times more concentrated than you would get if the same jolt of electricity occurred in the open air. For another thing, we are told in the paper that the chamber was jolted with electricity for two seconds. We are not told how many times this jolt occurred. We vaguely hear about experiments without any listing of how many times this two-second jolt occurred. Even under the most charitable guess of the jolt occurring only once, you still have a length of time that is maybe 40,000 times longer than a natural lightning bolt, which strikes a cubic meter of space for no longer than about 50 microseconds. What is the result of this experiment that fails to realistically simulate any early Earth conditions? The result was some amino acids in a concentration of only about 1 part per million (as shown in Figure 2). Overall, the experiment helps to show how untrue are claims that lightning bolts could have produced any primordial soup rich in "building blocks of life." But the press article treats the experiment as if it did the opposite. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #333333;">Then there was recently in the New Scientist a <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2415697-lightning-during-volcanic-eruptions-may-have-sparked-life-on-earth/">goofy headline</a> of "</span></span><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: large;">Lightning during volcanic eruptions may have sparked life on Earth." The first two sentences state this:</span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: large;">"</span></span><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: large;">An analysis of volcanic rocks has revealed large quantities of nitrogen compounds that were almost certainly formed by volcanic lightning. This process could have provided the nitrogen required for the first life forms to evolve and thrive."</span></span></i></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: large;">Here we have a senseless claim in which getting nitrogen compounds is confused with the origin of life, which is as silly as saying that all you need to get an encyclopedia is to get a tree (which has the wood pulp needed for the paper). Why do people get away with nonsense like this? It's because our biology authorities did such a very poor job of educating the public about the very high levels of organization and information in even the simplest living thing. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: large;">Some source called Science Alert is these days giving us quite a few groundless headlines, such as its recent <a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/life-spreads-across-space-on-tiny-invisible-particles-study-suggests">headline</a> "Life Spreads Across Space on Tiny Invisible Particles, Study Suggests." The story discusses no evidence for this claim, and the idea of life spreading around on dust grains crossing light-years of space is ridiculous. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: large;">The same BBC Science Focus mentioned earlier has a <a href="https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/extraterrestrials-aliens">recent article</a> with the title "T</span><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: large;">he 4 biggest questions about alien life, answered by an astrobiologist." There is no answer to the biggest question about alien life, which is whether it exists. One of the questions is "</span></span><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: large;">What three things are making astrobiologists so optimistic about finding life beyond Earth?" There are no recent developments providing any good basis for astrobiologists being more optimistic about finding alien life. The three answers given are:</span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: large;">(1) <b>Extremophiles</b> -- bacteria that can survive in harsh conditions do nothing to reduce the improbability of life arising from non-life.</span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: large;">(2) <b>Extrasolar planets</b> -- to argue that extrasolar planets provide a basis for optimism about extraterrestrial life is to commit the old "many chances equals some successes" fallacious argument that astrobiologists so often engage in. Given sufficiently low odds, many chances does not make it likely that there will be even one success, and given low enough odds the chance of success may still be smaller than 1 in a billion trillion quadrillion. Abiogenesis (life arising naturally from non-life) faces just such prohibitive odds, odds so low that the existence of billions of planets in our galaxy does not change them. When some organization of matter has a probability of less than 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of occurring, it does not become likely to occur if there are billions of planets where it might occur. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: large;">(3) <b>Robotic exploration of the solar system</b> -- such exploration has provided no basis for optimism about extraterrestrial life, with the possible exception of a single 1976 Viking test on Mars that was negated by the failure to find relevant organic molecules in decent numbers on Mars, and the failure to find any amino acids on Mars. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: large;">You could just as easily write an article claiming that scientists are more pessimistic than ever about discovering extraterrestrial life, and base your article on the fact that 50 years of searches for radio signals from extraterrestrial civilizations have all failed, and the fact that the James Webb Space Telescope has failed to find any biosignatures despite two years of searching for them. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: large;">Then there's a recent <a href="https://www.universetoday.com/165875/cosmic-dust-could-have-helped-get-life-going-on-earth/">article</a> at the Universe Today site with the headline "Cosmic Dust Could Have Helped Get Life Going on Earth." Comically, upon opening this article I see a large ad of "Air Filtration Dust System." Some computer algorithm has judged that since I am looking at a page about cosmic dust, that I may be interested in buying some dust filter. We read this in the article:</span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="color: #333333;">"</span></span><span style="color: #333333;">Although we’ve long known that cosmic dust <b><u>accumulated</u></b> on early Earth, it’s not been seen as a major source for early life because of how it <b><u>accumulates</u></b>. With comet and asteroid impacts, a great deal of prebiotic material is present at the site of the impact. Dust, on the other hand, is scattered across Earth’s surface rather than <b><u>accumulating</u></b> locally. However, the authors of this new work noted that cosmic dust can <b><u>accumulate</u></b> and be concentrated in sedimentary deposits, and wanted to see how that might play a role in the early appearance of terrestrial life."</span></span></i></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: large;">It's the same old nonsense that has gone on for 150+ years: people trying to explain some vast level of organization by appealing to accumulation effects. Biological organisms are vastly organized, and even the simplest one-celled life would be an enormous level of organization. You do not accumulate your way to huge levels of organization. You cannot explain such organization by some "stuff piles up" scenario. Accumulation of materials cannot explain the origin of the simplest life, and accumulation of random mutations cannot explain the origin of enormously organized things such as protein molecules and cells. Inside your body are 20,000+ different types of protein molecules, each a different type of complex invention; and most of them require a very special organization of thousands of atoms, just like a functional page in a technical manual requires a very special organization of thousands of letters. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb9p-Tn6sz7sZzhdy_fjgatEk856L-bLGqNMVJ2qrd_9KBSL0HdlXT_cuG-TNlpflIHCQHKrw66_nw532T7Y6UjAnJZgFCyVW_KWRhjCaeUZEN-PurecHEl-RDaA6bZzkjxoW18cgLQS4EwrLDCiOxSHgYdrq221m5yNO2khxRcM_Ni-rWqInEsoJpN6TA/s1156/organization_versus_accumulation2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="organization versus accumulation" border="0" data-original-height="845" data-original-width="1156" height="293" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb9p-Tn6sz7sZzhdy_fjgatEk856L-bLGqNMVJ2qrd_9KBSL0HdlXT_cuG-TNlpflIHCQHKrw66_nw532T7Y6UjAnJZgFCyVW_KWRhjCaeUZEN-PurecHEl-RDaA6bZzkjxoW18cgLQS4EwrLDCiOxSHgYdrq221m5yNO2khxRcM_Ni-rWqInEsoJpN6TA/w400-h293/organization_versus_accumulation2.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div><p></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: large;">A recent <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00544-4">article</a> in Nature about the origin of life is almost as bad as the articles mentioned above. We have a little candor here and there mixed with the worst kind of vague hand waving, in which the origin of life is described like this:</span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: large;">"</span></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Harding, Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">In broad brush strokes, this means that gases such as carbon dioxide (the near-universal source of carbon in cells today) and hydrogen feed a network of reactions with a topology resembling metabolism. Genes and proteins arise within this spontaneous protometabolism and promote the flux of materials through the network, leading to cell growth and reproduction." </span></span></i></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Harding, Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">This is as silly as claiming that many well-written essays arise at ink factories because of splashes of the ink, given that proteins and genes require as many well-arranged atoms as the number of well-arranged letters in a well-written 500-word essay. The authors mention problems with their scenario, listing only minor things 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 times less severe than the real problems, which can be summarized as "accidents don't make complex inventions." </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Harding, Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">An <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/02/29/life-earth-origin-chemistry/">article</a> today in the Washington Post has the untrue headline "Scientists get closer to solving chemical puzzle of the origin of life." The article discusses nothing to justify such a headline. We merely hear about some chemists creating something called pantetheine (a fragment of one type of protein), but not in any experiment realistically simulating early Earth conditions. There's also in today's science news an equally bogus <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-scientists-reveal-cells-earth.html">headline</a> of "Scientists reveal how first cells could have formed on Earth." No, it's just some scientists fooling around with fatty bubbles, getting empty bubbles that aren't cells (things gigantically more organized than mere bubbles). </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Harding, Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Then there are all the scientists who announce with great fanfare some result they produced with ridiculously complex lab equipment and many purposeful experimenter interventions, and who claim that this tells us something about what could have happened <i>naturally</i>. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Harding, Palatino, serif;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Harding, Palatino, serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU_zCKs3Td1a6elt8DzCxepF9VABX1xyJ_iJblcmo7phsnCXFootoyYkLJM4H-wilVRd2EnVFuY7a7c1JTJrAslJzo6Z8r-_P7cNQ6wOy0V00ZMM5LNtUpCx2hBMbO9wUYV5RMBCkqZ3TjYhxx_ToI6Qwh1tYCj8xI-ZQMn8CQ8S3g9RrKNxawW_u3qBMl/s972/origin_of_life_experiment.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="origin of life experiment" border="0" data-original-height="820" data-original-width="972" height="338" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU_zCKs3Td1a6elt8DzCxepF9VABX1xyJ_iJblcmo7phsnCXFootoyYkLJM4H-wilVRd2EnVFuY7a7c1JTJrAslJzo6Z8r-_P7cNQ6wOy0V00ZMM5LNtUpCx2hBMbO9wUYV5RMBCkqZ3TjYhxx_ToI6Qwh1tYCj8xI-ZQMn8CQ8S3g9RrKNxawW_u3qBMl/w400-h338/origin_of_life_experiment.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Harding, Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i>Do you see the fallacy?</i></span></span></div><p></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Harding, Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">This kind of nonsense has been going on full-blast for more than 70 years. Research about the origin of life and the articles written about such research make up a long-stinking cesspool of misleading claims and groundless boasts. Very rarely, you will get some honesty from scientists on this topic. In the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58060-0">paper</a> </span></span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">"Emergence of life in an inflationary universe, scientist </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">Tomonori Totani stated, "</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">The expected number of abiogenesis events is much smaller than unity when we observe a star, a galaxy, or even the whole observable universe."</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"> He thereby confessed that it would be very unlikely that there would be </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">a natural origin of life (abiogenesis) even in the entire observable universe.</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"> </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: large;">Lessons to be learned:</span></span></p><p><span face="Open Sans, Open Sans-fallback" style="color: #333333; font-size: large;">(1) You should tend to distrust sensational-sounding claims of astrobiologist researchers, particularly when they make such claims outside of their scientific papers. If such researchers ever announce discovering "biosignatures" it will probably be an example of pareidolia, of someone subjectively seeing something (in blurry, borderline, limits-of-observation hard-to-analyze data) that he was eagerly hoping to find, like someone checking his toast on 1000 days, and finally announcing he found something that looked like the face of Jesus. </span></p><p><span face="Open Sans, Open Sans-fallback" style="color: #333333; font-size: large;">(2) Don't trust science writers writing on the topic of life in outer space or the origin of life, particular anyone writing for a web site that displays ads (where misleading clickbait is now an out-of-control epidemic). </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSHRghzwoA6g7TWFeykoh1USLuVxleR1AHgQBPTVKUUIzEy237zcPfjJNxdfUM8xQuMf3ZJwn_7uWWfL7J5hSqAjsRezK_6rNeFQJ0QOpmk0u7NOAT2fXjB_8zbFzpmRSRwvQj8qtiITKzaU-z4nyDn0By_X71eV9DtRfM7kaivPScP3ENfLLdcTUJtGHS/s615/BogusScienceHeadlines.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="568" data-original-width="615" height="370" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSHRghzwoA6g7TWFeykoh1USLuVxleR1AHgQBPTVKUUIzEy237zcPfjJNxdfUM8xQuMf3ZJwn_7uWWfL7J5hSqAjsRezK_6rNeFQJ0QOpmk0u7NOAT2fXjB_8zbFzpmRSRwvQj8qtiITKzaU-z4nyDn0By_X71eV9DtRfM7kaivPScP3ENfLLdcTUJtGHS/w400-h370/BogusScienceHeadlines.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i>Recent untrue headlines in the science news</i></span></p>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-20747252238298867312024-02-25T07:43:00.000-08:002024-02-25T07:49:31.571-08:00Near-Death High-Speed Life Reviews From Before 1950<p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span>In accounts of near-death experiences we tend to hear the same narrative motifs repeated over and over. One very common motif is a report of the observer separating from his body.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span></span></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghfmeZ5kR9ZxCipVHPUkYBa3z4ounNonKpNjjzcRtTDEAfOC4uKliNeRLJv0Bad9VW2iFwjxZol5TX2X9mD07gOoRAbAvs0guYef-eHCuMqyNtSBElLsVvq-MqKM7S31AHh3EihZJY4Dy6T_-PlM58nreOhTqQvuYxNqlhXOPLq1TzRIbIL2MOzo2IdE0n/s1536/temp.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="1536" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghfmeZ5kR9ZxCipVHPUkYBa3z4ounNonKpNjjzcRtTDEAfOC4uKliNeRLJv0Bad9VW2iFwjxZol5TX2X9mD07gOoRAbAvs0guYef-eHCuMqyNtSBElLsVvq-MqKM7S31AHh3EihZJY4Dy6T_-PlM58nreOhTqQvuYxNqlhXOPLq1TzRIbIL2MOzo2IdE0n/s320/temp.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span><br /></span></span></span></div>Another common motif of near-death experiences is an account of being propelled through some mysterious tunnel, towards some mysterious light or mystical destination.</span></span></span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEho1D8D2vKpr0LXdmE9VmqCMM_t-mRyBfkR7r52lx-KkWkG891IxX3ueSdn0YcPM2l2Y5QKkQZ4cZyhIYAMD3xlf5Grq7duGO7g4dsS9WYowH1pJSmMbSzqgB3WBNXpMbjAp62biS3v8S9bP5_wwctdPFbLl0s5XrpRWoLEg20eUei75IvtD0nbxewhDc/s1536/temp3.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="1536" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEho1D8D2vKpr0LXdmE9VmqCMM_t-mRyBfkR7r52lx-KkWkG891IxX3ueSdn0YcPM2l2Y5QKkQZ4cZyhIYAMD3xlf5Grq7duGO7g4dsS9WYowH1pJSmMbSzqgB3WBNXpMbjAp62biS3v8S9bP5_wwctdPFbLl0s5XrpRWoLEg20eUei75IvtD0nbxewhDc/s320/temp3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div> </span></span></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span>Another common characteristic of near-death experiences are so-called life review events in which someone may recall the events of life in very rapid succession and great vividness. Researchers of such experiences <a href="https://afanporsaber.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/The-near-death-experience-scale.-Construction-reliability-and-validity.pdf">claim that about 20%</a> of those having near-death experiences have such a life review. At the 26:56 mark in the video below, we hear a woman recall having such an experience while being trapped underneath the water while rafting in rapids. She says this: </span></span><span>"And then I was taken through a life review that was like nothing I personally could have imagined." We then hear another person saying this:</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"One collection of phenomena are changes in your thought processes. Your thoughts seem to be going faster than usual, they're clearer than usual, they're more vivid than usual. You may have a complete review of your entire life. And this is happening again in the context of likely brain damage, or at least severely restricted oxygen to the brain, when you would not expect much of an experience at all, let alone hyper-acute senses and rapid clear thinking."</i></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_18UdG4STHA" width="320" youtube-src-id="_18UdG4STHA"></iframe></span></div><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>We also have at the 30:20 mark in the video a woman describing a life-review during a near-death experience. At the 32:11 mark the woman having the river accident says that in her life review, "I could experience thousands of things all at the same moment of time, but I was experiencing each of them independently." </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Claims that such life-review events occur in near-death experiences go back more than a hundred years before Raymond J. Moody's 1975 book</span><span> </span><i>Life After Life. </i><span>For example, on page 267 of the</span><span> </span><a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v6_n23_jun_4_1875.pdf">June 4, 1875 edition</a><span> </span><span>of</span><span> </span><i>The Spiritualist</i><span>, we have a first-hand account of such an experience, told by the distinguished scholar William Stainton Moses. He states this, describing a life-review during a near-drowning during a sporting event:</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"It never occurred to anybody, I suppose, that a man who could venture in a little cockleshell such as I was sculling, was unable to swim ; and so no particular effort was made to rescue me. I went down dazed and confused with the upset, and the shouts and objurgations of the crowd. I remember the shout of the coxswain, more forcible than polite, and then I floundered about until I suppose I became unconscious. At any rate a strange peacefulness took the place of my previous feeling. I recognised fully that I was drowning, but no sort of fear was present to my mind. I did not even regret the fact. <b>By degrees, as it seemed—though the process must have been instantaneous—I recollected my life.</b> The link was—well, I am drowning, and this life is done with. It has not been a very long one. . . . And so the events of it came before my mind, and seemed to shape themselves in outline and move before me. It was not that I thought, but that <b>objective pictures of events seemed to float before me, a moving tableau</b>, as though depicted on the mass of water that weighed upon my eyes. I seemed to see the tableau, but not with the eye of sense: with that mysterious inner vision with which I have since discerned spiritual things. The silky, velvety appearance of the tableau, which seemed as I say to float before me, was very prominently impressed upon me. <b>The events were all scenes in which I had been an actor, and no very trivial or unimportant ones were depicted, though they were not all serious, some indeed laughable enough.</b> Nor was my frame of mind particularly solemn. I was an interested spectator ; little more. One incident of which I had no previous knowledge was recalled to my mind on that occasion, and has never again left it. My memory of it is now as clear as of other things. The next thing I remember was the interruption of this peaceful state by a series of most unpleasant sensations which were attendant on resuscitation."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the same <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v6_n23_jun_4_1875.pdf">1875 publication</a> on page 268 we read, "Mr. Serjeant Cox said that several persons, on being resuscitated from hanging, had spoken of the memory of their lives having passed before them at the moment of suffocation." Similarly, on page 292 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v6_n25_jun_18_1875.pdf">June 18, 1875 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist</i> we have a similar account:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"Mr. Jencken said that six years ago he was attacked by a mob in Spain, and practically speaking he died four times that night, for he swooned away and came to again four times. The whole of his life passed before him like a panorama ; he thus read off a part of his life, then became conscious again of the onslaughts of the mob. A gun was fired at him, the mob disappeared to his consciousness, and again the vision of his past life returned, taking up the thread of events where it had left off. This occurred four times, each successive reverie beginning where the other had finished." </i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Similarly, on <a href="https://archive.org/details/marvellouscountr0000cozz_t6i9/page/410/mode/1up">page 410</a> of the 1876 book <i>The Marvellous Country</i> by Samuel Woodworth Cozzens, we have an account of a life review during a terrifying fall that almost killed the author:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"All this time I was acquiring greater momentum, until it seemed as though I was fairly flying into the very arms of the horrible death which stood staring me so steadily in the face. Not a bush or shrub could I see growing upon the precipitous sides; there was nothing, absolutely nothing, for me to cling to, and the stones and earth which I disturbed in my descent were falling in a shower around me.</i></span></p><p><i><span style="font-size: large;">Convinced that death was inevitable, I became perfectly reconciled to the thought. <b>My mind comprehended in a moment the acts of a life-time. Transactions of the most trivial character, circumstances the remembrance of which had been buried deep in memory’s vault for years, stood before me in bold relief; my mind recalled with the rapidity of lightning, and yet retained a distinct impression of every thought.</b></span></i></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>I seemed to be gliding swiftly and surely out of the world, </i><i>but felt no fear, experienced no regret at the thought; on the </i><span><i>contrary, rejoiced that I was so soon to see with my own eyes the great mystery concealed behind the veil; that I was to cross the deep waters and be at rest.</i></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>I thought I heard the sound of many voices, in wonderful harmony, coming from the far-off distance, though from what direction I could not tell.</i></span></p><p><i><span style="font-size: large;">My momentum had become so great that I seemed to experience much difficulty in breathing; and I remember that I was trying to explain to my own satisfaction why this should be so, when the heel of my right boot struck the corner of a small stone that chanced to be firmly imbedded in the earth and therefore offered so much resistance to my descent, that upon striking it I was thrown forward upon my face. This stone without doubt saved my life."</span></i></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The book has this illustration to depict the situation:</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjevESrOVQn8n_N6uodhq_WnVixREg1iFarGShiGYzt6igajFjQlkwesFu-hYWTePMKopopWktZGrvNBmZiRxSDIlrrhJ-7LAiSze02XJOkyOheYo7mM6zQNAxd7grXgfAjmcprXmTeQMyiSnutXIp8unIYmftKE7S2hO8p4-2fSio5dTDDH4vuab-Kzic6/s333/temp.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img alt="terrifying fall" border="0" data-original-height="333" data-original-width="215" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjevESrOVQn8n_N6uodhq_WnVixREg1iFarGShiGYzt6igajFjQlkwesFu-hYWTePMKopopWktZGrvNBmZiRxSDIlrrhJ-7LAiSze02XJOkyOheYo7mM6zQNAxd7grXgfAjmcprXmTeQMyiSnutXIp8unIYmftKE7S2hO8p4-2fSio5dTDDH4vuab-Kzic6/w259-h400/temp.jpg" width="259" /></span></a></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: large;">In 1892 Albert Heim produced a paper in German entitled "Notizen über den Tod durch Absturz," which can be translated as "The Experience of Dying from Falls" or "Notes About Death from Falling." The original German text of the paper can be read <a href="https://www.sac-cas.ch/de/die-alpen/notizen-ueber-den-tod-durch-absturz-7986/">here</a>. Below is a translation I got using Google Translate. First Heim notes how he got his accounts of people who had close brushes with death after falling:</span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">"<i>In mountaineering and other literature we come across relevant stories here and there, although rarely. In the Hamburg Laza-rethen in the war year 1870, as well as on various later occasions, I interviewed war wounded. Several doctors who had a lot of contact with victims were able to tell me about their statements. I researched several bricklayers and roofers who had fallen from scaffolding and roofs, half-injured workers in mines, on railway lines, etc. A large number ...who fell without losing their lives were able to give me precise information. Those who were thrown away by the air strike during the Elm landslide and became unconscious told me their experiences. I also received detailed reports from some club members who had crashed and were rescued, from three fellow professionals, etc. A fisherman who had been swept deep under water when the Zug bank collapsed told me his experiences. We have some good accounts of the Mönchenstein railway accident from those who narrowly escaped with their lives, e.g. from a locomotive driver, from some passengers, etc. etc. But what has caused me not to miss an opportunity to write such notes for more than 25 years collect, were my own experiences." </i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Then Heim notes a remarkable similarity in the accounts:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">"<i>For the vast majority of those who have had an accident - probably 95% - regardless of their level of education, the symptoms are exactly the same, only experienced slightly differently in degree. In the face of death due to a sudden accident, almost everyone experiences the same mental state - a completely different state than in the face of a less sudden cause of death. It can be briefly characterized as follows:</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i>No pain is felt, nor is there any paralyzing shock that can occur in the event of minor danger (fire outbreak, etc.). <b>No fear, no trace of despair, no pain, rather calm seriousness, deep resignation, commanding spiritual security and speed. The activity of thought is enormous, increased to a hundredfold speed or intensity, the conditions and the eventualities of the outcome are objectively clearly seen far away, no confusion occurs. The time seems very extended. You act quickly and think carefully. In many cases this is followed by a sudden look back into one's entire past. Finally, the faller often hears beautiful music and then falls into a wonderful blue sky with little rose-colored clouds.</b> Then consciousness disappears painlessly - usually at the moment of awakening, which is only heard and never painfully felt. Of the senses, hearing is probably the last to disappear."</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Heim discusses a strange increase in the speed of thought:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"Anxiety paralysis does not occur, thought activity appears to be enormously increased, and time is lengthened in the same proportion. The judgment remains clearly objective, and as far as the external circumstances allow it, the person who falls remains able to act at lightning speed."</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Heim quotes a first-hand account by one person who nearly died in a terrifying fall:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"Meanwhile, a whole flood of thoughts had time to move through the brain in a clear way: The next blow will bring you a grim death, it was said. <b>A series of pictures showed me in quick succession all the beauty and love that I had experienced in this world</b>, and in between them the sermon that I had heard from Mr. Obersthelfer that morning sounded like a powerful melody: God is almighty, heaven and earth rest his hand; We must remain silent about his will. Infinite calm came over me at this thought, in the midst of all the terrible turmoil. The car was thrown up twice more; then the front part suddenly drove vertically down into the Birs, and the rear part with me was thrown sideways over the embankment down into the Birs. The wagon was shattered."</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Heim gives this first-hand account of a fall he experienced, noting that his thought seemed greatly speeded-up<i>:</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"Then <b>I saw, as if on a stage from a distance, my entire past life played out in numerous images</b>. I saw myself as the main character playing. Everything was as if transfigured of a heavenly light and everything was beautiful and without pain, without fear, without torment. The memory of very sad experiences was also clear, but still not sad. No fighting or strife, the fight had also become love. Sublime and reconciling thoughts dominated and connected the individual images, and a divine calm passed through my soul like wonderful music. More and more a wonderfully blue sky surrounded me with little rosy and especially delicate violet clouds - I floated out into it without any pain and gently, while I saw that I was now flying freely through the air and that there was still a field of snow below me. Objective observation, thinking and subjective feeling occurred simultaneously side by side. Then I heard my thud and my fall was over."</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Mentions of accounts such as these occur in published literature as early as 1847. Below is a quote from <a href="https://archive.org/details/unseenworldcomm00nealgoog/page/n83/mode/1up">page 71</a> of the 1847 book "The Unseen World" by John Mason Neale:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"The nearest approach that man has ever made to the invisible world is probably in those persons who, having been to all appearance drowned, have been recovered on the use of the proper means. And what is singular is this ; <b>by all accounts, after the first short struggle is over, there is perfect consciousness, but no pain. It is said that every action of past life is borne in upon a drowning man's mind with perfect clearness ; all rush on his memory together, yet each distinctly ; </b>and if there be any suffering, it is entirely the moral pain which may result from that retrospect ; for there is no physical anguish. On the contrary, the prevailing sensation is an indescribable calm, accompanied by a pleasant green light, they say, like green fields : the agony begins with the attempt at resuscitation. It is believed that a gentleman, who occupies a distinguished place in scientific literature, and who is said to have been longer under water than any one who has ever been brought back to life, also, in a more remarkable degree than any one else, saw something of those 'unspeakable things which it is not lawful for a man to utter.' ''</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">This post is one of eight posts in which I have documented accounts of near-death experiences dating from before 1975. You can read the other posts <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/search/label/pre-1975%20near-death%20experience">here</a>. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span>In the video at the top of this post, we have a remarkable example of what is called a veridical near-death experience. At the 22:09 mark a doctor recalls his "first day as a doctor" on a long shift at a hospital. A second-year resident promised the doctor that he would be with the doctor throughout his long shift. Soon a patient went into cardiac arrest, and the doctor was able to prevent him from dying</span><span><span> (</span>the second-year resident being absent). The doctor recalls talking with the patient's </span><span>wife using rather gloomy language, and eating the patient's lunch (which the patient was too sick to eat). Days later the patient spoke to the doctor, and recalls floating out of his body during his cardiac arrest. The patient scolded the doctor for eating his lunch, and talking to his wife using such gloomy language. The doctor is stunned to hear the patient claim that at the time of his resuscitation from cardiac arrest, the doctor was feeling sorry for himself because the second-year resident did not stay with him as he promised. This was a rather embarrassing thought that the doctor had kept to himself, and had expressed to no one. </span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">We have here a good example of what is called a veridical out-of-body experience, in which a subject recalls making observations while out of his body which should have been impossible for him to make, given his medical situation at the time. See my post <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-enigma-of-veridical-near-death.html">here</a> for many similar cases. The video at the top of the post at the 22:00 mark has a very remarkable account of a</span><span style="font-size: large;"> veridical out-of-body experience, in which a doctor reports someone reading his mind during an out-of-body experience. </span></div></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-82609899708718450432024-02-21T06:00:00.000-08:002024-02-21T15:29:07.963-08:00Spookiest Years, Part 13: The Year 1876<p><span style="font-size: large;">I<span>n previous posts in this intermittently appearing "Spookiest Years" series on this blog </span><span>(</span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/09/spookiest-years-part-1-year-1848.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/10/spookiest-years-part-2-year-1850.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/10/spookiest-years-part-3-year-1851.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/10/spookiest-years-part-4-year-1852.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/11/spookiest-years-part-5-year-1853.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/11/spookiest-years-part-6-1854-1855.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/11/spookiest-years-part-7-years-1860-1861.html">here</a><span>,</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/12/spookiest-years-part-8-years-1868-1869.html">here</a><span>,</span><span> </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/12/spookiest-years-part-9-year-1871.html">here</a>,<span> <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2024/01/spookiest-years-part-10-year-1872.html">here</a>, <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2024/01/spookiest-years-part-12-year-1874.html">here</a> and <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2024/01/spookiest-years-part-12-year-1874.html">here</a>)</span><span>,</span><span> I had looked at some very spooky events reported between 1848 and 1874.</span><span> Let me pick up the thread and discuss some spooky events reported in the year 1876. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On page 68 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v8_n6_feb_11_1876.pdf">February 11, 1876 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist</i>, we read of several remarkable cases. The author Emma Hardinge-Britten states the following about herself, using the term "the somnambulic condition" to refer to a kind of trance:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"The author, for instance, has been known to rise in her
sleep, proceed in thick darkness to her study, and there inscribe musical compositions, and write abstruse exercises in
harmony and composition, entirely beyond her normal
capacity to achieve. On the other hand, she has frequently
been known in the ' somnambulic condition ' to recite
original poems, sing original compositions, and make what
were pronounced to be 'splendid orations,' in a style totally
different to her ordinary methods, and though at the early
period of childhood when these feats of abnormal wonder
were enacted, her friends and associates...attributed them all to the same somnambulic state, there were marked differences between the various phenomena exhibited, proving that some were the action of the sleeper’s own spirit in a state of high exaltation, whilst others must have proceeded from the influence of foreign spiritual intelligences taking advantage of the somnambulist’s unconscious organism to manifest their presence." </i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On the same page Emma tells of a sleepwalker who displayed similar behavior, writing perfectly in darkness, and having no memory of what was written. We then hear this remarkable claim:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"Dr. A. 0. Stiles, of Bridgeport, Couu., claimed to have, from a boy, possessed the faculty of perceiving, by a clairvoyant sense, the interior conditions of the human system, and pointing out its locale.
In his medical practice he used to give the most invariably correct diagnoses of the diseases of distant persons by holding a lock of their hair in his hand."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On page 246 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v8_n21_may_26_1876.pdf">May 26, 1876 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist</i>, we have an account by William Oxley (dated May 22, 1876) of events of May 11, 1876. We hear of an astonishing transfiguration of a handkerchief into a human figure, audibly identified with a woman who died four days ago:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"There were present seven of us, including Dr. Monck, the medium. Taking our seats round an oval table, I sat at one end, a good light from a gas lamp being behind me ; Dr. Monck sat at the other end of the table. After a time he became entranced, and, rising from his seat, came up to me on the left-hand side, close to where I was sitting. Samuel was the controlling spirit. He took a white lawn handkerchief from Dr. Monck’s pocket, and placing it on his right hand, the handkerchief appeared to be 'absorbed,' or meta-morphosed, and in a few seconds there, at the extremity of his arm, appeared a beautiful, unmistakable feminine face, as large as a good-sized infant’s; it was a perfect human head, with the features clearly delineated. So clearly are the features and form impressed upon my memory, that if I were an artist I could even now produce them on canvas, The head and face were of pure classic form, and very beautiful to look upon. While I was looking intently on the object before me I heard a whispering voice, at first very faintly, issuing from the head; the words were, 'Do you hear me?' I replied, 'No, not distinctly,' as Samuel, through Dr. Monck, was speaking at the same time. I then said, 'Come closer, so that I may hear you.' The reply was, ' I will try.' I now saw that the lips moved in giving articulation to the words. Dr. Monck then pressed his lips close to my right cheek, which I felt distinctly all the time that the head was within a few inches of my left ear. Listening intently I heard the words, ' My name is Rhondda, and I wish to write to my parents in Cardiff, and tell them not to grieve for me, as I am very happy. I have seen
in my beautiful and glorious home, and I shall often try to come through this medium, and hope to be very useful'....From what I have learnt, the spirit of Rhondda passed
out of the body on Sunday evening, May 7th, at 8 p.m., and
on the fourth day between 8 and 9 p.m. (three clear days
and nights intervening), she appeared to us in the manner
above described."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>On page 316 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v8_n27_jul_7_1876.pdf">July 7, 1876 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist</i>, we have an account of a seance involving the medium James T. Morris on May 10, 1876. The account states that the medium (Morris) was disrobed and thoroughly examined, and then placed on the right side of a small wooden cabinet divided into two halves, with the two halves separated by wire mesh. We are told the cabinet had been thoroughly examined by the witnesses. We read of several figures mysteriously emerging from this cabinet, including (1) a tall German with blue eyes and a red mustache (unlike the medium with brown eyes and a height of five feet two inches); (2) a blue-eyed man six feet two inches in height </span><span>(unlike the medium with brown eyes and a height of five feet two inches); (3) a bearded man three inches taller than the medium; (4) a woman. We read this of the disappearance of the woman;</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i><span>"</span><span>She remained about fifteen minutes, and on returning
slowly to the cabinet, commenced gradually to dematerialise, so that by
the time she reached the door she had diminished fully two feet in
height, and correspondingly in size of form. Then she seemed to be
slowly drawn by some unseen power into the cabinet, and, while standing
within the door, in full view of all, gradually dematerialised to the size
of a babe not more than eighteen inches in height. She reached out
her little hand and arm, and waved it to and fro, then the door closed,
and she was gone from our sight, to the regret of all.....</span></i><span><i>The next to appear was a gentleman about five feet ten inches in
height, with dark hair and long dark beard, who was recognised by a
gentleman present as his father-in-law, who passed away in August
last."</i></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The account ends up like this:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"The committee again overhauled the cabinet, examined every seal and every bolt and screw, and announced to the audience that everything about the cabinet was satisfactory. The medium then offered to
be searched again, but the committee said it was not necessary.
The hard sceptics admitted that this seance completely puzzled them,
and overturned all theories of the medium personating different characters. At the request of some, the medium stood up inside of the
cabinet, when it was found that his face merely reached a little above
the opening.
A gentleman present then drew up a paper and read it before the
company, and requested them to sign it as an endorsement of Mr. Morris
as a materialising medium. It was very readily signed. The following
is a copy of the statement, with the signatures:</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>—
Marion County, Indianapolis, Ind., May 10th, 1S76.
We, the undersigned, attended a test seance for materialisation, given by
James T. Morris on the evening of May 10th, 1876, and are fully satisfied that
under the test conditions the faces which appeared at the aperture, and the forms which stepped from the cabinet, were not that of Mr. Morris; also that it was impossible for a confederate to be introduced into the cabinet without being detected. Dr. Wesley Clark, Mrs. Mary A. Potts, Jno. S. Wright, W. B. Potts, Mrs. E. Eveland, Dr. B. Atkinson, Mr. J. Eveland, J. F. Baker, J. W. Garrison, Aug. Siekert, J. Donnelley, Jacob Eldridge, M. B. Moore, Miss C. M. Sharpe, Mrs. J. Donnelley, Dr. W. H. Thomas,
H. L. Austin, S. W. Peese,
Thos. Jordan, A. M. White.
B. Atkins." </i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There is no imaginable "secret trap door" trickery that can explain such a report. A skeptic's only resort here is to imagine a conspiracy to defraud among the named witnesses, or perhaps a lying writer who made up the names of all the witnesses. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>On page 23 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v9_n2_aug_11_1876.pdf">August 11, 1876 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist</i>, we have an account by J. T. Rhodes of a seance of Miss Fairlamb, attended on July 30 1876. We hear of the materialization of a figure called Cissy who grows from "</span><span>a small white patch, about the size of a lady’s handkerchief" to "</span><span>a draped white figure, about two-and-a-half to three feet in height" who speaks in monosyllables. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On page 42 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v9_n4_aug_25_1876.pdf">August 25, 1876 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist</i>, we have an account by Alfred Russel Wallace, co-founder of the theory of evolution by natural selection. It is one of very many reports made in 1876 of inexplicable phenomena occurring around the medium Henry Slade. Slade was famous for seances in which witnesses would report writing inexplicably occurring on slates. Wallace gives this account of a meeting with Slade "in broad daylight" on August 9, 1876, there being no one present but himself and Slade: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"Writing came upon the upper part of the slate, when I myself held it pressed close up to the under-side of the table, both Dr. Slade’s hands being upon the table in contact with my other hand. The writing was audible while in progress.
This one phenomenon is absolutely conclusive. It admits
of no explanation or imitation by conjuring."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Wallace reports additional paranormal phenomena occurring. On page 67 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v9_n6_sep_8_1876.pdf">September 8, 1876 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist</i>, we hear a more dramatic account of a session with Henry Slade, one written by Louisa Andrews:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"Several of the stances which I attended daring my late stay with
Dr. Slade in New York, were held during the day, the clear sunlight streaming in through two large windows. Under these conditions, no one being present but the medium and myself, a double slate placed upon the top of the table was filled inside with writing. This slate was not touched by the medium, whose hands were clasping mine while the communication was being written. <b>Chairs several feet from us were
overthrown and lifted again, being, at my request, replaced as they had stood before, and sometimes held for several seconds suspended in the air. </b>Hands were felt and seen,...At one of these light seances a copy of Webster’s unabridged dictionary, which lay upon a desk some distance off, was brought and fell upon the table, striking the hand of the medium and bruising it severely. On another occasion a large walking-stick, which had been standing against the wall at a distance from where we sat, came towards the table and danced about on the floor, at my right hand and opposite the medium, as if it were alive....</i></span><span style="font-size: large;"><i>During my last visit to Dr. Slade I had only one sitting for materialization,..The medium used no cabinet or curtain, but simply turned the gas partially down in the room in which we had been sitting the greater part of the day. <b>The forms gathered like a rapidly forming cloud, becoming gradually more dense, and taking shape before our eyes. They were extremely ethereal, so much so that objects were sometimes visible through them.</b>"</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On page 84 to 88 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v9_n8_sep_22_1876.pdf">September 22, 1876 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist</i>, we have a long article by scientist William Barrett. Barrett describes witnessing people put under hypnosis who seemed to have powers of telepathy and clairvoyance that blossomed in such a state. On page 87 Barrett becomes the latest of innumerable distinguished witnesses testifying to the reality of mysterious raps. He states this:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"About twelve months ago I was told that the daughter of
a gentleman of good position in society, a child not quite ten
years old, was troubled with knockings, for which no cause could be assigned. These sounds came on whenever the child was in a passive condition, and apparently displayed some intelligence, as they would keep time to a tune, or by rapping at certain letters, would spell out words. As the family were living in my neighbourhood, I made their acquaintance, and obtained permission to examine these mysterious knockings. I found that, in the full, glare of sunlight, when every precaution to prevent deception had been
taken, still these raps would occur in different parts of the room, entirely out of reach of the child, whose hands and feet I was watching closely. <b>A dozen times have I tested the phenomena in every way that the ingenuity of sceptical
friends could suggest, and the result was that I could come
to no other conclusion but that the sounds were real objective raps, displaying intelligence, and yet certainly not produced
by any visible cause.</b> I have often had the sounds occurring
on a small table, above and below the surface of which my hands were placed, and have felt the jarring of the taps on that part of the table enclosed between my hands. I have taken sceptical friends to witness these phenomena, and their testimony agrees with mine. It must be borne in mind that the conditions of the experiment are singularly unfavourable either for fraud or hallucination. To avoid the possibility of the former I have held the hands and feet of the child, and still obtained the knockings ; they have
occurred on the lawn, on an umbrella, far removed from the
possibility of deception by servants."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On page 104 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v9_n9_sep_29_1876.pdf">September 29, 1876 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist</i>, we have a letter by a Professor Lankester describing a meeting he had with the previously mentioned Henry Slade. Lankester states a theory of some trickery going on by Slade, one he fails to back up by any good evidence. On the next page we read a quote by anatomist C. Carter-Blake, stating this about Lankester's theory:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"If Dr. Slade plays tricks, his modus operandi is something very different from that which Professor Lankester would suggest. The observers who have visited him, including some of the cleverest minds in
science, have failed to detect any fraud. Professor Lankester has found
out simply nothing." </i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Similarly, on page 106 Alfred Russel Wallace (a biologist more accomplished than Lankester) disputes Lankester's claims:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"As I have now shown that Professor Lankester commenced his
letter with an erroneous statement of fact, and a ' more than questionable ' statement of opinion, it is not to be wondered at that I find
the remainder of his communication equally unsatisfactory. His
account of what happened during his visit to Dr. Slade is so completely unlike what happened during mv own visit, as well as the recorded experiences of Serjeant Cox, Mr. Carter Blake, and many
others, that I can only look upon it as a striking example of Dr. Carpenter’s theory of preconceived ideas. Professor Lankester went with
the firm conviction that all he was going to see would be imposture,
and he believes he saw imposture accordingly. The 'fumbling,' the 'manoeuvres,' the 'considerable interval of time ' between cleaning
the slate and holding it under the table, and the writing occurring on
the opposite side of the slate to that on which the piece of pencil was
placed, were all absent when I witnessed the experiment ; while the
fact that legible writing occurred on the clean slate when held entirely
in my own hand while Dr. Slade’s hands were both upon the table and
held by my other hand, such writing being distinctly audible while in
progress ; and the further fact that Dr. Slade’s knees were always in
sight, and that the slate was never rested upon them at all, render it
quite impossible for me to accept the explanation of Professor Lankester and Dr. Donkin as applicable to any portion of the phenomena
witnessed by me."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Based on his dubious speculations about what Slade was doing and not actual observations of Slade doing anything fraudulent, Lankester caused Slade to be arrested and put under trial for violating the Vagrancy Act prohibiting things such as fortune telling. Alfred Russel Wallace and other witnesses testified in the trial that they had observed inexplicable phenomenon when sitting with Henry Slade, and saw no sign of fraud. You can read Wallace's testimony on page 161 of the document <a href=" In previous posts in this intermittently appearing "Spookiest Years" series on this blog (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), I had looked at some very spooky events reported between 1848 and 1874. Let me pick up the thread and discuss some spooky events reported in the years 1876 and 1877. On page 68 of the February 11, 1876 edition of The Spiritualist, we read of several remarkable cases. The author Emma Hardinge-Britten states the following about herself, using the term "the somnambulic condition" to refer to a kind of trance: "The author, for instance, has been known to rise in her sleep, proceed in thick darkness to her study, and there inscribe musical compositions, and write abstruse exercises in harmony and composition, entirely beyond her normal capacity to achieve. On the other hand, she has frequently been known in the ' somnambulic condition ' to recite original poems, sing original compositions, and make what were pronounced to be 'splendid orations,' in a style totally different to her ordinary methods, and though at the early period of childhood when these feats of abnormal wonder were enacted, her friends and associates...attributed them all to the same somnambulic state, state, there were marked differences between the various phenomena exhibited, proving that some were the action of the sleeper’s own spirit in a state of high exaltation, whilst others must have proceeded from the influence of foreign spiritual intelligences taking advantage of the somnambulist’s unconscious organism to manifest their presence." On the same page Emma tells of a sleepwalker who displayed similar behavior, writing perfectly in darkness, and having no memory of what was written. We then hear this remarkable claim: "Dr. A. 0. Stiles, of Bridgeport, Couu., claimed to have, from a boy, possessed the i faculty of perceiving, by a clairvoyant sense, the interior conditions of the human system, and pointing out its locale. In his medical practice he used to give the most invariably i correct diagnoses of the diseases of distant persons by holding a lock of their hair in his hand." On page 246 of the May 26, 1876 edition of The Spiritualist, we have an account by William Oxley (dated May 22, 1876) of events of May 11, 1876. We hear of an astonishing transfiguration of a handkerchief into a human figure, audibly identified with a woman who died four days ago: "There were present seven of us, including Dr. Monck, the medium. Taking our seats round an oval table, I sat at one end, a good light from a gas lamp being behind me ; Dr. Monck sat at the other end of the table. After a time he became entranced, and, rising from his seat, came up to me on the left-hand side, close to where I was sitting. Samuel was the controlling spirit. He took a white lawn handkerchief from Dr. Monck’s pocket, and placing it on his right j hand, the handkerchief appeared to be 'absorbed,' or meta-morphosed, and in a few seconds there, at the extremity of his arm, appeared a beautiful, unmistakable feminine face, as large as a good-sized infant’s; it was a perfect human head, with the features clearly delineated. So clearly are the features and form impressed upon my memory, that if I were an artist I could even now produce them on canvas, The head and face were of pure classic form, and very beautiful to look upon. While I was looking intently on the object before me I heard a whispering voice, at first very faintly, issuing from the head; the words were, 'Do you hear me?' I replied, 'No, not distinctly,' as Samuel, through Dr. Monck, was speaking at the same time. I then j said, 'Come closer, so that I may hear you.' The reply was, ' I will try.' I now saw that the lips moved in giving articulation to the words. Dr. Monck then pressed his lips close to my right cheek, which I felt distinctly all the time that the head was within a few inches of my left ear. Listening intently I heard the words, ' My name is Rhondda, and I wish to write to my parents in Cardiff, and tell them not to grieve for me, as I am very happy. I have seen in my beautiful and glorious home, and I shall often try to come through this medium, and hope to be very useful....From what 1 have learnt, the spirit of Rhondda passed out of the body on Sunday evening, May 7th, at 8 p.m., and on the fourth day between 8 and 9 p.m. (three clear days and nights intervening), she appeared to us in the manner above described." On page 316 of the July 7, 1876 edition of The Spiritualist, we have an account of a seance involving the medium James T. Morris on May 10, 1876. The account states that the medium (Morris) was disrobed and thoroughly examined, and then placed on the right side of a small wooden cabinet divided into two halves, with the two halves separated by wire mesh. We are told the cabinet had been thoroughly examined by the witnesses. We read of several figures mysteriously emerging from this cabinet, including (1) a tall German with blue eyes and a red mustache (unlike the medium with brown eyes and a height of five feet two inches); (2) a blue-eyed man six feet two inches in height (unlike the medium with brown eyes and a height of five feet two inches); (3) a bearded man three inches taller than the medium; (4) a woman. We read this of the disappearance of the woman; " She remained about fifteen minutes, and on returning slowly to the cabinet, commenced gradually to dematerialise, so that by the time she reached the door she had diminished fully two feet in height, and correspondingly in size of form. Then she seemed to be slowly drawn by some unseen power into the cabinet, and, while standing within the door, in full view of all, gradually dematerialised to the size of a babe not more than eighteen inches in height. She reached out her little hand and arm, and waved it to and fro, then the door closed, and she was gone from our sight, to the regret of all.....The next to appear was a gentleman about five feet ten inches in height, with dark hair and long dark beard, who was recognised by a gentleman present as his father-in-law, who passed away in August last." The account ends up like this: "The committee again overhauled the cabinet, examined every seal and every bolt and screw, and announced to the audience that everything about the cabinet was satisfactory. The medium then offered to be searched again, but the committee said it was not necessary. The hard sceptics admitted that this seance completely puzzled them, and overturned all theories of the medium personating different characters. At the request of some, the medium stood up inside of the cabinet, when it was found that his face merely reached a little above the opening. A gentleman present then drew up a paper and read it before the company, and requested them to sign it as an endorsement of Mr. Morris as a materialising medium. It was very readily signed. The following is a copy of the statement, with the signatures: — Marion County, Indianapolis, Ind., May 10th, 1S76. Wo, the undersigned, attended a test seance for materialisation, given by James T. Morris on the evening of May 10th, 1876, and are fully satisfied that under the test conditions the faces which appeared at the aperture, and the forms which stepped from the cabinet, wero not that of Mr. Morris; also that i it was impossible for a confederate to be introduced into the cabinet without being detected. Dr. Wesley Clark, Mrs. Mary A. Potts, i Jno. S. Wright, W. B. Potts, : Mrs. E. Eveland, Dr. B. Atkinson, Mr. J. Eveland, J. F. Baker, J. W. Garrison, Aug. Siekert, J. Donnelley, Jacob Eldridge, M. B. Moore, Miss C. M. Sharpe, | Mrs. J. Donnelley, Dr. W. H. Thomas, H. L. Austin, S. W. Peese, Thos. Jordan, A. M. White. B. Atkins." There are no imaginable "secret trap door" trickery that can explain such a report. A skeptic's only resort here is to imagine a conspiracy to defraud among the named witnesses, or perhaps a lying writer who made up the names of all the witnesses. On page 23 of the August 11, 1876 edition of The Spiritualist, we have an account by J. T. Rhodes of a seance of Miss Fairlamb, attended on July 30 1876. We hear of the materialization of a figure called Cissy who grows from "a small white patch, about the size of a lady’s handkerchief" to "a draped white figure, about two-and-a-half to three feet in height" who speaks in monosyllables. On page 42 of the August 25, 1876 edition of The Spiritualist, we have an account by Alfred Russel Wallace, co-founder of the theory of evolution by natural selection. It is one of very many reports made in 1876 of inexplicable phenomena occurring around the medium Henry Slade. Slade was famous for seances in which witnesses would report writing inexplicably occurring on slates. Wallace gives this account of a meeting with Slade "in broad daylight" on August 9, 1876, there being no one present but himself and Slade: "Writing came upon the upper part of the slate, when I myself held it pressed close up to the under-side of the table, both Dr. Slade’s hands being upon the table in contact with my other hand. The writing was audible while in progress. This one phenomenon is absolutely conclusive. It admits of no explanation or imitation by conjuring." Wallace reports additional paranormal phenomena occurring. On page 67 of the September 8, 1876 edition of The Spiritualist, we hear a more dramatic account of a session with Henry Slade, one written by Louisa Andrews: "Several of the stances which I attended daring my late stay with Dr. Slade in New York, were held during the day, the clear sunlight streaming in through two large windows. Under these conditions, no one being present but the medium and myself, a double slate placed upon the top of the table was filled inside with writing. This slate was not touched by the medium, whose hands were clasping mine while the communication was being written. Chairs several feet from us were overthrown and lifted again, being, at my request, replaced as they had stood before, and sometimes held for several seconds suspended in the air. Hands were felt and seen,...At one of these light seances a copy of Webster’s unabridged dictionary, which lay upon a desk some distance off, was brought and fell upon the table, striking the hand of the medium and bruising it severely. On another occasion a large walking-stick, which had been standing against the wall at a distance from where we sat, came towards the table and danced about on the floor, at my right hand and opposite the medium, as if it were alive....During my last visit to Dr. Slade I had only one sitting for materialization,..The medium used no cabinet or curtain, but simply turned the gas partially down in the room in which we had been sitting the greater part of the day. The forms gathered like a rapidly forming cloud, becoming gradually more dense, and taking shape before our eyes. They were extremely ethereal, so much so that objects were sometimes visible through them." On page 84 to 88 of the September 22, 1876 edition of The Spiritualist, we have a long article by scientist William Barrett. Barrett describes witnessing people put under hypnosis who seemed to have powers of telepathy and clairvoyance that blossomed in such a state. On page 87 Barrett becomes the latest of innumerable distinguished witnesses testifying to the reality of mysterious raps. He states this: "About twelve months ago I was told that the daughter of a gentleman of good position in society, a child not quite ten years old, was troubled with knockings, for which no cause j could be assigned. These sounds came on whenever the child was in a passive condition, and apparently displayed some intelligence, as they would keep time to a tune, or by rapping at certain letters, would spell out words. As the family were living in my neighbourhood, I made their acquaintance, and obtained permission to examine these mysterious knockings. I found that, in the full, glare of sunlight, when every precaution to prevent deception had been taken, still these raps would occur in different parts of the room, entirely out of reach of the child, whose hands and feet I was watching closely. A dozen times have I tested the phenomena in every way that the ingenuity of sceptical friends could suggest, and the result was that I could come to no other conclusion but that the sounds were real objective raps, displaying intelligence, and yet certainly not produced by any visible cause. I have often had the sounds occurring on a small table, above and below the surface of which my hands were placed, and have felt the jarring of the taps on that part of the table enclosed between my hands. I have taken sceptical friends to witness these phenomena, and their testimony agrees with mine. It must be borne in mind that the conditions of the experiment are singularly unfavourable either for fraud or hallucination. To avoid the possibility of the former I have held the hands and feet of the child, and still obtained the knockings ; they have occurred on the lawn, on an umbrella, far removed from the possibility of deception by servants." On page 104 of the September 29, 1876 edition of The Spiritualist, we have a letter by a Professor Lankester describing a meeting he had with the previously mentioned Henry Slade. Lankester states a theory of some trickery going on by Slade, one he fails to back up by any good evidence. On the next page we read a quote by anatomist C. Carter-Blake, stating this about Lankester's theory: "If Dr. Slade plays tricks, his modus operandi is something very different from that which Professor Lankester would suggest. The observers who have visited him, including some of the cleverest minds in science, have failed to detect any fraud. Professor Lankester has found out simply nothing." Similarly, on page 106 Alfred Russel Wallace (a biologist more accomplished than Lankester) disputes Lankester's claims: "As I have now shown that Professor Lankester commenced his letter with an erroneous statement of fact, and a ' more than questionable ' statement of opinion, it is not to be wondered at that 1 find the remainder of his communication equally unsatisfactory. His account of what happened during his visit to Dr. Slade is so completely unlike what happened during mv own visit, as well as the recorded experiences of Serjeant Cox, Mr. Carter Blake, and many others, that I can only look upon it as a striking example of Dr. Carpenter’s theory of preconceived ideas. Professor Lankester went with the firm conviction that all he was going to see would be imposture, and he believes he saw imposture accordingly. The 'fumbling,' the 'manoeuvres,' the 'considerable interval of time ' between cleaning the slate and holding it under the table, and the writing occurring on the opposite side of the slate to that on which the piece of pencil was placed, were all absent when I witnessed the experiment ; while the fact that legible writing occurred on the clean slate when held entirely in my own hand while Dr. Slade’s hands were both upon the table and held by my other hand, such writing being distinctly audible while in progress ; and the further fact that Dr. Slade’s knees were always in sight, and that the slate was never rested upon them at all, render it quite impossible for me to accept the explanation of Professor Lankester and Dr. Donkin as applicable to any portion of the phenomena witnessed by me." Based on his dubious speculations about what Slade was doing and not actual observations of Slade doing anything fraudulent, Lankester caused Slade to be arrested and put under trial for violating the "public vagrancy" act. Alfred Russel Wallace and other witnesses such as Clarke Irvine testified in the trial that they had observed inexplicable phenomenon when sitting with Henry Slade, and saw no sign of fraud. ">here</a>. He testified to have seen what appeared to be paranormal writing on a slate, occurring in three different meetings he had with Slade. We have this testimony by Wallace in response to questions:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"From beginning to end of your sitting was there anything indicative
of imposture ?—I could see nothing whatever indicative of imposture.
Were there any raps or movements that attracted your attention ?—
I heard the raps and felt the touches which have been described, but the
most remarkable thing was that t<b>he flat table, when my hands and
those of Dr. Slade were clasped together, rose up, and almost
instantaneously turned completely over on to the top of my head and
slid down my back. </b>(Laughter.)
Was it possible that this could have been produced by Slade's feet or
legs ?—I think not. It appeared to me to be absolutely impossible."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So not only did Wallace testify in court to seeing inexplicable writing produced in the presence of Slade, but also mysterious raps and the inexplicable levitation of a table (something reported by very many reliable witnesses of the nineteenth century, usually when Slade was not present). The court also allowed to be introduced into evidence the written testimony of Edward W. Cox (sometimes referred to as Sergeant Cox because of some office he held). The testimony is from page 18 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v9_n2_aug_11_1876.pdf">August 11, 1876 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist.</i> Cox testified this about a meeting he had with Slade:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"Instantly upon taking our seats very loud rapping came
upon the floor. This was followed by a succession of furious
blows upon the table, jarring my hands as they were laying
upon it. These blows were repeated at any part of the table
desired, by merely touching that spot with the finger, while
the blows, as forcible as if given with a sledge hammer,
were being made. Dr. Slade’s hands were on the table upon
my hands, and his whole body to his feet was fully before my
eyes. I am certain that not a muscle moved. Then he
took the slate after I had carefully inspected it, to be assured
that no writing was upon it, and placing there a piece of
slate pencil, the size of a small grain of wheat, he pressed
the slate tightly below but against the slab of the table.
Presently I heard the sound as of writing on a slate. The
slate was removed, and on it a zigzag line was drawn from
end to end.
At this moment the chair that I had described as standing
by the table was lifted up to a level with the table, held
in that, position for several seconds, and then dropped to the
floor. <b>While the chair was so suspended in the air</b>, I carefully noted Dr. Slade. It was far beyond his reach. But
his hands were under my hands, and his feet were fully in
view near my own on the side of the table opposite to that
on which the chair had risen."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We have here not merely a report of mysterious slate writing, but also a report of dramatic inexplicable raps and also a report of a dramatic levitation of a chair. On and on Edward Cox's account goes, with him reporting many other inexplicable phenomena such as the appearance of mysterious hands that touch and grab and shake Cox. Cox's report casts no suspicion on Slade. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v9_n14_nov_3_1876.pdf">same edition</a> on page 165 we have this written testimony addressed to Slade, testimony by attorney Clarke Irvine:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"I went to see you one afternoon at your house in New York. My
name was never given to you ; I went from here almost direct, and was
a perfect stranger in New York—never was there before; no one in
your room but our two selves, and the sun shone into the window. As
soon as I entered your room it seemed to me that invisible hands manipulated my person; my hands were seized by invisible hands. You did
not offer to hold the little slate; I alone held it, you sitting off quite a
distance. The slate, which I cleaned, was written upon both when I
held it in my hand and when I held it under against the table top. <b>My
own name was written on the slate, and names of friends deceased
twenty or twenty-five years were subscribed. I will swear you did not
know the names, for no name was given to you by me—not even my own</b>.
You tried to hold an accordion, which was violently wrested from you, to
your apparent alarm; I took hold of it and held it tightly in one hand,
with the keys turned toward me. The force pulled violently and
pushed, and the keys raised and fell to the tune of ' Home, sweet
home.' I could not have started the tune had my life been the forfeit.<b>
I silently requested (mentally as it is called) that 'Hail, Columbia,' be
played, and it was played.</b> Also a dinner bell was rung in mid air,
while whirled about by a power to me unseen."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Despite so many witnesses testifying in writing to have seen a wide variety of extremely dramatic paranormal phenomena in the presence of Henry Slade, with some of this testimony being introduced into court, we learn on page 162 of the </span><a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v9_n14_nov_3_1876.pdf">November 3, 1876 edition</a><span> of </span><i>The Spiritualist</i><span> that Slade was found guilty in the court case, and sentenced to three months of hard labor on a charge of violating a Vagrancy Act prohibiting fortune-telling and similar activity. On the same page we read the judge's ruling, which makes it clear that he paid no attention to all the testimony that was providing indicating that authentic paranormal phenomena had been produced near Slade, but that he only paid attention to the speculations of Lankester. According to the document <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v11_n15_oct_12_1877.pdf">here</a>, Slade was "released on a law quibble," which makes it sound like the case was eventually dismissed on a technicality. The page <a href="https://archive.org/details/transcendentalph02zoll/page/17/mode/1up">here</a> says that " the conviction was afterwards quashed on appeal to the Middlesex Sessions, for a formal error in the conviction."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Skeptics mentioning Slade typically claim inaccurately that he was convicted of fraud. He was merely convicted of the much lesser charge of vagrancy, and that charge was later overruled and thrown out, as the two previous quotes show. In the Psi Encyclopedia <a href="https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/henry-slade">we read this</a> about the trial:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"Finally, Slade’s trial is typically reported as a case in which Slade was convicted of fraud. But as a matter of fact, the testimony presented against Slade at the trial was weak in the extreme, and the judge based his verdict largely on the intuition that Slade’s phenomena could not possibly have been genuine because they conflicted with established natural laws."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>In the coming years the astronomy professor </span><span>Johann Carl Friedrich Zöllner published an account of a test he did with Slade on May 8, 1877, one in which </span><span>Zöllner</span><span> </span><span>reported a paranormal-seeming result that apparently could not possibly have been produced by fraud. On <a href="https://archive.org/details/transcendentalph02zoll/page/165/mode/1up">page 165</a> of his book </span><i><a href="https://archive.org/details/transcendentalph02zoll/page/n6/mode/1up">Transcendental Physics</a>,</i><span> </span><span>we read this</span><span>:</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"</i><span><i>I obtained one of the most remarkable confirmations of this apparent suspension of the law of impenetrability of matter in a sitting on the 9th May, 1878, from eleven to a quarter-past eleven in the morning. Immediately after I had sat down with Slade at the card-table, I conversed with him at first on the power of his invisible intelligent beings, by means of which material bodies could be apparently penetrated with as much facility as if they were permeable. Slade shared my amazement, assuring me that never until now had such an abundance of this sort of phenomena been observed in his presence. Immediately after this remark he took up with his left hand two slates of equal size from among the slates which lay on the table at his left, and which had been bought and cleaned by myself. He handed me these two slates, and desired me to press the one upon the upper surface, the other against the under surface of the table, with my left hand, so that the thumb of my left hand pressed the upper, my other four fin</i></span><i>gers the under slate, against the flat of the table, as may be seen from the woodcut, Plate VII. Beneath the upper slate on the table, a splinter of slate-pencil had first been laid, so that it was thus completely covered by the upper slate. Slade then placed both his hands on the middle of the table, about a foot from the two slates, and requested me to cover his hands with my right hand. Scarcely was this done when I distinctly heard writing on one of the slates which were pressed firmly by me against the table. After the conclusion of the writing was signified, as usual, by three ticks quickly in succession, I took the slates apart, and of course expected that the one which had been above the table would be that written on, since on the table still lay the bit of pencil in the same place in which I had laid it a minute before. How great was my astonishment to find the under slate written on, on the side that had been turned to the table. Just as if the bit of pencil had written through the three-quarter inch of oak table, or as if the latter had, for the invisible writer, not been there at all. Upon the slate was the following message in English : —</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i></i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"We shall not do much for you this morning, — we wish to replenish your strength for this evening; you will require to be very passive, or we shall not be able to accomplish our work."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Below is the <a href="https://archive.org/details/transcendentalph02zoll/page/167/mode/1up">Plate VII</a> referred to in the text above:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZCfP6nuEbMRy6bJkuIMsSqZaWSbZ_SbXbmABK0VGEX4Vuh68Rocwh1yoAt-SGjGfDtKvlGhde3BSAYCmMqyrGTMX4jDBUQg_4Eq8qxb9meTBQCuhHn2dD8yGc1KMVlChLgrlZSpy2qE33YDh9vKbtFmfZLqJl4EHGnGSN7TtZ8HwtocTiIJYB0QO1_5J8/s538/temp.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Slade slate writing" border="0" data-original-height="375" data-original-width="538" height="279" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZCfP6nuEbMRy6bJkuIMsSqZaWSbZ_SbXbmABK0VGEX4Vuh68Rocwh1yoAt-SGjGfDtKvlGhde3BSAYCmMqyrGTMX4jDBUQg_4Eq8qxb9meTBQCuhHn2dD8yGc1KMVlChLgrlZSpy2qE33YDh9vKbtFmfZLqJl4EHGnGSN7TtZ8HwtocTiIJYB0QO1_5J8/w400-h279/temp.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: large;">Faced with this testimony of the paranormal and much other testimony of the paranormal in Zöllner's book, a book by an accomplished scientist, skeptics resorted to the worst type of gaslighting, by claiming that Zöllner had lost his mind. But the book shows no sign of any such mental decline, but instead reads exactly like the work of a calm and careful observer. </span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">On page 126 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v9_n11_oct_13_1876.pdf">October 13, 1876 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist</i>, we have an account by Henry D. Jencken. He describes a seance occurring on September 6, 1876 "at 51, Holland-street, Kensington, the house of Mr. S. C. Hall, the well-known Editor of the Art Journal." Several witnesses are named, including "Mr. and Mrs. Hall,</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Mr. and Mrs. Mayo, Dr. Nethereliff of the Chelsea infirmary," Jencken and his wife. We are told of the appearance of an apparition:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"After a short pause, the door of the room in which we </i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i>were sitting was gently opened, and a form was distinctly </i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i>seen in the semi-light, as it streamed into the darkened room, </i><i>from the hall lamp. The apparition—for I cannot describe </i><i>it otherwise—appeared to be semi-transparent. I could all </i><i>but see objects through it, and yet the outline was complete. </i><i>To make sure that no optical delusion was carrying us away, </i><i>questions as to who saw the figure were put all round, and </i><i>answered affirmatively, save in the case of two members </i><i>present who were seated with their backs to the door."</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">We are told of the appearance of a spirit hand, which raised a pencil and wrote briefly:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><i>"A luminous, small, beautifully-shaped hand then descended from the side at which I was sitting, that is to say, at, the opposite side to Mrs. Jeneken. The hand seized a pencil which was lying on the table and wrote the letters ' E. W. E.' . The power of holding the pencil then evidently failed, The pencil, which had been held between the forefinger and third finger, dropped on the table, and the hand raised itself high, over head, and disappeared. After a short pause it reappeared, descended, touched the table, took hold of the pencil, and wrote the words ' God bless y—.' At the letter y the strength again appeared to give way, the pencil dropped, the hand rose quickly, and was gone."</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Jencken provided a sketch of what he saw, and stated five others saw it. His sketch is below. He stated, "</span>The luminosity around the wrist was singularly beautiful." </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbRkyEEACDXyn4DlQOtoFKQI6_IG82fGf_oCpRFpjnghB8CltHVOeqdqPSLrM_i0mlRlLV8WAyGycK01kAZ6nZ36PPoDbWHedsJN2pJlfHjpJiZAnW83xVkLyZrWMCHLkPkETNrLw7aFiCTlThk403SaWmgrBAbULP9bM1JgMOxW1RjaUkV9OxtGNKM2z3/s460/hand.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="448" data-original-width="460" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbRkyEEACDXyn4DlQOtoFKQI6_IG82fGf_oCpRFpjnghB8CltHVOeqdqPSLrM_i0mlRlLV8WAyGycK01kAZ6nZ36PPoDbWHedsJN2pJlfHjpJiZAnW83xVkLyZrWMCHLkPkETNrLw7aFiCTlThk403SaWmgrBAbULP9bM1JgMOxW1RjaUkV9OxtGNKM2z3/s320/hand.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Many people in the nineteenth century made claims similar to the one above. For example, there had occurred in the January, 1874 edition of the Quarterly Journal of Science the publication of the paper "</span><span>NOTES OF AN ENQUIRY INTO THE PHENOMENA CALLED SPIRITUAL, DURING THE YEARS 1870-73" by the leading physicist William Crookes, inventor of the Crookes tube that was the technological ancestor of the television set, and the co-discoverer of the element thallium. On <a href="https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-science_1874-01_11_41/page/89/mode/1up">this page</a>, Crookes describes seeing a writing "spirit hand" similar to that reported by Jencken above. Crookes states, "</span>A luminous hand came down from the upper part of the room, and after hovering near me for a few seconds, took the pencil from my hand, rapidly wrote on a sheet of paper, threw the pencil down, and then rose up over our heads, gradually fading into darkness."</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The Jencken account quoted above meets high standards of evidence, as it is a first-hand account, it was published within a month after the reported sighting, and several witnesses are listed. The account is only one of many cases in which more than one witness reported seeing the same apparition. For many other cases, see my posts below:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2021/04/when-two-or-more-see-same-apparition.html">When Two or More See the Same Apparition</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><u><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2019/04/when-apparition-is-seen-by-multiple_15.html" target="_blank">When an Apparition Is Seen by Multiple Observers: 17 Cases</a></u></span></span></div><div style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2019/05/when-apparition-is-seen-by-multiple.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">When an Apparition Is Seen by Multiple Observers: 17 More Cases</span></a></u></div><div style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2020/02/more-apparitions-seen-by-multiple.html" target="_blank"><u>More Apparitions Seen by Multiple Observers</u></a></span><br /><span><u><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2020/04/many-apparition-is-seen-by-more-than-one.html" target="_blank">Many an Apparition Is Seen by More Than One</a></u></span><br /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><u><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2020/08/still-more-apparitions-seen-by-multiple.html" target="_blank">Still More Apparitions Seen by Multiple Observers</a></u></span></span></div><div style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2020/08/when-apparition-is-seen-by-several-or.html"><u>When an Apparition Is Seen by Not Just One</u></a></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The 1878 book <i><a href="https://archive.org/details/psychographyatr01mosegoog/page/n5/mode/2up">Psychography</a></i> by the respected scholar William Stainton Moses (writing under a pen name) documents numerous cases of witnesses reporting mysterious writing occurring in the presence of Henry Slade, with the accounts often describing observation conditions seeming to allow no possibility of fraud, or events (such as furniture levitations) seemingly incapable of being faked. On <a href="https://archive.org/details/psychographybym00mosegoog/page/n132/mode/1up">page 123</a> of a later (1882) edition we have an interesting list of distinguished people who reported seeing paranormal phenomena. We get this list (with an asterisk indicating someone no longer living when the list was compiled):</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">"<i>TESTIMONY TO PSYCHICAL PHENOMENA.</i></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><i>Science. — The Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, F.R.S., President E.A.S.; W. Crookes, Fellow and Gold Medallist of the Royal Society; C. Varley, F.R.S., C.E. ; A. R. Wallace, the eminent Naturalist; W. F. Barrett, F.R.S.E., Professor of Physics in the Royal College of Science, Dublin ; Dr. Lockhart Robertson ; *Dr. J. Elliotson, F.R.S., sometime President of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society of London; *Professor de Morgan, sometime President of the Mathematical Society of London; Dr. William Gregory, F.R.S.E., sometime Professor of Chemistry in the University of Edinburgh ; *Dr. Ashburner, *Mr. Rutter, *Dr. Herbert Mayo, F.R.S., etc. etc.</i></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><i>* Professor F. Zollner, of Leipzig, author of 'Transcendental Physics,' etc.; Professors G. T. Fechner, Scheibner, and J. H. Fichte, of Leipzig ; Professor W. E. Weber, of Gbttingen ; Professor Hoffman, of Wiirzburg ; Professor Perty, of Berne ; Professors Wagner and Butleroff, of Petersburg ; *Professors Hare and Mapes, of U.S.A. ; Dr. Robert Friese, of Breslau ; Mons. Camille Flammarion, Astronomer, etc., etc.</i></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><i>Literature. — The Earl of Dunraven ; T. A. Trollope; S. C. Hall; Gerald Massey ; Captain R. Burton ; Professor Cassal, LL.D. ; *Lord Brougham; *Lord Lytton; *Lord Lyndhurst; * Archbishop Whately; *Dr. Robert Chambers, F.R.S.E.; * William M. Thackeray; *Nassau Senior ; *George Thompson ; *Wm. Howitt ; *Serjeant Cox ; *Mrs. Browning, etc., etc.</i></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><i>Bishop Clarke, Rhode Island, U.S.A.; Darius Lyman, U.S.A.; Professor W. Denton ; Professor Alexander Wilder ; Professor Hiram Corson; Professor George Bush; and twenty-four Judges and ex Judges of the U.S. Courts ; Victor Hugo ; Baron and Baroness von Vay ; *W. Lloyd Garrison, U.S.A.; *Hon. R. Dale Owen, U.S.A.; *Hon. J. W. Edmonds, U.S.A.; *Epes Sargent; *Baron du Potet; *Count A. de Gasparin ; *Baron L. de Guldenstubbe, etc., etc.</i></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><i>Social Position. — H. I. H. Nicholas, Duke of Leuchtenberg ; H.M.S.H. the Prince of Solms; H.S.H. Prince Albrecht of Solms ; *H.S.H. Prince Emile of Sayn Wittgenstein; Hon. Alexander Aksakof, Imperial Councillor of Russia ; the Hon. J. L. O'Sullivan, sometime Minister of U.S.A. at the Court of Lisbon; M. Favre Clavairoz, late Consul-General of France at Trieste ; the late Emperors of *Russia and *France....etc., etc".</i></div></div></span></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-57294306030356600262024-02-18T11:40:00.000-08:002024-02-18T11:40:16.073-08:00Erring Experts #18<p> Here is the latest in a series of videos I am making. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GKTg8ViUuaM" width="320" youtube-src-id="GKTg8ViUuaM"></iframe></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-56099985830817207082024-02-17T08:09:00.000-08:002024-02-17T09:02:09.738-08:00We Keep Getting Signs of Expert Blunders<p><span style="font-size: large;">Recently I have been publishing a series of short videos on the topic of the errors of experts, which you can view by using the links <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/search/label/videos">here</a> and <a href="https://headtruth.blogspot.com/search/label/videos">here</a>. My best post on this topic is my post "Disastrous Blunders of the Experts," which you can read <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2017/11/disastrous-blunders-of-experts.html">here</a>. The post discusses the following examples in which experts produced the most disastrous blunders:</span></p><p><b style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Expert Fiasco #1: The Bay of Pigs Invasion</span></b></p><p><b style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Expert Fiasco #2: The Vietnam War</span></b></p><p><b style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Expert Fiasco #3: Eugenics</span></b></p><p><b style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia, Palatino Linotype, Palatino, serif;">Expert Fiasco #4: The Housing Bubble of 2005, and </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Financial Meltdown of 2008</span></span></b></p><p><b style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Expert Fiasco #5: Blunders of the Psychiatrists</span></b></p><p><b style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Expert Fiasco #6: The Iraq War</span></b></p><p><b style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Expert Fiasco #7: Vioxx</span></b></p><p><b style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Expert Fiasco #8: The Opioid Overdose Epidemic</span></b></p><p><b style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Expert Fiasco #9: Nuclear Weapons</span></b></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">The post also discusses quite a few other cases of the most disastrous blunders by experts, including the atomic testing fiasco (in which we were assured by experts that atomic testing was safe, with as many as 500,000 people dying from cancer caused by radiation from such testing), and also the COVID-19 blunders that probably resulted in more than 300,000 unnecessary deaths because of incompetent responses. It is an open question whether the entire COVID-19 pandemic that killed millions was the result of overconfidence by gene-fiddling biology experts recklessly monkeying with viruses. </span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">It is not hard to find recent examples of blunders by experts. One example is all the US military and US foreign policy experts who have unwisely supported providing super-destructive bombs to the State of Israel as it has engaged in an appalling bombing campaign in Gaza, resulting in more than 27,000 civilian deaths, mostly deaths of women and children, with innumerable other women and children being maimed or crippled, and as many as 500,000 put at risk of starvation, homelessness, severe malnutrition or severe lung damage from breathing dust from all the destroyed buildings. With the help of such a blunder the appalling horrors of the October, 2023 Hamas attack have been dwarfed by a savage slaughter twenty times bloodier. Another example can be found in the recent World Economic Forum meeting. </span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">The World Economic Forum provides an annual report on global risks. After a meeting in Switzerland in January, this expert group recently released its <a href="https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_2024.pdf">2024 report on global risks</a>. Early 2024 is a time when the situation in the Middle East seems like some time bomb that may explode, leading to a new world war, with the situation in Ukraine posing a similar danger. So what has the World Economic Forum listed as the biggest current economic risk? The group of experts has decided that the biggest global risk over the next two years is: misinformation and disinformation. </span></span></p><p><span style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">You are probably thinking: you must be joking. No, I'm not. This is literally what the World Economic Forum lists as the top global risk over the next two years. Below is a visual from the report. We see "misinformation and disinformation" at the top of the list of 2-year global risks.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmLebIHpRDHQxslEwJFhSNofzOp4ORoXNRltt5g60A6euf2a6hnyVFF-PWuYRHBhIro2-FnzhBnxJHvaMWLoqlOhhL85u-dTLz202X1hCcqXI5ckPKuUGJ0o40kGqU6uoDsAq9lG9LPt_De_5QF-efBOVx37kAWYY20o_i8tZahxG01qIZvSMZC9nlwn4a/s860/global_risks.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="expert incompetence" border="0" data-original-height="667" data-original-width="860" height="310" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmLebIHpRDHQxslEwJFhSNofzOp4ORoXNRltt5g60A6euf2a6hnyVFF-PWuYRHBhIro2-FnzhBnxJHvaMWLoqlOhhL85u-dTLz202X1hCcqXI5ckPKuUGJ0o40kGqU6uoDsAq9lG9LPt_De_5QF-efBOVx37kAWYY20o_i8tZahxG01qIZvSMZC9nlwn4a/w400-h310/global_risks.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div><p><span style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Here is the report's description of this "misinformation and disinformation" risk, which fails to make it sound like anything to lose much sleep over:</span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><i><span style="color: #222222;">"</span>Misinformation and disinformation (#1) is a new
leader of the top 10 rankings this year. No longer
requiring a niche skill set, easy-to-use interfaces
to large-scale artificial intelligence (AI) models
have already enabled an explosion in falsified
information and so-called ‘synthetic’ content,
from sophisticated voice cloning to counterfeit
websites. To combat growing risks, governments
are beginning to roll out new and evolving
regulations to target both hosts and creators of
online disinformation and illegal content. Nascent
regulation of generative AI will likely complement
these efforts. For example, requirements in China
to watermark AI-generated content may help
identify false information, including unintentional
misinformation through AI hallucinated content. Generally however, the speed and effectiveness
of regulation is unlikely to match the pace of
development." </i></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">This sounds like nothing much to worry about, compared to threats such as nuclear war, pandemics arising from labs engaging in reckless gene-splicing, and global warming. So what on Earth were these experts thinking when they decided to proclaim "misinformation and disinformation" as the #1 global risk? Eve Ottenberg <a href="https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/02/02/nuclear-war-climate-collapse-no-worries-wef-says-disinformation-is-humanitys-most-immediate-threat/">speculates</a> about a possibility:</span></p><p><i><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">"<span style="background-color: white; color: #111111;">The assorted billionaire geniuses and official intellectual luminaries who gathered in Davos Switzerland January 15-19 proved, for those who doubted, that neither singly nor as a group could these...find their way out of a paper bag. Weighing the world’s fate in their well-manicured fingers, did they seem concerned about the Ukraine War morphing into nuclear catastrophe, or ditto for a wider Middle East war? They did not. Did they tear their beautifully coiffed hair and rend their designer ensembles over the prospect of the earth heating up like a pancake on a griddle due to uncontrolled climate change? A disaster caused by rich countries gobbling up and belching out burnt fossil fuels? Or did they mouth vague platitudes about extreme weather? Yes, bromides were their plat du jour.</span></span></i></p><p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: white; color: #111111; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px 0px 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><i>The most immediate threat to humanity, according to this assemblage of well-groomed ... (who paid $52,000 apiece to join the World Economic Forum and then $19,000 each for a ticket to the Davos shindig), is misinformation or disinformation – you pick. After all, these bigwigs can take to their pate de foie gras-stocked bunkers if the planet succumbs either to nuclear winter or high temperatures inhospitable to human life. So of course, they regard speech, that is, free speech, as the main threat to their luxurious creature comforts. </i><i>After all, someone might say something bad about these oligarchs! </i><i>"</i></span></p><p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: white; color: #111111; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px 0px 1em;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">What we seem to have here is a great example of why experts so often go very badly wrong. Experts tend to exist in "echo chambers" where groupthink and herd effects may predominate. Such echo chambers can be found in the ivory towers of academia or the ideological enclaves that are the Pentagon and the White House. Within such an echo chamber people will tend to hear only people who belong to the same belief community, people who share the same ideology. Existing in such an ideological enclave, absurd or immoral opinions may be voiced, and may be regarded as great wisdom by anyone who looks around and sees other members of the belief community voicing such an opinion. </span></span></p><p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: white; color: #111111; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px 0px 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Conferences have always been affairs that tended to promote dubious examples of groupthink. You can put a few hundred academics or a few hundred clergy members or a few hundred CEOs at some conference, and let them hobnob with each other. An attendee will soon get signals about which opinions are acceptable to the group and which opinions are taboo. Such signals can come in a variety of ways, such as the amount of applause that a particular speech gets, and snickers and groans that come from an audience when an unpopular opinion is stated. The conference has the effect of turning its attendees into rubber stamps of whatever silly idea may be perceived to be the majority opinion of its attendees. Then some report may be issued announcing the opinions of the attendees. The report should be distrusted because of sociological effects. A better way to poll the opinions of the attendees at the very beginning of the conference, before any sociological effects came into play. </span></p><p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: white; color: #111111; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px 0px 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">In the article <a href="https://www.thetransmitter.org/learning/what-drifting-representations-reveal-about-the-brain/">here</a>, we have an example of how sociological effects such as herding behavior can lead tiny groups of experts to produce blundering results. A conference of neuroscientists was called on the very tiny topic of "representational drift." So-called "representational drift" is a cover-story phrase that neuroscientists have invented to excuse the failure of neuroscientists to produce consistent reports in favor of supposed non-genetic representations they claim to see in the brain (things that are almost certainly the result of mere pareidolia, as I discuss <a href="https://headtruth.blogspot.com/2023/12/neuroscientists-claim-drifting.html">here</a>). Early in the conference attendees were polled about their thoughts on this concept of "representational drift," and a significant fraction issued dismissive opinions, as if they thought that no such thing really existed. But by the end of the conference, according to the article, the minority group had vanished, and the attendees reported agreement. This seemed to be sociological effects at work. The experts holding the minority opinion got the message -- fall in line, and go with the herd. </span></p><p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: white; color: #111111; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px 0px 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">It seems that by groupthink effects a consensus emerged. The consensus was the groundless opinion that there are non-genetic representations in the brain that are drifting about. A correct analysis would have been that there is no evidence for any non-genetic representations in the brain, and that the reported "drifting" occurs because of the unreliability of reports of such representations. But we got a dumb opinion as the consensus. That often happens from little enclaves of experts where herd effects predominate. </span></p><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">A key factor driving the opinions of experts is "social proof." Social proof is when the likelihood of someone adopting a belief or doing something becomes proportional to how many other people adopted that belief of did that thing. If we were to write a kind of equation for social proof, it would be something like this:</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><i>Social proof of belief or action (s) = number of people believing that or doing that (x) multiplied by the average prestige of such people (y) multiplied by how much such people are like yourself (z).</i></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">If lots of people adopt a belief or do some thing, there will be a larger amount of social proof. If some of those people are famous or popular or prestigious or influential, there will be a larger amount of social proof. If some or lots of those people are like yourself, there will be a larger amount of social proof. So, for example, we might not be influenced if told that most Mongolians water their lawns every week, but if we live on Long Island, and we hear that most Long Island residents water their lawns every week, we may well start doing such a thing.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Given these factors, it is rather easy to see how erring overconfidence communities can get started in the academic world, even when the communities are rather tiny. A physics professor may advance some far-fetched theory, and get a few supporters among other physics professors. These few professors each has a high prestige, since our society has adulation for physics professors. If you are then another physics professor, you may be drawn into the overconfidence community which will already have two of the three “social proof” factors in its favor – because the few adherents are just like you, and are high-prestige people. So even with only a few believers, it may be possible for the overconfidence community to get started. The more people who start believing in the idea, the more of a “social proof” snowball effect is created.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span>When you belong to an overconfidence community, it can cast a spell on you, and make you accept bad reasoning you would never accept if you were outside of the community. Once you leave the community, there can be a kind of “<a href="https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/the+scales+fall+from+eyes" target="_blank">the scales fall from your eyes</a>” effect, and you can ask yourself: what was I thinking when I believed that? </span><span>In the future, as it becomes ever more clear that the members of overconfidence communities in academia are making unsound claims, and pretending to know things they don't actually know, there will be many people who drift out of such overconfidence communities, and experience “</span><a href="https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/the+scales+fall+from+eyes" target="_blank">the scales fall from your eyes</a><span>” moments. And in such moments the questions they will ask will be something like “what the hell was I thinking?” or “how could I have believed in something so unbelievable?”</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span><span>A recent survey of experts about the origins of COVID-19 gives us some reasons for doubting the opinions of experts. </span></span><span>The <a href="https://gcrinstitute.org/papers/069a_covid-origin-annex.pdf">survey</a> (mainly of virologists and epidemic experts, with about 15% being biosecurity experts) found that 21.5% thought that the cause of COVID-19 was a "research-related accident," with 77% percent saying a "natural zoonotic" event was the origin. Anyone considering such a survey should remember that the community of </span></span><span>virologists and epidemic experts is a vested interest, a group of stakeholders with career stakes affecting whether they would proclaim that COVID-19 had natural causes. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">The survey (Annex Table F3) asked the respondents about whether they were familiar with some of the key pieces of literature used by advocates of the different positions. The survey found that the vast majority of the experts (78%) were not familiar with one of the chief items of evidence used by advocates of the lab leak theory (the <a href="https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-grant-darpa/">DEFUSE grant proposal</a> that proposed risky gene-splicing research that might have produced something like the COVID-19 virus). </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">We are left with an impression of experts who form an opinion when there are two sides, but who don't bother to study the main evidence presented by those who oppose the opinion they hold. Nothing could be less surprising. A failure to study evidence in defiance of your opinions is one of the chief characteristics of experts. For example, in general neuroscientists who believe that you are just your brain and that you don't have a soul tend to be people who have never bothered to seriously study the very abundant evidence suggesting that you do have a soul (such as t<a href="https://archive.org/details/top-ghosts">he evidence for apparitions</a>, <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-enigma-of-veridical-near-death.html">out-of-body experiences</a> and <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2020/08/accounts-of-those-who-met-with-leonora.html">anomalous knowledge acquisition by mediums</a>). In the same survey, 33% of the respondents stated that they were familiar with a nonexistent study that the respondents had been asked about to test their honesty. </span></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-24941743193258912292024-02-14T17:50:00.000-08:002024-02-14T17:50:31.129-08:00Erring Experts #16<p> Here is the latest in a series of short videos I am making. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LOveWfeuJ6Q" width="320" youtube-src-id="LOveWfeuJ6Q"></iframe></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-28483877199429135562024-02-13T05:00:00.000-08:002024-02-13T09:39:40.914-08:00The Top 10 Unsolved Problems of Science: A Candid List<p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;">In general </span><span style="color: #2e2e2e; font-family: inherit;">scientists are bad at listing unsolved problems of science.</span></span><span style="color: #2e2e2e; font-family: inherit;"> Probably we can largely explain this on the grounds that scientists have several huge myths that they are trying to uphold. The first myth is the myth that the human mind can be explained by the brain. The second myth is that biological origins can all be explained by Darwinian evolution. The more candidly scientists list their unsolved problems, the harder it is to uphold such myths. And the more fully scientists describe unsolved problems of science, the harder it is to uphold such myths. </span></span></p><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #2e2e2e; font-family: inherit;">Consequently we see several different shortfalls:</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #2e2e2e; font-family: inherit;">(1) There rarely appear papers or lengthy thoughtful articles dealing intelligently and candidly with the topic of unsolved problems in science. </span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span><span style="color: #2e2e2e;">(2) When there appear articles or papers </span></span><span style="color: #2e2e2e;">dealing with the topic of unsolved problems in science, most of the problems discussed are usually not the main unsolved problems of science. </span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="color: #2e2e2e;">(3) </span><span><span style="color: #2e2e2e;">When there appear articles or papers </span></span><span style="color: #2e2e2e;">dealing with the topic of unsolved problems in science, the problems discussed tend to be discussed in a skimpy shorthand way, so that people will be unlikely to realize how big some particular explanatory shortfall is.</span></span></div><div><span style="color: #2e2e2e; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">(4) Scientists tend to avoid discussing anomalous phenomena they cannot explain.</span></div><div><span style="color: #2e2e2e; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">(5) Instead of using articles about unsolved problems in science as an opportunity for a rare display of humility, scientists often use such articles to try to perpetuate their unfounded boasts, engaging in "humble brags," which one dictionary defines as "an ostensibly modest or self-deprecating statement whose actual purpose is to draw attention to something of which one is proud." </span></div><div><span style="color: #2e2e2e; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: #2e2e2e; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">The latest example of a bad list of unsolved problems in science is an <a href="https://bigthink.com/13-8/open-questions-in-science/">article</a> on the Big Think site, one entitled "10 of the most mystifying open questions in science." We have some bad defects in the article by physicist Marcelo Gleiser:</span></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: #2e2e2e; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">While listing an unsolved problem of "What is the universe made of?" Gleiser turns the discussion into an unfounded boast that scientists understand that the universe is 27% dark matter and 68% dark energy, something that scientists don't actually know, because no one knows whether dark matter or dark energy even exist. </span></li><li><span style="color: #2e2e2e; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">It seems like Gleiser's sole mention of a problem of biology is listing the problem of the origin of life. All of biology is filled with unsolved problems, because scientists do not have any credible theory of the origin of any species, and also lack any credible explanation of the origin of any adult human organism, <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2021/02/why-we-do-not-understand-origin-of-any.html">there being no credible theory</a> of how a speck-sized zygote could progress to become the vast organization of the human body. </span></li><li><span style="color: #2e2e2e; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Gleiser lists as one of his ten biggest unsolved problems a problem he states as "what makes us human?" He acts as if he is puzzled by what makes a human different from a gorilla, asking, "So, what exactly differentiates us from them?" There are the most gigantic and obvious differences between humans and gorillas, so the discussion here makes no sense. </span></li><li><span style="color: #2e2e2e; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Gleiser lists as one of his ten biggest unsolved problems "what is consciousness?" This is not an unsolved problem. We know what consciousness is. </span></li><li><span style="color: #2e2e2e; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Gleiser lists as one of his ten biggest unsolved problems "why do we dream?" That is an interesting unsolved problem, but not at all one of the ten biggest unsolved problems of science. </span></li><li><span style="color: #2e2e2e; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Gleiser lists as one of his ten biggest unsolved problems "Are there other universes?" There are no observations anyone could have in this universe showing there are other universes. No matter how strange the event observed, it would merely be evidence for some mysterious reality in our own universe. So "are there other universes?" is not an unsolved problem of science, but some kind of metaphysical question. </span></li><li><span style="color: #2e2e2e; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Gleiser lists as one of his ten biggest unsolved problems "Where will we put all the carbon?" That is not one of the biggest unsolved problems of science. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #2e2e2e; font-family: inherit;">Gleiser lists as one of his ten biggest unsolved problems "How can we get more energy from the sun?" That is an engineering problem, not an unsolved problem of science. </span> </span></li></ul></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">You can make a much better list of unsolved problems in science if you pay no attention to the groundless boasts of scientists, and list problems without trying to cover up things that have embarrassing consequences for the dogmas of scientists. Below is such a list:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>(1) How are humans instantly able to retrieve lots of information after seeing a single sight or hearing a single name?</b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span>We take for granted the wonder of instant memory recall. A person can be shown a photo of a person, and instantly recite very many details about that person. Or a person may hear the name of another person or a place, and instantly recall many facts about that person or place. But instant memory recall should be impossible if our memories are stored in brains. If our memories were stored in our brains, there would be in the brain very many thousands of places where knowledge was stored, so how could you ever find exactly the right spot instantly to be able to retrieve the right information? We know fast retrieval can occur using things constructed by humans, such as books and computers, by the use of addressing, sorting and indexing. There is no addressing, sorting or indexing in the brain. Neurons don't have addresses, and the physical arrangement of the brain (with each neuron entangled with many others) makes a sorting of neurons impossible. For such reasons, scientists have zero understanding of how a brain could ever instantly find a memory. They also have zero understanding of how knowledge stored as neuron states or synapse states could ever be translated into some knowledge that would cause you to instantly start talking about some topic such as Napoleon or Venice once such a topic had been mentioned. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">Neuroscientist </span><a href="https://headtruth.blogspot.com/2022/05/seven-things-in-fast-retrieval-systems.html" style="background-color: white;">David Eagleman</a> put it this way: </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">"</span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">Memory retrieval is even more mysterious than storage. When I ask if you know Alex Ritchie, the answer is immediately obvious to you, and there is no good theory to explain how memory retrieval can happen so quickly.</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">" </span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>(2) How are the most complex cells able to reproduce?</b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Scientists do not understand how any complex cell like those in a human body is able to reproduce. Scientists list stages of cell reproduction, but listing stages of something is not an understanding how it occurs. If cells were simple things, we might have no big problem in understanding cell reproduction. But the cells in the human body are fantastically complex things consisting of very many thousands of subunits called organelles (of many different types). The complexity of cells has been compared to the complexity of a factory or the complexity of a full-sized jet aircraft. When a eukaryotic cell reproduces, it is therefore an event as astonishing as some 747 jet turning into two full-sized 747 jets. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">At a web page that is now a dead link, there was a confession about how scientists do not understand how cells are able to reproduce. The page stated this:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">"<i style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">Scientists have been trying to understand how cells are built since the 1800s. This does not surprise us and, as scientists ourselves, we have always been puzzled at how cells, such complex structures, are able to reproduce over and over again. Even more astonishing is that, despite the frequency of cell division, mistakes are relatively rare and almost always corrected. According to Professor David Morgan from University of California, the complexity that we observe in cells can be compared to that of airplanes."</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, Palatino Linotype, Palatino, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">One of the main reasons why scientists cannot explain how cells reproduce is that the DNA in the nucleus of cells does not contain any instructions for how to build a cell. Neither DNA nor its genes even specify how to make any of the organelles that are the main building components of cells. DNA merely specifies low-level chemical information such as which amino acids make up a protein. So we cannot at all explain the reproduction of cells by imagining that a cell reads from DNA some blueprint on how to make a cell. </span></span></div><div><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, Palatino Linotype, Palatino, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span></div><div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>(3) How did the 20,000+ types of protein molecules in the human body ever originate?</b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span>Living things require very many different types of protein molecules. In the human body there are more than 20,000 different types of protein molecules, each a different type of complex invention. Most types of protein molecules require hundreds of well-arranged amino acid parts, and that altogether requires thousands of very well-arranged atoms. How did such protein molecules originate? Scientists do not understand how this occurred. You do not have any credible explanation if you merely refer us to Darwin or natural selection or evolution. The problem is that the functional thresholds of protein molecules are very high, as is their sensitivity to losing function by small random changes, ruling out a Darwinian explanation for their origin, one appealing to an accumulation of countless tiny changes that are each useful. Darwin knew nothing about the complexity of protein molecules, and certainly did not explain their origin. For a good explanation of why Darwinism fails to explain the origin of protein molecules, read </span><span>computer scientist David Gelernter's widely discussed book review entitled "</span><a href="https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/giving-up-darwin/">Giving Up Darwin</a>."<span> I may note that in that book review, </span><span>Gelernter misstated the average amino acid length of a protein molecule, listing it as merely 250. For the type of cells humans have, the average length of a human protein molecule is <a href="https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-0500-5-85#:~:text=Eukaryotic%20proteins%20have%20an%20average,%2D40%25%20on%20average).">about 450</a>, meaning the probability of evolution producing a successful protein molecule (estimated by Gelernter as basically zero) is very, very many orders of magnitude smaller than </span><span>Gelernter suggests. As four Harvard scientists stated in a <a href="https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1606/1606.05802.pdf">paper</a>, </span></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span>"</span></b><span style="color: #222222;">A wide variety of protein structures exist in nature, however the evolutionary origins of this panoply of proteins remain unknown." </span></span></div></div><div><span style="color: #222222; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>(4) How do protein molecules fold correctly to form into the 3D shapes needed for their function, and why do they form into the organized protein complexes so often needed for them to function?</b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">DNA merely specifies which amino acids make up particular protein molecules, and does not specify the three-dimensional shapes that such molecules must have to function properly. How do protein molecules form into such shapes? That is the long-standing problem called the protein folding problem, and it has never been solved. Don't be fooled by false claims that some AlphaFold2 software solved the protein problem. Such software merely made progress on a different problem, called the protein folding prediction problem. The quotes below tell us the truth on this matter:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><ul style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px 2.5em;"><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"I</i><span style="color: #2e2e2e;"><i>n real time how the chaperones fold the newly synthesized polypeptide sequences into a particular three-dimensional shape within a fraction of second is still a mystery for biologists as well as mathematicians." </i> -- </span><span style="color: #2e2e2e;">Arun Upadhyay, </span><span style="color: #2e2e2e;">"</span><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610719300501" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">Structure of proteins: Evolution with unsolved mysteries</a>," 2019.</span></span></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"<b>The problem of protein folding is one of the most important problems of molecular biology</b>. A central problem (the so called Levinthal's paradox) is that the protein is first synthesized as a linear molecule that must reach its native conformation in a short time (on the order of seconds or less). The protein can only perform its functions in this (often single) conformation. The problem, however, is that the number of possible conformational states is exponentially large for a long protein molecule. Despite almost 30 years of attempts to resolve this paradox,<b> a solution has not yet been found</b>." -- </i>Two scientists, "<a href="https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/76390330/1_s2.0_S0079610717300846_main.pdf" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">On a generalized Levinthal's paradox</a>," 2018. </span></span></li></ul></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Very closely related to this problem is a problem we might call the protein complex formation problem. This is the problem of why it is that protein molecules so often form into very organized protein complexes needed for the protein molecules to be functional. Such complexes are often so organized they are called "molecular machines." We cannot explain their formation merely by referring to DNA. Neither DNA nor its genes specify which protein molecules belong to particular protein complexes, nor do they specify how the intricate arrangement should occur. Here are some relevant quotes: </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><ul style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px 2.5em;"><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>"<span style="color: #202020;">The majority of cellular proteins function as subunits in larger protein complexes. However, <b>very little is known about how protein complexes form</b> </span><span style="color: #202020;">in vivo</span></i><span style="color: #202020;"><i>."</i> Duncan and Mata, "</span><span style="color: #202020;"><a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002398" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">Widespread Cotranslational Formation of Protein Complexes,</a>" 2011.</span></span></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #202020; font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #1a1a1a;">"<i>While the occurrence of multiprotein assemblies is ubiquitous, the understanding of pathways that dictate the formation of quaternary structure remains enigmatic.</i>" -- Two scientists (<a href="https://portlandpress.com/biochemsoctrans/article-abstract/46/1/197/66505/Co-translational-control-of-protein-complex?redirectedFrom=fulltext" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">link</a>). </span></span></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #1a1a1a;">"</span><span style="color: #2a2a2a;"><i>A</i></span></span><span style="color: #262626;"><i> general theoretical framework to understand protein complex formation and usage is still lacking</i>." -- Two scientists, 2019 (l<a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1911028117" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">ink</a>). </span></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #262626;">"<i>Protein assemblies are at the basis of numerous biological machines by performing actions that none of the individual proteins would be able to do. There are thousands, perhaps millions of different types and states of proteins in a living organism, and the number of possible interactions between them is enormous...The strong synergy within the protein complex makes it irreducible to an incremental process. They are rather to be acknowledged as fine-tuned initial conditions of the constituting protein sequences. These structures are biological examples of nano-engineering that surpass anything human engineers have created. Such systems pose a serious challenge to a Darwinian account of evolution, since irreducibly complex systems have no direct series of selectable intermediates, and in addition, as we saw in Section 4.1, each module (protein) is of low probability by itself." -- S</i>teinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjerm,<i> </i></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">"</span><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems,"</a> Journal of Theoretical Biology</li></ul></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>(5) How are humans ever able to learn new things, and form new memories that can last a lifetime?</b></span></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Scientists have got nowhere in trying to explain how learning and the formation of new memories can occur by some change in a brain. Any sound bites they utter when being asked about such a thing are examples of vacuous hand-waving. When asked about how learning occurs, a scientist may mention LTP. LTP is an acronym misleadingly standing for long-term potentiation. This so-called long-term potentiation is actually a very short-lived effect typically lasting only hours or days. There is no good evidence that LTP is any brain mechanism for the creation of memories, and we have very good reasons for concluding that LTP cannot be any explanation for human memories that can last for decades. When scientists try to explain memory formation by mentioning "synapse strengthening," they are also engaged in vacuous hand-waving. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">There is nothing in a brain that can explain either the creation of memories or the persistence of memory for decades. The brain has nothing like some mobile read-write head that a computer may use to write data to some particular place, or read data from some particular place. No one has ever discovered any encoding system by which the very many types of things that humans learn and remember could ever be translated into neuron states or synapse states. The proteins that make up synapses (claimed to be a storage site for memory) have average lifetimes 1000 times shorter than the longest length of time humans can remember things (more than sixty years). </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Below are some relevant quotes:</span></div><div><ul style="background-color: white;"><li style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span><i><span><span style="color: #222222;">"</span></span></i></span><span style="color: #2e2e2e;"><i>Direct evidence that synaptic plasticity is the actual cellular mechanism for human learning and memory is lacking.</i>" -- 3 </span><span style="color: #2e2e2e;">scientists, "</span><span style="color: #2e2e2e;"><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959438818300692">Synaptic plasticity in human cortical circuits: cellular mechanisms of learning and memory in the human brain?</a>"</span><i><span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span></span></i></span></li><li style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">"</span><i>How the brain stores and retrieves memories is an important unsolved problem in neuroscience."</i> --Achint<span face="GillSansRegular, "Gill Sans MT", "Gill Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; text-wrap: nowrap;"> </span><span class="nlm-surname" face="GillSansRegular, "Gill Sans MT", "Gill Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-wrap: nowrap; vertical-align: baseline;">Kumar, "</span><a href="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.27.514001v1">A Model For Hierarchical Memory Storage in Piriform Cortex</a>." </span></li><li style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>"</span><span style="color: #282828;"><i><span style="background: rgb(247, 247, 247);">W</span></i></span><span style="color: #505050;"><i>e are still far from identifying the 'double helix' of memory—if one even exists. We do not have a clear idea of how long-term, specific information may be stored in the brain, into separate engrams that can be reactivated when relevant." -- Two scientists, "</i></span><span style="color: #505050;"><a href="https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(22)00306-4/fulltext">Understanding the physical basis of memory: Molecular mechanisms of the engram</a>."</span></span></li><li style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #505050;">"</span><i>There is no chain of reasonable inferences by means of which our present, albeit highly imperfect, view of the functional organization of the brain can be reconciled with the possibility of its acquiring, storing and retrieving nervous information by encoding such information in molecules of nucleic acid or protein.</i>" -- Molecular geneticist G. S. Stent, quoted in the paper <a href="https://gershmanlab.com/pubs/memory_synthesis.pdf">here</a>. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #31313b;">"<i>Up to this point, we still don’t understand how we maintain memories in our brains for up to our entire lifetimes.</i>” --</span>neuroscientist <a href="neuroscientist Sakina Palida">Sakina Palida</a>.</span></li><li style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">"</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-style: italic;"> If I wanted to transfer my memories into a machine, I would need to know what my memories are made of. But nobody knows." --</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"> </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;">neuroscientist Guillaume Thierry (<a href="https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/neuroscience-avatar-2/">link</a>). </span></span></li><li style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;">"</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit;"><i>The very first thing that any computer scientist would want to know about a computer is how it writes to memory and reads from memory....Yet we do not really know how this most foundational element of computation is implemented in the brain." -- </i>Noam Chomsky and Robert C. Berwick, "Why Only Us? Language and Evolution," <a href="https://archive.org/details/whyonlyuslanguag0000berw/page/50/mode/1up">page 50</a>. </span></span></li><li style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="color: #222222;"><span style="color: #3e3d40;">"</span></i></span><span style="color: #333132; font-family: inherit; font-style: italic;">We take up the question that will have been pressing on the minds of many readers ever since it became clear that </span><b style="color: #333132; font-family: inherit; font-style: italic;">we are profoundly skeptical about the hypothesis that the physical basis of memory is some form of synaptic plasticity, the only hypothesis that has ever been seriously considered by the neuroscience community</b><span style="color: #333132; font-family: inherit; font-style: italic;">. The obvious question is: Well, if it’s not synaptic plasticity, what is it? Here, we refuse to be drawn. </span><b style="color: #333132; font-family: inherit; font-style: italic;">We do not think we know what the mechanism of an addressable read/write memory is, and we have no faith in our ability to conjecture a correct answer.</b><span style="color: #333132; font-family: inherit; font-style: italic;">" -- </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Neuroscientists C. R. Gallistel and Adam Philip King, "Memory and the Computational Brain Why Cognitive Science Will Transform Neuroscience."</span><i style="font-family: inherit;"> <span style="color: #333132;"> <a href="https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/courses/lx400/Gallistel-King_chaps1-9.pdf">page Xvi (preface)</a>. </span></i></span></li><li style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i><span style="color: #333132;">"C</span><span>urrent theories of synaptic plasticity and network activity cannot explain </span>learning, memory, and cognition."</i> -- Neuroscientist Hessameddin Akhlaghpourƚ (<a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.08814">link</a>). </span></li><li style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i><span style="color: #333132;">"</span>We don’t know how the brain stores anything, let alone words</i>." -- Scientists David Poeppel and, William Idsardi, 2022 (<a href="https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(22)00206-6">link</a>).</span></li><li style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">"<i>If we believe that memories are made of patterns of synaptic connections sculpted by experience, and if we know, behaviorally, that motor memories last a lifetime, then how can we explain the fact that individual synaptic spines are constantly turning over and that aggregate synaptic strengths are constantly fluctuating? How can the memories outlast their putative constitutive components</i>?" --Neuroscientists Emilio Bizzi and Robert Ajemian (<a href="https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2112/2112.05362.pdf">link</a>).</span></li><li style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">"<i>After more than 70 years of research efforts by cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists, the question of where memory information is stored in the brain remains unresolved.</i>" -- Psychologist James Tee and engineering expert Desmond P. Taylor, "<i><a href="https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2112/2112.05362.pdf">Where Is Memory Information Stored in the Brain</a></i>?"</span></li><li style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i style="font-family: inherit;">"There is no such thing as encoding a perception...There is no such thing as a </i><i style="font-family: inherit;">neural code...Nothing that one might find in the brain could possibly be a representation </i><i style="font-family: inherit;">of the fact that one was told that Hastings was fought in 1066." -</i><span style="font-family: inherit;">- M. R. Bennett, Professor of Physiology at the University of Sydney (<a href="https://archive.org/details/philosophicalfou0000benn/page/167/mode/1up">link</a>).</span></span></li><li style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">"</span><i>No sense has been given to the idea of encoding or representing factual information in the neurons and synapses of the brain</i>." -- M. R. Bennett, Professor of Physiology at the University of Sydney (<a href="https://archive.org/details/philosophicalfou0000benn/page/169/mode/1up">link</a>).</span></li><li style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">"<i>We have still not discovered the physical basis of memory, despite more than a century of efforts by many leading figures." --</i>Neuroscientist C.R. Gallistel, "<a href="https://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/The_physical_basis_of_memory.pdf">The Physical Basis of Memory</a>," 2021.</span></li><li style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">"<span>To name but a few examples, <b><i>the formation of memories and the basis of conscious perception, crossing the threshold of awareness,</i></b> the interplay of electrical and molecular-biochemical mechanisms of signal transduction at synapses, the role of glial cells in signal transduction and metabolism, the role of different brain states in the life-long reorganization of the synaptic structure <b><i>or the mechanism of how cell assemblies generate a concrete cognitive function are all important processes that remain to be characterized</i></b>." -- "The coming decade of digital brain research, a 2023 <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7764003">paper</a> co-authored by more than 100 neuroscientists, one confessing scientists don't understand how a brain could store memories. </span></span></li></ul></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">(6) How is a speck-sized zygote ever able to progress to become the vast organization of an adult human body?</span></b></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">If someone defines a fertilized human egg as a human being, a definition that is very debatable, you might be able to say, "I understand the physical origin of a human being," and merely refer to a sperm uniting with an egg cell as such an origin. But a more challenging question is whether anyone understands the physical origin of an adult human being. The physical structure of an adult human being is a state of organization many millions of times more complex than a mere fertilized speck-sized egg cell. </span>(A human egg cell is about a tenth of a millimeter in length, but a human body occupies a volume of about 75 million cubic millimeters.) <span style="font-family: inherit;">So you don't explain the physical origin of an adult human being by merely referring to the fertilization of an egg cell during or after sexual intercourse. </span></p></span><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">We cannot explain the origin of an adult human body by merely using words such as "development" or "growth." Trying to explain the origin of an adult human body by merely mentioning a starting cell and mentioning "growth" or "development" is as vacuous as trying to explain the mysterious appearance of a building by saying that it appeared through "origination" or "construction." If we were to find some mysterious huge building on Mars, we would hardly be explaining it by merely saying that it arose from "origination" or by saying that it appeared through "construction." When a person tries to explain the origin of a human body by merely mentioning "growth" or "development" or "morphogenesis," he is giving as empty an explanation as someone who tells you he knows how World War II started, because he knows that it was caused by "historical events."</span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">There is a more specific account often told to try to explain the origin of an adult human body. The account goes something like this:</span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">"Every cell contains a DNA molecule that is a blueprint for constructing a human, all the information that is needed. So what happens is that inside the body of a mother, this DNA plan for a human body is read, and the body of a baby is gradually constructed. It's kind of like a construction crew working from a blueprint to make a building."</span></i></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The problem with this account is that while it has been told very many times, the story is just plain false. <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/02/why-we-were-told-so-often-huge-lie-that.html">There is no such blueprint for a human being</a> in human DNA. We know exactly what is in human DNA. It is merely low-level chemical information such as the sequence of amino acids that make up polypeptide chains that are the starting points of protein molecules. DNA does not specify anatomy. DNA is not a blueprint for making a human. DNA is not a recipe for making a human. DNA is not a program or algorithm for making a human. </span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Not only does DNA not specify how to make a human, DNA does not even specify how to make any organ or appendage or cell of a human. There are more than 200 types of cells in human beings, each an incredibly organized thing (cells are so complex they are sometimes compared to factories or cities). DNA does not specify how to make any of these hundreds of types of cells. Cells are built from smaller structural units called organelles. DNA does not even specify how to make such low-level organelles. </span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Below are some relevant quotes:</span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></p><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span><span><span style="color: #202020;">"<i>Y</i></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #212121;"><i>et while these are several examples of well-understood processes, our study of animal morphogenesis is really in its infancy</i>." -- </span></span><span style="color: #212121;">David Bilder and Saori L. Haigo1, "</span><span style="color: #212121;"><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3266552/">Expanding the Morphogenetic Repertoire: Perspectives from the Drosophila Egg</a>." </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><i>"Fundamentally, we have a poor understanding of how any internal organ forms.</i>" -- Timothy Saunders, developmental biologist (</span><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00018-x" style="background-color: white; color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">link</a>)<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="background-color: white;">.</span></span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-size: large;">"<i>B</i></span></span><span style="font-size: large;"><i>iochemistry cannot provide the spatial information needed to explain morphogenesis...Supracellular morphogenesis is mysterious...Nobody seems to understand the origin of biological and cellular order.</i>" -- Six medical authorities (<a href="https://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2006/684141.pdf">link</a>). </span></span></li></ul></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">(7) How is a human able to think and understand? </span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">Humans lack any understanding of how a human being is able to understand things. <span style="color: #222222;">Human understanding is not explained by brain activity. All attempts to<b> </b>explain human understanding by comparing the human brain to a computer are entirely fallacious, because computers do not understand anything. Computers process data and retrieve data and run computer programs, without having any understanding of anything. </span></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #222222;">Using the term "thinking" rather loosely, we can say that computers think in the sense of being able to perform logic and process data. But all attempts to explain human thinking by appealing to computers are fallacious. Computers are able to process data because they have various types of things that human brains do not have, such as an operating system and application software. Brains have no such things. </span></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br /></span></span></div><div>In fact, there is nothing in the human brain that can explain how humans can think and perform reasoning. Moreover, there are many humans who can think at a speed and reliability that should be impossible for any brain (as I discuss <a href="https://headtruth.blogspot.com/2021/02/exceptional-memories-strengthen-case.html">here</a>, <a href="https://headtruth.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-rare-total-recall-effect-that.html">here</a> and <a href="https://headtruth.blogspot.com/2021/02/exceptional-memories-strengthen-case.html">here</a>). The reliability and speed of any thinking occurring by a brain should be severely limited by three brain shortfalls:</div><div><br /></div><div>(1) Signals do not transmit across chemical synapses with 100% reliability, but instead transmit across chemical synapses with less than 50% reliability, as discussed <a href="https://headtruth.blogspot.com/2021/04/why-brain-should-be-unable-to-reliably.html">here</a>.</div><div>(2) There are <a href="https://headtruth.blogspot.com/2019/02/brains-store-memories-dogma-versus.html">many types of signal noise</a> within the brain that should very greatly limit the reliability of signal transmission in brains. </div><div>(3) There are many signal slowing factors within the brain (such as cumulative synaptic delays and the relatively slow transmission within dendrites) that <a href="https://headtruth.blogspot.com/2019/04/synaptic-delays-mean-brain-signals-must.html">should cause the average speed of brain signals to be relatively slow</a>, very roughly about 1 centimeter per second, way too slow to allow for very fast thinking. </div><div><br /></div><div>But despite such physical limitations, which should prevent reliable and fast thinking from occurring in any brain, it is a fact that many humans can perform very accurate math calculations at blazing fast speeds, as discussed in my post <a href="https://headtruth.blogspot.com/2022/11/exceptionally-fast-thinking-cannot-be.html">here</a>. In short, we do not know how humans are able to think or understand, and all claims that such things occur by brain processes are untenable. </div><div><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="color: #222222;"><br /></span></b></span></div><div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">(8) How were the cells and anatomy of any complex visible organism ever able to originate?</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div>For more than 100 years biologists have been teaching the groundless triumphal legend that the origin of species was explained by the 19th century biologist Charles Darwin<b>. </b>The claims were first vague, based on woolly notions that nature produces random variations and that the better variations survived more. Around the middle of the twentieth century, DNA was discovered, and the claims of Darwinists started to get more specific. They started to teach that DNA of organisms had a blueprint or recipe or program for making the organisms, and that the random variations were mutations in which the subunits of DNA were randomly changed. The story <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/02/why-we-were-told-so-often-huge-lie-that.html">was a big lie from the beginning</a>. No blueprint or recipe or program for making an organism's body had ever been discovered in DNA. </div><div><br /></div><div>By now DNA has been thoroughly studied and analyzed by big projects such as the Human Genome Project. We now know that neither DNA nor its genes have any blueprint or recipe or program for making an organism or any of its organs or even any of its cells. So how did the fantastically complex anatomy of any visible organism arise? We do not know. How did any large multicellular organism get any of its cells. We do not know. The answer is not to be found in any ideas of evolution or natural selection. </div><div><br /></div><div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">(9) How was human language ever able to originate?</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">There does not exist any credible theory of the origin of human language. Any attempt to naturally explain the origin of human language faces insurmountable difficulties. One difficulty is that the establishment of a language in a particular place requires a kind of very elaborate social compact in which many people agree that a very complex set of rules will be followed. But there is no way to explain how so complex a social compact could have got started unless there already existed a language. So once you have a group of humans using a language, you can explain them adopting a new language. But you could never explain the origin of the first language. It's a situation that can be described as "it takes a language to establish a language." The difficulty is discussed at greater length in my <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2018/01/why-origin-of-language-is-inexplicable.html">post</a> "Why the Origin of Language Is Inexplicable Under Orthodox Assumptions." </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">(10) Why does there occur the many well-established things that so many scientists senselessly refuse to believe in?</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div>Here I could list innumerable types of paranormal phenomena which we have many decades of very good observational evidence for, including ESP, clairvoyance, near-death experiences, spiritual manifestations near mediums, out-of-body experiences, and so forth. I could also list the simple existence of a unified human self, something that could not be more obvious from direct personal experience, but which many a scientist senselessly denies because he has no credible explanation of how such a thing could arise from billions of tiny chemical reactions or electricity fluctuations coming from neurons. </div></span></div></div></div></span></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHgE_lWLciGscgTwtneziGYvEDmU1BStFqlOx5ftg1eSDdNnVyEnx09hXZXvap75znlitb0ZEw3l8T14P64FtssWpnktU-xgHEMv1qmu1UDDVud11zahAL3OZAY32gNyHTmyIzh-rHFtFHCYZVAjeOgdAKQ_TdSdNDQEaXhVzf175PZgcYKri9iHQWWXY2/s834/biology_unsolved_problems.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="834" data-original-width="753" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHgE_lWLciGscgTwtneziGYvEDmU1BStFqlOx5ftg1eSDdNnVyEnx09hXZXvap75znlitb0ZEw3l8T14P64FtssWpnktU-xgHEMv1qmu1UDDVud11zahAL3OZAY32gNyHTmyIzh-rHFtFHCYZVAjeOgdAKQ_TdSdNDQEaXhVzf175PZgcYKri9iHQWWXY2/s320/biology_unsolved_problems.jpg" width="289" /></span></a></div><br /></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-8310715818162819852024-02-09T05:30:00.000-08:002024-02-09T07:50:47.685-08:00Fade-Out of the "DNA as Body Blueprint" Myth?<p><span style="font-size: large;">On Monday we had the appearance of an <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00327-x">article</a> in the leading science journal <i>Nature</i>, one entitled "It’s time to admit that genes are not the blueprint for life." The article was by biologist Denis Noble, and it tells us something contrary to what we have been told endless times by biologists who misled us about DNA.</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiDc6gMeC9ahTmZmU2PaEaf9uULLQy5Kfeks6xVmxfmWWRXW17a-AI7Bbo_clTNg0LCirowSNtEHvsSsuSYNNm6a1SEmlfcxG71cWK9aYndF7Pg14WmUFeVVE9R6J_KGSekOYBo-WF5KVpBQV7uXTLnWbObkh5KLnSrtfcGiI2-zE1DIH5vnzlbUOD5ar6/s976/temp.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img alt="DNA is not a body blueprint" border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="976" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiDc6gMeC9ahTmZmU2PaEaf9uULLQy5Kfeks6xVmxfmWWRXW17a-AI7Bbo_clTNg0LCirowSNtEHvsSsuSYNNm6a1SEmlfcxG71cWK9aYndF7Pg14WmUFeVVE9R6J_KGSekOYBo-WF5KVpBQV7uXTLnWbObkh5KLnSrtfcGiI2-zE1DIH5vnzlbUOD5ar6/w400-h263/temp.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: large;">The appearance of this article is possibly a big deal, but not because it is some new assessment by Denis Noble. In my long list of statements by scientists who have denied that DNA or its genes are a blueprint or recipe or program for making a human body, contained in my post <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/02/why-we-were-told-so-often-huge-lie-that.html">here</a>, I have had for quite a while this item: "<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: inherit;">On the web site of the well-known biologist Denis Noble, we </span><a href="https://denisnoble.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/De-Mul-2016-Noble-versus-Dawkins.pdf" style="background-color: white; color: #2288bb; font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">read</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: inherit;"> that 'the whole idea that genes contain the recipe or the program of life is absurd, according to Noble,' and that we should understand DNA 'not so much as a recipe or a program, but rather as a database that is used by the tissues and organs in order to make the proteins which they need.' "</span></span><div><span style="color: #222222; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #222222;">The reason why the appearance of Monday's article in <i>Nature</i> is possibly a big deal is simply the fact that an article with this headline "</span><span>It’s time to admit that genes are not the blueprint for life" </span><span style="color: #222222;">has appeared in the journal <i>Nature</i>. The journal <i>Nature</i> is one of the key gatekeepers that helps control the opinions of scientists. The editors of the journal</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><i style="color: #222222;">Nature</i><span style="color: #222222;"> have enormous power in shaping what scientists think. In many cases scientists act like a herd that runs in the same direction. </span><span style="color: #222222;">The editors of the journal</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><i style="color: #222222;">Nature</i><span style="color: #222222;"> can sometimes be like some sheep herder in front of such a herd, pointing it to go in some particular direction. This is what seemed to happen during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Early in the pandemic an article appeared in </span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><i style="color: #222222;">Nature</i><span style="color: #222222;"> suggesting there was a natural origin for the COVID-19 pandemic. Once the article appeared, it seemed like for the next six months scientists were thinking to themselves, "We have received our marching orders -- we all must say that COVID-19 arose naturally, not from any lab leak." </span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span><div><span><br /></span></div>I am glad to see that the leading scientific journal <i>Nature </i>now has a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00327-x">headline</a> proclaiming an extremely important claim I have been making over and over on this blog since 2018. In February 2018 I published my long <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-gigantic-missing-link-of-biological.html">post</a> "The Gigantic Missing Link of Biological Life" in which I discussed at length "<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "times new roman", serif;">6 reasons for thinking that DNA is neither a blueprint nor a recipe nor a program for making human beings." Genes are particular subunits of DNA, and saying that </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "times new roman", serif;"> DNA is neither a blueprint nor a recipe nor a program for making human beings is the same thing as saying that genes are </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "times new roman", serif;">neither a blueprint nor a recipe nor a program for making human beings. I followed up that 2018 post with quite a few other posts arguing the same thing, such as my July 2018 <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2018/07/why-dna-cannot-be-specification-of-human.html">post</a> "Why DNA Cannot Be a Specification of a Human," my February 2021 <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2021/02/why-we-do-not-understand-origin-of-any.html">post</a> "</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times new roman, serif;">Why We Do Not Understand the Origin of Any Adult Human Being," </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "times new roman", serif;">and my February 2022 <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/02/why-we-were-told-so-often-huge-lie-that.html">post</a> "</span><span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times new roman, serif;">Why We Were Told So Often the Huge Lie That DNA Is a Specification for Building Humans." </span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times new roman, serif;">In those posts I explained the main reasons why we must reject the commonly made claim that DNA is a blueprint or recipe or program for building a human body. Rather than restating the long content of my February 2018 <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-gigantic-missing-link-of-biological.html">post</a>, I will merely restate the reasons I stated in that post, each of which I backed up with several paragraphs of supporting text:</span></span></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "times new roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Reason #1: The “language” used by DNA is a minimal feature-poor language lacking any grammar or capability for expressing anything like a blueprint, a recipe, a program or an algorithm for making a human being.</span></span></li><li><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "times new roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Reason #2: Even if the “language” used by DNA had the capability of expressing a blueprint or recipe or program for making a human, there would be nothing that we know of capable of interpreting such instructions.</span></span></li><li><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "times new roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Reason #3: Despite cataloging the entire human genome, and exhaustively analyzing it, scientists have not discovered any part of DNA where a blueprint of the human body or a recipe for making humans is stored.</span></span></li><li><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "times new roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Reason #4: If DNA stored a human blueprint or human recipe or body plan, humans would have a much larger DNA than simpler organisms; instead, the opposite is often true.</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Reason #5: The DNA size of humans is insufficient to be a blueprint or recipe for the human body with all its complexities.</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Reason #6: If DNA stored a recipe or blueprint for making humans, we would probably sometimes see extremely jumbled bodies resulting from mutations, but we don't see such “scrambled humans.”</span></span></li></ul></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">I included in the posts above a collection of dozens of quotes by scientists and doctors denying the commonly stated but untrue claim that DNA or its genes are a recipe, blueprint or program for making a human body. The lie that DNA is a specification for making a human body is told in various forms, all equally false:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><ul style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: medium; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px 2.5em;"><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Many described DNA or the genome as a blueprint for an organism.</span></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Many said DNA or the genome is a recipe for making an organism.</span></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Many said DNA or the genome is a program for building an organism, making an analogy to a computer program.</span></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Many claimed that DNA or genomes specify the anatomy of an organism. </span></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Many claimed that genotypes (the DNA in organisms) specify phenotypes (the observable characteristics of an organism).</span></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span>Many claimed that</span> genotypes (the DNA in organisms) "map" phenotypes (the observable characteristics of an organism) or "map to" phenotypes.</span></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Many claimed that DNA contains "all the instructions needed to make an organism."</span></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Many claimed that there is a "genetic architecture" for an organism's body or some fraction of that body. </span></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Using a little equation, many claimed that a "genotype plus the environment equals the phenotype," a formulation as false as the preceding statements, since we know of nothing in the environment that would cause phenotypes to arise from genotypes that do not specify such phenotypes. </span></li></ul></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Will the article just published by the leading scientific journal <i>Nature</i> convince many biologists to realize the claim of its title that "</span><span>It’s time to admit that genes are not the blueprint for life"? Maybe not. The author (biologist Denis Noble) does flatly state that while "</span><span>many thought that it [DNA] would prove to be an 'instruction manual' for life, " the result was actually that "the genome turned out to be no blueprint." But he fails to explain the reasons why DNA (the human genome) cannot possibly be any blueprint, recipe or specification for making a human, some of which I list above.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Noble gives us a not-too-disturbing little story that may not cause his scientist readers to lose much sleep. It's a bland story that has a sound of "we have to revise our ideas because things are a lot more complicated than we thought" story. But it is no new findings about DNA and genes that are the main reason why "DNA as a body blueprint" must be discarded. The main reasons for rejecting that claim have been clear since the 1950's. They are mainly (1) DNA and genes use a coding system (the genetic code) that is capable of expressing only low-level chemical information such as which amino acids belong to a protein, and utterly incapable of higher-level representation such as depicting the very complex three-dimensional structures of cells, organs and bodies; (2) no one ever found in DNA any sign of anything being represented other than very low-level chemical information. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjh-iZCAEX_QczYlt69xy10SNz8MlYERI-uRfbQiQryzElUsiXFL8YLIDYp17lJ7XOq8MW81XTzR0qutlisOHVj4hqDnaEDQoVnWEflRrPlSuLYCxVR3Xj6uCqCdrWXfKWdmL1RjIGMYr1wUzxqTer3Hm3SzqC90LCJp5WGPBgB7XEB55dgR2E_GXobD3uL/s606/GeneticCode.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="606" data-original-width="589" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjh-iZCAEX_QczYlt69xy10SNz8MlYERI-uRfbQiQryzElUsiXFL8YLIDYp17lJ7XOq8MW81XTzR0qutlisOHVj4hqDnaEDQoVnWEflRrPlSuLYCxVR3Xj6uCqCdrWXfKWdmL1RjIGMYr1wUzxqTer3Hm3SzqC90LCJp5WGPBgB7XEB55dgR2E_GXobD3uL/s320/GeneticCode.jpg" width="311" /></span></a></div></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>The genetic code, which can express only chemicals, not 3D structures </i></span></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Contrary to the rather bland impression created by Noble's article, the </span><span> </span><span>fact that DNA is no blueprint for building the human body or any of its cells is a fact with the most gigantic implications. </span><span>That fact has implications as gigantic as the implications of the fact that huge amounts of energy can be released from splitting atoms. </span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Human bodies are fantastically organized in a hierarchical manner. A human body is built from organ systems and a skeletal systems. Organs are built from tissues, which are built from enormously organized cells, which are built from very organized organelles, which are built from very organized protein complexes, which are built from very organized protein molecules, which are built from amino acids that somehow arrange into special three-dimensional shapes needed for the molecules to function properly. DNA merely specifies low-level chemical information such as which amino acids make up proteins. DNA (the same as the genome, and consisting mainly of genes) does not specify anything more than the lowest level in this chain of hierarchical organization. DNA does not even specify how to make any human cell, or where any cell in the body should go to. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">So how do all of those other levels of organization arise? That is something scientists cannot explain. Their failure to explain such levels of organization has gigantic implications. The higher levels of organization in the human body (beyond any possible genetic explanation) point to some intelligent organizing agency beyond the understanding of mechanistic science. The fact that we have bodies so fantastically organized (in a way that DNA cannot explain) utterly discredits all claims that the origin of humans is understood. Because no DNA changes can explain how we got our bodies, a correct assessment of the limits of DNA smashes the credibility of the idea that humans arose because of some chance favorable DNA mutations in the past. The lack of any DNA blueprint or recipe or program for making a human leads to the shocking conclusion that we understand neither the origin of the human species nor the physical origin of any adult body. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdn6_2yTYW_frAv1OH-RjzfTnd9BDcNAxJbITC_6OlRWihdH58oe07bNLCGhvbc5c_h4RRvanmRhCItlnix9JQygqm0QVPSgT5nWKfsPhIQvZ8PPZZsRQqe-xEuSZWcR15vKWRpoIET_4Bkt3jHUkGV08S5F4DTA8ORo1Tr5bEWJ8kOJz6SFBTXjlbHVQ9/s530/pyramid_of_biological_complexity3.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="477" data-original-width="530" height="288" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdn6_2yTYW_frAv1OH-RjzfTnd9BDcNAxJbITC_6OlRWihdH58oe07bNLCGhvbc5c_h4RRvanmRhCItlnix9JQygqm0QVPSgT5nWKfsPhIQvZ8PPZZsRQqe-xEuSZWcR15vKWRpoIET_4Bkt3jHUkGV08S5F4DTA8ORo1Tr5bEWJ8kOJz6SFBTXjlbHVQ9/s320/pyramid_of_biological_complexity3.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><span><i>We don't know how the last seven layers of organization arise</i></span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><span>Sometimes after pointing out how little of the human body is explained by DNA and its genes, people will say something such as, "There are many external environmental factors that can influence development." Such factors (such as nutrition) can influence the course of development, but do not explain how a human body ends up so organized. What we need to explain the origin of a human body is a gigantic organizing effect, and "environmental factors" are not an organizing effect. </span><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Noble does give us this very good quote: "It’s time to stop pretending that, give or take a few bits and pieces, we know how life works." That does get to the heart of the matter. We do not know how life works. We do not know how any human cell is able to reproduce. We do not know how any human body is able to arise through some progression from a speck-sized zygote to the vast organization of the human body, an organization not specified in DNA or its genes. The physical origin of every human body is a miracle of organization a thousand miles over the heads of today's scientists. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">To help understand the situation, let us imagine some other universe where there live only beings of pure energy, who all have a spherical shape. Imagine if someone were to teleport to such beings a newly fertilized human ovum, a speck-sized zygote, in some way that caused this gift to attract great attention. Even if the beings had fantastic powers of investigating matter, they would be unable to predict the significance of the newly teleported speck. They might be able to read all of the information in DNA, but this would not give them any basis for being able to predict that the speck would progress to become a human body, something they had never seen. Nothing they could discover in the DNA would give them any basis for concluding or even suspecting that the speck-sized zygote could progress to become a walking, talking, thinking human being. In fact, they would have no basis for even concluding that any type of very complex and large mobile organism would develop from such a speck-sized zygote. Such beings would find no instructions in DNA for making any of the 200 types of cells in the human body, nor any instructions for causing such cells to reach proper destinations in a human body, nor any instructions for making eyes, ears, a circulatory systems, a digestive systems or legs, arms and a head. If such beings had never witnessed anything like the nine months of human development, they would never predict such a development would occur from any analysis of a speck-sized zygote or its DNA or its genes. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The idea that the origin of our bodies can be explained because DNA has a blueprint for making bodies was always a very childish myth, for the simple reason that <i>blueprints don't build thing</i>s. Very complex things can get built with the help of blueprints only where there are intelligent construction workers who get ideas about how to build things by reading blueprints. But below the neck of a human we know of nothing corresponding to an intelligent construction worker capable of understanding a blueprint for building a human body (something that would be so complex that the smartest professor would not be able to understand it, given the endless abstruse complexities of human anatomy, human cells and human biochemistry). </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Despite the hopeful sign of the appearance of Noble's article in <i>Nature</i>, I have no great hopes that our biologists will soon stop teaching the myth that DNA is a body blueprint. For reasons I discuss <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/02/why-we-were-told-so-often-huge-lie-that.html">here</a>, that myth is so useful in propagating materialist ideology that biologists will probably be very slow to abandon it. Because "DNA is a body blueprint" is the lie that materialist biologists very much need to tell to help fool us into believing their boasts about understanding human origins, we will probably keep hearing this lie many additional times. We will probably continue to have for quite a while a situation like the situation that has existed for years, one in which the left hand of biology is telling us that DNA is a blueprint or recipe or program for making a human body, and the right hand of biology is telling us that DNA is no such thing. The right hand of biology is telling us the truth about this matter. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But who knows: there just might be a "sea change" that leaves the old "DNA as body blueprint" myth dead and buried. Let's not forget the example of the Soviet Union. For more than 70 years in the Soviet Union, authorities kept telling lies such as the lie that Lenin had established a worker's paradise. Then somehow around 1991 there was a sudden "sea change," and the old ideological regime collapsed. People in Russia rather suddenly stopped telling the old lies that had been told incessantly for 70 years. Herds can suddenly start moving in a new direction, as large numbers have a kind of "the scales fell off my eyes" effect. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The visual below illustrates the ridiculous situation in today's biology. Shown are search results I got on the first page of results, after asking Google "is DNA a blueprint for making a human body?" Half of the results are false, and half of the results are true. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiac3c3iB0Dg6dcCbSExJHsJalqpM0xF6NM55LFjgawrLPT3q4CbBMetxCODUe8KOzma0qFNUuA94jl2A3PQWRsHIHN5kkH9FywyNtsmps4bOaz3MdX5G7Ijk0CDTP7E3b_J3Gx6OPbiW4SVvUKBAewJ_yumgdh0LQoLpIMAaewyvPhojIxka4-0HR-ev5B/s792/GoogleAnswers.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="scientists teaching false thing" border="0" data-original-height="792" data-original-width="731" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiac3c3iB0Dg6dcCbSExJHsJalqpM0xF6NM55LFjgawrLPT3q4CbBMetxCODUe8KOzma0qFNUuA94jl2A3PQWRsHIHN5kkH9FywyNtsmps4bOaz3MdX5G7Ijk0CDTP7E3b_J3Gx6OPbiW4SVvUKBAewJ_yumgdh0LQoLpIMAaewyvPhojIxka4-0HR-ev5B/w369-h400/GoogleAnswers.jpg" width="444" /></a></div></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">"DNA as body blueprint" is only one of several giant myths of biology. Another giant myth of biology is the idea that brains explain human minds. Just as we see here and there signs that some scientists are starting to pay attention to the many enormous reasons why <a href="https://headtruth.blogspot.com/">brains cannot explain the human mind</a>, we see signs here and there that many scientists are starting to pay attention to the reasons why DNA cannot be a blueprint or recipe or program for making the human body or any of its cells. The person who has had either of these realizations will be more likely to have the other. The startling reality is that scientists can credibly explain neither the origin of any human mind nor the origin of any adult human body. Their failure to explain these things is something with the most gigantic philosophical implications, for the failure leads inexorably to the idea that we must all be the products of some sublime reality vastly greater than ourselves or our parents. </span></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-62245348161063046722024-02-07T11:37:00.000-08:002024-02-07T11:37:19.932-08:00Erring Experts #13<p> Here is the latet in a series of short videos I am making. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JVQlNK0xvhM" width="320" youtube-src-id="JVQlNK0xvhM"></iframe></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-351649106381362752024-02-05T06:00:00.000-08:002024-02-05T17:53:09.539-08:00"Previous Earthly Intelligence" UFO Theory Worsens the Explanatory Difficulties<p><span style="font-size: large;">Philosopher Bernardo Kastrup early this year wrote a long <a href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2024/01/uaps-and-non-human-intelligence-what-is.html">article</a> entitled "UAPs and Non-Human Intelligence: What is the most reasonable scenario?" Contrary to the typical claim that UFOs are from some other planet, Kastrup argues for the idea that UFOs come from some intelligent life that previously evolved on Earth. There is a good alternative to the "metal spaceships from other planets" idea of UFOs, but that alternative is not the implausible theory Kastrup suggests. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Kastrup starts by citing some recent reports about UFOs that seem hard-to-explain. He quotes some 2023 evidence that is mostly not first-class observational evidence. He mentions some blurry videos released by the Pentagon, and some testimony before the US Congress by pilot David Fravor, pilot Ryan Graves and intelligence analyst David Grusch. For reasons I discuss at length in my post <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/08/analyzing-most-shocking-parts-of-us.html">here</a>, the testimony of the July hearing before the US Congress was not very compelling as evidence because it was mainly second-hand stuff. Grusch claimed that he has heard people say sensational things about captured UFOs. Similarly, Fravor's testimony was mostly second-hand testimony of what others supposedly saw, not first-hand testimony of what he saw first-hand (although he did give one "juicy" description of a first-hand sighting of the so-called "tic tac" UFO). Graves presented no clear first-hand testimony, although he made some ambiguous "we" references that may or may not have been about what he personally saw. </span><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="font-size: large;"><span>In his three paragraphs discussing the testimony of Fravor, Graves and Grusch, Kastrup sounds too impressed by the mostly second-hand congressional testimony of </span><span>Fravor, the not-clearly first-hand testimony of Graves, and the entirely second-hand testimony of Grusch.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Someone following best practices in analyzing claims of the paranormal will tend to act differently, by paying the closest attention to whether an account is first-hand and whether it was written or committed to video very soon after the observations. Accounts in which people wrote down what they saw (or recited what they saw) soon after they saw it and publicly published their account are examples of first-class observational evidence. Some account in which someone says he heard something from someone else (who he does not mention) at some unspecified time is an example of second-class or third-class evidence. In the early part of his article, Kastrup writes as if he is not looking for the hallmarks of first-class observational evidence, and acts like he is very impressed by some second-class or third-class evidence. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>We then hear from Kastrup this very dubious claim: </span><span>"</span><span>Recently retired US Army Colonel Karl E. Nell—currently an aerospace executive—along with Christopher Mellon, who spent nearly twenty years in the US Intelligence Community and served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for Intelligence, have lent credibility to the claim that there are active UAP crash-retrieval and reverse-engineering programmes." Within this quote he links to a <a href="https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/">Debrief.com article</a> by Leslie Kean in which we actually hear nothing of substance by Karl E. Nell backing up claims that there are "</span><span>active UAP crash-retrieval and reverse-engineering programmes." The Kean article merely quotes Nell as saying that he think Grusch's claim about such things is correct. Kastrup's claim that Nell has "lent credibility" to </span><span>Grusch's claim about such things is not correct, based on the link Kastrup has given. It sounds like what may be a mere case of wild rumors spreading around that both Nell and Grusch believe in. In the same Kean article Mellon says nothing very substantial, just more claims to have heard interesting stuff from other people. Some of the reasons why Grusch's claims have yet been well-supported are discussed <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/06/the-implausibility-of-claims-us-got.html">here</a>. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>After citing a video which may or may not show a metallic orb moving around mysteriously, Kastrup makes this claim: "</span><span>I submit to you that the following tentative premises are justifiable: firstly, there is an engineered technology in our skies and oceans that is not human." Nothing that Kastrup has discussed in his previous paragraphs justifies the claim that we have discovered examples of "engineered technology" that is not human. Very many reports have been made of strange things in the sky, but no one has shown that they are produced by "an engineered technology," nor has anyone proven that UFOs or UAPs are of non-human origin. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Shortly thereafter, Kastrup continues further in his "nuts-and-bolts" line of thinking, saying, "</span><span>if there is non-human technology in our skies and oceans, then there must be Non-Human Intelligences (NHIs) active on our planet, engineering and controlling the UAPs." No, mysterious things appearing in the sky do not have to be the result of engineering and technology. When such things seem to act purposefully, we may be entitled to presume that there is some kind of agency or power behind such things. But we are not entitled to presume that there is engineering and technology involved. Humans accomplish impressive things by </span><span>engineering and technology, but some non-human power could have different ways of accomplishing things. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Consider the supposedly metallic orb that Kastrup mentions. We have no reason to presume that inside such a thing is some fancy technology or electronics causing it to move around in such a way. A sufficiently advanced power (divine, extra-dimensional, extra-terrestrial or angelic) might have the power to move around in the sky rocks or spheres of solid metal. The words "technology" and "engineering" are presumptuous and too-specific when talking about the cloudy realm of mysterious things seen in the sky. It's much better to use more general terms such as "agency," "power" or "purpose." </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Kastrup then discusses some work by UFO researcher Jacques Vallee discussing how UFO observations go back very far in history, and discussing how there often seems to be a psychic or psychological aspect of such sightings or encounters. In my post <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/10/quite-few-so-called-alien-abductions.html">here</a> I discuss the high number of cases in which UFO encounters seem to have a spiritual or paranormal character. Kastrup seems to fail to realize that such a discussion undermines his very claim that UFO/UAP observations involve an encounter with a "technology" or "engineering." Ignoring what he discussed in his paragraphs mentioning Vallee, Kastrup goes back to his "nuts and bolts" thinking, saying this:</span></p><p><i><span style="font-size: large;"><span>"</span><span>One clearly discernible class of observations, which I shall henceforth refer to as ‘nuts-and-bolts’ UAPs, entails physical craft that can not only consistently be seen, filmed, and tracked by radar, but also—if we are to believe Mr. Grusch’s informants and other sources in a position to plausibly know—stored in hangars for decades, drilled into, analysed under a scanning electron microscope, etc. The bodies of their occupants can also—again, if we are to believe the sources—be kept in freezers and harvested for biochemical analysis. This means that the phenomenon in question has a physical aspect as consistent and stable as our own body and the car in our garage." </span></span></i></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There is no robust evidence that anything stored in freezers or "</span><span style="font-size: large;">analysed under a scanning electron microscope" has anything to do with UFO or UAP sightings. Rather than making a deep dive into the area of reports of the paranormal, such as you might do by citing very many original source materials, and rather than having the most careful search for first-class first-hand testimony of what was seen shortly before the testimony was given, Kastrup seems to be believing in not-well-established second-hand or third-hand accounts of weird things like alien bodies in freezers, accounts that could be mere wild rumors. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Kastrup then announces he will first ignore all the Jacques Vallee-style cases of UFO encounters that sound like encounters with spiritual beings, and he will pay attention to "nuts and bolts" type cases. Kastrup then leaps to the idea that UFOs and UAP come from some beings "terrestrial and ancient." He states this:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">"<i>The idea is as follows: our planet has existed for about 4.5 billion years, with life on it for about 4 billion years. The genus Homo, to which we belong, has been around for less than 3 million of those 4 billion years; the blink of an eye in geological terms. And modern humans—Homo sapiens—for just 2 or 3 hundred thousand years. There is, thus, plenty of time and opportunity for other non-human species to have arisen on Earth, developed to a level of technology far beyond ours...My claim is that, based on what we know, such civilisations are not impossible or inconsistent with the geological record....Such a culture will be wary of the planet’s surface, for the latter is a notoriously exposed and volatile region: it undergoes far more extreme temperature swings then, say, the deep oceans and underground caves; it is prone to severe weather that can ruin crops and flood entire cities; it is exposed to irradiation from solar storms and other cosmic events, which can ruin technology and life; it is extremely vulnerable to comet and asteroid impact, as the dinosaurs found out; etc. And since such a post-apocalyptic culture would have been reduced to relatively few members, their requirements for living space would also be relatively modest. Depending on the surviving level of their technology, they could have made a home for themselves underwater or underground."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So now we have the core of Kastrup's UFO theory. He theorizes that UFOs come from some earthly civilization that arose long ago, and then for some reason started to live deep underground or at the bottom of the ocean. It's a very implausible idea that rather reminds me of the plot of the cheesy low-budget 1950's movie <i>Superman and the Mole Men, </i>about strange humanoid creatures living very deep underground. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We can imagine no reason why some non-human civilization arising long ago would have moved to live deep underground or at the bottom of the ocean. The speculative reasons Kastrup gives are not credible. Given that the surface of planet Earth is such a great source of beauty, fresh water and solar energy that helps drive agriculture, we cannot reasonably imagine some creatures arising millions of years ago saying something like, "Let's all move deep underground -- our culture will be safer from asteroids or solar flares." As for the idea of some civilization moving to the bottom of the ocean, Kastrup seems to have forgotten about the crushing pressure that exists in such an area. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Individual members of a society do what is best for them as individuals. It is extremely implausible to imagine that members of some civilization existing on the surface of Earth would have all abandoned the surface of Earth (with all its beauties and pleasures and advantages) to move underground or to the bottom of the ocean, because of some alleged better survivability of their culture over a vast time frame. And you never would make any culture more survivable by abandoning the surface of a planet. You might increase the </span><span>survivability of a culture by having, say, 10% of it move underground. But there are so many disadvantages in moving underground or undersea that you would never increase the chance of a species surviving by having all of it flee the surface of a planet. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Besides the fact that it is so implausible to imagine some earlier race of civilized beings all moving underground or undersea as Kastrup postulates, there is another huge credibility problem with his theory. The problem is that if you imagine such a theory, it multiplies the explanatory difficulty of explaining the arising of intelligence on planet Earth. Scientists lack any credible explanation for the appearance of any mammal species on our planet. The claim that such appearances are explained by Darwin's ideas is one of the many groundless boasts of biologists. Darwin never advanced any credible theory of the origin of very complex and very well-organized biological organisms, and his idea that such things are explained by mere random variation and survival of the fittest was an explanation attempt as lightweight as a fortune-cookie slogan. The more we have learned about the stratospheric levels of hierarchically organized and information-rich fine-tuned functional complexity in creatures such as humans, the more untenable Darwin's explanations seem. </span><span>Anatomically uninformative DNA, nonfunctional intermediates and useless early stages are some of <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2020/06/useless-early-stages-nonfunctional.html">the reasons why Darwin-style gradualism does not work</a> as an explanation for bodies and biochemistry as fine-tuned and organized as humans have. </span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Darwinism never had any credible explanation for the origin of the intellectual riches of the human mind. This was pointed out very clearly by the co-founder of the theory of natural selection (Alfred Russel Wallace) in his <a href="https://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S165.htm">essay</a> "The Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man." Among many other very good points, Wallace stated, "</span><span>Natural Selection could only have endowed savage man with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one very little inferior to that of a philosopher." Darwinists attempted to bridge this huge explanatory shortfall by telling us huge glaring lies such as the <a href="https://archive.org/details/ncbs.BB-001_0_0_0_1/page/n117/mode/1up">glaring lie</a> that "there is </span><span>no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties," and <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/02/why-we-were-told-so-often-huge-lie-that.html">the very big lie</a> that DNA or the genes in it are a blueprint for building human bodies. (I see that today in the scientific journal <i>Nature</i> we finally <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00327-x">have a headline saying</a>, "It's time to admit that genes are not the blueprint for life," a point I have been emphatically making <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-gigantic-missing-link-of-biological.html">since 2018</a>.) </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>The origin of humans is an unsolved mystery, for reasons discussed <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2019/03/why-origin-of-humans-is-unsolved-mystery.html">here</a> and <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2018/01/why-origin-of-language-is-inexplicable.html">here</a>. Now, what happens under Kastrup's theory of UAP/UFOs? The explanatory problem becomes twice as bad. Now instead of having one unsolved miracle of origination by which we got a human intelligent species, we have two </span><span>unsolved miracles of origination by which we got two entirely different intelligent species arising at different times on the same planet. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Ironically, Kastrup suggests the possibility that you could help verify his theory if you were to discover some totally different type of biology not based on the genetic code that underlies all earthly biology. This amounts to an appeal to a second abiogenesis event. Scientists lack any credible explanation for how life could have originated from non-life, a hypothesized event they call abiogenesis. Imagining two separate abiogenesis events is making your explanatory difficulties far worse. For then you have to imagine two separate "miracles of organization" in which life arises from non-life. Such imagined events can be fairly called "miracles of organization" because of the very high organization and information richness of even the simplest one-celled life, which would require a very special arrangement of more than a million atoms, a special arrangement of about 100,000 amino acids. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We should not be making too-specific claims such as claims that UFOs are examples of technology and engineering. There is a good abstract way to consider UFOs and UAP: as possible manifestations of a mostly unknown and telescopically unobservable realm of reality that can be called the paraverse. The concept is explained in my post <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-possibility-of-paraverse.html">here</a>. The idea of a paraverse largely overlaps with the concept of a parallel dimension that can interact with our reality. </span></p><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The two main differences between the multiverse concept and the paraverse concept are as follows:</span></span></span></div><ol style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The multiverse concept postulates many other universes, while the paraverse concept postulates only a single other realm of existence (without excluding the possibility of other such realms).</span></span></span></div></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The multiverse idea typically postulates universes that are completely isolated from each other, without communication or interaction between any two of the universes; but conversely the paraverse concept says there may indeed be interaction or communication between our universe and some other realm of existence, with perhaps causes and effects sometimes flowing between the two.</span></span></span></div></li></ol><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo6xg9OYc9AhxVGHwnt6E6KmnVpONAVonRWIlvWchndWe04FGG_kdKae1ch1evd9ZaTA19ghK5yaek4FrvDDr8-4r1Z7QpiW9bfqiA-kQUIz9PSctxoy5HH9Ehm15cBWLCrSA0Hvh3vmvZ7BD9P3cip9A_XZRCaRQWIEb-FCRSuFPX3Eirwf9NbYf3K-6Z/s332/paraverse.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img alt="paraverse" border="0" data-original-height="332" data-original-width="268" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo6xg9OYc9AhxVGHwnt6E6KmnVpONAVonRWIlvWchndWe04FGG_kdKae1ch1evd9ZaTA19ghK5yaek4FrvDDr8-4r1Z7QpiW9bfqiA-kQUIz9PSctxoy5HH9Ehm15cBWLCrSA0Hvh3vmvZ7BD9P3cip9A_XZRCaRQWIEb-FCRSuFPX3Eirwf9NbYf3K-6Z/w323-h400/paraverse.jpg" width="323" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">In the diagram above, the arrows represent causal interactions. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>Contrary to the claims of some physicists, the super-extravagant concept of a multiverse has no explanatory value in explaining the features of our universe, for reasons I discuss <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-top-6-problems-with-using.html">here</a> and <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2021/12/our-luxury-results-debunk-multiverse-as.html">here</a>. But the concept of a paraverse may have very much explanatory value. By imagining such a paraverse we might help explain many unexplained reports of paranormal phenomena. The inhabitants of a paraverse (which might include deceased souls, other-dimensional beings, angels, super-human beings of matter or energy, one or more divine beings, or countless other possibilities) might be able to influence matter or minds on Earth by virtue of mysterious powers they may have that we don't understand, an agency that may not involve "nuts and bolts" or technology or engineering. </span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">It is a mistake to consider UFO or UAP observations in isolation. Such things seem to be merely one facet of a paranormal reality with endless facets. UFOs and UAP should be studied as part of a much larger undertaking of seriously studying all human reports of paranormal phenomena. The more wide and deep such a study is, the more plausible the idea of some type of paraverse will seem. Don't merely study two or three types of paranormal phenomena. Study 120+ types of reports of the paranormal and the anomalous, using some of the links in my long post <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2022/07/120types-of-paranormal-or-anomalous.html">here.</a> And while you are doing such a study, pay the greatest attention to whether observational reports are first-hand eyewitness testimony, and also look for written accounts made by people describing what they saw or experienced, rather than people who may be merely passing on rumors of something that they heard from other people. Properly studying the paranormal requires prolonged in-depth scholarship, and burying your nose hundreds or thousands of times in the pages of old books, not merely some little dilettante dabbling done by surveying the latest spooky stories attracting social media attention. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Reports that sometimes are put in the category of UFO encounters or "alien abductions" are often reports bearing a strong resemblance to near-death experience accounts, as I discuss in my posts <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/10/quite-few-so-called-alien-abductions.html">here</a> and <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2022/05/are-alien-close-encounters-more-psychic.html">here</a>. And nowadays reports of UFOs or UAP often involve reports of spherical orbs, reminding you of all of the mysterious orbs being photographed by people who don't describe them as UFOs (as I discuss <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/08/orbs-had-starring-role-in-nasacongress.html">here</a>). So it makes no sense to put up some kind of "mechanistic filter" or "nuts and bolts" filter when trying to study UFOs and UAP, which may lead you to filter out and exclude the majority (or a sizable fraction) of the interrelated evidence. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Other than UFO or UAP sightings, we have no reason to suspect that there ever arose another intelligent species on our planet. But other than UFOs and UAP sightings, we have very many observational reports that should cause us to suspect the existence of some mysterious paraverse that can interact with our reality. Among such reports are the reports I discuss in my "Spookiest Years" series you can read </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/09/spookiest-years-part-1-year-1848.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/10/spookiest-years-part-2-year-1850.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/10/spookiest-years-part-3-year-1851.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/10/spookiest-years-part-4-year-1852.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/11/spookiest-years-part-5-year-1853.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/11/spookiest-years-part-6-1854-1855.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/11/spookiest-years-part-7-years-1860-1861.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/12/spookiest-years-part-8-years-1868-1869.html">here</a><span>,</span><span> </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/12/spookiest-years-part-9-year-1871.html">here</a><span>,</span><span> <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2024/01/spookiest-years-part-10-year-1872.html">here</a>, <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2024/01/spookiest-years-part-12-year-1874.html">here</a></span><span>, and <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2024/01/spookiest-years-part-12-year-1874.html">here</a>, and the reports I discuss in my very long post "120+ Types of Paranormal or Anomalous Experiences" <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2022/07/120types-of-paranormal-or-anomalous.html">here</a>. </span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtJ5B9riK2c-0-9wec-DXL2cZoyW7fIsfmsIYZqOjHRHG7HB1WdfkxTiQMIB6uF3zlNxVYM6FsQI79NFLFD9H4hfp8ao2Ty8hGJR9lamAjKW_Wo2TVcp399od_D-TSPoGggpyE_nL0FVH6jlZ2nt6mL5SbdK3yjFGGfiBCXHBw_-0plUtAnmSmjpeZa5Ql/s730/temp.pg.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="types of paranormal experiences" border="0" data-original-height="665" data-original-width="730" height="365" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtJ5B9riK2c-0-9wec-DXL2cZoyW7fIsfmsIYZqOjHRHG7HB1WdfkxTiQMIB6uF3zlNxVYM6FsQI79NFLFD9H4hfp8ao2Ty8hGJR9lamAjKW_Wo2TVcp399od_D-TSPoGggpyE_nL0FVH6jlZ2nt6mL5SbdK3yjFGGfiBCXHBw_-0plUtAnmSmjpeZa5Ql/w400-h365/temp.pg.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Types of paranormal or anomalous experiences</i></div><span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span><br /></span></span></div>We need some idea under which most of these things can be explained. A good explanatory picture would be: every human being is a soul; souls have mysterious powers not restricted by brain limitations; and souls on Earth can interact mysteriously with souls in some other mysterious realm of existence, the result being various types of experiences that may seem unthinkable under materialist assumptions. Under such an idea, you can help to explain many of the items in the visual above; and such an idea may also be useful in lessening some of the life and mind origin problems that scientists have made much less progress on than they typically suppose. </span></span><span style="font-size: large;">Mere material causes on Earth are insufficient to explain most of the phenomena listed above, and mere material causes on Earth are <a href="https://headtruth.blogspot.com/">insufficient to explain human minds</a> and i<a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2021/02/why-we-do-not-understand-origin-of-any.html">nsufficient to explain the vast organization of human bodies</a>. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span>It is a great mistake to restrict study so that only things of one particular type are studied. An example of such unreasonable restriction can be found on a NASA <a href="https://science.nasa.gov/uap/">page</a> with a title of "UAP." We read this: "On June 9, 2022, NASA announced that the agency is commissioning a study team to examine unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs) – that is, observations of events in the sky that cannot be identified as aircraft or known natural phenomena – from a scientific perspective." What sense does it make to restrict the definition of "</span></span><span style="font-size: large;">unidentified anomalous phenomena" to "events in the sky" when the majority of such phenomena are not observed in the sky, but on the ground level, such as in houses and buildings constructed by humans? None. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Kastrup's UFO speculations don't seem to fit in very well with his most widely read essays, in which he</span><span style="font-size: large;"><span> makes strange metaphysical claims,</span><span> such as the claim that humans are "but dissociated alters of universal consciousness," a claim based on the word "alter" used in discussion of split personalities (Kastrup makes the claim at the end of the paper </span><a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9287/2/2/10">here</a><span>). Calling his theory "analytical idealism," he seems to claim matter does not really exist, that "consciousness is an ontological primitive," and that there are merely different "alters" of this "ontological primitive." For reasons I explain in my post <a href="https://headtruth.blogspot.com/2023/08/stumbles-of-his-claimed-solution-to.html">here</a>, I don't think his metaphysics works, one reason being that it fails to explain why humans would have so many uniformities of experience such as always observing the sun during the day, always observing the ground underneath our feet, always observing the stars during the night, and always observing what looks like fine-tuned functional complexity when we examine microscopically the parts of the human body. Such uniformities of experience are explained in a different form of idealism (Georgy Berkeley's theistic idealism), but seem to be left not credibly explained under Kastrup's theory. As a general rule, I advise being suspicious of any thinkers who ever make claims beginning with "humans are just..." or "we are all but..." or "we are all merely...." Minds with the multifaceted and diverse powers of human minds should not be regarded as coming from any primitive source, which is kind of like thinking that computers arose up from the dirt, but even worse, since a human mind so far exceeds what a computer can do. </span></span></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-50981798304125462132024-02-02T09:06:00.000-08:002024-02-02T09:06:29.679-08:00Erring Experts #11<p> Here is the latest in a series of videos I am making. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0cZOyfAR-ZI" width="320" youtube-src-id="0cZOyfAR-ZI"></iframe></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-47499851979854055972024-02-01T05:00:00.000-08:002024-02-04T14:15:37.125-08:00Flubbing Fanboys Say Just Add Soda to Get Origin of Life<p><span style="font-size: large;">T<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: inherit;"><span>he ancient philosopher Aristotle helped science get started, but for centuries Aristotle's followers helped retard the growth of experimental science. Again and again, Renaissance writers would speak as if there was no need to experimentally determine something, because Aristotle had taught what the truth was about some matter. It was eventually discovered that many of Aristotle's opinions were wrong, such as his idea that heavier bodies fall faster than lighter bodies. </span></span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">Scientific academia has failed to draw the right lesson from Aristotle fervor, which: is never become some kind of devotee of any previous thinker on scientific matters. Nowadays in academia and its satellite press workers, we see a blind devotion to the thought of the nineteenth century biologist Charles Darwin, a kind of fanboy fervor as astray as any Aristotle avidity of the Renaissance era. The custom of kissing the ring is something some people do to pledge their allegiance to someone else, such as a pope or an organization head. Darwin devotees keep pledging their ideological allegiance by writing pieces that are like kisses on the ring of a dead man. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>The latest "kiss the dead man's ring" piece in the science press is a laughable <a href="https://thedebrief.org/darwins-theories-about-life-on-earth-gain-fresh-support-may-aid-the-search-for-life-on-other-worlds/">article</a> at TheDebrief.org with the false headline "</span></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, Palatino Linotype, Palatino, serif;">DARWIN’S THEORIES ABOUT LIFE ON EARTH GAIN FRESH SUPPORT, MAY AID THE SEARCH FOR LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS." We have an </span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>attempt to persuade us that Charles Darwin was some brilliant origin-of-life theorist. The article starts out with a gigantic photo of a statue of Darwin. </span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Darwin's published works contain no deep thoughts about the origin of life. The only thing Darwin wrote having any relevance to the origin of life was a mere sentence he wrote in some letter on February 1, 1871. All he said was this: "But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter will be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."</span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">This was no theory of the origin of life. It was merely a speculation about the origin of a single protein compound -- a very incorrect speculation, since proteins are not created from either ammonia or phosphoric salts. The origin of even the simplest living thing would require the origin of many different types of proteins, almost certainly well over 50, along with a lot more, such as DNA. There is a world of difference between a single protein and even the simplest living thing. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>We have two possible belief options here. Option 1 is you can believe that Darwin did not advance any such thing as a theory of the origin of life, but merely wrote a sentence suggesting a single protein may have originated in a warm pond. In that case, you cannot say that Darwin was probably right about the origin of life, as you believe that he said nothing about it. Option 2 is you can believe that Darwin somehow thought the origin of a protein was equivalent to the origin of life, and that therefore he did advance a theory of the origin of life. If you take that belief option, then you must believe that Darwin was very wrong about the origin of life, because the difference between a single protein and the simplest living thing is like the difference between a single page and a book. </span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">So either Darwin did not advance a theory of the origin of life, or he advanced a theory that is dead wrong. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Here are some of the misstatements in the article at </span></span>TheDebrief.org<span style="font-family: inherit;">:</span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">(1) The claim that "theories postulate that life came from outside Earth and was seeded here by comets and meteors" have "gained some support as researchers have discovered amino acids and other building blocks of life on objects that originated outside Earth." No, that's not true, because the amino acids were found in only the tiniest trace amounts (like 1 part in a billion), and because amino acids are not correctly described as "building blocks of life." The complex subunits of one-celled life are organelles; the complex subunits of organelles are protein complexes; and the complex subunits of protein complexes are proteins consisting of hundreds of well-arranged amino acids. In none of these cases is it correct to be using the term "building blocks" because the components are so complex and well-arranged organizations of matter that they are not properly compared to building blocks, which are things like bricks that are not well-organized units of matter. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">(2) The claim that "Early efforts to understand how life first emerged were able to create amino acids from lifeless matter, essentially marking the first step from a lifeless Earth to one teeming with life." Amino acids have never been produced in any experiment realistically simulating early Earth conditions. The famed Miller-Urey experiment was not such an experiment, for reasons discussed </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2019/12/soup-sham-myths-of-miller-urey.html" style="font-family: inherit;">here</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">(3) The untrue claim that "</span></span><span style="font-family: Merriweather;"><span style="font-size: large;">researchers were able to coax these amino acids into forming the building blocks of RNA, which is essentially the backbone of DNA and all life." This did not happen. The building blocks of RNA are nucleosides and nucleotides, which are not amino acids, and are not built from amino acids. And RNA is not the backbone of DNA, but a type of nucleic acid different from DNA. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-family: Merriweather;"><span style="font-size: large;">The article refers us to some <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-01192-8">paper</a> that did no experiments offering any progress in explaining the origin of life. The paper merely discusses measurements of phosphate levels in two little lakes in Canada that are high in phosphates. These are kind of like ponds of soda. That's no progress in unraveling the origin of life. In the paper we learn that virtually every pond or lake on Earth has much too little phosphorus to be a credible origin of life spot. That's hardly something that supports Darwin's "warm little pond" idea. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Merriweather;"><span>We can excuse the TheDebrief.org article writer making all these errors, because it seems (based on his LinkedIn profile) that his main writing work in recent years has been in fantasy and science fiction. </span></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Merriweather;">But it's harder to excuse the scientist quoted in the article, who makes this misleading statement: "T</span><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Merriweather;">his study adds to growing evidence that evaporative soda lakes are environments meeting the requirements for origin-of-life chemistry by accumulating key ingredients at high concentrations." The origin of life would require a huge amount of information origination and a very high degree of organization, about the same as the </span></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Merriweather;">information origination</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Merriweather;"> and organization needed to produce a well-written useful technical manual of 100 pages. You don't get such a thing by merely "</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Merriweather;">accumulating key ingredients at high concentrations." The scientist quoted has given us more of the accumulation nonsense that has been coming from Darwinists for 160 years, the erroneous idea that great works of innovative biological engineering can be produced by mere accumulation. This is the hogwash of trying to explain information-rich marvels of gigantic hierarchical organization by merely spouting some soundbite that is the equivalent of "stuff piles up." </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5qxTJhNmmA_ez4yVGqZ_w8EBr-1lsDB1ARs7vx0iFtrJ8uKf4vVdgSxz0yqxqL2e7U4FhFCUO_NeQEeV3GjfJQFnemZP9P_rcwuHGWidFHDMYOyuWWtJDxSgdzIQ44HudjWnxMvJzK1SUnqPFtuR5Y0M-MTFEEVVg4YelEqwA1gj1VbfxY-BBQ2Foneic/s1156/organization_versus_accumulation2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img alt="organization versus accumulation" border="0" data-original-height="845" data-original-width="1156" height="351" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5qxTJhNmmA_ez4yVGqZ_w8EBr-1lsDB1ARs7vx0iFtrJ8uKf4vVdgSxz0yqxqL2e7U4FhFCUO_NeQEeV3GjfJQFnemZP9P_rcwuHGWidFHDMYOyuWWtJDxSgdzIQ44HudjWnxMvJzK1SUnqPFtuR5Y0M-MTFEEVVg4YelEqwA1gj1VbfxY-BBQ2Foneic/w400-h293/organization_versus_accumulation2.jpg" width="480" /></span></a></div><p></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Almost as bad a treatment is found on the press release <a href="https://scitechdaily.com/soda-lakes-the-missing-link-in-the-origin-of-life/">here</a>. </span>Every time any origin-of-life article uses the term "building blocks of life" we are being misled. The term is very misleading for two reasons: </span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: large;">(1) Speaking of "building blocks of life" suggests the idea that life can arise from an unordered "nothing special" arrangement of building components, because building blocks do not have to be arranged in any special order or sequence. But things such as functional proteins require an arrangement of parts as special as the arrangement of letters in a functional paragraph.</span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: large;">(2) Speaking of "building blocks of life" suggests that life can be assembled from simple components, because building blocks are simple things with no structure. But life can only be assembled from very complex well-arranged subunits with very special structures. </span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: large;">Similarly, every time any one talks about life arising from an accumulation of ingredients we are being misled. Terms such as "adding the right ingredients" are suitable only when talking about the creation of things that have no special arrangement, things such as salads and soups and potions. </span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">There is a strong reason for excluding the idea that there could have even been such a thing as a "warm little pond" at the time when scientists claim that life first originated. It is claimed that life first originated 3.5 billion years ago. But at the time (according to solar astronomers) the heat from the sun was much less, and temperatures on Earth therefore should have been much lower -- so much lower that every pond on Earth should have been frozen. This is the paradox called the</span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-faint-young-sun-paradox-unsolved.html" style="background-color: transparent;"> Faint Young Sun paradox</a><span style="background-color: transparent;">, and it is still unsolved. All claimed solutions to the paradox are speculative and not well-supported by evidence. I may note that the article quoted above has referred us to lakes in </span><i style="background-color: transparent;">Canada</i><span style="background-color: transparent;"> as being some place being like the "warm pond" imagined by Darwin, but 3.5 billion years ago Canada would be the least likely place to have something like a "warm pond." </span></span></p><div><span style="font-size: large;">But the main problem is the prohibitive odds against abiogenesis (a natural origin of life from non-life) with or without any "warm little ponds" existing and with or without suitable phosphorus levels. <span style="background-color: white;">Here are some relevant quotes by scientists and a physician:</span></span></div><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span><span>"</span><i><span style="color: #2e2e2e;"><span>The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell capable of further evolution appears to require overcoming an information hurdle of superastronomical proportions (</span></span><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610718300798#appsec1" name="bappsec1"><span style="color: #0c7dbb;"><span style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">Appendix A</span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: #2e2e2e;"><span>), an event that could not have happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a miracle (</span></span><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610718300798#bib68" name="bbib68"><span style="color: #0c7dbb;"><span style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981</span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: #2e2e2e;"><span>, </span></span><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610718300798#bib69" name="bbib69"><span style="color: #0c7dbb;"><span style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">1982</span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: #2e2e2e;"><span>, </span></span><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610718300798#bib75" name="bbib75"><span style="color: #0c7dbb;"><span style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">2000</span></span></span></span></a></i><span style="color: #2e2e2e;"><span><i>). All laboratory experiments attempting to simulate such an event have so far led to dismal failure</i> (</span></span><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610718300798#bib38" name="bbib38"><span style="color: #0c7dbb;"><span style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">Deamer, 2011</span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: #2e2e2e;"><span>; </span></span><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610718300798#bib6a" name="bbib6a"><span style="color: #0c7dbb;"><span style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">Walker and Wickramasinghe, 2015</span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: #2e2e2e;"><span><span>)." -- "</span></span></span></span><span style="color: #2e2e2e;">Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic?," a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610718300798">paper</a> by 21 scientists, 2018. </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span style="color: #2e2e2e;">"</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">Biochemistry's orthodox account of how life emerged from a primordial soup of such chemicals lacks experimental support and is invalid because, among other reasons, there is an overwhelming statistical improbability that random reactions in an aqueous solution could have produced self-replicating RNA molecules." </span></span></i><span style="font-size: large;"><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"> </i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">John Hands MD,</span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"> "</i></span><span style="color: #333333; font-size: large;">Cosmo Sapiens: Human Evolution From the Origin of the Universe," page 411. </span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;"><i><span style="color: #333333;">"The ongoing insistence on defending scientific orthodoxies on </span>these matters, even against a formidable tide of contrary evidence, has turned out to be no less repressive than the discarded superstitions in earlier times. For instance, although all attempts to demonstrate spontaneous generation in the laboratory have led to failure for over half a century, strident assertions of its necessary operation against the most incredible odds continue to dominate the literature." -- 3 scientists (<a href="https://thejournalofcosmology.com/Wickramasinghe.pdf">link</a>).</i></span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"</i></span><span style="font-size: large;"><i>The interconnected nature of DNA, RNA, and proteins means that it could not have sprung up </i>ab initio<i> from the primordial ooze, because if only one component is missing then the whole system falls apart – a three-legged table with one missing cannot stand." --</i> "<a href="https://www.universetoday.com/165381/the-improbable-origins-of-life-on-earth/">The Improbable Origins of Life on Earth</a>" by astronomer Paul Sutter. </span></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"</span><span style="font-size: large;"><i>Even the simplest of these substances [proteins} represent extremely complex compounds, containing many thousands of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen arranged in absolutely definite patterns, which are specific for each separate substance. To the student of protein structure the spontaneous formation of such an atomic arrangement in the protein molecule would seem as improbable as would the accidental origin of the text of Virgil's 'Aeneid' from scattered letter type." -- </i>Chemist A. I. Oparin, "The Origin of Life," <a href="https://archive.org/details/originoflife0000aiop/page/132/mode/1up" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">pages 132-133</a>.</span></li></ul>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-34204909995818981122024-01-31T10:01:00.000-08:002024-01-31T10:01:45.351-08:00Erring Experts #10<p> Here is the latest in a series of videos I am making. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BPpL7bw9JYQ" width="320" youtube-src-id="BPpL7bw9JYQ"></iframe></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-20698447796108941032024-01-28T05:00:00.000-08:002024-01-28T08:15:24.762-08:00Spookiest Years, Part 12: The Year 1874<p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span><span><span>In previous posts in this intermittently appearing "Spookiest Years" series</span></span></span></span><span><span><span> </span></span></span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/09/spookiest-years-part-1-year-1848.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/10/spookiest-years-part-2-year-1850.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/10/spookiest-years-part-3-year-1851.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/10/spookiest-years-part-4-year-1852.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/11/spookiest-years-part-5-year-1853.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/11/spookiest-years-part-6-1854-1855.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/11/spookiest-years-part-7-years-1860-1861.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/12/spookiest-years-part-8-years-1868-1869.html">here</a>,<span> </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/12/spookiest-years-part-9-year-1871.html">here</a>,<span> <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2024/01/spookiest-years-part-10-year-1872.html">here</a> & <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2024/01/spookiest-years-part-11-year-1873.html">here</a></span><span><span> I had looked at some very spooky events reported between 1848 and 1873.</span></span><span> Let me pick up the thread and discuss some spooky events reported in the year 1874. My post will be a long one, because this year 1874 was perhaps the most notable one in the history of the paranormal. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>At the beginning of 1874, there occurred in the January, 1874 edition of the Quarterly Journal of Science the publication of the paper "</span><span>NOTES OF AN ENQUIRY INTO THE PHENOMENA CALLED SPIRITUAL, DURING THE YEARS 1870-73" by William Crookes, one of the greatest scientists of the nineteenth century, the main discover of the element thallium and the inventor of the Crookes tube that was an early ancestor of every television set. The paper can be read <a href="https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-science_1874-01_11_41/page/77/mode/1up">here</a>. Crookes <a href="https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-science_1874-01_11_41/page/80/mode/1up">states this</a>:</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>"<i>My principal object will be to place on record a series of actual occurrences which have taken place in my own house, in the presence of trustworthy witnesses, and under as strict test conditions as I could devise. Every fact which I have observed is, moreover, corroborated by the records of independent observers at other times and places. It will be seen that the facts are of the most astounding character, and seem utterly irreconcilable with all known theories of modern science. ...Except where darkness has been a necessary condition, as with some of the phenomena of luminous appearances, and in a few other instances, everything recorded has taken place in the light.</i></span><i> ”</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Crookes then lists some classes of phenomena he was witnessed in good light in his own home:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i><b><a href="https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-science_1874-01_11_41/page/82/mode/1up">Class I:</a> "</b></i><span><i><b>The Movement of Heavy Bodies with Contact, but without Mechanical Exertion." </b> </i>Crookes makes this remarkable statement about such a class of events: "These movements (and indeed I may say the same of every kind of phenomenon) are generally preceded by a peculiar cold air, sometimes amounting to a decided wind." </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-science_1874-01_11_41/page/82/mode/1up">Class II:</a> "<b><i>The Phenomena of Percussive and other Allied Sounds.</i></b>" Crookes notes the extremely varied nature of such spooky sounds, and that they are much more than just "raps." Crookes notes that such spooky sounds occurred with great volume and variety, coming from a great variety of objects and directions, particularly whenever the medium Kate Fox was around. See the quote <a href="https://archive.org/details/debatablelandbet00owenuoft/page/342/mode/1up">here</a> and the next several pages for identical testimony by a former US congressman, who testified to hearing such inexplicable noises in a huge variety of places, particularly whenever Kate Fox was around. See the quote <a href="https://archive.org/details/spiritualismina01colegoog/page/n18/mode/1up">here</a> by another author who describes very loud sounds coming from all different directions in the presence of Kate Fox, and who describes the mysterious sounds giving information known only to the author. See the end of my post <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/11/spookiest-years-part-6-1854-1855.html">here</a> for a discussion of how Canadian author Susanna Moodie reported a series of the most inexplicable and startling successes occurring when she tested the medium Kate Fox. Crookes says, "With a full knowledge of the numerous theories which have been started, chiefly in America, to explain these sounds, I have tested them in every way that I could devise, until there has been no escape from the conviction that they were true objective occurrences not produced by trickery or mechanical means." He notes that these mysterious sounds often seem to be able to answer questions: "By a pre-arranged code of signals, questions are answered, and messages given with more or less accuracy." Most commonly this involved someone reciting the alphabet over and over, writing down which letters were followed by one of the mysterious noises. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-science_1874-01_11_41/page/84/mode/1up">Class III</a>: <b style="font-style: italic;">"The Alteration of Weight of Bodies." </b>Crookes refers to previously published work he did documenting this phenomenon.<b style="font-style: italic;"> </b><span>Y</span>ou can read about his very careful experiments documenting a paranormal alteration of weights in his 1871 work "Experimental Investigations of Psychic Force," which can be read <a href="https://archive.org/details/experimentalinve00croo/page/n4/mode/1up">here</a>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-science_1874-01_11_41/page/84/mode/1up">Class IV</a>: "<i><b>Movements of Heavy Substances when at a Distance from the Medium</b></i>." Debunking the groundless legend that the physicist Michael Faraday showed that mysterious movements of tables could be explained by a theory of unconscious muscular "ideomotor force" produced by people touching the table, Crookes tells us this:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"The instances in which heavy bodies, such as tables, chairs, sofas, &c. have been moved, when the medium has not been touching them, are very numerous. I will briefly mention a few of the most striking. My own chair has been twisted partly round, whilst my feet were off the floor. A chair was seen by all present to move slowly up to the table from a far corner, when all were watching it; on another occasion an arm chair moved to where we were sitting, and then moved slowly back again (a distance of about three feet) at my request. On three successive evenings a small table moved slowly across the room, under conditions which I had specially pre-arranged, so as to answer any objection which might be raised to the evidence. I have had several repetitions of the experiment considered by the Committee of the Dialectical Society to be conclusive, viz., the movement of a heavy table in full light, the chairs turned with their backs to the table, about a foot off, and each person kneeling on his chair, with hands resting over the backs of the chair, but not touching the table."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-science_1874-01_11_41/page/84/mode/1up" style="font-style: italic;"><b>Class V</b>:</a> <i><b>"The Rising of Tables and Chairs off the Ground, without Contact with any Person."</b> </i>Further debunking the groundless legend that Faraday explained phenomena involving mysterious table movements, Crookes states this:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"On five separate occasions, a heavy dining-table rose between a few inches and 1.5 feet off the floor, under special circumstances, which rendered trickery impossible. On another occasion, a heavy table rose from the floor in full light, while I was holding the medium’s hands and feet. On another occasion the table rose from the floor, not only when no person was touching it, but under conditions which I had pre-arranged so as to assure unquestionable proof of the fact."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i><b><a href="https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-science_1874-01_11_41/page/85/mode/1up">Class VI:</a> "</b></i><b style="font-style: italic;">The Levitation of Human Beings." </b>Crookes tells us this astonishing narrative:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><i>"On one occasion I witnessed a chair, with a lady sitting on it, rise several inches from the ground. On another occasion, to avoid the suspicion of this being in some way performed by herself, the lady knelt on the chair in such manner that its four feet were visible to us. It then rose about three inches, remained suspended for about ten seconds, and then slowly descended. At another time two children, on separate occasions, rose from the floor with their chairs, in full daylight, under (to me) most satisfactory conditions ; for I was kneeling and keeping close watch upon the feet of the chair, and observing that no one might touch them. </i></span><span><i>The most striking cases of levitation which I have witnessed have been with Mr. Home. On three separate occasions have I seen him raised completely from the floor of the room. Once sitting in an easy chair, once kneeling on his chair, and once standing up. On each occasion I had full opportunity of watching the occurrence as it was taking place."</i></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>You might dismiss such reports were it not that very many other witnesses reported seeing the same person (Daniel Dunglas Home) levitating. I have quoted the original versions of some of the earlier accounts of Home levitating in previous installments of this "Spookiest Years" series </span><span>(</span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/10/spookiest-years-part-2-year-1850.html">here</a><span>, </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/10/spookiest-years-part-3-year-1851.html">here</a><span> and </span><a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/10/spookiest-years-part-4-year-1852.html">here</a><span>). Crookes states this:</span></span></p><p><i><span style="font-size: large;"><span>"</span><span>There are at least a hundred recorded instances of Mr. Home’s rising from the ground, in the presence of as many separate persons, and I have heard from the lips of the three witnesses to the most striking occurrence of this kind—the Earl of Dunraven, Lord Lindsay, and Captain C. Wynne— their own most minute accounts of what took place. To reject the recorded evidence on this subject is to reject all human testimony whatever; for no fact in sacred or profane history is supported by a stronger array of proofs."</span></span></i></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The extent to which such very important observations have been censored from mainstream textbooks and articles is something that sheds light on the enormous power of a <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-sociological-dynamics-of.html">prevailing ideological regime</a> to control narratives, repressing reports that defy its claims. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><i><a href="https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-science_1874-01_11_41/page/86/mode/1up">Class VII:</a> "</i></span><span><i style="font-weight: bold;">Movement of Various Small Articles without Contact with any Person."<span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></i><span style="font-family: inherit;">Crookes suggests that he saw an accordion floating in the air while playing a tune, along with other wonders. </span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><i><a href="https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-science_1874-01_11_41/page/87/mode/1up">Class VIII:</a></i></b> <b style="font-style: italic;">"Luminous Appearances."</b><i> </i>Among other things, Crookes states, "</span></span><span style="font-size: large;">In the light, I have seen a luminous cloud hover over a heliotrope on a side table, break a sprig off, and carry the sprig to a lady; and on some occasions I have seen a similar luminous cloud visibly condense to the form of a hand and carry small objects about." See Speer's account below for a similar account of a spooky light floating about. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i><b><a href="https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-science_1874-01_11_41/page/87/mode/1up">Class IX</a>: "The Appearance of Hands, either Self-Luminous or Visible by Ordinary Light</b></i>." Crookes discusses seeing spooky hands in regular light, saying this:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><i>"A hand has repeatedly been seen by myself and others playing the keys of an accordion, both of the medium’s hands being visible at the same time, and sometimes being held by those near him. The hands and fingers do not always appear to me to be solid and life-like. Sometimes, indeed, they present more the appearance of a nebulous cloud partly condensed into the form of a hand....</i></span><span><i>I have retained one of these hands in my own, firmly resolved not to let it escape. There was no struggle or effort made to get loose, but it gradually seemed to resolve itself into vapour, and faded in that manner from my </i></span><i>grasp."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><a href="https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-science_1874-01_11_41/page/89/mode/1up" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Class X</a><b style="font-style: italic;">: "Direct Writing." </b>Crookes cites cases of inexplicable writing he saw.<b style="font-style: italic;"> </b>He says, "</span><span>A luminous hand came down from the upper part of the room, and after hovering near me for a few seconds, took the pencil from my hand, rapidly wrote on a sheet of paper, threw the pencil down, and then rose up over our heads, gradually fading into darkness."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b style="font-style: italic;"><a href="https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-science_1874-01_11_41/page/90/mode/1up">Class XI:</a> "Phantom Forms and Faces." </b>Crookes states this:</span></p><p><i><span style="font-size: large;"><span>"In the dusk of the evening, during a séance with Mr. Home at my house, the curtains of a window about eight feet from Mr. Home were seen to move. A dark, shadowy, semitransparent form, like that of a man, was then seen by all present standing near the window, waving the curtain with his hand. As we looked, the form faded away and the curtains ceased to move. </span><span>The following is a still more striking instance. As in the former case, Mr. Home was the medium. <b>A phantom form came from a corner of the room, took an accordion in its hand, and then glided about the room playing the instrument. The form was visible to all present for many minutes, </b>Mr. Home also being seen at the same time. Coming rather close to a lady who was sitting apart from the rest of the company, she gave a slight cry, upon which it vanished."</span></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-size: large;"></span></i></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjckroauQoI-ZXeWHTZGzSGqNLgsWB_q9tywZpwa5WK51dmhwGTtS0u_u_x7Gw-V0r5jJyjvW1ZGCAdH7Jd9M7jREi5hc91xXL2zLG-SW2p_-Lbels_VXxNfSorpyEv7aNE-bT8w4DDCQikw3wKCf5HYXccOZnTjTAwigS5V18Cwim31yuZMaI-jrWuSW3/s616/temp2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="psychic experience" border="0" data-original-height="448" data-original-width="616" height="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjckroauQoI-ZXeWHTZGzSGqNLgsWB_q9tywZpwa5WK51dmhwGTtS0u_u_x7Gw-V0r5jJyjvW1ZGCAdH7Jd9M7jREi5hc91xXL2zLG-SW2p_-Lbels_VXxNfSorpyEv7aNE-bT8w4DDCQikw3wKCf5HYXccOZnTjTAwigS5V18Cwim31yuZMaI-jrWuSW3/w400-h291/temp2.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></i></div><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>A long scholarly <a href="https://archive.org/details/quarterlyjournal121875lond/page/31/mode/1up">article</a> in an 1875 edition of the <i>Quarterly Journal of Science</i> has a review of reported cases of levitation, and on <a href="https://archive.org/details/quarterlyjournal121875lond/page/53/mode/1up">one page</a> it lists the following reports:</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7Oy06o2bvV_bTSVMuLCJtyHL_TqgHXwEXoNWQyoU2I4U-F8zaDRy0b9za8OHx_CjzgKpsPt1gIi9Gx0jN1ZHrID5eN7NRHNUkfiapr9QZxXpa9Rx0MOmDMYKlVOdYBLTNr0Y8sTbPNAlUmuYhnVwwiorqq7vhW-19zx4d1wlJVBlsvHB4YQZhGgnaVHcP/s461/levitation_reports.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="levitation reports" border="0" data-original-height="461" data-original-width="381" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7Oy06o2bvV_bTSVMuLCJtyHL_TqgHXwEXoNWQyoU2I4U-F8zaDRy0b9za8OHx_CjzgKpsPt1gIi9Gx0jN1ZHrID5eN7NRHNUkfiapr9QZxXpa9Rx0MOmDMYKlVOdYBLTNr0Y8sTbPNAlUmuYhnVwwiorqq7vhW-19zx4d1wlJVBlsvHB4YQZhGgnaVHcP/w330-h400/levitation_reports.jpg" width="330" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>In a <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v4_n3_jan_16_1874.pdf">January 16, 1874 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist</i></span>. page 33, Stanhope T. Speer, M.D. tells us the following account of events he recently observed (giving his address):</span></p><p><i><span style="font-size: large;">"<span>I wish now to say, that on
the 3rd of this month, at a seance held here, under very favourable atmospheric conditions ; a bright light, resembling a
cylindrical luminous cake, about three-and-a-half by two
inches in size, and surrounded by an oval-shaped luminous
envelope, made its appearance, and remained visible, without
fading, for upwards of forty minutes. It moved freely about
the room in various directions, returning invariably and remaining upon the edge of the table, without (as in former
instances) disappearing under the table, for the purpose of
acquiring fresh brilliancy. It sometimes advanced, as though
walking, to the centre of the table ; rose in the air, placed
itself, drapery and all, in the palm of my hand, held up to receive it. It then, at my request, soared upwards and struck
the ceiling three times, at the same time striking the chandelier in its passage."</span></span></i></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v4_n14_apr_3_1874.pdf">April 3, 1874 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist</i> we have an article entitled "Spirit Forms" written by the leading 19th century scientist William Crookes. In the first few months of 1874 Crookes had been busy testing the famed medium Florence Cook, doing extensive tests in Crookes' home. The appearance of the "Katie King" phenomenon at that home was the third residence in which that phenomenon had been observed, and presumably ruled out any kind of "trap door" explanation (as Crookes could not have been unaware of such a thing in his own home). Crookes states some observations tending to rule out any possibility that the mysterious Katie King was the same person as Florence Cook:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"On March 12th, during a seance here, after Katie had
been walking amongst us and talking for some time,
she retreated behind the curtain which separated my
laboratory, where the company was sitting, from my
library, which did temporary duty as a cabinet.
In a minute she came to the curtain and called me
to her, saying, ' Come into the room and lift my
medium’s head up, she has slipped down.' Katie was
then standing before me, clothed in her usual white
robes and turban head-dress. I immediately walked
into the library up to Miss Cook, Katie stepping aside to
allow me pass. I found Miss Cook had slipped partially off the sofa, and her head was hanging in a very
awkward position. I lifted her on to the sofa, and in
so doing had satisfactory evidence, in spite of the
darkness, that Miss Cook was not attired in the ' Katie’ costume, but had on her ordinary black velvet dress,
and was in a deep trance. Not more than three seconds
elapsed between my seeing the white-robed Katie
standing before me, and my raising Miss Cook on to the
sofa from the position into which she had fallen.....I went cautiously into the room, it being dark, and
felt about for Miss Cook. I found her crouching on
the floor. Kneeling down, I let air enter the lamp,
and by its light I saw the young lady, dressed in black
velvet, as she had been in the early part of the evening,
and to all appearance perfectly senseless. She did not
move when I took her hand and held the light close to
her face, but continued quietly breathing. Raising the lamp, I looked around and saw Katie
standing close behind Miss Cook. She was robed in flowing
white drapery, as we had seen her previously during the seance. Holding one of Miss Cook’s hands in mine,
and still kneeling, I passed the lamp up and down, so
as to illuminate Katie’s whole figure, and satisfy myself
thoroughly that I was really looking at the veritable
Katie whom I had clasped in my arms a few minutes before,
and not at the phantasm of a disordered brain. She
did not speak, but moved her head and smiled in recognition. Three separate times did I carefully examine Miss
Cook crouching before me, to be sure that the hand I held
was that of a living woman, and three separate times
did I turn the lamp to Katie and examine her with
steadfast scrutiny, until I had no doubt whatever of her
objective reality....Katie’s height varies; in my
house I have seen her six inches taller than Miss Cook.
Last night, with bare feet and not ' tip-toeing,' she was
four and a half inches taller than Miss Cook. Katie’s
neck was bare last night; the skin was perfectly
smooth, both to touch and sight, whilst on Miss Cook’s
neck is a large blister, which under similar circumstances is distinctly visible, and rough to the touch.
Katie’s ears are unpierced, whilst Miss Cook habitually
wears earrings. Katie’s complexion is very fair,
while that of Miss Cook is very dark. Katie’s fingers
are much longer than Miss Cook’s, and her face is also
larger."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The reported observations seem to definitively rule out the idea that the mysteriously appearing Katie King was the same person as Florence Cook. A skeptic's only resort here is to claim that Crookes was lying, but other witnesses made reports similar to the one above, as described <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2018/12/when-world-class-scientists-saw-ghosts.html">here</a>. In a <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v4_n23_jun_5_1874.pdf">June 5, 1874 publication</a> we read a Crookes article entitled "The Last of 'Katie King.' " We read this statement by Crookes:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">"<i>During the last six months Miss Cook has been a
frequent visitor at my house, remaining sometimes a
week at a time. She brings nothing with her but a
little hand-bag, not locked; during the day she is constantly in the presence of Mrs. Crookes, myself, or
some other member of my family, and, not sleeping by
herself, there is absolutely no opportunity for any preparation even of a less elaborate character than would
be required for enacting ' Katie King.'...The almost daily seances with which Miss Cook has
lately favoured me have proved a severe tax upon her
strength, and I wish to make the most public acknowledgment of the obligations I am under to her for her
readiness to assist me in my experiments. Every test
that I have proposed she has at once agreed to submit to
with the utmost willingness ; she is open and straightforward in speech, and I have never seen anything approaching the slightest symptom of a wish to deceive.
Indeed I do not believe she could carry on a deception
if she were to try, and if she did she would certainly
be found out very quickly, for such a line of action is
altogether foreign to her nature. And to imagine that
an innocent school girl of fifteen should be able to conceive and then successfully carry out for three years so
gigantic an imposture as this, and in that time should
submit to any test which might be imposed on her, should bear the strictest scrutiny, should be willing to be
searched at any time, either before or after a seance,
and should meet with even better success in my own
house than at that of her parents, knowing that she
visited me with the express object of submitting to
strict scientific tests,—to imagine, I say, the 'Katie
King ' of the last three years to be the result of imposture,—does more violence to one’s reason and
common sense than to believe her to be what she herself
affirms."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>It should be remembered that the investigation by William Crookes of Florence Cook only started in very late 1873, and that we have a steady stream of very detailed published accounts of the "Katie King" materialization phenomenon dating from throughout 1872 and 1873 before his involvement, as documented in my earlier posts "<a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2024/01/spookiest-years-part-10-year-1872.html">Spookiest Years, Part 10: The Year 1872</a>" and "Spookiest Years, <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2024/01/spookiest-years-part-11-year-1873.html">Part 11: The Year 1873</a>," including many accounts found in the 1872 and <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/index.html">1873 editions</a> of the newspaper <i>The Spiritualist</i>. </span><span>In </span><a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v4_n25_jun_19_1874.pdf">a June 19, 1874</a><span> publication (page 298) we read this statement of S. C. Hall F.S.A:</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i><span>"</span>I state that I
did distinctly see the form said to be a ' materialised
spirit' and the form of Florence Cook at the same
time. The ' spirit ' was standing in the door-way,
and Florence Cook was on the ground at a distance of
about four feet from the ' spirit.'.</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the same edition we read that "we read that Florence Cook (daughter of the lawyer Henry Cook) was married to the lawyer Mr. Hackney." </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/banner_of_light/banner_of_light_v35_n3_apr_18_1874.pdf">April 18, 1874 edition</a> of the Boston publication <i>Banner of Light</i> we read of mysterious phenomena in the house of the Eddy family in Vermont. We read first hand claims by a Mrs. A. N. Tupper to have seen materializations of various forms a few months earlier, one of which came out from behind a curtain, and then reportedly kind of sunk into the floor, in what seemed like an act of dematerialization. </span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>One of the most famous med<i>i</i>ums was Kate Fox, present at the Hydesville event of 1848 that seemed like the start of a huge wave of paranormal phenomena. On </span><a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v3_n4_jan_1_1873.pdf">December 14, 1872</a><span> Kate was married to Henry D. Jencken, a lawyer. The </span><a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/medium_and_daybreak/medium_and_daybreak_v5_n214_may_8_1874.pdf">May 8, 1874 edition</a><span> of </span><i>The Medium and Daybreak</i><span> reports a remarkable claim regarding the child of this couple. The paper reports that on March 6, 1874 a pencil was mysteriously placed in the hand of the couple's five- month-old child, and that the child wrote the message shown below:</span></span></p><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0LGM643RaCZhHgJ0FgEoojDTRwJwILdo2h_htiFKRsDHqDn4lMOaESTM1oqgCWmCQu3nJdLoZGjXe2HaM9WrCTqcuDmVJWVbHcEEQjdml3YKn69CCMMU671IFq7sEV4cHMqma0apOepCOzeK9eXyNRdBqBybe6UPEZ8RRMssnmaGF-fxEiBLxfbndiZra/s1060/temp.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="646" data-original-width="1060" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0LGM643RaCZhHgJ0FgEoojDTRwJwILdo2h_htiFKRsDHqDn4lMOaESTM1oqgCWmCQu3nJdLoZGjXe2HaM9WrCTqcuDmVJWVbHcEEQjdml3YKn69CCMMU671IFq7sEV4cHMqma0apOepCOzeK9eXyNRdBqBybe6UPEZ8RRMssnmaGF-fxEiBLxfbndiZra/s320/temp.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: large;">The handwriting reads this: "I love this little child God bless him advise his father to go to London on Monday by all means -- Susan."</span><div><p><span style="font-size: large;">The newspaper article contains an attestation that the words above were written by the five-month-old child, signed by Kate Fox Jencken, a J. Wason and a nurse, dated March 6, 1874, the date of the reported wonder. When evaluating evidence for the paranormal, it is always a strong point when you have written testimony of named witnesses, dated with a date as soon as possible after the described event. A report like this might have no weight coming from the average witness, but so many people reported so many inexplicable things occurring around Kate Fox that the report of this wonder cannot be summarily dismissed. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There follows in the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/medium_and_daybreak/medium_and_daybreak_v5_n214_may_8_1874.pdf">May 8, 1874 edition</a> of <i>The Medium and Daybreak</i> a tale that most may think is too astonishing to believe. We are told that a halo of light was seen around the baby's head, and that streams of light were observed coming from the baby's eyes. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The writer N. B. Wolfe in an 1874 book <a href="https://archive.org/details/startlingfactsi01wolfgoog/page/292/mode/1up">reports observing</a> some astonishing events at a seance:</span></p><p><i><span style="font-size: large;"><span>"As soon as the room was darkened, 'the birds began to sing!' I never heard such singing — the many voices blending in perfect harmony, clear, loud, musical, and bewitching. It was a love-feast of celestial melody, which we, one and all, enjoyed to the full capacity of our appreciation. This charming concert continued about twenty minutes, unassisted by a human voice, until it suddenly ceased, and Mrs. Hollis seemed to be surrounded by a multitude of spirit-voices, speaking quick, confusedly, and in an undertone.... What next transpired, I will copy from my note-book : '</span><span> A spirit-voice began to chant a part of the Episcopal service, and then improvised a rhapsody that was indescribably sweet and beautiful. This musical manifestation continued about ten minutes, during which time we commented freely upon the quality of the voice. The singing had but scarcely ceased, when an indescribable sound, resembling that which is made by a startled flock of birds, was beard, and coinstantial Mrs. Hollis, affrighted, was heard over our heads floating along the ceiling of the room!...</span><span>This aerial flight continued only for a minute, during which time I ordered her to clap her hands against the ceiling, and mark the wall with the pencil she had in her hand ; all of which she did.' "</span></span></i></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Nowadays no one would be too impressed by the auditory part, and might assume that it was trickery involving sounds played back on speakers. But the account was published in 1874, three years before the phonograph was invented, and more than a decade before the tape recorder was invented, when there was no such thing as audio playback. </span> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In a letter published in the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/banner_of_light/banner_of_light_v35_n15_jul_11_1874.pdf">July 11, 1874 edition</a> of the Boston newspaper <i>Banner of Light</i>, the author Robert Dale Owen (formerly a US congressman) gave this account:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"After the strictest scrutiny, with
every facility promptly afforded me by the mediums, to detect
imposition had it been attempted, I here avow my conviction
that the phenomena are genuine; that I have again and again,
on more than twenty occasions, seen, heard, touched forms to
appearance human and material, and to sense tangible; that
these forms have stepped up close to me; that I have held conversation with them, occasionally receiving advice, sometimes
having my thoughts read and adverted to ; that I have received,
written under my very eyes, by a luminous, detached hand, a
communication of some length, purporting to come from an
eminent English clergyman who died twenty years ago, the
style and the signature serving further to attest its genuine
character; finally, that I have seen the form which had spoken
to me a minute or two before, fade away till it became a dim
shadow, to re-appear, a few minutes later, in all its brightness.
................ I have seen, during a single sitting of an hour and a
half, three separate forms completely materialized, walk out
from the cabinet to within a foot or two of where I sat, have
touched all three, have conversed with all three, and this has
occurred in the light, without any one in the cabinet, both mediums
sitting beside me. Again, I have witnessed on six different
occasions the levitation (that is, floating in the air) of a
materialized form."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Dale was the author of the long and very readable 1868 book "Footfalls on the Boundary of Another World," which can be read <a href="https://archive.org/details/footfallsonbound01owen/page/n4/mode/1up">here</a>. In the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v5_n3_jul_17_1874.pdf">July 17, 1874 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist</i>, we read reports by named witnesses of recently observed seances in the United States, reports from Memphis and Indiana claiming materialization phenomena like those reported in the seances of Florence Cook. A ritual is followed of a medium placed in a small wooden box called a cabinet, and then tied up with elaborate knots. The witnesses report various mysterious figures coming out of such cabinets, of various ages, genders and sizes. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v5_n9_aug_28_1874.pdf">August 28, 1874 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist,</i> we have a letter dated August 1, 1874 by former US congressman Robert Dale Owen, one making some very remarkable claims that may seem utterly unbelievable were it not for all the testimony quoted earlier in this post. Owen describes seeing in Philadelphia beginning about July 5, 1874 a phenomenon of a mysterious figure arising not from a small wooden cabinet containing a medium, but such a cabinet starting out with no one at all. He states this:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><i>"Substantially, indeed, it was but a reproduction and
confirmation of the marvellous phenomena, so patiently
sought out and so accurately described by Mr. Crookes.
But <b>we obtained these results without any human being
in the cabinet,</b> and without any entrancement of the
mediums....Under the circumstances, we had, I think, every
phenomenon which Mr. Crookes has recorded, saving
this, that ' Katie' did not remain with us in the parlour, in full form, more than five minutes at any one
time without re-entering the cabinet: but she was in
the habit of coming out as often as five or six times in
one evening, if we had a small, select circle, and two
or three times when twenty or more persons were present. I have conversed with ' Katie' at the aperture
more than seventy or eighty times, frequently in regard
to the manner of conducting the sittings. On several
of these occasions she read and replied to my thoughts...I have seen ' Katie' issue from the cabinet more
than a hundred times in full form...I was in the habit, after each sitting, of carefully
examining the cabinet; but neither cross, nor ring, nor
bracelet, nor locket, nor chain was ever to be found ;
minute search, with a light, did not even reveal a roseleaf.
With such or similar phenomena you arc doubtless
familiar; but<b> I have seen ' Katie,' on seven or eight
different occasions, suspended, in full form, about two
feet from the ground for ten or fifteen seconds. </b>It was
within the cabinet, but in full view; and she moved
her arms and feet gently, as a swimmer, upright in the
water, might do. <b>I have seen her, on five several
evenings, disappear and reappear before my eyes, and
not more than eight or nine feet distant. </b></i></span><i><span>On one
occasion, when I had given her a Calla lily, <b>she gradually
vanished, holding it in her hand, and fading out from
the head down;</b> and the lily remained visible after the
hand which held it was gone; the flower, however, finally disappearing also. When she reappeared, the
lily came back also, at first as a bright spot only, which
gradually expanded into the flower. Then ' Katie' stepped out from the cabinet, waving to us, with all
her wonted grace, her adieu ere she finally retired for
the evening. <b>Thus I have seen a material object, as
well as a spirit, vanish and reappear</b></span>."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Robert Dale Owen then tells us he saw two other figures inexplicably emerge from this empty cabinet: an</span><span> "Indian girl, taller than 'Katie,' with dark face and
rich Indian costume, who advanced to us, allowed us
to touch her hands and her dress, and gave her name as 'Sauntee' and afterwards a sailor boy." A similar account is given by a different named witness (Thomas Brown) is given on page 228 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v5_n19_nov_6_1874.pdf">November 6, 1874 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist, </i>describing events on October 26, 1874, and naming several other witnesses. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On page 10 of the <a href="http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/spiritualist/spiritualist_v6_n1_jan_1_1875.pdf">January 1, 1875 edition</a> of <i>The Spiritualist, </i>we have a report by seven named witnesses of a meeting on December 23, 1874. The report states the witnesses saw this gradual materialization of a human form, also witnessing its gradual dematerialization:</span></p><p><i><span style="font-size: large;">"Presently in full view of all the sitters, at the entrance to the doorway of the screen, a something white appeared on the floor, though no mortal hand was seen to place it there; slowly and very gradually this white object grew in size and height till it reached about the height of three feet from the floor, from which it developed more rapidly till the full form of a man, clad in white, about five feet eight inches high appeared before us. We asked if it was 'Benny,' (one of the medium’s guides) ; he nodded in the affirmative, and waved his arms above his head. After two or three minor manifestations, he was requested to take a pencil and mark on the wall as high as he could reach, which having done, he retired to the door of the screen, and standing there in full view of all, gradually diminished in size and height till what remained appeared like a white pocket-handkerchief on the carpet, which itself shortly faded away."</span></i></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>The best of these accounts (and the best of other accounts in this series) are accounts in which a particular named witness tells what he saw on some particular day at some exact place, and who else witnessed the occurrence; and we know exactly how long the gap is between the written report and the day of observation (usually only a small gap), with the publication of the report occurring very soon after the reported observation date. When we have all such things, it helps to build confidence in the reliability of the observation. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>We may compare the best of these accounts to the reports published in modern scientific papers. Today's scientific papers typically have quite a few different authors, and are written in a passive voice. We are typically <i>not</i> told that a particular person saw a particular thing on a particular day. Instead almost invariably a passive voice is used, so we have no idea of which person witnessed the event. We don't even know whether any of the listed authors witnessed the described event, or whether the reports of the event come from unnamed lab assistants or student helpers. We get "passive voice" statements such as this: "Mice were given an injection of the agent, and were tested using the Morris Water Maze test." Also, we are almost never given dates telling when the observations occurred, and are almost never told exactly where the observations occurred. We typically don't know how long a gap occurred between the observation day and the day the account was written. For all of these reasons, a typical experimental scientific paper published today is less reliable as evidence than the best reports I have cited in this "Spookiest Years" series. It is strange that people regard these scientific papers written today as much better evidence, even though they fall short on most of the characteristics we hope to find in good evidence. </span></span></p></div></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-34515795754247416152024-01-27T08:55:00.000-08:002024-01-27T08:55:11.393-08:00Erring Experts #8<p> Here is the latest in a series of videos I am making. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IJhluFjqGeo" width="320" youtube-src-id="IJhluFjqGeo"></iframe></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-65503570956033102202024-01-25T13:28:00.000-08:002024-01-25T13:32:03.329-08:00Erring Experts #6<p> Here is the latest in a series of videos I am creating.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6frDg534FqA" width="320" youtube-src-id="6frDg534FqA"></iframe></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-79675323731662441402024-01-24T07:50:00.000-08:002024-01-24T08:11:20.054-08:00"Dumpster Fires" of Bad Design on Mars and in Earthly Labs<p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit;">Recently they announced the 2024 nominations for the Golden Raspberry Awards, informally called the Razzies. These are awards for the worst movies of the year. <a href="https://variety.com/2024/film/news/razzie-nominations-2024-chris-evans-jennifer-lopez-1235879949/">A web page</a> tells us this:</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit;">"</span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><i>The most-nominated film is 'Expend4bles,' the fourth entry in the action-packed, but critically underwhelming, 'The Expendables' franchise. It received seven nominations. Tied for second place with five noms are 'The Exorcist: Believer,' the revival of the classic horror series, and 'Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey,' a blood-soaked take on everyone’s favorite honey-loving bear. Two big-budget superhero movies, DC’s 'Shazam! Fury of the Gods' and Marvel’s 'Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania,' both got four nominations."</i></span></span></p><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #222222;">Maybe the world of science should have its own </span><span style="color: #222222;">Golden Raspberry Awards or Razzies, awarded to scientist undertakings with the worst design. One top contender would be the ridiculous OSIRIS-REx mission, which has been all about the boondoggle task of returning a soil sample from an asteroid, a mission that is a waste of money for reasons explained in my post <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2020/10/nasas-asteroid-stuff-retrieval-mission.html">here</a>. The mission was so badly designed that it has t<a href="https://www.space.com/nasa-osiris-rex-asteroid-sample-canister-open">aken scientists months</a> to remove the top of the cannister filled with soil. Another top contender would be NASA's Perseverance mission to Mars. </span></span></div><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit;">In my February 2021 <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-poor-design-of-latest-mars-mission.html" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">post</a> "The Poor Design of the Latest Mars Mission," written just after the Perseverance rover landed on Mars, I said that because of the poor design of the Perseverance mission, "you will not be hearing any 'NASA discovered life on Mars' announcement anytime in the next few years." So far that prediction has held up. A NASA page said that the "</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">Perseverance Rover will search for signs of ancient microbial life." But no such signs have been found. </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">A February 2023 <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/mars-perseverance-rover-nasa-water-life" style="color: #2288bb; text-decoration-line: none;">article</a> on Science News has the title "What has Perseverance found in two years on Mars?" The long answer basically amounts to: nothing of interest to the general public. Some scientist named Horgan claims, "We’ve had some really interesting results that we’re pretty excited to share with the community." But in the long article we read of no interesting results. The article tries to get us interested by statements like a statement that the Perseverance rover "has found carbon-based matter in every rock" it analyzed. So what? Carbon is an extremely common element in the universe, and is found in many lifeless places. </span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Perseverance rover mission to Mars rover always had an extremely strange design. The main business of the Perseverance rover has been to dig up soil and put it into soil sample tubes that would simply be dumped on Mars, in hopes that a later mission would retrieve the tubes. The mission design has always seemed utterly bizarre. Why send a rover to Mars to put soil samples into tubes for later retrieval by another spacecraft, when any newly arriving spacecraft could simply dig up Mars soil at the spot it landed, rather than try to find and retrieve such tubes filled up with soil years earlier?</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVAYLkxoruYlQF87aAy7ip2qg2sNvES3rr5RF3J4BhSDPvvvz9vwVM6u7U8OxP0tLJ2lu3KZVauSYw7BkkaMyjK_TRyuggVJ9Gf2n_RcbVe9GChtxQUFzeEa5YDhlK5XPMm6UnuHaMP0ZoGt6gO6Bk-2XnG_43zb1vdC3i9-zr9jUIe7473CRcnAhRcBmj/s1234/temp.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img alt="Mars fiasco" border="0" data-original-height="948" data-original-width="1234" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVAYLkxoruYlQF87aAy7ip2qg2sNvES3rr5RF3J4BhSDPvvvz9vwVM6u7U8OxP0tLJ2lu3KZVauSYw7BkkaMyjK_TRyuggVJ9Gf2n_RcbVe9GChtxQUFzeEa5YDhlK5XPMm6UnuHaMP0ZoGt6gO6Bk-2XnG_43zb1vdC3i9-zr9jUIe7473CRcnAhRcBmj/w320-h246/temp.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>The estimated cost of the mission to retrieve these filled tubes has been skyrocketing, rising to more than ten billion dollars. A <a href="https://www.space.com/mars-sample-return-faces-senate-committee-cancellation">July article</a> headline read "NASA's Mars Sample Return in jeopardy after US Senate questions budget." Below that headline we read, "</span><span>If NASA doesn't come up with a tighter budget for the mission, Mars Sample Return may not happen." The other day the headline below appeared in a LiveScience article, saying some are calling the NASA sample return plan "a dumpster fire."</span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyfd7yt1KDGSpDJSO66kW9Obl1_Lm1I1Gl1o7gWGedWsedw9cUcIlAHbmtEYUe9iBmobmvCjk3RCJ_BDBMopIy_hT5XFRGJ0Pe-De6e_Od-ZZf7k1GkDMjHgYI5Yz_vDdW3xD6GtFGuy2tvMQd4-ceBuB9qlgGjW6mlc1ZsK5lqHbQW5uiQSbx0gsooyd1/s730/temp.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="poor NASA design" border="0" data-original-height="251" data-original-width="730" height="138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyfd7yt1KDGSpDJSO66kW9Obl1_Lm1I1Gl1o7gWGedWsedw9cUcIlAHbmtEYUe9iBmobmvCjk3RCJ_BDBMopIy_hT5XFRGJ0Pe-De6e_Od-ZZf7k1GkDMjHgYI5Yz_vDdW3xD6GtFGuy2tvMQd4-ceBuB9qlgGjW6mlc1ZsK5lqHbQW5uiQSbx0gsooyd1/w400-h138/temp.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div><p></p><p style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.05); color: #131313; white-space-collapse: preserve;">The LiveScience article gives us a clue about how NASA got into its current mess about the sample return mission, making it sound like maybe big lying is going on at the agency, in regard to low-balling cost estimates in order to get funding (a type of lie that defense contractors frequently commit). We </span><a href="https://www.space.com/nasa-troubled-mars-sample-return-mission-scientists-upset" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; white-space-collapse: preserve;">read this</a><span style="color: #131313;"><span style="background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.05); white-space-collapse: preserve;"> about the MSR (Mars Sample Return mission):</span></span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><span><span face="Roboto, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.05); color: #131313; white-space-collapse: preserve;">" </span></span><span face=""Open Sans", "Open Sans-fallback"" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">According to Scott Hubbard, former director of NASA’s </span><a class="hawk-link-parsed" data-analytics-id="inline-link" data-before-rewrite-localise="https://www.space.com/39381-ames-research-center.html" data-component-tracked="1" href="https://www.space.com/39381-ames-research-center.html" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #3669c9; font-family: "Open Sans", "Open Sans-fallback"; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Ames Research Center</a><span face=""Open Sans", "Open Sans-fallback"" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">, who served as the agency’s inaugural Mars exploration program director from 2000 to 2001, there’s an easy explanation for MSR’s programmatic miscalculations. Historically, he says, <b>NASA has shown a strong tendency to err on the low side of mission costs to get a project approved; </b>the aha! moment comes later. '<b>NASA counts on this a great deal, whether consciously or unconsciously</b>,' he says — especially for ambitious initiatives such as MSR."</span></i></span></div><div><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: large;">Why would someone design a tube-filling mission such as Perseverance that might be pretty much a waste of billions, because of a lack of a follow-up mission to retrieve the tubes? It sure isn't because there would be a decent chance of detecting life from the retrieval of such tubes. Finding evidence of life in soil retrieved from Mars would be extremely improbable. No one has ever even found amino acids on Mars, which means Mars lacks even the building blocks of the building blocks of the building blocks of one-celled life. The building blocks of one-celled life are organelles; the building blocks of such organelles are proteins; and the building blocks of such building blocks are amino acids. </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: large;"><span face=""Open Sans", "Open Sans-fallback"" style="color: #333333;">On Sunday at www.space.com we had an <a href="https://www.space.com/mars-search-for-life-sample-return-tension">article</a> with this interesting headline "</span></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: large;"><b>If life exists on Mars, don't count on sample-return missions to find it, scientists say."</b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><p style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.05); color: #131313; white-space-collapse: preserve;">The term "dumpster fire" would be appropriate to use not just in referring to some Mars sample return plan, but also in referring to the design of the Perseverance mission itself. An exchange like the one below would candidly reveal how bad the mission design was, but you'll never hear so candid an exchange in a NASA congressional hearing:</span></span></p><p style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.05); color: #131313; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><b>Senator: </b><i>So being very concise, in a nutshell, what did we get out of the billions we spent on the Perseverance mission?</i></span></span></p><p style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.05); color: #131313; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><b>NASA Official:</b> <i>Dumped dirty tubes. </i></span></span></p><div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;">In looking for nominations for a version of the Golden Raspberry Awards for scientific projects, it would not be hard to find other versions of very badly designed projects. Endless examples could be found in the world of experimental neuroscience, which these days is a cesspool of bad design and what is commonly called Questionable Research Practices (but which might be more candidly referred to as Horribly Bad Research Practices). Nowadays in experimental neuroscience you routinely find projects that are guilty of quite a few of the design flaws below:</div><div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif;"><ol style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman";"><li>Selectively deleting data to help reach some desired conclusion or a positive result, perhaps while using "outlier removal" or "qualification criteria" to try to justify such arbitrary exclusions, particularly when no such exclusions were agreed on before gathering data, or no such exclusions are justifiable. </li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Selectively reclassifying data to help reach some desired conclusion or a positive result.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Concealing results that contradict your previous research results or your beliefs or assumptions.</span></li><li>Failing to describe in a paper the "trial and error" nature of some exploratory inquiry, and making it sound as if you had from the beginning some late-arising research plan misleadingly described in the paper as if it had existed before data was gathered. </li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Creating some hypothesis after data has been collected, and making it sound as if data was collected to confirm such a hypothesis (Hypothesizing After Results are Known, or HARKing).</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">"Slicing and dicing" data by various analytical permutations, until some some "statistical significance" can be found (defined as <i>p</i> < .05), a practice sometimes called p-hacking. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Requesting from a statistician some analysis that produces "statistical significance," so that a positive result can be reported. </span></li><li>Deliberately stopping the collection of data at some interval not previously selected for the end of data collection, because the data collected thus far met the criteria for a positive finding or a desired finding, and a desire not to have the positive result "spoiled" by collecting more data. </li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Failing to perform a sample size calculation to figure out how many subjects were needed for a good statistical power in a study claiming some association or correlation.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Using study group sizes that are too small to produce robust results in a study attempting to produce evidence of correlation or causation rather than mere evidence of occasional occurrence. </span></li><li>Use of unreliable and subjective techniques for measuring or recording data rather than more reliable and objective techniques (for example, attempting to measure animal fear by using subjective and unreliable judgments of "freezing behavior" rather than objective and reliable measurements of heart rate spikes). </li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Failing to publicly publish a hypothesis to be tested and a detailed research plan for gathering and interpreting data prior to the gathering of data, or the use of "make up the process as you go along" techniques that are never described as such. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Failure to follow a detailed blinding protocol designed to minimize the subjective recording and interpretation of data.</span></li><li>Failing to use control subjects in an experimental study attempting to show correlation or causal relation, or failure to have subjects perform control tasks. In some cases separate control subjects are needed. For example, if I am testing whether some drug improves health, my experiment should include both subjects given the drug, and subjects not given the drug. In other cases mere "control tasks" may be sufficient. For example, if I am using brain scanning to test whether recalling a memory causes a particular region of the brain to have greater activation, I should test both tasks in which recalling memory is performed, and also "control tasks" in which subjects are asked to think of nothing without recalling anything. </li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Using misleading region colorization in a visual that suggests a much greater difference than the actual difference (such as showing in bright red some region of a brain where there was only a 1 part in 200 difference in a BOLD signal, thereby suggesting a "lighting up" effect much stronger than the data indicate).</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Failing to accurately list conflicts of interests of researchers such as compensation by corporations standing to benefit from particular research findings or owning shares or options of the stock of such corporations. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Failing to mention (in the text of a paper or a chart) that a subset of subjects were used for some particular part of an experiment or observation, giving the impression that some larger group of subjects was used. </span></li><li>Mixing real data produced from observations with one or more artificially created datasets, in a way that may lead readers to assume that your artificially created data was something other than a purely fictional creation. </li><li><span style="font-size: large;">The error discussed in the scientific paper <a href="http://steipe.biochemistry.utoronto.ca/abc/images/9/93/ErroneusAnalysesOfSignificance-NatureNeuroscience2011.pdf">here</a> ("Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance"), described as "an incorrect procedure involving two separate tests in which researchers conclude that effects differ when one effect is significant (P < 0.05) but the other is not (P > 0.05)." The authors found this "incorrect procedure" occurring in 79 neuroscience papers they analyzed, with the correct procedure occurring in only 78 papers. </span></li><li>Exposing human research participants to significant risks (such as exposure to lengthy medically unnecessary brain scans) without honestly and fully discussing the possible risks, and getting informed consent from the subjects that they agree to being exposed to such risks. </li><li>Failing to treat human subjects in need of medical treatment for the sake of some double-blind trial in which half of the sick subjects are given placebos. </li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Assuming without verification that some human group instructed to do something (such as taking some pill every day) performed the instructions exactly. </span></li><li>Speaking as if changes in some cells or body chemicals or biological units such as synapses are evidence of a change produced by some experimentally induced experience, while ignoring that such cells or biological units or chemicals undergo types of constant change or remodeling that can plausibly explain the observed changes without assuming any causal relation to the experimentally induced experience. </li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Selecting some untypical tiny subset of a much larger set, and overgeneralizing what is found in that tiny subset, suggesting that the larger set has whatever characteristics were found in the tiny subset (</span><span style="font-size: large;">a <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cogs.13188">paper</a> refers to "the fact that overgeneralizations from, for example, small or WEIRD [ Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic] samples are pervasive in many top science journals").</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Inaccurately calculating or overestimating statistical significance (a <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cogs.13188">paper</a> tells us "a systematic replication project in psychology found that while 97% of the original studies assessed had statistically significant effects, only 36% of the replications yielded significant findings," suggesting that statistical significance is being massively overestimated).</span> </li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Inaccurately calculating or overestimating effect size.</span></li></ol><div style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman";"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJOnE2Op3W7kIl4UW9jIzxlhTFj9_5XZj_WIoPYCFcO7vgcymz13mZ4s_0VKFqyJfzyAodlvCv6TkdSmfsl8Og7PXvtiVq_UGxGKJFsZ_NWXVQsrRyV9BUOyf-tivJdTZNa69HH9ShIRgl_giZkNkwez2n6yAlzO3Y13_16_Ue4PxO6eRAccUrqV4t4A/s704/science_misinformation.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img alt="bad science" border="0" data-original-height="562" data-original-width="704" height="319" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJOnE2Op3W7kIl4UW9jIzxlhTFj9_5XZj_WIoPYCFcO7vgcymz13mZ4s_0VKFqyJfzyAodlvCv6TkdSmfsl8Og7PXvtiVq_UGxGKJFsZ_NWXVQsrRyV9BUOyf-tivJdTZNa69HH9ShIRgl_giZkNkwez2n6yAlzO3Y13_16_Ue4PxO6eRAccUrqV4t4A/w400-h319/science_misinformation.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><span>In some fields such as cognitive neuroscience, most papers are guilty of several of these Questionable Research Practices, often more than five or ten of them.</span></span></div></div><div style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></div><div style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman";">As I discuss in my post <a href="https://headtruth.blogspot.com/2022/10/poorly-designed-brain-scan-experiments.html">here</a>, the bad designs so common in neuroscience studies often cause some unnecessary health risks to human subjects (typically low-income people lured by tiny "chump change" money rewards), and often also cause unnecessary suffering to animals who suffer for the sake of junk science papers. But the amount of physical risk caused by neuroscientist experimenters using bad designs is relatively small. However, an enormous amount of physical risk is caused by microbiology labs with bad designs.</div><div style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></div><div style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman";">Nowadays all over the world there occurs very risky gene-splicing experiments done in microbiology labs with poor physical designs. I discuss such risks in my post " 'God Complex' Gene Splicers Say, 'Full Speed Ahead!' (Like the Titanic Captain)" you can read <a href="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2023/02/god-complex-gene-splicers-say-full.html">here</a>.</div><div><p class="gnt_ar_b_p" style="color: #303030; margin: 14px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">There is a system for classifying the security of pathogen labs, with Level 4 being the highest level currently implemented. It is often claimed that Level 4 labs have the highest possible security. That is far from true. At Level 4 labs, workers arrive for shift work, going home every day, just like regular workers. It is easy to imagine a much safer system in which workers would work at a lab for an assigned number of days, living right next to the lab. We can imagine a system like this:</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUMIcTzNWNMTlVxsbzhPgTv1LoNyb6Fdwt5W7AkiDcu1hAEIRNoxOPBQJnv6Imk86uUGAXGW55VzCOxU6yHeZEBJMCBaKQGtEk6AnBHBIpGGFcjkekOx26VJeLgEyT96ui_g2qZ9G6p_TguzxHsVXGa5VbpKSSseVbktkLoU1JbrzkbFzvTbU_MNxzlw/s734/Level5.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Level 5 Lab" border="0" data-original-height="390" data-original-width="734" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUMIcTzNWNMTlVxsbzhPgTv1LoNyb6Fdwt5W7AkiDcu1hAEIRNoxOPBQJnv6Imk86uUGAXGW55VzCOxU6yHeZEBJMCBaKQGtEk6AnBHBIpGGFcjkekOx26VJeLgEyT96ui_g2qZ9G6p_TguzxHsVXGa5VbpKSSseVbktkLoU1JbrzkbFzvTbU_MNxzlw/w400-h213/Level5.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p class="gnt_ar_b_p" style="color: #303030; margin: 14px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">Under such a scheme, there would be a door system preventing anyone inside the quarantine area unless the person had just finished working for a Research Period in the green and red areas. Throughout the Research Period (which might be 2, 3 or 4 weeks), workers would work in the red area and live in the green area. Once the Research Period had ended, workers would move to the blue quarantine area for two weeks. Workers with any symptoms of an infectious disease would not be allowed to leave the blue quarantine area until the symptoms resolved. </span></span></p><p class="gnt_ar_b_p" style="color: #303030; margin: 14px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">There are no labs that implement such a design, which would be much safer than a Level 4 lab (the highest safety now used). I would imagine the main reason such easy-to-implement safeguards have not been implemented is that gene-splicing virologists do not wish to be inconvenienced, and would prefer to go home from work each night like regular office workers. We are all at peril while they enjoy such convenience. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Given the power of gene-splicing technologies such as CRISPR, and the failure to implement tight-as-possible safeguards, it seems that some of today's pathogen gene-splicing labs are recklessly playing "megadeath Russian Roulette." </span></span></p><p class="gnt_ar_b_p" style="color: #303030; margin: 14px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Failing to fully protect against pathogen release accidents, partially because of their not-safe-enough physical designs, today's pathogen labs engaging in "gain of function" research are a "dumpster fire" of bad design. We all may "burn up" by some pandemic coming from such labs. </span></span></p><p class="gnt_ar_b_p" style="color: #303030; margin: 14px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikD2x3Ucbb_s65PNo_QnaOhricE2imqzXmFiUoYzlxHkjRPWkb2qzQaMG1EWCouIlo09XovOI0Pxu47j7sdsnk7VLqPVRI0khPRHr0Q61_Sg4ly4aTPWnPwNqiTWqo2qy0vFf4ucDW9jZtFf_KKHBdl5d07jpC4yP-3HyjZtG0SzGQkNbgNCdKuagSBQ/s683/ScienceHazards.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="hazards of science" border="0" data-original-height="548" data-original-width="683" height="321" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikD2x3Ucbb_s65PNo_QnaOhricE2imqzXmFiUoYzlxHkjRPWkb2qzQaMG1EWCouIlo09XovOI0Pxu47j7sdsnk7VLqPVRI0khPRHr0Q61_Sg4ly4aTPWnPwNqiTWqo2qy0vFf4ucDW9jZtFf_KKHBdl5d07jpC4yP-3HyjZtG0SzGQkNbgNCdKuagSBQ/w400-h321/ScienceHazards.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="font-style: italic; text-align: center;"><i>Don't worry a bit -- their offices have security cameras</i></div></span></div></span></div>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-2999479490803515412024-01-22T09:26:00.000-08:002024-01-22T09:26:38.916-08:00Erring Experts #4<p> Here is the latest in a series of short videos I am making. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/H20in3K0iew" width="320" youtube-src-id="H20in3K0iew"></iframe></div><br /><p><br /></p>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-59604175769362684832024-01-21T08:37:00.000-08:002024-01-21T08:37:34.236-08:00Erring Experts #3<p> Here is the latest in a series of short videos I am making.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/k3axY4CipJE" width="320" youtube-src-id="k3axY4CipJE"></iframe></div><p><br /></p>Mark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.com0