[* This is a problem that affects jury trials. Retrospective studies show that som jurors make up their minds very early perhaps during opening arguments and then retain the evidence that seems to support their initial impressions an reject the contrary evidence. The method of alternative working hypotheses not running in their heads.]

* Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it' yours. It's only a way-station in the pursuit of knowledge. Asi yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don't, others will.

* Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some measure, some numerical quant.i.ty attached to it, you'll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them them is more challenging. is more challenging.

* If there's a chain of argument, every every link in the chain must work (including the premise) - not just most of them. link in the chain must work (including the premise) - not just most of them.

* Occam's Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well equally well to choose the simpler. to choose the simpler.

* Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle - an electron, say - in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check a.s.sertions out. Inveterate sceptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

The reliance on carefully designed and controlled experiments is key, as I tried to stress earlier. We will not learn much from mere contemplation. It is tempting to rest content with the first candidate explanation we can think of. One is much better than none. But what happens if we can invent several? How do we decide among them? We don't. We let experiment do it. Francis Bacon provided a cla.s.sic reason:

Argumentation cannot suffice for the discovery of new work, since the subtlety of Nature is greater many times than the subtlety of argument.

Control experiments are essential. If, for example, a new medicine is alleged to cure a disease 20 per cent of the time, we must make sure that a control population, taking a dummy sugar pill which as far as the subjects know might be the new drug, does not also experience spontaneous remission of the disease 20 per cent of the time.

Variables must be separated. Suppose you're seasick, and given both an acupressure bracelet and 50 milligrams of meclizine. You find the unpleasantness vanishes. What did it - the bracelet or the pill? You can tell only if you take the one without the other next time you're seasick. Now imagine that you're not so dedicated to science as to be willing to be seasick. Then you won't separate the variables. You'll take both remedies again. You've achieved the desired practical result; further knowledge, you might say, is not worth the discomfort of attaining it.

Often the experiment must be done 'double-blind', so that those hoping for a certain finding are not in the potentially compromising position of evaluating the results. In testing a new medicine, for example, you might want the physicians who determine which patients' symptoms are relieved not to know which patients have been given the new drug. The knowledge might influence their decision, even if only unconsciously. Instead the list of those who experienced remission of symptoms can be compared with the list of those who got the new drug, each independently ascertained. Then you can determine what correlation exists. Or in conducting a police line-up or photo identification, the officer in charge should not know who the prime suspect is, so as not consciously or unconsciously to influence the witness.

In addition to teaching us what to do when evaluating a claim to knowledge, any good baloney detection kit must also teach us what not not to do. It helps us recognize the most common and perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric. Many good examples can be found in religion and politics, because their pract.i.tioners are so often obliged to justify two contradictory propositions. Among these fallacies are: to do. It helps us recognize the most common and perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric. Many good examples can be found in religion and politics, because their pract.i.tioners are so often obliged to justify two contradictory propositions. Among these fallacies are: * Ad hominem - Ad hominem - Latin for 'to the man', attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g., Latin for 'to the man', attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g., the Reverend Dr Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously). the Reverend Dr Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously).

* Argument from authority (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia - President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia - but because it was secret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was President: a mistake, as it turned out). but because it was secret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was President: a mistake, as it turned out).

* Argument from adverse consequences (e.g., a G.o.d meting out punishment and reward must exist, because if He didn't, society would be much more lawless and dangerous - perhaps even ungovernable.' G.o.d meting out punishment and reward must exist, because if He didn't, society would be much more lawless and dangerous - perhaps even ungovernable.' Or: Or: the defendant in a widely publicized murder trial must be found guilty; otherwise, it will be an encouragement for other men to murder their wives). the defendant in a widely publicized murder trial must be found guilty; otherwise, it will be an encouragement for other men to murder their wives).

[* A more cynical formulation by the Roman historian Polybius: Since the ma.s.ses of the people are inconstant, full of unruly desires, pa.s.sionate, and reckless of consequences, they must be filled with fears to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent G.o.ds, and the belief in punishment after death.] A more cynical formulation by the Roman historian Polybius: Since the ma.s.ses of the people are inconstant, full of unruly desires, pa.s.sionate, and reckless of consequences, they must be filled with fears to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent G.o.ds, and the belief in punishment after death.]

* Appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., there is no compelling evidence that UFOs are there is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist - and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist - and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: Or: there may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe). there may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe). This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

* Special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., how can a merciful G.o.d condemn future generations to unending torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don't understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. how can a merciful G.o.d condemn future generations to unending torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don't understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: Or: how can there be an equally G.o.dlike Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: you don't understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity. how can there be an equally G.o.dlike Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: you don't understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity. Or: Or: how could G.o.d permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam - each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving kindness and compa.s.sion - to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: you don't understand Free Will again. And anyway, G.o.d moves in mysterious ways). how could G.o.d permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam - each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving kindness and compa.s.sion - to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: you don't understand Free Will again. And anyway, G.o.d moves in mysterious ways).

* Begging the question, also called a.s.suming the answer (e.g., we must inst.i.tute the death penalty to discourage violent crime. we must inst.i.tute the death penalty to discourage violent crime. But does the violent crime rate in fact fall when the death penalty is imposed? Or: But does the violent crime rate in fact fall when the death penalty is imposed? Or: the stock market fell yesterday because of a technical adjustment and profit-taking by investors. the stock market fell yesterday because of a technical adjustment and profit-taking by investors. But is there any But is there any independent independent evidence for the causal role of 'adjustment' and profit-taking; have we learned anything at all from this purported explanation?). evidence for the causal role of 'adjustment' and profit-taking; have we learned anything at all from this purported explanation?).

* Observational selection, also called the enumeration of favourable circ.u.mstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses* (e.g., a state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent on its serial killers). a state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent on its serial killers).

[* My favourite example is this story, told about the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi, newly arrived on American sh.o.r.es, enlisted in the Manhattan nuclear weapons project, and brought face-to-face in the midst of World War Two with US flag officers: My favourite example is this story, told about the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi, newly arrived on American sh.o.r.es, enlisted in the Manhattan nuclear weapons project, and brought face-to-face in the midst of World War Two with US flag officers: So-and-so is a great general, he was told.

'What is the definition of a great general?' Fermi characteristically asked.

'I guess it's a general who's won many consecutive battles.'

'How many?'

After some back and forth, they settled on five.

'What fraction of American generals are great?'

After some more back and forth, they settled on a few per cent. 1 1 But imagine, Fermi rejoined, that there is no such thing as a great general, that all armies are equally matched, and that winning a battle is purely a matter of chance. Then the chance of winning one battle is one out of two, or 1/2; two battles 1/4, three 1/8, four 1/16, and five consecutive battles 1/32, which is about three per cent. You would But imagine, Fermi rejoined, that there is no such thing as a great general, that all armies are equally matched, and that winning a battle is purely a matter of chance. Then the chance of winning one battle is one out of two, or 1/2; two battles 1/4, three 1/8, four 1/16, and five consecutive battles 1/32, which is about three per cent. You would expect expect a few per cent of American generals to win five consecutive battles, purely by chance. Now, has any of them won a few per cent of American generals to win five consecutive battles, purely by chance. Now, has any of them won ten ten consecutive battles...?] consecutive battles...?]

* Statistics of small numbers - a close relative of observational selection (e.g., 'they say 1 out of 5 people is Chinese. How is this possible? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is Chinese. Yours truly.' 'they say 1 out of 5 people is Chinese. How is this possible? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is Chinese. Yours truly.' Or: V've Or: V've thrown three sevens in a row. Tonight I can't lose.'). thrown three sevens in a row. Tonight I can't lose.').

* Misunderstanding of the nature of statistics (e.g., President Dwight Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence). President Dwight Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence).

* Inconsistency (e.g., prudently plan for the worst of which a potential military adversary is capable, but thriftily ignore scientific projections on environmental dangers because they're not 'proved'. prudently plan for the worst of which a potential military adversary is capable, but thriftily ignore scientific projections on environmental dangers because they're not 'proved'. Or: Or: attribute the declining life expectancy in the former Soviet Union to the failures of communism many years ago, but never attribute the high infant mortality rate in the United States (now highest in the major industrial nations) to the failures of capitalism. attribute the declining life expectancy in the former Soviet Union to the failures of communism many years ago, but never attribute the high infant mortality rate in the United States (now highest in the major industrial nations) to the failures of capitalism. Or: Or: consider it reasonable for the Universe to continue to exist forever into the future, but judge absurd the possibility that it has infinite duration into the past). consider it reasonable for the Universe to continue to exist forever into the future, but judge absurd the possibility that it has infinite duration into the past).

* Non sequitur - Non sequitur - Latin for 'it doesn't follow' (e.g., Latin for 'it doesn't follow' (e.g., our nation will prevail because G.o.d is great. our nation will prevail because G.o.d is great. But nearly every nation pretends this to be true; the German formulation was But nearly every nation pretends this to be true; the German formulation was 'Gott mil uns'). 'Gott mil uns'). Often those falling into the Often those falling into the non sequitur non sequitur fallacy have simply failed to recognize alternative possibilities. fallacy have simply failed to recognize alternative possibilities.

* Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - Latin for 'it happened after, so it was caused by' (e.g., Jamie Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila: 7 Latin for 'it happened after, so it was caused by' (e.g., Jamie Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila: 7 know of... a 26-year-old who looks 60 because she takes [contraceptive]pills.' know of... a 26-year-old who looks 60 because she takes [contraceptive]pills.' Or: Or: before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons). before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons).

* Meaningless question (e.g., What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? But if there is such a thing as an irresistible force there can be no immovable objects, and vice versa). But if there is such a thing as an irresistible force there can be no immovable objects, and vice versa).

* Excluded middle, or false dichotomy - considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities (e.g., 'sure, take his side; my husband's perfect; I'm always wrong.' 'sure, take his side; my husband's perfect; I'm always wrong.' Or: Or: 'either you love your country or you hate it.' 'either you love your country or you hate it.' Or: Or: 'if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem'). 'if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem').

* Short-term v. long-term - a subset of the excluded middle, but so important I've pulled it out for special attention (e.g., we can't afford programmes to feed malnourished children and educate pre-school kids. We need to urgently deal with crime on the streets. we can't afford programmes to feed malnourished children and educate pre-school kids. We need to urgently deal with crime on the streets. Or: Or: why explore s.p.a.ce or pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?). why explore s.p.a.ce or pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?). Slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., Slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., if we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. if we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: Or, conversely: if the state prohibits abortion even in the ninth month, it will soon be telling us what to do with our bodies around the time of conception). if the state prohibits abortion even in the ninth month, it will soon be telling us what to do with our bodies around the time of conception).

* Confusion of correlation and causation (e.g., a survey shows that more college graduates are h.o.m.os.e.xual than those with lesser education; therefore education makes people gay. a survey shows that more college graduates are h.o.m.os.e.xual than those with lesser education; therefore education makes people gay. Or: Or: Andean earthquakes are correlated with closest approaches of the planet Ura.n.u.s; therefore despite the absence of any such correlation for the nearer, more ma.s.sive planet Jupiter the latter causes the former.* Andean earthquakes are correlated with closest approaches of the planet Ura.n.u.s; therefore despite the absence of any such correlation for the nearer, more ma.s.sive planet Jupiter the latter causes the former.*

[* Or: children who watch violent TV programmes tend to be more violent when they grow up. But did the TV cause the violence, or do violent children preferentially enjoy watching violent programmes? Very likely both are true. Commercial defenders of TV violence argue that anyone can distinguish between television and reality. But Sat.u.r.day morning children's programmes now average 25 acts of violence per hour. At the very least this desensitizes young children to aggression and random cruelty. And if impressionable adults can have false memories implanted in their brains, what are we implanting in our children when we expose them to some 100,000 acts of violence before they graduate from elementary school?]

* Straw man caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack (e.g., scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance a formulation that wilfully ignores the central Darwinian insight, that Nature ratchets up by saving what works and discarding what doesn't. Or this is also a short-term/long-term fallacy a formulation that wilfully ignores the central Darwinian insight, that Nature ratchets up by saving what works and discarding what doesn't. Or this is also a short-term/long-term fallacy environmentalists care more for snail darters and spotted owls than they do for people). environmentalists care more for snail darters and spotted owls than they do for people).

* Suppressed evidence, or half-truths (e.g., an amazingly accurate and widely quoted 'prophecy' of the a.s.sa.s.sination attempt on President Reagan is shown on television; an amazingly accurate and widely quoted 'prophecy' of the a.s.sa.s.sination attempt on President Reagan is shown on television; but an important detail was it recorded before or after the event? Or: but an important detail was it recorded before or after the event? Or: these government abuses demand revolution, even if you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. these government abuses demand revolution, even if you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Yes, but is this likely to be a revolution in which far more people are killed than under the previous regime? What does the experience of other revolutions suggest? Are all possible revolutions against oppressive regimes desirable and in the interests of the people?). Yes, but is this likely to be a revolution in which far more people are killed than under the previous regime? What does the experience of other revolutions suggest? Are all possible revolutions against oppressive regimes desirable and in the interests of the people?).

* Weasel words (e.g., the separation of powers of the US Const.i.tution specifies that the United States may not conduct a war without a declaration by Congress. On the other hand, Presidents are given control of foreign policy and the conduct of wars, which are potentially powerful tools for getting themselves re-elected. Presidents of either political party may therefore be tempted to arrange wars while waving the flag and calling the wars something else - 'police actions', 'armed incursions', 'protective reaction strikes', 'pacification', 'safeguarding American interests', and a wide variety of 'operations', such as 'Operation Just Cause'. Euphemisms for war are one of a broad cla.s.s of reinventions of language for political purposes. Talleyrand said, 'An important art of politicians is to find new names for inst.i.tutions which under old names have become odious to the public').

Knowing the existence of such logical and rhetorical fallacies rounds out our toolkit. Like all tools, the baloney detection kit can be misused, applied out of context, or even employed as a rote alternative to thinking. But applied judiciously, it can make all the difference in the world, not least in evaluating our own arguments before we present them to others.

The American tobacco industry grosses some $50 billion per year. There is a statistical correlation between smoking and cancer, the tobacco industry admits, but not, they say, a causal relation. A logical fallacy, they imply, is being committed. What might this mean? Maybe people with hereditary propensities for cancer also have hereditary propensities to take addictive drugs - so cancer and smoking might be correlated, but the cancer would not be caused by the smoking. Increasingly far-fetched connections of this sort can be contrived. This is exactly one of the reasons science insists on control experiments.

Suppose you paint the backs of large numbers of mice with cigarette tar, and also follow the health of large numbers of nearly identical mice that have not been painted. If the former get cancer and the latter do not, you can be pretty sure that the correlation is causal. Inhale tobacco smoke, and the chance of getting cancer goes up; don't inhale, and the rate stays at the background level. Likewise for emphysema, bronchitis and cardiovascular diseases.

When the first work was published in the scientific literature in 1953 showing that the substances in cigarette smoke when painted on the backs of rodents produce malignancies, the response of the six major tobacco companies was to initiate a public relations campaign to impugn the research, sponsored by the Sloan Ketter-ing Foundation. This is similar to what the Du Pont Corporation did when the first research was published in 1974 showing that their Freon product attacks the protective ozone layer. There are many other examples.

You might think that before they denounce unwelcome research findings, major corporations would devote their considerable resources to checking out the safety of the products they propose to manufacture. And if they missed something, if independent scientists suggest a hazard, why would the companies protest? Would they rather kill people than lose profits? If, in an uncertain world, an error must be made, shouldn't it be biased toward protecting customers and the public? And, incidentally, what do these cases say about the ability of the free enterprise system to police itself? Aren't these instances where government intrusion is in the public interest?

A 1971 internal report of the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation lists as a corporate objective 'to set aside in the minds of millions the false conviction that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer and other diseases; a conviction based on fanatical a.s.sumptions, fallacious rumours, unsupported claims and the unscientific statements and conjectures of publicity-seeking opportunists'. They complain of the incredible, unprecedented and nefarious attack against the cigarette, const.i.tuting the greatest libel and slander ever perpetrated against any product in the history of free enterprise; a criminal libel of such major proportions and implications that one wonders how such a crusade of calumny can be reconciled under the Const.i.tution can be so flouted and violated [sic].

This rhetoric is only slightly more inflamed than what the tobacco industry has from time to time uttered for public consumption.

There are many brands of cigarettes that advertise low 'tar' (ten milligrams or less per cigarette). Why is this a virtue? Because it is the refractory tars in which polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and some other carcinogens are concentrated. Aren't the low tar ads a tacit admission by the tobacco companies that cigarettes indeed cause cancer?

Healthy Buildings International is a for-profit organization, recipient of millions of dollars over the years from the tobacco industry. It performs research on second-hand smoke, and testifies for the tobacco companies. In 1994, three of its technicians complained that senior executives had faked data on inhalable cigarette particles in the air. In every case, the invented or 'corrected' data made tobacco smoke seem safer than the technicians' measurements had indicated. Do corporate research departments or outside research contractors ever find a product to be more dangerous than the tobacco corporation has publicly declared? If they do, is their employment continued?

Tobacco is addictive; by many criteria more so than heroin and cocaine. There was a reason people would, as the 1940s ad put it, 'walk a mile for a Camel'. More people have died of tobacco than in all of World War II. According to the World Health Organization, smoking kills three million people every year worldwide. This will rise to ten million annual deaths by 2020, in part because of a ma.s.sive advertising campaign to portray smoking as advanced and fashionable to young women in the developing world. Part of the success of the tobacco industry in purveying this brew of addictive poisons can be attributed to widespread unfamiliarity with baloney detection, critical thinking and scientific method. Gullibility kills.

13.

Obsessed with Reality

A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him to great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms, that it was idle to suppose that she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance money when she went down in mid ocean and told no tales. What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in nowise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts... He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts...

William K. Clifford, The Ethics of Belief The Ethics of Belief (1874) (1874)

At the borders of science - and sometimes as a carry-over from prescientific thinking - lurks a range of ideas that are appealing, or at least modestly mind-boggling, but that have not been conscientiously worked over with a baloney detection kit, at least by their advocates: the notion, say, that the Earth's surface is on the inside, not the outside, of a sphere; or claims that you can levitate yourself by meditating and that ballet dancers and basketball players routinely get up so high by levitating; or the proposition that I have something called a soul, made not of matter or energy, but of something else for which there is no other evidence, and which after my death might return to animate a cow or a worm.

Typical offerings of pseudoscience and superst.i.tion - this is merely a representative, not a comprehensive list - are astrology; the Bermuda Triangle; 'Big Foot' and the Loch Ness monster; ghosts; the 'evil eye'; multi-coloured halo-like 'auras' said to surround the heads of everyone (with colour personalized); extrasensory perception (ESP), such as telepathy, precognition, telekinesis, and 'remote viewing' of distant places; the belief that 13 is an 'unlucky' number (because of which many no-nonsense office buildings and hotels in America pa.s.s directly from the twelfth to the fourteenth floors - why take chances?); bleeding statues; the conviction that carrying the severed foot of a rabbit around with you brings good luck; divining rods, dowsing and water witching; 'facilitated communication' in autism; the belief that razor blades stay sharper when kept inside small cardboard pyramids, and other tenets of 'pyramidology'; phone calls (none of them collect) from the dead; the prophecies of Nostradamus; the alleged discovery that untrained flatworms can learn a task by eating the ground-up remains of other, better educated flatworms; the notion that more crimes are committed when the Moon is full; palmistry; numerology; polygraphy; comets, tea leaves and 'monstrous' births as prodigies of future events (plus the divinations fashionable in earlier epochs, accomplished by viewing entrails, smoke, the shapes of flames, shadows and excrement; listening to gurgling stomachs, and even, for a brief period, examining tables of logarithms); 'photography' of past events, such as the crucifixion of Jesus; a Russian elephant that speaks fluently; 'sensitives' who, when carelessly blindfolded, read books with their fingertips; Edgar Cayce (who predicted that in the 1960s the 'lost' continent of Atlantis would 'rise') and other 'prophets', sleeping and awake; diet quackery; out-of-body (e.g., near-death) experiences interpreted as real events in the external world; faith-healer fraud; Ouija boards; the emotional lives of geraniums, uncovered by intrepid use of a 'lie detector'; water remembering what molecules used to be dissolved in it; telling character from facial features or b.u.mps on the head; the 'hundredth monkey' confusion and other claims that whatever a small fraction of us wants to be true really is true; human beings spontaneously bursting into flame and being burned to a crisp; 3-cycle biorhythms; perpetual motion machines, promising unlimited supplies of energy (but all of which, for one reason or another, are withheld from close examination by sceptics); the systematically inept predictions of Jeane Dixon (who 'predicted' a 1953 Soviet invasion of Iran and in 1965 that the USSR would beat the US to put the first human on the Moon*) and other professional 'psychics'; the Jehovah's Witnesses' prediction that the world would end in 1917, and many similar prophecies; dianetics and Scientology; Carlos Castaneda and 'sorcery'; claims of finding the remains of Noah's Ark; the 'Amityville Horror' and other hauntings; and accounts of a small brontosaurus crashing through the rain forests of the Congo Republic of our time. [An in-depth discussion of many such claims can be found in Encyclopedia of the Paranormal, Encyclopedia of the Paranormal, Gordon Stein, ed., Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1996.] Gordon Stein, ed., Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1996.]

[* Violating the rules for 'Oraclers and Wizards' given by Thomas Ady in 1656: 'In doubtful things, they gave doubtful answers... Where were more certain probabilities, there they gave more certain answers.']

Many of these doctrines are rejected out of hand by fundamentalist Christians and Jews because the Bible so enjoins. Deuteronomy Deuteronomy (xviii, 10, 11) reads (in the King James translation): (xviii, 10, 11) reads (in the King James translation): There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pa.s.s through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

Astrology, channelling, Ouija boards, predicting the future and much else is forbidden. The author of Deuteronomy does not argue that such practices fail to deliver what they promise. But they are 'abominations', perhaps suitable for other nations, but not for the followers of G.o.d. And even the Apostle Paul, so credulous on so many matters, counsels us to 'prove all things'.

The twelfth-century Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides goes further than Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy, in that he makes explicit that these pseudosciences don't work: in that he makes explicit that these pseudosciences don't work:

It is forbidden to engage in astrology, to utilize charms, to whisper incantations... All of these practices are nothing more than lies and deceptions used by ancient pagan peoples to deceive the ma.s.ses and lead them astray... Wise and intelligent people know better. [From the Mishneh Torah, Avodah Zara, Mishneh Torah, Avodah Zara, Chapter 11.] Chapter 11.]

Some claims are hard to test - for example, if an expedition fails to find the ghost or the brontosaurus, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Others are easier - for example, flatworm cannibalistic learning or the announcement that colonies of bacteria subjected to an antibiotic or an agar dish thrive when their prosperity is prayed for (compared to control bacteria unredeemed by prayer). A few -for example, perpetual motion machines - can be excluded on grounds of fundamental physics. Except for them, it's not that we know before before examining the evidence that the notions are false; stranger things are routinely incorporated into the corpus of science. examining the evidence that the notions are false; stranger things are routinely incorporated into the corpus of science.

The question, as always, is how good is the evidence? The burden of proof surely rests on the shoulders of those who advance such claims. Revealingly, some proponents hold that scepticism is a liability, that true science is inquiry without without scepticism. They are perhaps halfway there. But halfway doesn't doit. scepticism. They are perhaps halfway there. But halfway doesn't doit.

Parapsychologist Susan Blackmore describes one of the steps in her transformation to a more sceptical att.i.tude on 'psychic' phenomena: A mother and daughter from Scotland a.s.serted they could pick up images from each other's minds. They chose to use playing cards for the tests because that is what they used at home. I let them choose the room in which they would be tested and insured that there was no normal way for the 'receiver' to see the cards. They failed. They could not get more right than chance predicted and they were terribly disappointed. They had honestly believed they could do it and I began to see how easy it was to be fooled by your own desire to believe.

I had similar experiences with several dowsers, children who claimed they could move objects psychokinetically, and several who said they had telepathic powers. They all failed. Even now I have a five-digit number, a word, and a small object in my kitchen at home. The place and items were chosen by a young man who intends to 'see' them while travelling out of his body. They have been there (though regularly changed) for three years. So far, though, he has had no success.

'Telepathy' literally means to feel at a distance, just as 'telephone' is to hear at a distance and 'television' is to see at a distance. The word suggests the communication not of thoughts but of feelings, emotions. Around a quarter of all Americans believe they've experienced something like telepathy. People who know each other very well, who live together, who are practised in one another's feeling tones, a.s.sociations and thinking styles can often antic.i.p.ate what the partner will say. This is merely the usual five senses plus human empathy, sensitivity and intelligence in operation. It may feel extrasensory, but it's not at all what's intended by the word 'telepathy'. If something like this were were ever conclusively demonstrated, it would, I think, have discernible physical causes -perhaps electrical currents in the brain. Pseudoscience, rightly or wrongly labelled, is by no means the same thing as the supernatural, which is by definition something somehow outside of Nature. ever conclusively demonstrated, it would, I think, have discernible physical causes -perhaps electrical currents in the brain. Pseudoscience, rightly or wrongly labelled, is by no means the same thing as the supernatural, which is by definition something somehow outside of Nature.

It is barely possible that a few of these paranormal claims might one day be verified by solid scientific data. But it would be foolish to accept any of them without adequate evidence. In the spirit of garage dragons, it is much better, for those claims not already disproved or adequately explained, to contain our impatience, to nurture a tolerance for ambiguity, and to await - or, much better, to seek - supporting or disconfirming evidence.

In a far-off land in the South Seas, the word went out about a wise man, a healer, an embodied spirit. He could speak across time. He was an Ascended Master. He was coming, they said. He was coming...

In 1988, Australian newspapers, magazines and television stations began to receive the good news via press kits and videotape. One broadside read:

CARLOS.

TO APPEAR IN AUSTRALIA.

Those who have seen it will never forget. The brilliant young artist who has been talking to them suddenly seems to falter, his pulse slows dangerously and virtually stops at the point of death. The qualified medical attendant, who has been a.s.signed to keep constant watch, is about to sound the alarm. But then, with a heart-stirring burst, the pulse is felt again -faster and stronger than ever before. The life force clearly has returned to the body - but the ent.i.ty inside that body is no longer Jose Luis Alvarez, the 19-year-old whose unique painted ceramics are featured in some of the wealthiest homes in America. Instead, the body has been taken over by Carlos, an ancient soul, whose teachings will come as both a shock and an inspiration. One being going through a form of death to make way for another: that is the phenomenon that has made Carlos, as channelled through Jose Luis Alvarez, the dominant new figure in New Age consciousness. As even one sceptical New York critic puts it: 'The first and only case of a channeller offering tangible, physical proof of some mysterious change within his human physiology.'

Now Jose, who has gone through more than 170 of these little deaths and transformations, has been told by Carlos to visit Australia - in the words of the Master, 'the old new land' which is to be the source of a special revelation. Carlos already has foretold that in 1988 catastrophes will sweep the earth, two major world leaders will die and, later in the year, Australians will be among the first to see the rising of a great star which will deeply influence future life on earth.

SUNDAY 21ST.

-3PM- OPERA HOUSE.

DRAMA THEATRE.

Following a 1986 motorcycle accident, the press kit explained, Jose Alvarez, then 17 years old, suffered a mild concussion. After he recovered, those who knew him could tell that he had changed. A very different voice sometimes emanated from him. Bewildered, Alvarez sought help from a psychotherapist, a specialist in multiple personality disorders. The psychiatrist 'discovered that Jose was channelling a distinct ent.i.ty who was known as Carlos. This ent.i.ty takes over the body of Alvarez when the body's life force is relaxed to the right degree.' Carlos, it turns out, is a two-thousand-year-old spirit disincarnate, a ghost without bodily form, who last invaded a human body in Caracas, Venezuela, in 1900. Unfortunately, that body died at age 12 in a fall from a horse. This may be why, the therapist explained, Carlos could enter Alvarez's body following the motorcycle accident. When Alvarez goes into his trance, the spirit of Carlos, focused by a large and rare crystal, enters him and utters the wisdom of the ages.

Included in the press kit was a list of major appearances in American cities, a videotape of the tumultuous reception that Alvarez/Carlos received at a Broadway theatre, his interview on New York radio station WOOP, and other indications that here was a formidable American New Age phenomenon. Two small substantiating details: an article from a South Florida newspaper read, 'THEATER NOTE: The three-day stay of channeler CAR-LOS has been extended at the War Memorial Auditorium ... in response to the requests for further appearances', and an excerpt from a television programme guide listed a special on THE ENt.i.tY CARLOS: This in-depth study reveals the facts behind one of today's most popular and controversial personalities'.

Alvarez and his manager arrived in Sydney first cla.s.s on Qantas. They travelled everywhere in an enormous white stretch limousine. They occupied the Presidential Suite of one of the city's most prestigious hotels. Alvarez was attired in an elegant white gown with a golden medallion. In his first press conference, Carlos quickly emerged. The ent.i.ty was forceful, literate, commanding. Australian television programmes quickly lined up for appearances by Alvarez, his manager, and his nurse (to check his pulse and announce the presence of Carlos).

On Australia's Today Show, Today Show, they were interviewed by the host, George Negus. When Negus posed a few reasonable and sceptical questions, the New Agers exhibited very thin skins. Carlos laid a curse on the anchorman. His manager doused Negus with a gla.s.s of water. Both stalked off the set. It was a sensation in the tabloid press, its significance rehashed on Australian television. 'TV Outburst: Water Thrown at Negus', was the front-page headline in the 16 February 1988 they were interviewed by the host, George Negus. When Negus posed a few reasonable and sceptical questions, the New Agers exhibited very thin skins. Carlos laid a curse on the anchorman. His manager doused Negus with a gla.s.s of water. Both stalked off the set. It was a sensation in the tabloid press, its significance rehashed on Australian television. 'TV Outburst: Water Thrown at Negus', was the front-page headline in the 16 February 1988 Daily Mirror. Daily Mirror. Television stations were flooded with calls. One Sydney citizen advised taking the curse on Negus very seriously: the army of Satan had already a.s.sumed control of the United Nations, he said, and Australia might be next. Television stations were flooded with calls. One Sydney citizen advised taking the curse on Negus very seriously: the army of Satan had already a.s.sumed control of the United Nations, he said, and Australia might be next.

Carlos's next appearance was on the Australian version of A Current Affair. A Current Affair. A sceptic was brought in who described a magician's trick by which the pulse in one hand is made briefly to stop: you put a rubber ball in your armpit and squeeze. When Carlos's authenticity was questioned, he was outraged: 'This interview is terminated!' he thundered. A sceptic was brought in who described a magician's trick by which the pulse in one hand is made briefly to stop: you put a rubber ball in your armpit and squeeze. When Carlos's authenticity was questioned, he was outraged: 'This interview is terminated!' he thundered.