Such a claim is extraordinary, so extraordinary in fact that the whole thing started to smell a bit fishy and I soon began to notice red flags popping up all over the place. Now before I go into this let me make something clear, I am not making any factual claims about Euclideon’s technology, I am not a computer programmer or graphic artist and am coming at this from a layman’s point of view. Nevertheless there is no expertise required to notice a few red flags, except perhaps some experience with critical thinking.

For the full scoop straight from the horse’s mouth you can watch this 10 minute video recently released by Euclideon:

In it they describe the course the company has taken, the apparently staggering power of their technology and repeatedly emphasize just how near to completion the tech is.

Here are a few quotes from the transcript:

“There are lots of large companies that are pouring billions of dollars into trying to increase their polygon count. At present, they seem to be able to increase it by about 25% a year. If any of these large companies were to suddenly come out with 10 times more polygons than their competitors, it would be enormous news. But we didn’t increase the geometry count by 10 times, or 100 times, or 1000 times. We increased it so far that we could abandon polygons altogether and move to little atoms, and run them in unlimited quantities. If what we’ve said is true, then it is the largest breakthrough since 3D graphics began.”

“Two months after announcing this we declined all further interviews and then completely disappeared. Most people said the technology was too unbelievable and was probably never real to begin with.”

“As for our supporters who play games, your graphics are about to get better. Better by a factor of about 100,000 times. 100,000 is a pretty big number, but perhaps we’re exaggerating? So we’ll let you be the judge of that.”

“Some months from now our Software Development Kit will be complete and it will be ready to be handed over to the games developers. Until then we’re all working as hard as we can and we hope to produce a product that our fans and supporters will find acceptable.”

It reads like a gamer’s dream, 100,000 times better graphics? If you’ve watched the video then you know that what they present does indeed look stunning, incredibly stunning. However I mentioned a few red flags early, perhaps it’s time I went over them

Red Flag #1: The sheer level of advancement is a red flag in itself. Contrary to what most of us would wish technology does indeed tend to progress in small steps. Sometimes it can be many steps over a few years (like mobile phones) and other times it can be gradual steps over decades (like automobiles), but technology advancement tends to be incremental. They even say it themselves that currently the polygon count is increasing by around 25% every year.

Red Flag #2: The extraordinary claim followed by the long silence is a common occurrence in the world of cranks. A good parallel to Euclideon might be the Irish company Steorn who annoucned in August 2006 that they could provide free unlimited energy that defying the currently law of conservation of energy. In July 2007 after a fumbled and flawed demonstration that impressed no one, they disappeared from headlines only to reappear in 2009 with another failed demonstration. There are a few reasons an apparent crank might do this. Firstly they might genuinely think they’re on to something and be shocked when it fails. They retreat into re-planning and arise later when they’ve sufficiently deceived themselves once more. Secondly the company might make a big announcement in order to string along donors and grants and disappear quietly, hoping that no one will get mad that their investment fell through.

Red Flag #3: Euclideon is a very small company, a fact that they appear to be proud of. It just so happens that most ‘too good to be true’ technologies come from hobbyists, individuals or very small companies rather than big well funded companies. There are a few reasons for this. Firstly big companies have more accountability, there are multiple levels of management that help assure invests are sound and research is promising. Large companies are not in the habit or funding extremely far-fetched sounding enterprises that could jeopardize their reputation or financial security. One the other side of the equation individuals and small groups are more susceptible to their own biases and can happily delude each other into thinking they’re on to something big. Thirdly some people just love the underdog story, and lone scientists or inventors revolutionizing a technology has a certain romantic quality to it.

Red Flag #4: While the demonstration was very pretty, there were a number of key features required to match their claims that are left out. Chiefly amongst these was animation, actual moving parts. I have asked a few graphic artists and computer programmers and the consensus seems to be that there is a huge difference between animating still images and animating moving objects with their own physics and collision detection. They also fail to provide a rough estimate for the type of system they predict will be able to run their technology. For all we know they could be running the software on a true beast of a machine that is far outside a home gaming budget.

Red Flag #5: They repeatedly claim that the technology is just around the corner. Mere months away from being distributed to other designers and digital artists. This may well be true, but the notion that a revolutionary technology is “nearly finished” is a common theme with unbelievable advances, and things tend to stay “just around the corner” forever. Often times these inventors are asking for donations and investors, stringing them along with the notion that the pay off is coming soon. In fairness though I have not seen Euclideon asking for money anywhere. What is on record however is that Euclideon received $1,984,652 from the Australian Federal Government’s “Commercialisation Australia Initiative”. Now that’s a LOT of money, and it’s not beyond imaging that Euclideon is coming out saying they’re nearly finishing in order to make it look like the grant money has gone to good use.

So there you have it, a few odd things I noticed in the presentation of the technology that are probably cause for a healthy dose of skepticism. But boy do I hope this technology works as described, it truly would transform an entire industry. I actually like the way the company describes computer generated imagery as becoming either non-fiction (digital duplicates of real objects) or non-fiction (objects designed in digital space). It’s not like the claims are as far out as the technologies that defy reason like such as perpetual motion, a complete and easy cure for cancer or free energy, so who knows?

I must stress again that I am making no factual claim about Euclideon’s motives or technologies. I am using their example as a training ground for sharpen my critical thinking and to share with others some common red flags with technological advances.

But what now has finally brought me out of my intellectual stupor? Why it’s my old buddy Omega Point Theory of course! For those who are interested or need a little refresher here are the two previous posts I’ve written on Omega Point Theory:

Omega Point(less?) Theory

Omega Point Theory – Redux!

After the long silence from Mr James Redford, presumably because he had not seen my blog entries, Redford has written a characteristically lengthy reply. Please sit back and relax while I examine this reply openly and honestly and see what it has to offer.

Without further ado, here is James Redford’s response.

Hi, Christian Polson-Brown.
Your write in reference to the abstract of my article “Jesus Is an Anarchist” (Social Science Research Network [SSRN], revised and
expanded edition, October 17, 2009 [originally published December 19, 2001] http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 ): “Mr Redford describes the implications his research have on the world as ‘profound’, a small slice of hyperbole if I’ve ever seen it!” It’s hardly hyperbole if Jesus Christ exists and he is God’s Messiah. Your response is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, as you’re assuming as true that which has not been demonstrated to be true: that Jesus Christ doesn’t exists and he is not God’s Messiah.

For the historical reliability of Jesus Christ’s existence and his bodily resurrection, and the untenability of theories which deny his
resurrection, see Prof. William Lane Craig, “Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ”,
Truth, Vol. 1 (1985), pp. 89-95. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html For more on the historicity of Jesus Christ’s resurrection, see William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 3rd ed., 2008), Chap. 8: “The Resurrection of Jesus”, pp. 333-404, particularly pp. 360 ff.

It is empirically impossible to prove the non-existence of something, and science does not claim to. This point is articulated elegantly by Carl Sagan with his “dragon in my garage” story, printed in Demon Haunted World and available to read here. Burden of proof in this situation lies squarely on those making the claim of existence. For the life of Jesus of Nazareth to be accepted by the scientific community his existence needs to be proven, rather than his existence not disproved. Every argument that flows from the existence of Jesus is therefore based upon a false premise. The reference you cite regarding historical evidence for Jesus comes from a highly suspect journal. The journal “truth” existed for only three volumes and is written from an openly admitted “distinctively Christian perspective”.

You go on to write:
“”
Mr Redford then acknowledges that in 1994 Tipler didn’t have experimental confirmation of his theory but claims he does now. Not only does this contradict Mr Redford’s initial assertion that evidence lies in the laws of physics themselves but he fails to provide a link or description of this supposed experimental confirmation (which I failed to find myself).
“”
Actually, in that forum discussion I cited the following peer-reviewed papers published in physics journals wherein Prof. Frank J. Tipler provides a proof that the Omega Point cosmology is a logically unavoidable result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, and quantum mechanics:

That you claim the theory is “logically unavoidable” does not constitute evidence. If it were truly logically unavoidable then it would be a mathematical constant, which it cannot be. Even if we take as a premise that Tipler’s calculations are correct (which I do not), that would only constitute a “physical constant“. Physical constant are based upon physical measurements, which often contain degrees of error and are subject to revision. For example a mathematical constant is 1+1 = 2, while a physical constant is something like a Plank Length (1.616 252(81) × 10−35 m). The Plank Length is correct according to our current understanding of Physics but is not an immutable constant such as 1+1 = 2. To restate and reclarify, the assertion that the Omega Point Theory is logically unavoidable is not currently supported by the standard model of physics and being based on physical measurements would not even constitute irrefutable proof even if it were the case.

You further write: “When Michael Shermer wrote ‘science will find a way’ he was fairly and accurately paraphrasing the elaborate special pleading that Tipler goes through to justify his arguments.” This statement is incorrect, as I’ve already pointed out in the forum discussion. On p. 395 of Prof. Tipler’s book The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), Tipler said that he himself does not yet accept the Omega Point Theory, and that he is still an atheist, but that if the Omega Point Theory is confirmed, then he shall be a theist. Since the publication of this book it has been shown that the Omega Point cosmology is a logically unavoidable result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, and quantum mechanics.
Additionally, you write:
“”
As stated above the argument that the only way to avoid Omega Point is to violate the known laws of physics is patently false. By invoking so many established foundations of science (thermodynamics, relativity etc.) I believe Mr Redford is attempting to intimidate me into thinking that in order to argue against him I will have to reject these established sciences. Sorry Mr Redford, no dice.
“”
See the aforecited peer-reviewed papers published in physics journals, each of which was already cited in the forum discussion.

By invoking so many established foundations of science Mr. Tipler does nothing but dress his theory up to give it the trappings of support. Hypotheses come and go, the rigors of scientific review weed out the weak and the unsupported. Omega Point Theory has been put through the mill and found wanting, to persist under the belief that it is logically unavoidable is to believe dogmatically.

Later, you write:
“”
Whether or not Tipler set out to prove the existence of god when he developed Omega Point Theory has no impact on the fact that when he presents his arguments (in their most recent form) he argues from a Judeo-Christian standpoint. That is to say that the Omega Point Theory constructs a future where a single entity (mono-theistic god of Abraham) resurrects every human (Rapture). This idea runs counter to many of the other thousands of religions that have come on gone in human history and this deeply flawed scientific theory just happens to create a universe where the Judeo-Christian outcome is inevitable? Oh please Mr Redford, don’t patronize me by suggesting that Tipler’s Omega Point is anything but an attempt at proving the biblical end of
days. Mr Redford only serves to damage further his and Mr Tipler’s credibility when he argues in the third paragraph that not only has he discovered the mechanism that Jesus Christ may have used to rise from the dead but that it’s in any way “trivially easy”. This is about the point where I begin to feel insulted not just for all the non-believers out their but for all the Christians as well. How pathetic and insulting it is that this small group of fringe believers claims to have scientific proof of how the miracles of the bible could be (and were) performed.
“”
As I pointed out, Prof. Tipler didn’t set out to physically prove the existence of God. Tipler had been an atheist since the age of 16, yet only circa 1998 did he again become a theist due to advancements in the Omega Point Theory which occured after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality. You’re here again committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning by *a priori* assuming what must be true and designating its contrary as *by definition* false. We should hardly be shocked that the religion which invented the university system, which invented natural science in the modern sense by giving us the Scientific Revolution, and which created modern Western civilization should turn out to be correct.

No circular reasoning is involved in my argument. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy where the proposition to be proved is one of the arguments premises. For example a circular argument is “the bible is the inerrant word of god therefore the bible is true”. My argument is that sufficient evidence has not been found to support the historical claim that Jesus of Nazareth existed and performed his miracles. I do not make a new proposition, only that a proposition made is not supported by evidence. This is exactly the same as me saying that sufficient evidence does not exist to prove the existence of unicorns. Do you, James Redford believe in unicorns?

Also your point that Judeo-Christian religion has “turned out to be correct” is absurd. Do you honestly claim that mankinds quest for religion has been solved and that Tipler’s “science” proves god. Actually, what am I writing? It’s a premise of Omega Point Theory…

You further write:
“”
In reference to Omega Point this means that even if the super computer is able to reconstruct a brain that is functionally identical to my brain, continuity between my consciousness as it is now and this re-created consciousness is unlikely as we would be two different entities. Mr Redford’s continued argument that replicating a human mind would result in “resurrection” is fundamentally flawed. Yes the recreation might think it’s “me” but I won’t know anything about it because the copy of the information that is currently me will be dead. Instead of resurrecting every human the Omega Point computer would instead be recreating copies.
“”
To maintain that a perfect emulation is not the thing being emulated is to commit a logical contradiction. As an exact emulation of, e.g., a human is merely a very large number. Indeed, even the entire lifetime of a human can be perfectly described by a single number–a tremendously large number compared to the numbers we’re used to dealing with, but still quite finite.
It would be the same as saying that 3765258724 does not = 3765258724, i.e., that there is something about the number 3765258724 on the left-hand side which makes it nonequivalent to the version on the right-hand side. But this is a logical contradiction, as it violates the Law of Identity that A = A. Additionally, the laws of physics, particularly quantum mechanics and
thermodynamics, require that quantum indistinguishability be true, i.e., that identical quantum states are in every way
indistinguishable, even in principle. (For more on this, see Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality [New York: Doubleday, 1994], Chap. IX: “The Physics of Resurrection of the Dead to Eternal Life”, Sec.: “Quantum Mechanics Supports the Pattern Identity Theory”, pp. 230-233, and Appendix D: “The Law of Mass Action Requires Quantum Indistinguishability”, pp. 412-416.)

When a human brain ceases all electrical function and decays, all information stored within it is lost. The continuity of mind is broken and as no outside source of mind is known to exist (i.e. the dualistic paradigm is not supported by science) then no amount of throwing the word “quantum” into arguments will allow for that stream of consciousness to continue uninterrupted. If you wish to maintain that a perfectly reconstructed human mind will maintain a stream of consciousness please provide evidence supporting the dualistic paradigm.

Mr Redford then argues against some of Michael Shermer’s points, and not being Michael Shermer I will not respond for him.

You also write:
“”
The fact that Michael Shermer isn’t a mathematician or a physicist does not mean that he isn’t a world class critical thinker and
intellectual. Michael Shermer’s arguments against Omega Point Theory stand on their own merits, rather than their authors credentials. No such thing can be said for Mr Tipler, who Mr Redford feels the need to defend with a long-winded recounting of every single book, paper and article he has ever written. I have omitted from my quotation of Mr Redford the last part of his reply which was a many hundred word listing of such references, adding nothing to the argument at hand but an extension of the already established argument from authority.
“”
It’s interesting that you would write this, given that you previously wrote, “Not only does this contradict Mr Redford’s initial assertion
that evidence lies in the laws of physics themselves but he fails to provide a link or description of this supposed experimental
confirmation (which I failed to find myself).” Yet here you’re complaining about all the citations I provided to peer-reviewed papers
published in physics journals wherein Prof. Frank J. Tipler provides a proof that the Omega Point cosmology is a logically unavoidable result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, and quantum mechanics.

See above regarding my thoughts on Omega Point Theory being “logically unavoidable”.

Fin.

Thanks to the in-depth traffic statistics that wordpress keeps for all it’s blogs, I have been able to observe where the majority of my traffic comes from. Contrary to the echo chamber hypothesis, my statistics indicate that a good deal of traffic comes from search terms not typically associated with the skeptically mindset. Right up front the big exception to this conclusion is from very top search term “richard dawkins” or “dawkins” which has accounted for a full 9.54% of my total views. Who’s to say however that all those people searching for dawkins are doing so from a skeptical mindset? After dawkins the most popular search terms of all time are “omega point theory criticism” which I will concede seems like a directly skeptical search. Then you get into “global temperatures” & “earth’s atmosphere” which while still scientific indicate that non-skeptics may be stumbling upon my skeptical rundown of climate change denial.

After this come the real surprises with “christian clip art” & “paradise clipart” taking up 7th and 8th spots in the top 10 of all time. Seems to me that those search terms are likely from believers, which goes a long way to disprove the echo chamber argument. Other popular search terms have included “what will heaven look like”, “heaven”, “real heaven”, “christian pictures of heaven”, “heaven clipart”, “clip art christian”, “how heaven looks like”, “pictures of heaven” and “religious clipart”. Noticing a trend? Not only are a huge number of hits coming from the obviously religious but they seem to be coming from people struggling with the concept of the afterlife. I wouldn’t dare make assumptions about the somebodies state of mind based off a single search term, but I sometimes wonder what all those people searching “what will heaven look like” are actually expecting to find. Do they truly believe that all mighty google will show them real pictures of heaven? Or maybe, just maybe, they are feeling dissatisfied with the lack of reality found in religion and are reaching for some tangible evidence. I admit that’s an unreasonable assumption to make, but regardless, these people are obviously being confronted with information in contradiction to their belief. It doesn’t stop there as well. I’ve even been referenced in the furious battle over the Omega Point Theory Wikipedia page.

It’s important to keep in mind that this information comes from a sample size of one, me, and so should not be extrapolated to the skeptical blogging community at large. I also think that sharing a namesake with a world religion has gone some way to pushing my google juice for the term “Christian” up a notch, an unforeseen benefit I suppose. I find echo chamber argument to be cynical, counter-productive and unsubstantiated. As part of the “new media” blogging has given voice to thousands of people whose passionate and occasionally frustrated arguments would have never been heard previously.

In the information age we are no longer confined to local radio and media corporations for our news and text-books and encyclopedias for our answers. Information has been decentralized and a wider arrange of viewpoints made accessible. This has had unfortunate the side-effect of giving a louder voice to efforts like the sickening anti-vaccination movement and alternative medicine practitioners, but that’s just another reason why it’s important that skeptics and rationalists keep up the blogs and online articles. The war may never be won but it seems to me like we are certainly taking ground, and blogging is our new weapon.

So am I just preaching to the converted? Results say NO. Am I reaching the screens of people who may be misinformed and in need of an unbiased skeptical viewpoint? Results say it’s very likely. Anecdotal evidence suggest that my experience is typical of other bloggers. Every time a skeptic reads an article of mine I’m pleased, every time a believer does I’m even more pleased, and every time somebody on the fence does, I’m ecstatic.

TAM stands for ‘The Amazing Meeting’ and is a science and critical thinking conference hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). For the last seven years it’s been held in Las Vega and just last year they branched out across the pond and held a TAM in London. Now it’s our turn, time for a TAM meeting down under! If you’re not aware, the JREF is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to fostering critical thinking in new generations and providing information and resources for the public and media about paranormal or psychic claims (amongst a host of other things). Most famously they are know for the $1,000,000US challenge, the prize pool of which is available to any claimant that can demonstrate the existence of anything paranormal under stringent and mutually agreed upon conditions. The Amazing Randi himself is far more than a name for the JREF, he is still, at the venerable age of 82 a fearless warrior on the front-line of battling harmful pseudoscience and paranormal nonsense.

When I was first introduced to the organized skeptical movement in 2006 through the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe podcast it became immediately obvious just what a figure James Randi has been over the last half a century. The SGU team with their ‘Randi Speaks’ segment gave me a direct channel to hear from Randi and the podcast itself opened my eyes wide to movement as a whole. Now, four years on I am completely enthralled by the entire culture, constantly reading blogs, browsing the SGU forum, writing my own blog, following fellow skeptics on twitter, reading the books and of course, still listening to the podcasts! (with a host of others like Skepticality & Skeptoid added to the pile). Over the last four years the idea of attending a TAM event was like a far off dream, something that I may be able to do in a hefty number of years. I imagined by the time I finally attended a TAM (if they were still running), most of the names I’m familiar with would have passed out of the spotlight in the movement and made way for equally hard-working, yet less personally important folks.

But now the chance has come. Later in the year I will (hopefully) be flying off and coming face to face (or at least room to room) with many of my skeptical heroes, including the group that got me into it (the SGU). TAM offers a chance to connect face to face with international skeptics and reach far beyond the small pocket I’ve seen in Perth. I have no idea what the conference will be like or how comfortable I’ll feel at a conference of mostly older professionals but I have no doubt it will be a remarkable and gratifying experience.

Now I just have to grab an Australian Skeptic subscription so I can get an early bird ticket. Oh, and I need to start thinking about why I deserve a $150 student reimbursement :P

I won’t get into a long discussion about the history and nature of homeopathy as I wish to focus on the specific case of Brauer medicine. For a more detailed and referenced rundown on why homeopathy is bunk please check out these excellent resources: The 10:23 Website, The Skeptics Dictionary, SkepticWiki, Quackwatch. For a very quick rundown homeopathy is a system of claimed alternative medicine invented in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann. Since it’s invention it’s core beliefs have remained unchanged despite the world’s advancements in health and medicine including the discovery of viruses, bacterial infection, cancers, vaccines and genetics. It is by all accounts a relic of medieval thinking from a time when the leading hypothesis was that sickness was a result of imbalances in the four bodily humors (blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile). Homeopathy itself is based on three laws; the law of similars, the law of infinitesimals and the law of succussion.

The law of similars says that in order to cure a problem you need to consume whatever causes the problem. This extends to such things as caffeine for sleep disorders, sore eyes with onion and rashes with poison ivy.

The law of infinitesimals says that the more diluted a substance the stronger it’s medicinal effect. This means that the vast majority of homeopathic solutions are diluted to the point that not a single molecule of the active ingredient remains, including dilutions of 1:1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Of course even if some of the active ingredient remained, the ingredient itself is worthless medically.

The law of succussion says that shaking homeopathic treatments increases their potency. Samuel Hahnemann discovered this when after a bumpy carriage ride his solutions seemed (to him) more potent. As a result modern homeopathic solutions are prepared through careful tapping and banging of essentially water jugs at specific points and tilted at specific angles.

With that out of the ways lets get back to the matter at hand of Brauer medicine peddling this stuff at pharmacies in my local town. The image opposite is a scanned cover of the product selector I picked up. The pamphlet itself folds out in four panels, one side has a glossy colour coded rundown of the problems they can cure with their magic water and the other side has a brief history of the company itself. I don’t mean to imply that they are behaving disingenuously by putting together a nice looking pamphlet, that’s simple marketing. This is probably a good time to point out that everything I saw about homeopathy in this article is what I have distilled from the body of scientific evidence out there. This is just a blog entry and isn’t fully referenced but again, click the links above for some more reliable info. Well for now let’s start by looking at the glossy colourful side of the pamphlet.

The scan you see here shows one panel of the symptoms they claim to be able to cure. As well as allergy symptoms and baby and child care the list also includes cough and cold, insomnia, lifestyle health, pain relief, skin care and stress. Notice how they only claim to bring “relief”, a weasel word crafted to get around the fact that they can’t actually cure anything. Also notice how none of what
they claim to relieve are specific diagnoses, they mostly general feelings and fuzzy categories without clinical use. The exceptions are things like fibromyalgia which is itself a general sense of soreness and discomfort and Tenosynovitis which is a swelling of fluid around tendons that many people incorrectly self-diagnose. It sickens me that these quacks sell their product to parents who then go and use it to treat their poor baby’s flu, colic, earaches, rashes and teething pain. I don’t blame the parents in most of these cases, it is companies like Brauer that are to blame for peddling this crap on an unsuspected public. I mean seriously, this is the health of babies we’re talking about not some self deluded adult popping homeopathic pills to “assist in the maintenance of general well-being” (how vague is that!). This is water we are talking about, water infused in a pill or spray and said to relieve this wide range of problems based on magic.

This next scan is a panel on the history of Brauer Natural Medicine. It starts with some story about German immigrants bringing their prefered brand of quackery to Australia in the 1840′s. The Brauer story really took of in 1972 when Warren Brauer, firm believer that homeopathy was the way forward (despite it never actually advancing) managed to get his homeopathic products distributed in national pharmacies. The pamphlet then claims that homeopathy is one of the oldest forms of medicine, which even if true says nothing about it’s efficacy. In fact to a rational person the older something is (especially medicine) the more obsolete it becomes; for reference take a look at lobotomies, leeching and trepanning (drilling a hole in your head to relieve pressure). Just after this “argument from antiquity” logical fallacy comes an “argument from popularity” logical fallacy when Brauer celebrates that there are hundreds of millions of suckered or deluded people who used homeopathy worldwide.

The pamphlet then gets into some drivel about stimulating the bodies own natural defenses, which forms the majority of homeopaths attempts to explain their trade. Strangely enough the only one of the three laws of homeopathy that Brauer describes in the pamphlet is the law of similars. Could this be because the other two of their core beliefs are so absurd that they try to hide it for fear or being mocked? This is just idle speculation, but the pamphlet is full far more of wishy-washy immune stimulating nonsense than descriptions of what homeopaths actually base their practice on. I can’t help but chuckle when Brauer describes that “lower rate of side effects are of paramount importance”. Of course their product doesn’t have side effects, it’s water!

That comes to the end of Brauer Natural Medicine’s “product selector”. They list a whole line-up of quack remedies that will result in people treating their pain and ailments (and their children’s) with just water. They then spin a yarn full of factually incorrect statements and logical fallacies. What is strangely missing from this pamphlet is any reference to evidence that their treatment works? Oh, but you might say that a pharmacy pamphlet isn’t the place for literature references? Fair enough, so I headed to their website on a grand mission to find their evidence.

I navigated over to the Links page on Brauer’s site looking for references and yep, there they were staring me in the face. Links to reliable, peer reviewed research proving homeopathies efficacy… right? WRONG. Their link section consists of the following. Links to the home pages of the chemists of Australia, links to the websites of other homeopathic agencies, links to books written about the subject and finally a dead link to the “homeopathic hospital searchable reference database” which is a dead end. The only legitimate peer-reviewed site they link to is PubMed, a medical journal database. However they don’t list any references on PubMed to support their claims, they just lead you to the homepage with nowhere to go. The reason of course is that no well controlled study has ever shown a repeatable beneficial effect for a homeopathic remedy.

So that’s it. Brauer medicine is a leading distributor of nonsense treatments in Australia and doing what they do should be made a lot harder. If people want to treat themselves with magic water then fine, but what Brauer does is market its water as ancient natural remedies used by millions. This is unethical and it’s dangerous, and it needs to stop.

This is a clip I came across on Twitter from a BBC series called “Outnumbered”. It’s just awesomely cute and sweet and has a pretty funny message about religion. I dare you to watch it and tell me the little girl isn’t face-explodingly cute.

Dare ya.

I first heard about Sara and her work on the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe Forum where she posted an announcement about her upcoming talk at the TED conference. If you haven’t heard of it before TED is an annual convention on Technology, Entertainment and Design where speakers are invited to talk about their specialty in such fields. Other noted skeptics who are TED fellows include James Randi, Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins so Sara is clearly in good company. The TED conference is just fantastic and I highly recommend you check out there catalog of lectures available in full online for free on their website.

Soon after I heard about Sara and her plans to take manga and critical thinking to TED I quickly had a couple of other encounters with her work. Sara was interviewed on episode #127 of the massively popular Skepticality podcast and was able to spread the word even further about her work and her plans. Sara also recorded a 2 minute video describing herself and her beliefs as part of a Nokia’s responsiveness program (embedded below). She also runs a very cool blog called “There Are Four Lights” the title of which is an awesomely nerdy Star Trek reference. It’s clear from her blog that her popularity has exploded and there are a number of posts detailing exciting events she’s participating in and work she’s done.

Click to Read: Illustrated by Sara Mayhew

You may be wondering how critical thinking and skepticism can be applied in such magical worlds as Sara’s manga? Well the answer is simple. Critical thinking is about far more than approaching claims of the paranormal with skepticism, it is about rationally and logically approaching all situations you encounter. The heroine character in Sara’s Legend of the Ztarr gets plucked from relative obscurity and told she needs to save the universe because of a prophecy her Father failed to fulfill. Rather than be swept away and confounded by the ensuing craziness she encounters, the heroine intelligently and rationally approaches the situation while simultaneously maintaining the air of charm and humour characteristic of the style.

So that’s all for now, I just thought I’d share my experience in discovering yet another medium through which skepticism and critical thinking can be taught. I look forward to following Sara’s success with her work and am sure we haven’t heard the last of her. I’ll also be sure to keep a look out for any other left-field skeptical communicators I encounter.

For now please check out Sara’s Nokia ad below and I’ll also embed a three part lecture given by Sara that she gave at the CFI’s monthly Cafe Inquiry.

Check it!

Everyone has heard of the Make-A-Wish foundation right? They are a charity that arranges special occasions, trips and meetings for terminally ill children. It began in Phoenix Arizona in 1980 when seven year old leukemia patient Christopher Greicius was granted his wish of being a police officer for day. The media coverage of the event prompted the founding of a national organization which soon went international and now operates in more than 30 countries. Tragically Christopher Greicius died of his illness just four days after his wish came true.

Just last month one particularly special wish came true and garnered international attention. 13 year old Seattle resident and liver cancer patient Erik Martin was granted his wish of becoming a superhero. Thus began the amazing story of Erik Martin Electron Boy and his amazing lightning rod! Erik was met by Spiderman in the morning (one of Electron Boys pals), who asked for his help in freeing the Seattle Sounders who were imprisoned in their locker room by Dr. Dark and Blackout Boy. Electron Boy quickly put on his costume and hopped in the Electron Mobile driven by Moonshine Maid went to the rescue. Oh and I musn’t forget the 20 motorcycle officer escort along the closed off main road!

Upon arrival Electron Boy met up with Lightning Lad who gave him the lightning rod which he promptly used to free the Sounders. After many heartfelt thanks from the team and a re-energizing power up secret handshake from Lightning Lad Electron Boy went onto the oval where he was awarded a signed football and personalized jersey. But the trouble wasn’t over because over the Jumbotron Dr. Dark and Blackout Boy announced that they planned to take over Seattle and make it dark! Electron Boy was off to the rescue and hopping in the Electron Mobile went and freed the head of the local electric company from atop a cherry picker. After that he needed to free some workers from a trapped elevator and then prepare for the final confrontation. In a battle of epic proportions Electron Boy faced up against the evil duo and managed to freeze them with his lightning rod.

All in all hundreds of people were involved in the occasion. The day was executed flawlessly in a light-hearted and feel good manner that left everyone smiling. Not only were the local police force and football team part of it but many local actors were given roles and hundreds of electric company employees gathered to cheer Electron Boy on. After the final battle Seattle City Councilwoman Sally Bagshaw granted Electron Boy the key to the city and announced that Thursday would be known as Electron Boy Day. Erik was clearly enjoying himself the whole time despite his ailment. He did have one thing to say though:

“This is the best day of my life.”

Read Article:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011740342_electronboy30m.html

Watch More:

Images Courtesy of Seattle Times

This blog entry is about what I consider possibly the most exciting scientific question easily answerable in my lifetime. That question is “What’s with the methane on Mars!?”

What is so exciting about some gas leaking from Mars you might ask? First a little background. Methane on Mars was first discovered by a team at NASA back in 2003 using infrared telescopes fitted with spectrometry devices that break down incoming light into it’s constituent spectrum and can infer chemical composition from the signature or absorbed wavelength. This methane is being released annually (Martian annual) during the warmer periods at a number of locations. The gas is released in a series of plumes which can release as much as 19,000 tons of methane each!

So what does this all mean? Well we begin by considering all possible explanations for these methane plumes that scientists consider plausible. A likely explanation is that some geologic process is going on underneath Mars that is creating this methane. The only known way this could be happening on Mars is if water, carbon dioxide and the planet’s internal heat are converting iron oxide (rust) into serpentine minerals (common rock-forming hydrous magnesium iron phyllosilicate minerals). One major stumbling block with this explanation is that Mars is not thought to be geologically active and the required heat has not yet been found. It is possible that pockets of methane created in aeons past are stored beneath the surface and released annually as fissures form from cracking permafrost but this adds in another layer of complexity. There are other geologic questions that need to be answered before a complete explanation could be established and any such answer would still provide fascinating and as yet unknown information about ongoing activity on the Red Planet previously not thought to exist.

Another explanation, recently discounted by published research suggested that the methane might be left over on Mars from meteorites. Calculations have shown that the amount of meteorites needed to continually maintain the levels of methane found on Mars is far beyond what could be considered possible. There are other gaping holes in this hypothesis, such as why would the methane be confined to a few discrete pockets and why is it only being released annually. After considering the possible explanation of geologic activity and the unlikely explanation of meteoric activity we are left with one other major hypothesis.

LIFE!

That’s right, scientists are very seriously considering the idea that the methane on Mars is being produced by subsurface microbes. Some of the earliest lifeforms on Earth were microbes that produced methane from hydrogen and carbon dioxide, both of which are found aplenty on Mars. It could be that these microbes are several kilometers under the surface, releasing methane which rises to the surface and gets trapped each year under the permafrost only to be released in jets as the frost melts in the Spring. The same areas on Mars that the plumes are rising from have shown evidence of current flowing water. That’s not to say flowing water as in streams and rivers, more like tiny trickles that move a few meters (or less) and immediately freeze again.

The truth about how likely this hypothesis may be is that we honestly have no idea. One massive problem when working with a sample size of 1 (as in life from one origin) is that we aren’t able to extrapolate anything meaningful. It may be that any planetary system with similar conditions to early Earth has a high likelihood of developing life or we may have been an astronomically unlikely fluke. At this point we cannot say either way. The implications for Biology, Astronomy, Chemistry and society if this methane does turn out to have a biological origin are of course staggering. I don’t think I really need to explain just how much of a game changer it would be if we found another origin of life. All we need to do to answer this amazing question is sending technologies capable of measuring and collecting deep below the Martian surface. While this isn’t something that will be happening in the next 5 years there is a strong likelihood or it happening in the next 10-20.

So if you ever had any doubts about whether there are genuine exciting mysteries in science to answer I hope to have dissuaded you of such a notion. It didn’t even require much background knowledge, even I’m able to summarize it! This is only one of the many mysteries out there and the one that I consider most powerful if true. Even if it doesn’t turn out to be life we will have still learnt something fascinating and brand new about how our not so distant Red Planet brother isn’t quite as dead as we first thought.

I’ll leave you with an image that I consider one of the most amazing ever taken. This is what our descendants will be waking up to every Martian morning some time in the future.
Click to Enlarge:

References:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/marsmethane.html

Let’s start with a very brief look at the ancestry of both dogs and humans. The canine group has its origins in North America and were originally small forest dwelling carnivores around the size of a fox. When open herd grazing ungulates like horse and antelope began to dominate the vast plains of North America the ancient canines radiated out from the forest onto the open ground. This created a canine ancestor that began evolving into a swift pack hunter in order to tackle the ungulate herds. It is thought that some of these ancestors migrated over the Bering straight into Asia, Europe and Africa around 10 million years ago. Over the next few million years these canids formed into the wolves, jackals, coyotes and painted dogs (not actually ‘dogs’) that we are familiar with today. The grey wolf (Canis lupus), the species from which domestic dogs arose evolved at the end of the Late Pleistocene around 300,000 years ago.

Meanwhile in Africa the ancestors of humans had been evolving steadily. The earliest member of the homo genus is currently identified as Homo habilis who lived from around 2.4-1.4 million years ago. Homo habilis was already using stone tools though it’s leg structure was more suited to tree dwelling than plains walking. After (and alongside) habilis arose Homo ergaster, who later gave rise to Homo erectus and Homo antecessor. Erectus and Antecessor were the first human ancestors to move far out of Africa and into Asia and Europe, both around 1.2 million years ago. Then from Antecessor came Rhodesiensis which finally evolved into Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis. Homo sapiens have lived from around 250,000 years ago till present while poor old neanderthalensis disappeared around 30,000 years ago. So while canid ancestors beat us into Europe and Asia by a good margin the grey wolf from which dogs evolved arose at around the same time as modern humans.

The exact circumstances surrounding the first co-habitations of wolf and man are not known but evidence suggests the earliest interactions took place more than 100,000 years ago. Even before this time it is thought that humans may have been observing and learning from the wolves about how to hunt large ungulates on the tundra. What is known is that by 30,000 years ago dogs had split from wolves and were living alongside humans. The earliest clearly identified dog skeleton was found in Belgium and dates to 31,000 years ago. The March 2010 edition of the Journal Nature published a study that looked at tracing the geographic origins of the domestic dog using genetic markers. The genetic evidence shows that the domestic dog originated in the Middle-East, rather than East Asia as previously thought. It is logical to assume therefore that if the oldest dog remains we have are from Western Europe but dogs evolved in the Mid-East then the split must have taken placed many thousands of years before our oldest skeleton.

Wolfgang M. Schleidt/Michael D. Shalter, p.59 (2003)

What occurred at this important moment in human history is an event perhaps unparalleled in todays natural world. Man and dog became linked in a far more meaningful way than other examples of symbiosis or co-evolution. We gained in dogs a valuable hunting partner, effective guardians, a pest controller and later a shepherd. We also gained a close emotional companion and the social worlds of humans and dogs enveloped each other in a near seamless way, humans became part of their packs and dogs became part of our tribe. Evidence for the emotional bond between human and dog is informative and at times quite touching.

In both Eurasia and North America, archaeologists have found 10-15,000 year old dogs that have been buried beneath the floors of huts or tent-camps, curled in sleeping postures, and covered with the red ochre that people of the time used in human burials. In some cases the dogs are interred directly with humans, as at one Middle-Eastern site where a puppy was found curled in the arms of a buried human. Think about, for more than 20,000 years before agriculture began, before the first written language, before the earliest philosophers or world monuments, before the first organized religion or civilization nearly every pocket of mankind had formed a psychological, emotional and practical bond with dogs that lasts until today.

Many people today fail to understand just how in tune humans and dogs are with each other, without the need of any real behavioural learning. Anthropologist Brian Hare of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany has reported that domesticated dogs are better at reading human communication signals, such as glances or pointing, than chimpanzees, which have long been thought to be closer to humans than any other primate. We are also acoustically in-tune with dogs, a study of dogs owners reports than on average each dog understands 30 different human utterances, 21 percent of which were synonyms. Understood utterances range in purpose over the following: Disallowance, Posture, Invitation, Referring to object or person, Unique, Information giving, Permission and Question. Owners believed that dogs executed 31 % of commands “every time”, 53 % “in contextually adequate situations”, and 16% only “occasionally”. Age of the owners or dogs, breed of dogs, and the educational status of owners did not strongly affect the utterance structure. These findings are also supported neurologically, with evidence showing that similar brain genes have changed in the same ways in humans and dogs since our co-mingling. With these sorts of findings it is important to keep in mind that this evidence shows that not only have dogs evolved to be more in tune with us, but we have evolved to be more in tune with them.

A hypothesis which is unfortunately hard to test but is fascinating and slowly gaining ground is that a great deal of what we consider very ‘human’ may in fact be very ‘wolf’ instead. When we see a dog demonstrating a novel or familiar behaviour we often marvel at how similar to humans it seems, but it may well be that they were doing it first and we copied them. There is no closer analog in nature to humanities familial and ethical system than in wolves. In the absence of our direct ancestors we often turn to our cousins the chimpanzees, but what we see there is a frightening reflection of our most egotistical side. The pioneering work of primatologist Jane Goodall gave us a fascinating insight into the sociality of chimpanzees. Unlike humans and wolves their social structure is highly individualistic, with a strong maternal bond but limited care for others. Co-operation in chimps is limited to the violent persecution of other chimps, always to the advantage of the individual. Wolves on the other hand play and raise their young in an extended family structure, take care of their old and wounded and demonstrate emotional distress at the loss of those not related to them by blood. We must not draw too many conclusions from these differences and similarities however as humanity underwent around 5 million years of evolution separate from both chimps and wolves.

Nonetheless it is fascinating to speculate about just how much our humanity has been shaped by our early encounters with wolves. Regardless of who learnt which traits from who the bond between man and dog is undeniably real and powerful. This is extends into the medical world where a good deal of study has been undertaken to examine the medical benefits of living with dogs. There are weaknesses in many studies but arising from the noise we can see decent evidence which suggests that dogs can have a prophylactic and therapeutic value in people. Research has been done to examine if dogs can prevent us from coming ill (unlikely), facilitate our recovery from ill-health (good evidence) and even serve as an early warning system for certain ailments including cancer (unlikely) and oncoming seizures (good evidence). Studies also show reduced systolic blood pressure in dog owners as well as lower concentrations of triglycirides and cholesterol.

In “The domestic dog: its evolution, behaviour, and interactions with people” James Serpell makes the argument that as the utilitarian uses of dogs diminish in the modern age we are beginning to lose sight of the fact that dogs are a truly special and real species of carnivore uniquely adapted for a mutualistic life with humans. We are beginning to see dogs increasingly more like toys and objects of pure affection instead of what they can and used to be, our companions and equals. We force on dogs an unhealthy regime of breeding in order to maintain the idea of purity which results in a wide range of painful and crippling genetic bone disorders. We buy and trade dogs like commodities and give them as presents. In the process we are losing the closest ally in the animal world that we have. Sure, dogs will likely be with us for many thousands of years to come but they are seeming to lose their right to be regarded as a true animal.

I’ll finish with this quote from primatologist Jane Goodall.

“Dogs have been domesticated for a very long time. They have descended from wolves who were pack animals. They survive as a result of teamwork. They hunt together, den together, raise pups together. This ancient social order has been helpful in the domestication of the dog. Chimpanzees are individualists. They are boisterous and volatile in the wild. They are always on the lookout for opportunities to get the better of each other. They are not pack animals. If you watch wolves within a pack, nuzzling each other, wagging their tails in greeting, licking and protecting the pups, you see all the characteristics we love in dogs, including loyalty. If you watch wild chimps, you see the love between mother and offspring, and the bonds between siblings. Other relationships tend to be opportunistic. And even between family members, disputes often rise that may even lead to fights… even after hundreds of years of selective breeding, it would be hard if not impossible to produce a chimpanzee who could live with humans and have anything like such a good relationship as we have with our dogs. It is not related to intelligence, but the desire to help, to be obedient, to gain our approval.”

Wolfgang M. Schleidt/Michael D. Shalter, pg.60 (2003)

References:

http://www.dana.org/news/brainwork/detail.aspx?id=714

A. PLUSKOWSKI (2006). Where are the Wolves? Investigating the Scarcity of European Grey Wolf. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology