meinmachine
20th October 2006, 12:59 PM
This is from the James Randi website. It is a great place to find sanity in a world of liars, frauds, and conspiracy theorists. You can find this story at:
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-10/100620sentient.html
ANOTHER NEW FAN
A refreshing and welcome letter has been received from a reader identified only as, Geetha. She is an Indian woman who reads our commentary regularly, and here are her observations:
I am from India. I chanced upon your website recently and find it to be extremely interesting. Happy to have found a like-minded community. I have been a skeptic for years but generally keep my ideas to myself except in front of a close circle of friends so as not to shock or offend people (radical views from a woman are considered even more shocking). However Richard Dawkins has inspired me to have the courage to give offence when called for (www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html#8). Here in India superstitions abound and there exist multitudes of god men (so-called) to cash in on the innocents who enjoy wallowing in their stupidity. Most of them when confronted with questions take the stance that “fate” explains everything – a sort of defense mechanism, I suppose.
People don't realize the sense of freedom one feels when one is not bound by superstitions and when one realizes that being simple, good and honest has nothing to do with being religious. Very often I have heard people refer to someone has a very good person just because he is “god fearing” and is seen to visit temples regularly. I am now busy going through your Commentary archives and am surprised by the amount of cheating going on all around the world.
I am doing my best to popularize your site among my friends. I am planning to make a list of superstitions followed in India and also to write to you about Nadi josiyam – that claims there are ancient palm leaf scripts about every individual in the world which can be accessed based on one's thumb impression. How gullible people can be; it amazes me! Please consider using that in your commentary so that many people are made aware of it.
A quote from your October 6, 2006, Commentary:
It's not very often that solutions to such seemingly strange phenomena present themselves so easily. Perhaps I'm just lucky in that respect.
I am surprised. In what context do you use the word “lucky”? You mean, mere chance, I hope. But the word luck has many doubtful connotations, so that I feel we could avoid using that word and I prefer the much simpler “chance.” What do you think?
Greetings and best wishes from your new Indian supporter. Keep up your good work. Of course, there is much to be done. Would be glad to be of help in some way.
I’m reminded of the poem by Robert Frost:
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep
And miles to go before I sleep
And miles to go before I sleep.
I of course responded to Geetha, after assuring her that I’d used the word “lucky” sardonically:
To answer your three questions:
1. Are there any characteristics common to scientists that make them susceptible to trickery?
Yes. They think logically, from a cause-and-effect paradigm. A trickster supplies all the misdirection, the elements expected by logical inference, the necessary aspects that identify a situation as normal – then he uses a different approach, a set of actions, a scenario that leads the dupe to accept that the expected situation is being fulfilled – but it’s not. The scientist’s conclusion is that nature – which he/she knows does not change the rules to deceive – has been abrogated in some way. In other words, it’s magic.
The conjuror or con man is a very good provider of information. He supplies lots of data, by inference or direct statement, but it’s false data. Scientists aren’t used to that scenario. An electron or a galaxy is not capricious, nor deceptive; but a human can be either or both.
2. To a magician, do scientists seem easier to fool, or less easy to fool, than other people?
Far easier, because they think as scientists – see above – and because they assume that someone not thinking logically, cannot deceive them because he’s not their intellectual equal. They think they’re smarter than the con man, not recognizing that such deception is the strength of the con man, his only profession.
An example: On a lecture visit to Fermi Labs outside Chicago some years ago, I developed a minor toothache. Though I was surrounded by PhDs and Nobel laureates in physics, I didn’t ask any of them to treat me in that respect, nor to offer suggestions. It wasn’t their subject of expertise. When I returned home I promptly visited my dentist; she fixed the problem right away. But I did not ask her anything about quantum physics or photons…
3. If one were seeking to fool scientists, how would one go about it? How can scientists guard against being tricked?
Just operate regularly, but give them opportunities to butt in. When doing a bending-spoon trick, for example, state that the ordinary spoon is an ordinary spoon; they will tend to doubt that, and will either examine it carefully, or substitute another spoon, when that fact – that it really is an “ordinary spoon” – may be of no import at all. They will relax, confident that they have done what they can – as scientists – to insure the security of the demonstration. Then, when the spoon is subsequently shown to be bent, they will conclude that “magic” was the only modus.
Sir Arthur Clarke once said, [as I quoted him, above in this week’s lead article] “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” However, that implies that the observer is unable to accept and/or admit that he simply does not understand the technology, that he’s ignorant of facts, or systems, or tools, that could bring about the results he observes. A scientist does not have a good knowledge of the physical and psychological means whereby magicians – I prefer the term “conjurors” – are able to apply their “sufficiently advanced technology.” They presume either that (1) it is not possible for them to be fooled by an accomplished conjuror, or that (2) any given conjuror, during a demonstration, did not fool them with conjuring tricks. Either or both presumptions may be true, but they decide that at least one is not true. And that is a decision, only, since they have no expertise in such matters. What they see at a conjuror’s demonstration is, to them, in their ignorance, “indistinguishable from magic.”
To be better armed, they should call in a qualified conjuror as an advisor.
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-10/100620sentient.html
ANOTHER NEW FAN
A refreshing and welcome letter has been received from a reader identified only as, Geetha. She is an Indian woman who reads our commentary regularly, and here are her observations:
I am from India. I chanced upon your website recently and find it to be extremely interesting. Happy to have found a like-minded community. I have been a skeptic for years but generally keep my ideas to myself except in front of a close circle of friends so as not to shock or offend people (radical views from a woman are considered even more shocking). However Richard Dawkins has inspired me to have the courage to give offence when called for (www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html#8). Here in India superstitions abound and there exist multitudes of god men (so-called) to cash in on the innocents who enjoy wallowing in their stupidity. Most of them when confronted with questions take the stance that “fate” explains everything – a sort of defense mechanism, I suppose.
People don't realize the sense of freedom one feels when one is not bound by superstitions and when one realizes that being simple, good and honest has nothing to do with being religious. Very often I have heard people refer to someone has a very good person just because he is “god fearing” and is seen to visit temples regularly. I am now busy going through your Commentary archives and am surprised by the amount of cheating going on all around the world.
I am doing my best to popularize your site among my friends. I am planning to make a list of superstitions followed in India and also to write to you about Nadi josiyam – that claims there are ancient palm leaf scripts about every individual in the world which can be accessed based on one's thumb impression. How gullible people can be; it amazes me! Please consider using that in your commentary so that many people are made aware of it.
A quote from your October 6, 2006, Commentary:
It's not very often that solutions to such seemingly strange phenomena present themselves so easily. Perhaps I'm just lucky in that respect.
I am surprised. In what context do you use the word “lucky”? You mean, mere chance, I hope. But the word luck has many doubtful connotations, so that I feel we could avoid using that word and I prefer the much simpler “chance.” What do you think?
Greetings and best wishes from your new Indian supporter. Keep up your good work. Of course, there is much to be done. Would be glad to be of help in some way.
I’m reminded of the poem by Robert Frost:
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep
And miles to go before I sleep
And miles to go before I sleep.
I of course responded to Geetha, after assuring her that I’d used the word “lucky” sardonically:
To answer your three questions:
1. Are there any characteristics common to scientists that make them susceptible to trickery?
Yes. They think logically, from a cause-and-effect paradigm. A trickster supplies all the misdirection, the elements expected by logical inference, the necessary aspects that identify a situation as normal – then he uses a different approach, a set of actions, a scenario that leads the dupe to accept that the expected situation is being fulfilled – but it’s not. The scientist’s conclusion is that nature – which he/she knows does not change the rules to deceive – has been abrogated in some way. In other words, it’s magic.
The conjuror or con man is a very good provider of information. He supplies lots of data, by inference or direct statement, but it’s false data. Scientists aren’t used to that scenario. An electron or a galaxy is not capricious, nor deceptive; but a human can be either or both.
2. To a magician, do scientists seem easier to fool, or less easy to fool, than other people?
Far easier, because they think as scientists – see above – and because they assume that someone not thinking logically, cannot deceive them because he’s not their intellectual equal. They think they’re smarter than the con man, not recognizing that such deception is the strength of the con man, his only profession.
An example: On a lecture visit to Fermi Labs outside Chicago some years ago, I developed a minor toothache. Though I was surrounded by PhDs and Nobel laureates in physics, I didn’t ask any of them to treat me in that respect, nor to offer suggestions. It wasn’t their subject of expertise. When I returned home I promptly visited my dentist; she fixed the problem right away. But I did not ask her anything about quantum physics or photons…
3. If one were seeking to fool scientists, how would one go about it? How can scientists guard against being tricked?
Just operate regularly, but give them opportunities to butt in. When doing a bending-spoon trick, for example, state that the ordinary spoon is an ordinary spoon; they will tend to doubt that, and will either examine it carefully, or substitute another spoon, when that fact – that it really is an “ordinary spoon” – may be of no import at all. They will relax, confident that they have done what they can – as scientists – to insure the security of the demonstration. Then, when the spoon is subsequently shown to be bent, they will conclude that “magic” was the only modus.
Sir Arthur Clarke once said, [as I quoted him, above in this week’s lead article] “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” However, that implies that the observer is unable to accept and/or admit that he simply does not understand the technology, that he’s ignorant of facts, or systems, or tools, that could bring about the results he observes. A scientist does not have a good knowledge of the physical and psychological means whereby magicians – I prefer the term “conjurors” – are able to apply their “sufficiently advanced technology.” They presume either that (1) it is not possible for them to be fooled by an accomplished conjuror, or that (2) any given conjuror, during a demonstration, did not fool them with conjuring tricks. Either or both presumptions may be true, but they decide that at least one is not true. And that is a decision, only, since they have no expertise in such matters. What they see at a conjuror’s demonstration is, to them, in their ignorance, “indistinguishable from magic.”
To be better armed, they should call in a qualified conjuror as an advisor.