Do it Yourself
ALIEN AUTOPSY

by Emily and Linda Rosa

Have fun and make your very own alien autopsy cake! It’s great for a Halloween party or your birthday. My friends and I had a wild time dissecting my chocolate alien cake made with a glass alien head (sold in novelty stores as piggy bank), a big batch of green frosting and miscellaneous edible guts. Our alien cake was every bit as real as the famous alien dissected on the Fox Network in 1995.

When my guests arrived, I gave them lab coats to wear (which looked suspiciously like long white shirts) so we all looked like scientists. then I led them into the “dissection room” where the body lay on what looked suspiciously like a dining room table. You can set the mood by getting everyone to make a cursory external examination of your alien — note the small ears, the imperforate mouth, the fragile, fluffy dermal layer, the lack of genitalia, no evidence of decomposition, etc.

At first my friends were squeamish about cutting into the alien, but they soon got over it. Bethan plunged her knife through the frosting and into the chest which heaved as if alive as a result of the bag of guts (cherry pie filling and gummy worms) sliding around under the cake. It was pretty creepy. Bethan squealed and immediately pulled out the knife — which was dripping red — so she screamed again. But before long, my friend Erin was bold enough to plunge her hands into the alien and grab fistfuls of its (or her or his) guts.

This alien tasted really good, too. My savage friends licked the guts off of their hands. Your alien cake will disappear fast, almost as fast as other extraterrestrials sighted on Earth. I hope you have as much fun as we did. Be sure to take some out-of-focus photos of the fun, just like the real alien autopsy hoax film. I would love to hear your stories about your experience if you make an alien cake.

The recipe — assembling the alien cake

Body

This alien takes three pans of cake: two 9” x 9” square pans and one 9” diameter round pan. We recommend chocolate cake to go with the cherries.

Limbs

Take one of the square cakes and cut it into five strips. Cut one strip the same size off the other square cake, as well. These are your arms and legs. Arrange as you like.

Pelvis

The remaining cake makes up the hips.

Chest

Cut the circular cake in half and place the pieces over the bag of guts. You might need to sculpt the cake a bit.

Viscera

Remember the phony alien autopsy film they showed on TV? None of the guts were connected. That doesn’t make sense, but it’s easier to do. For our guts, we dumped a big can of cherry pie filling and a handful of gummy worms (and anything else edible that you want) in a clear, thin plastic bag. Knot the bag tightly and cut off any extra plastic.

Head

We had an alien head (actually a piggy bank) around the house that cost $10. We made a support for it from cardboard, covered with aluminum foil. If you don’t have an alien head you could use a green balloon. Draw a pair of big slanted eyes on the balloon with a black marker. Or make another round cake layer and cut an alien head shape out of it as shown.

Dermal Layer

Frost cake all over with green icing to match the color of the head.

Autopsy Table

Prepare the alien on a big sheet of cardboard covered with heavy duty aluminum foil to protect your table.

Science: A Four Hundred Page Hissy-Fit

by Norman J. Levitt

Imagine a biography of Mozart grimly intent on debunking its subject. It points out that he had an unhealthy interest in scatological jokes, demeaned women in Cosi fan tutte, black men in Die Zauberflote and poor peasants in Don Giovanni. He was a spendthrift and preyed on his friends’ generosity, while thinking himself superior to any of his fellow-musicians. He garnered praise and glory in Vienna while leaving his equally talented sister to languish in the provinces as their father’s housekeeper. He exploited the underpaid talents of performing musicians, copyists, and a host of other menials to realize his work and put it before the wealthy public. He curried the favor of a decadent hereditary nobility in a crumbling and oppressive empire. Furthermore, he borrowed a lot of his themes from folk-music without acknowledgment. To think of him as a singular genius, then, is obviously wrongheaded, since practically anyone can whistle or hum a tune and even improvise on it without depending on his examples. He is cited shamelessly by the reigning elite as a prime example of western cultural superiority in an attempt to intimidate the masses and to justify the continuing hegemony of capitalist high culture. However, we oughtn’t to patronize those ordinary people who prefer hip-hop to Mozart; they’re just embracing unorthodox (by upper-class standards) but equally valid esthetic values. In sum, there’s no reason whatever to idolize Mozart, and we ought to cast a suspicious eye on those who do.

Mutatis mutandis, the British historian of science Patricia Fara has written a book that treats its own vast subject — science and the history of its development — in a similarly contemptuous and condescending way. Fara’s case reposes on the twin shaky pillars of epistemological relativism and self-ascribed political righteousness. It is outlandishly Pecksniffian in tone and substance. She has an appallingly cavalier attitude toward evidence and documentation. She argues by means of flat assertion and unsupported generalization, sins, one assumes, she would never let her callowest undergraduates get away with. When I read a book, however closely, my marginal notations are usually brief and infrequent. Not so in the case of Science: A Four Thousand Year History; my copy is crammed with notes to myself, most of them pointing out the author’s grotesque gaffes. Imprecision reigns on every page; inaccuracies, irrelevancies, omissions, anachronisms, errors, and outright howlers go galumphing through the text with the author’s blithe acquiescence. Here I group the conceptual defects thematically.

Science in Alien Cultures

Fara begins her book with an attempt to show that science is not a western European monopoly; rather, she claims, societies built on vastly different cultures than our own have devised ways to systematize knowledge, some of which are echoed in our own scientific practice, while others strike off in different philosophical and methodological directions. She surveys the scientific and technological achievements of Babylon, China, and the Islamic World (Arab and Persian). Given her aim of showing some kind of parity of ancient and modern peoples in respect to epistemic dignity, there are some surprising omissions here. Egypt is not mentioned, nor Rome, with its audacious engineering. The pre-Columbian cultures of the western hemisphere go unmentioned as well, notwithstanding the mathematical, astronomical, and calendrical accomplishments of the Maya, the architectural splendors of Teotihuacan and Tenochtitlan, and the unsurpassed craftsmanship of the Inca. Worst of all, India is entirely ignored, despite the well-known fact that decimal arithmetic and the notion of zero were discovered there before spreading to Islamic and Christian civilizations, and despite the more profound, if lesser-known fact, that the mathematical culture of India was the deepest and most insightful in the world before the Renaissance took hold in Europe.

Even the societies that command Fara’s attention are treated superficially and with little attention to vital detail. The most stunning mathematical achievement of the Babylonians (so far as we know) is the compilation of tables of Pythagorean triples of integers, which suggests some kind of acquaintance with the Pythagorean theorem, at least empirically. Fara ignores it. The enormous technological ingenuity of China in the first millennium AD is sketchily alluded to, but without any clear idea of how China may have conceptualized the principles that its technology implemented. Moreover, the mathematical learning of Chinese adepts — deeper and more incisive than is generally recognized — is simply ignored. Islamic scientific culture is praised, but in a vague and approximate way that gives the reader no real grasp of what it actually accomplished in mathematics, physics, and astronomy.

When it comes to Greece — Hellenic and Hellenistic science — Fara’s tone changes altogether, since Greece in the conventional view stands godfather to post-medieval western culture, and therefore must be viewed as tainted. Fara’s basic method is to throw around a few well-known names, but with a dismissive agenda clearly delineated. The most stunning of Greek intellectual achievements, the invention of the axiomatic method and synthetic geometry for example, goes completely unmentioned. The name of the possibly mythical sage Pythagoras gets thrown about at some length, but without any account of the famous theorem nor of the even more stunning discovery, still resonant in contemporary debates over the nature of mathematical entities, of the irrationality of √2, a discovery ascribed, rightly or not, to the Pythagorean school (but in any case Greek). Plato’s cosmology, expounded in the Timaeus, and the source of the designation “Platonic” for the five regular solids, is also absent, despite its notable attempt at constructing a version of chemistry.

Worst of all, however, is the treatment of the great Archimedes, so far as we know the most powerful intellect of the pre-modern world. Saith Fara, “Archimedes was neither a scientist nor a technologist, since no such people existed when he was living in Sicily during the third century BCE.” This exhibits a rather witless eagerness to confuse nomenclature with reality. Archimedes is characterized as more concerned with “ingenious gadgets that would demonstrate mathematical principles” than with practical engineering. This rather perversely ignores his well-attested fame as a military engineer of matchless ingenuity. But even if we ignore this point, we are still left with an (all too brief) account of Archimedes that tells us nothing whatever of what this greatest of ancient mathematicians and physicists actually achieved: the “method of exhaustion,” anticipating modern notions of limit and infinite series and applied to the computation of geometric quantities; the calculation of the volume and surface area of the sphere and many other geometric objects; a precise method for approximating π, a deep understanding of leverage, buoyancy and the optics of mirrors, etc. Fara doesn’t deign to discuss any of this. Why?

I conclude that two things haunt and terrify Fara. One is mathematics; over and over, she evades having to deal with mathematical ideas, the very core of scientific progress. I shall mention several more examples below. But even more unacceptable is the very notion of genius (without which it is impossible to talk sensibly about Archimedes, inter alia). She seems to regard the very idea of genius as an imposture, a myth designed to cow the ordinary run of humanity, especially women, workers, and non-westerners. By contrast, the book is full of feminist sniping that exalts relatively minor and marginal figures in the history of science, while one could compile an extensive list (I have done so) of notable geniuses who go unmentioned or are referred to in a scant sentence or two.

Invisible Geniuses

Most notably, one key figure seems to be missing from this account: Sir Isaac Newton. “Although Newton was undoubtedly a brilliant man, eulogies of a lone genius fail to match events,” claims Fara. A previous book of hers, Newton: The Making of a Genius, has an ironic title: the point is that Newton, as we now conceive of him, was the product of a long and unremitting campaign of cultural propaganda designed to demonstrate the unassailable superiority of British and western learning. Fara’s assertions are all too easy to prove if one resorts to the simple strategy of systematically ignoring what Newton did and how he did it.

The image of Newton as a solitary and isolated figure is all too well-attested anecdotally to be reasonably challenged. As to his being a genius by any definition, we have the evidence, not only of the invention of the calculus and the grand synthesis of Principia Mathematica, but of his dazzling array of other mathematical and scientific breakthroughs, for instance, his work on the characterization of algebraic curves in the plane, his method for counting and determining the roots of arbitrary functions, his investigations of infinite series, and his solution in a scant few hours of the brachistichrone problem, which had taken Leibniz six months to crack.

Also absent is any account of Newton’s achievement in optics — his analysis of the compound nature of light and his invention of the reflecting telescope (the original instrument was built with his own hands). Fara doesn’t give us even the briefest account of the chronology, let alone the intellectual content, of these achievements. There is nothing about Newton’s relations with his teacher Isaac Barrow nor with his rival Gottfried Leibniz (who scarcely figures in this book). We see nothing about the growing interest in the central force problem, the role of Hooke in spurring Newton to divulge what he knew of celestial mechanics, the appearance of De Motu (the work that initially set forth the essential facts about orbital motion) or the crucial calculation showing that spherical planets could be regarded as point masses without loss of rigor.

All we are told is that Newton was some kind of mystical alchemist who somehow stumbled on crucial cosmological truths, a medieval mage and alchemist rudely transported into the dawn of the Enlightenment. Even here, the most salient of Newton’s doctrinal eccentricities, his anti-Trinitarianism, goes unmentioned, though it is crucial to understanding his isolation. All we are left with is a comical figure appropriate for mockery.

Fara’s treatment of Einstein is even more contemptuous. Noting that Einstein “became a household name,” she asserts, caustically, that “it seems less clear that he deserved such accolades.” Einstein, she thinks, wrapped himself in the aura of “a supernatural genius who had created a theory incomprehensible to mere mortals.” But in Fara’s world, remember, no geniuses are allowed, particularly when they rely on the mystifications of mathematics. It is rather curious that she seeks to demonstrate her point by reproducing a picture of an unerased blackboard on which Einstein jotted down some formulas (having to do with the age of the universe, it appears.) “For most people,” she declares, “the equations are meaningless squiggles.” She has picked a poor example; these particular equations can easily be conned by anyone who is not a complete washout in an elementary calculus course. Fara can’t be bothered with such troublesome details.

Fara’s exposition of the gist of relativity theory is brief, but also incoherent. The reader will learn nothing from it. There are, of course, technical gaffes as well. The General Theory of Relativity, she asserts, demonstrates that “space travelers will return to find themselves younger than the friends they left behind on Earth.” But the “twin paradox” occurs in Special Relativity, that is to say, in flat Minkowski space. Since Fara has an undergraduate physics degree there is no excuse for such sloppiness.

Worst of all, her account of the genesis of relativity is, to put it bluntly, sheer rot. “[Einstein’s] arcane theory was rooted in the practical problems of clock coordination under the nineteenth century regime of precision,” she claims. Well, no. In the first place, nineteenth-century practical problems of clock coordination can be handled perfectly well by classical physics, as relativity itself demonstrates. They occur on a scale where relativity essentially reduces to classical physics, for all practical purposes. But, more important, we have an excellent record of the cogitations that led Einstein to his celebrated result.

Most significant is the gedanken experiment Einstein devised in his teens in which he imagined what would be perceived by an observer riding a light beam. This is, in fact, a picturesque epitome of the fact that Maxwell’s equations setting out the basic principles of electromagnetic radiation (e.g., light), unlike Newton’s equations governing mechanics, are not invariant under Galilean change of coordinate. This can be demonstrated less colorfully by mathematical analysis. Yet one would expect Maxwell’s (well confirmed) equations to be just as fundamental to physics as Newton’s. How to resolve the dilemma? Other theorists were well aware of the problem but, unlike them, Einstein summarily rejected ad hoc solutions and went to the heart of the matter. He simply assumed that the equations of mechanics had to be revised so as to become, like Maxwell’s equations, “Lorentz invariant.” The result is relativity theory, which preserves classical physics as a “limiting case” that applies to situations where velocities are low.

Is all this a leap of genius by a solitary thinker? Of course! But Fara will none of it. No geniuses allowed! For her, even the most brilliant scientist is at root a run-of-the-mill artisan who can talk a good game to mystify the masses.

Elision, Distortion, Conflation

Fara simply glides past episodes that might seem central to any coherent account of the development of modern sciences. For example, there is virtually no mention of titanic figures like Euler and Gauss, of Lagrange and Hamilton, of Riemann and Poincare, of Boltzmann and Mach. Her account of quantum mechanics is pathetically barren of salient fact. The usual sequence of epochal developments — Planck’s introduction of the notion of discrete “light quanta” to resolve anomalies in the spectrum of black-body radiation, the inconsistency of the naive model of the atom with the facts of electrodynamics, Einstein’s resolution of the conundrum of the photoelectric effect, Bohr’s quantized model of the hydrogen atom, the Stern-Gerlach experiment, the ultimate emergence of the Heisenberg-Schrodinger formalism for a generalized quantum mechanics — all of this goes unmentioned. It seems that Fara is only interested in quantum theory to the extent that if affords a half-baked justification for moaning about a miasmal “uncertainty” that supposedly pervades modern culture. Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics get a similar silent treatment. As for Lord Kelvin, he is “best known for laying the transatlantic telegraph cable.” Really? What happened to thermodynamic absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale ubiquitous in physical science?

Darwin, of course, gets clobbered, with Fara trotting out all sorts of silly canards that were put to rest long ago. I spare you the details. Likewise, Pasteur gets a quick once-over that buries his major achievements in discovering the etiology of infectious disease, as well as practical methods for dealing with such afflictions by means of vaccination.

As for engineers and designers whose talents rose to the level of genius, don’t look for them here either, despite the author’s avowed intention to bring to the fore the economic and nationalistic substrate of science and technology. Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Augustus Roebling, Nikola Tesla, Lee de Forest, Charles Proteus Steinmetz, et al. — you won’t find them here.

Fara often wants to discuss religion and spirituality as an ostensible motivation for scientific work. Thus, she blithely assumes that supporters of the “Big Bang” model in the 1950s were pretty much uniformly theists who thirsted for proof of a creator god, as opposed to the backers of Hoyle’s “steady state, continuous creation of matter” model, who are presumed to be scoffers. What can one say of such a tissue of nonsense, unsupported by any direct evidence, especially in the face of the fact that opinion swung almost instantly and unanimously in favor of the Big Bang when Penzias and Wilson discovered the 3°K black-body radiation predicted by Big Bang theorists?

Fara also has the habit of conflating rather disparate and unrelated scientific themes. Thus there is a parallel portrayal of the effect of Einstein’s science and Freud’s pseudoscience. There seems to be little point to this, other than to provide a backdoor excuse for an anemic vindication of the “Viennese witch doctor,” as Nabokov has shrewdly tagged him. Cosmology and plate tectonics are declared to be intimately related: “Earth scientists were taking space environments into account” (true enough) “and cosmologists required geological expertise for analysing other-world rocks for traces of life.” Say what?! What happened to hyperinflation, structure in the early universe, cold dark matter, the recrudescence of the cosmological constant, and so forth? Looking at Martian geology for hints of life is fascinating, but has nothing to do with cosmology as the term is unanimously understood.

We get a short account of Alan Turing, but as a supposed computer wonk avant la lettre. Fara’s account of the celebrated “Turing test” is quite unsatisfactory. She seems merely to want to sneer at the materialist assumption that “mind is what brain does” underlying Turing’s proposal. Far worse, she says nothing about the deep connections between Turing’s work on idealized “universal” computers and Gödel’s epochal incompleteness theorem. (Gödel doesn’t appear, of course — that would be another embarrassing lone-wolf genius to contend with.) Turing is, however, linked to that now-forgotten quasi-charlatan, Marshall McLuhan, make of that what you will.

Naturally there is a brief excursion into feminist readings of biology. Fara trots out the shopworn myth that, prior to the emergence of feminist insight, embryologists were enmired in the patriarchal delusion that the ovum is a quiescent, passive entity on which the active and adventurous sperm homes in. Alas, I’ve seen this one before. It is a prime example of the self-serving mythology of academic feminists on the lookout for edifying tales of valorous feminist critique cutting away the complacent myths of the male establishment. The main problem with the account, sadly, is that it is palpably untrue, as is clear to anyone inclined to pay attention to hard evidence.

In truth, Fara’s bag of tricks seems inexhaustible, but one wearies of sorting through it all. Her work comes down to a pretext for sneering at scientists living and dead and waxing indignant over the primacy of science in modern society. The only thing to be thankful for is that Fara eschews the dismal ju-ju of postmodern “theory,” and we don’t have to contend with Michel Foucault stomping through the pages, lamenting in gloomy and convoluted Gallicisms the hegemonic episteme imposed by science.

Resentment Locked and Loaded

On second thought, however, one is driven to conclude that the kind of resentment that actuates Foucault, or at least his countless admirers, in his distaste for science lies at the root of Fara’s extended jeremiad. The same might be said of most academics for whom a surly attitude toward science has become a de rigueur appurtenance to their quasi-political stance and their social outlook. Let’s face it: in terms of power and value to a modern industrial state, the natural sciences tower over all other forms of intellectual activity. This is an unhappy fact for humanists to face; some do so gracefully, but, to the surprise of no student of human nature, many find their way into some rationale for disparaging or dismissing science. Nowadays, this resentment is conjoined with a reflexively egalitarian world-view that disdains the idea that some rare individuals are creative or insightful through faculties that we ordinary mortals simply don’t share. Also in play is a more explicitly political doctrine grounded in shame and regret for what western society has inflicted on myriad other cultures in the course of establishing its world-girdling dominion, a process in which science and technology had a crucial role.

The fulminant ichor of that resentment is the life’s-blood of this book. To the extent that she persuades readers to see things her way, Fara relies of “proof by intimidation”: if one does not go along with her tendentious assertions, one must be Eurocentric, patriarchal, and terribly, terribly out of fashion. Her sympathy for victims of Western greed and lust for power leads her into outright epistemic relativism. If various civilizations failed, despite impressive isolated achievements, to develop a fully scientific world view that’s okay with Fara, because, what the hell, they were following their bliss and, anyway, the search for Absolute Truth is chimerical. She writes a long chapter on objectivity, stressing the impossibility of achieving it, a sentiment that echoes throughout the rest of the text as well. But she fatally ignores the countervailing corrective: if ideal objectivity is impossible, failing to strive for it is nonetheless scientific suicide. She is relentlessly ferocious in pressing her claim that scientists inevitably cherry-pick their evidence in order to bolster theories to which they are committed in advance, often for ideological or frankly venal reasons rather than scientific intuition. Yet such cherry-picking is the heart and soul of her methodology, such as it is. This book dispenses, one notes, with most of the standard scholarly apparatus. The text cries out for frequent and specific citations, but they are nowhere to be found. The few endnote references that appear are to secondary literature and are completely unhelpful. Only a thin trickle of evidence, and that mostly misleading, is allowed to speak.

In the end, however, Fara and those who admire her aren’t the problem. Plenty of wretched books written by authors who are in over their heads appear every year; vanity presses turn such titles out by the bushel-basket. No, the trouble is really institutional and all too deeply rooted. To put it impudently and without any leavening of charity, what in the world is a meager scholar like Fara doing on Newton’s home turf, Cambridge? And what is a venerable institution like the Oxford University Press doing in putting its imprimatur on this tiresome volume? Truly, the dreaming spires seem very unstable at this point and it is hard to find a reason to believe that better times are around the corner.

Fatal Adjustments
How Chiropractic Kills

by J. D. Haines, MD

When Kristi Bedenbaugh wanted relief from a bad sinus headache, the 24 year-old former beauty queen and medical office administrator made the mistake of consulting a chiropractor. An autopsy performed on Kristi revealed that the manipulation of her neck had split the inner walls of both vertebral arteries, resulting in a fatal stroke.

The chiropractor’s violent twisting of her neck caused the torn arterial walls to balloon and block the blood supply to the posterior portion of her brain. Studies confirmed that the blood clots formed on the two days she received her neck adjustments.

Kristi died in1993. Four years later, South Carolina’s State Board of Chiropractic Examiners fined the chiropractor $1000 and sentenced him to 12 hours of continuing medical education in the area of neurological disorders and emergency response.

item of interest…

The Borderlands of Science

Where does valid science leave off and borderland science begin? This book and lecture examines the theories, the people and the history involved in areas of controversy where sense is in danger of turning into nonsense.

ORDER the book (only $10)
ORDER the lecture DVD ($23.95)

Supporters of chiropractic are quick to claim that cases like this are rare. Try telling that to Kristi’s family — no matter how great the odds, the outcome was 100% fatal for her. The real problem is that there are no valid statistics concerning the risk of stroke after neck manipulation. Aside from anecdotal reports like Kristi’s and a few surveys, little clinical research has addressed this problem.

Two recent studies reveal the tip of the iceberg. In 1992, researchers at the Stanford Stroke Center surveyed 486 California neurologists regarding how many patients they had seen within the previous two years who had suffered a stroke within 24 hours of neck manipulation. One hundred seventy-seven neurologists responded, reporting 55 patients between the ages of 21 and 60. One patient died and 48 were left with permanent neurological impairment.

A review of 116 journal articles published between 1925 and 1997 reported 177 cases of neck injury caused by manipulation. Sixty percent of these cases resulted from injury inflicted by chiropractors.

The real tragedy is that cervical spine manipulation is totally worthless in treating problems like Kristi Bedenbaugh’s. So, however rare the incidence of adverse outcome, the risk always outweighs any perceived benefit. There is no medically proven benefit whatsoever to chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine.

While it may be argued that chiropractic is helpful for some cases of low back pain, the claims that over 90 different medical illnesses may be successfully treated by spinal manipulation is without any scientific evidence. The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics stated on May 27, 2002, “For neck and low back pain, trials have not demonstrated an unequivocal benefit of chiropractic spinal manipulation over physical therapy and education.” The report continues: “Repeated reports of arterial dissection and stroke associated with cervical spine manipulation and cauda equina syndrome associated with manipulation of the lower back suggest a cause and effect relationship.”

The report concludes, “Spinal manipulation can cause life-threatening complications. Manipulation of the cervical spine, which has been associated with dissection of the vertebral artery, appears to be especially dangerous.”

The major problem with chiropractic is that it was founded upon the false premise that correction of vertebral subluxations will restore and maintain health. Chiropractic philosophy maintains that disease or abnormal function is caused by interference with nerve transmission due to pressure, strain, or tension upon the spinal nerves due to deviation or subluxation within the vertebral column.

Daniel David Palmer, a tradesman who posed as a magnetic healer, discovered chiropractic in 1895. Palmer’s first patient was a deaf janitor who had his hearing restored after Palmer adjusted a bump on his spine. According to Dr. Edmund Crelin, “Magnetic healing was a popular form of quackery in the 19th century in which the healers believed that their personal magnetism was so great that it gave them the power to cure diseases.” Palmer summarized his new science:

I am the originator, the Fountain Head of the essential principle that disease is the result of too much or not enough funtionating [sic]. I created the art of adjusting vertebrae, using the spinous and transverse processes as levers, and named the mental act of accumulating knowledge, the cumulative function, corresponding to the vegetative function — growth of intellectual and physical-together, with the science, art and philosophy — Chiropractic. It was I who combined the science and art and developed the principles thereof. I have answered the question — what is life?

Palmer’s egotistical and ridiculous claims are familiar to those who have studied leaders of religious cults. Incredibly, Palmer’s philosophy remains the basis of modern-day chiropractic thinking. Palmer’s claim that chiropractic answers the question, “What is life?” would be laughable if not for a gullible public who readily accept quackery.

The public is led to believe that physicians disparage chiropractors out of some sort of professional jealousy. Yet there is only one reason that physicians judge chiropractors so harshly. Medicine is scientifically based, whereas chiropractic is not supported by a single legitimate scientific study.

In the first experimental study of the basis of chiropractic’s subluxation theory, Dr. Edmund S. Crelin, then an anatomy professor at Yale University, demonstrated that chiropractic theory was erroneous. As retired chiropractor Samuel Homola writes, “Using dissected spines with ligaments attached and the spinal nerves exposed, he used a drill press to bend and twist the spine. Using an ohm meter to record any contact between wired spinal nerves and the foraminal openings, he found that vertebrae could not be displaced enough to stretch or impinge a spinal nerve unless the force was great enough to break the spine. Crelin concluded, ‘This experimental study demonstrates conclusively that the subluxation of a vertebrae as defined by chiropractic — the exertion of pressure on a spinal nerve which by interfering with the planned expression of Innate Intelligence produces pathology — does not occur.’”

Physicians have long recognized that spinal nerves are commonly pinched by bony spurs and herniated discs, resulting in musculoskeletal symptoms, without any effect on visceral function, as claimed by chiropractic. Chiropractic theory ignores that the autonomic nervous system maintains the function of the body’s organs, even in spinal cord lesions.

item of interest…

The SKEPTIC Encyclopedia
of Pseudoscience

Two volumes full of case studies, historical documents, and a pro/con debate section. Read more…

ORDER the encyclopedia

Chiropractors are notorious for performing unnecessary X-rays and so-called maintenance care that often corresponds to the duration of the patient’s insurance coverage. The greatest threat of chiropractic, however, may be to infants and children. As Homola explains, “Parents are lured by claims that spinal adjustments at an early age can prevent the development of disease and that vaccination may not be necessary.” There remains no medical or scientific basis for the treatment of infants and children. A more subtle danger represented by chiropractic is the campaign for public acceptance as primary care providers. The clinical training received by chiropractic students is greatly inferior to that of medical students and residents.

In today’s climate of government-sanctioned alternative therapies, the ignorant consumer may be fooled by slick marketing to believe that chiropractors are qualified to treat a broad range of diseases. As alternative medicine gains wider acceptance, public health will surely suffer. Stephen Barrett, MD, has written that the real enemy of chiropractors is themselves:

Your basic enemy is yourself. Your colleagues engaged in unscientific practices, economic rip-offs, cheating insurance companies, selling unnecessary supplements and generally overselling themselves. Most chiropractors would like to believe that the number of such colleagues is small. I think it is large and may even be a majority.

As far back as 1924 essayist H. L. Mencken recognized chiropractors as quacks:

Today the backwoods swarm with chiropractors, and in most States they have been able to exert enough pressure on the rural politicians to get themselves licensed. Any lout with strong hands and arms is perfectly equipped to become a chiropractor. No education beyond the elements is necessary. The takings are often high, and so the profession has attracted thousands of recruits — retired baseball players, work-weary plumbers, truck-drivers, longshoremen, bogus dentists, dubious preachers, cashiered school superintendents. Now and then a quack of some other school — say homeopathy — plunges into it. Hundreds of promising students come from the intellectual ranks of hospital orderlies.

As practiced today, chiropractic is a threat to public health. In an age where phenomenal medical discoveries have improved the health and extended average longevity to almost 80 years, chiropractic remains a holdover from the days of the snake oil salesmen. Every year trusting and naïve Americans suffer needless injury and death due to dangerous cervical spine manipulation. The investigation of the true frequency of complications from chiropractic is a duty that public health officials have long neglected and should undertake at once.

Science & Morality

by Dr Harriet Hall, MD

This book starts out well but ends badly. It is an awkward compilation of three different subjects: evolution science, morality, and politics. The science is well done. Fetzer begins by explaining the difference between science and religion, the difference between testable, modifiable hypotheses and untestable, rigid beliefs. He explains evolution and shows why it is not in conflict with religion but only with limited fundamentalist interpretations of religion. He shows why “intelligent design” is not science. So far, so good.

He is on shakier ground when he gets into morality. He says we are morally entitled to hold a belief only if we’re logically entitled to hold it. I agree, but there are two problems: (1) he simply presents this as a given, without trying to justify it philosophically and (2) different philosophers frequently disagree about what beliefs we are logically entitled to hold. Fetzer seems certain that he is logically entitled to beliefs that support the legalization of a wide variety of practices including abortion, stem-cell research, cloning, prostitution, pot-smoking, and flag-burning. Other philosophers might argue against those practices, thinking they are logically entitled to a different opinion.

He evaluates eight different theories of morality: subjectivism, family values, religious ethics, cultural relativism, ethical egoism, limited utilitarianism, classic utilitarianism, and a deontological theory according to which an action is right when it involves respecting others and treating them as ends, never merely as means. Deontology holds that some acts are intrinsically immoral in themselves, regardless of their consequences. Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative is an example of deontological ethics.

He asks if there are criteria of adequacy that might be employed to evaluate moral theories akin to those of inference to the best explanation for empirical theories. Then he pulls three criteria of adequacy out of his hat. For instance, the first criterion is that an acceptable theory must not reduce to the corrupt principle that might makes right. I agree that might doesn’t make right, but a philosopher should know that he can’t just declare something like this without showing arguments to justify it. This criterion amounts to an assumption that one of the possible theories it is intended to evaluate is a priori wrong.

item of interest…

Evolution?
The Fossils Say Yes!

Are the so called “gaps’ in the fossil record an embarrassment to evolutionists as creationists claim? Are controversies between evolutionists cracks in the foundation of the theory of evolution? In this lecture the nationally known and highly respected paleontologist Dr. Donald Prothero will explain the fossil record and refute the creationist’s argument of “show us just one transitional form” by providing the audience with countless examples of evolution in action in the fossil record. This lecture is Dr. Donald Prothero’s rebuttal of Duane T. Gish’s Evolution? The Fossils Say NO! Read more…
ORDER the lecture on DVD

He concludes that the deontological theory of morality is the only justifiable one. Then he uses that theory to show that the Christian Right’s position on issues like abortion is immoral. His purpose is to criticize one small branch of religion, not to evaluate the moralities of all world religions.

I found Michael Shermer’s scientific approach to morality far more satisfying. In his book The Science of Good and Evil he suggests that an innate moral sense evolved in humans because it offered a survival advantage. We instinctively feel that certain things like murder are wrong; then we try to justify our feelings by reasoning about moral theories. While there is no “absolute morality” there is a transcendent morality, a joint endeavor of humanity that elevates our moral instincts into a greater project. He offers a modified Golden Rule: don’t just do unto others as you would want to be done unto, but do unto others as they would want you to do unto them. He has a pyramid of morality showing that we become more moral as we extend our moral sphere to include larger groups, from individual to family to strangers to society to biosphere.

The last part of Fetzer’s book was a big disappointment to me. He descends into a diatribe against the Bush administration, big corporations, and other alleged demons. He sees an alliance between “the rich” and religious fundamentalism that is turning America into a fascist state with the goal of world domination. What started out as an objective look at science, evolution, and religion is corrupted into a platform to express personal political opinions. I found this an offensive intrusion that I could not have expected from the title and subtitle of the book.

Science can do much to inform political decisions. We should base public policy on scientific knowledge, not on religious beliefs. We should indeed “render unto Darwin” the respect that science deserves. Fetzer might have written a very valuable book to further that goal. He didn’t.

Drowning Toads by
20-something Naturalists

by Darryl E. Brock

A book of this title, Darwin Slept Here, might be dismissed as mere travelogue, or worse, a tongue-in-cheek lampooning of the eminent Sage at Down. While not intended as a work of original scholarship, the volume has much to commend it, even as an exploration of evolution. It presents a valuable perspective on young Darwin the adventurer, chronicled by Eric Simons, a similarly-aged 20-something environmental journalist. Simons’ work, then, is a travelogue of sorts, but is also an introspection into Darwin as a young man, and an exploration of Darwin in South American.

Just before pursuing graduate work at U.C. Berkeley, Simons stumbled across a copy of Darwin’s The Voyage of the Beagle at an English language bookstore in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego. There Simons had been on a jaunt of escape from a graveyard shift as a Bay area newspaper copy editor. Transfixed by the adventure of a lifetime that young 22 year-old Darwin had experienced at a time of his own quarterlife uncertainty, Simons (then 24) identified with the British naturalist. Struck by how Darwin’s accounts sounded just like the stories he had been hearing in hostel bunk rooms, Simons committed himself to deepen his understanding of people and legends that had fascinated Darwin; he decided to retrace some of the naturalist’s path.

item of interest…

The Evolution of God

In this engaging and sweeping story that takes us from the Stone Age to the Information Age, bestselling author Robert Wright unveils an astonishing discovery: there is a hidden pattern that the great monotheistic faiths have followed as they have evolved…
ORDER the lecture
on DVD and CD

Simons poignantly notes the similarity of his approach to that of Darwin’s wife Emma, of Wedgwood family fame. In the years after her husband’s death, Emma would wish to reconnect with Charles, so she too sought out her youthful love in the pages of the Beagle account. There she imagined herself at his side saving toads from drowning, and tossing iguanas to see if they could swim. Like Simons, she wished to ask Charles “so many questions.”

In fact, Simons poses a question to himself — and to Darwin — as to how much the scientist’s mental powers contributed to conceiving evolution, as opposed to travel itself catalyzing the conceptual leap. Simons reminds us that Thomas Huxley recalled the clear logic of evolution: “How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!” Simons is interested in the diverse experiences of travel, wondering if these in toto somehow contributed to Darwin putting all the pieces into context. It is a conundrum, one that Darwin himself never quite nailed down, despite his musings on the nature of his own particular plodding intellect.

Granted it is entertaining, even illuminating to read of the adventurous young Darwin, but Simons manages to convey some good scientific perspective along the way. One cannot help but be impressed at how South America has commemorated Darwin, keeping alive his scientific spirit. At Chile’s Cerro la Campana (Bell Mountain), Darwin’s ascent is honored by “The Scientific Society of Valparaiso, the British Colony and his admirers” with a bronze plaque. In some cases the celebration is farcical, as with the Ushuaia musical “The Adventure of the Beagle” at the touristy Centro Beagle. There a frail, bearded, Argentine-accented Darwin morphs into a younger version, replete with synthetic muttonchops, singing “All across the Seven Seas the Beagle will succeed.”

In critiquing the historical errors of the Ushuaia play, Simons takes pains to correct the science. Darwin had not set out to discover evolution, any more than Captain Robert Fitzroy had intended to straightjacket science with the shackles of religion. In fact, Simons reminds that Fitzroy had equipped the Beagle with modern scientific equipment and had sought a scientific person to accompany him. During the voyage Fitzroy had not been overly religious, but it was Darwin whom the sailors laughed at for quoting biblical scripture on morality.

ORDER the illustrated edition of this book from Amazon.com

Simons examines Darwin’s writings on the Brazilian rain forests, noting the young scientist’s infatuation with the earlier German Alexander von Humboldt. In the spirit of Darwin, Simons also sought out local experts at Rio’s Tijuca National Park. Hiking with a guide, Simons learned that the jungle is now significantly denser than when Darwin visited in 1832. Soon after Darwin’s departure, subsequent deforestation impacted local water supply such that a massive 1861 environmental engineering program eventually reforested the area, with 72,000 native trees planted by a team of slaves.

There are many other examples of science in Darwin’s South America that Simons brings alive. The contest over priority in claiming Darwin’s rhea as a new species, the science behind Nixon’s gold mine in Chile, the discussion of Concepcion’s massive earthquake, the Senda Darwin biological station in Chile’s Emerald Island, Chiloé, and Simon’s ascent of Darwin’s favorite peaks, earlier chronicled by the scientist’s letter to John Henslow, recounts the geological beauty of the Andes.

Simons tells a great yarn of young Darwin’s travels, yet imperceptively manages to imbue the account with local color, history — and science. There are occasional lapses. He speculates that had Darwin never written On the Origin of Species, that Gregor Mendel could have taken up the mantle in introducing evolution. Extremely unlikely considering Mendel remained satisfied to publish his results so obscurely. The lapses, though, are few, and as an introduction to evolution via the highly satisfactory vehicle of young Darwin’s scientific travels, Simons has hit the mark. A new generation of 20-somethings and aging 20-something wannabees may be drawn to Darwin via this charming and unexpected source.

Paranormal Wall Street

by Karen Stollznow

On Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley, CA, a sign in a store window reads, “Psychic Readings: 2 for the price of 1.” A street vendor barks at me, “I’ll give you a tarot reading for two bucks!” and a sandwich board advertises a “Free Psychic Fair” to attract new customers. Even psychics are affected by the downturn in the economy. Then again, Sylvia Browne still claims there’s a wait of up to eight years for her psychic readings, at a cost of $800. Asked when the economy might begin to recover, Barack Obama told the Washington Post earlier this year, “I don’t have a crystal ball. Nobody can tell.” But some people think they can…

item of interest…

The Enemy Within:
2,000 Years of Witch-Hunting in the Western World

This original and fascinating lecture looks at the cultural, societal, and psychological practice of witch-hunts. Demos illuminates the dark side of communities driven to rid themselves of “evil,” no matter what the cost. Available on CD and DVD. Read More…
ORDER the lecture

In the current economic climate of the recession, subprime market foreclosures, the credit crisis, and mass unemployment, are psychics affected negatively by these factors, or are they actually profiteering (propheteering?) from them? Many industries are suffering, and it’s likely that psychics are too, but some allege that the economic bust has led to a psychic boom. According to several news sources, including USA Today, Time, and ABC News, new trends have appeared in the psychic industry over the past six months. Apparently, there are more clients, more psychics, different clients, and different client concerns.¹ These sources explain that, during times of “uncertainty” about the future, people seek those who claim to “know” the future, and that as a result, psychics have experienced an increase in clientele. With a greater demand for psychics, supposedly there is also a growth in the psychic job industry. Given current unemployment rates, it’s possible that psychic jobs are appealing as tax-free, unskilled, remote work; and given inflation rates, they may appeal as second jobs.

If we are to believe these anecdotal accounts, the once “staple” female demographic now includes male clients. The sources further report that there is a change in client concerns; namely, a shift away from relationship advice-giving to a focus on career and money, reflecting the current employment and financial strife. Finally, some psychics believe that their new clients are from higher socio-economic brackets, often with backgrounds in finance.

It appears that psychics have skipped the MBA and securities training to become amateur financial advisors for failing financiers and customers who are now distrustful of orthodox financial services. In the articles cited above, one psychic claims she charges $350 for financial advice to individuals, and $10,000 for corporations.

Some try to close the gap between trading futures and reading futures. There’s Arch Crawford, “The Street’s Best Known Astrologer,” who believes in not only bulls and bears, but Aries and Pisces.² Then there’s Mary T. Browne, better known as “Wall Street’s Psychic Advisor”.³ Henry Weingarten, author of Investing by the Stars, is a “financial astrologer” (or “corporate astrologer”) who uses a “top down approach” (i.e. astrology) to the stock market.⁴ Amazingly, they all claim to have predicted gold as a stable investment (although gold is traditionally an alternative investment to currency in such times.)

Some psychics have found a new niche as real estate gurus. If you’re lucky, you might find a real estate agent who is also psychic! To sell your home in this difficult market, California psychics recommend the use of a psychic-approved real-estate agent; and that the seller apply the principles of Feng Shui to improve the “energy” of the house.⁵ Don’t forget to bury a statue of St. Joseph upside-down in the back yard!

item of interest…

The Medea Hypothesis:
Is Life on Earth Ultimately Self-Destructive?

Using the latest discoveries from the geological record, Ward argues that life might be its own worst enemy and proposes a revolutionary and provocative vision of life’s relationship with the Earth’s biosphere. Available on CD and DVD. Read More…
ORDER the lecture

At this point you could be tempted to joke, “At the moment, psychics couldn’t do any worse than the analysts!” Yes, they can. Here are a few examples. The telecommunications company One.Tel (a venture funded by the Murdoch and Packer heirs) Feng Shui-ed itself out of business. A change management consultant (and white witch) cost a local government over $800,000 with her advice based in eastern religion and astrology.⁶ Recently, a banker gambled up to $109 billion on the stock market, and lost $7.7 billion, relying on advice from psychics in what was euphemistically called a “high risk strategy.”⁷

Some psychics deny that they offer financial advice, and defend their craft as based in practical advice and common sense. However, there’s nothing rational or logical about unqualified strangers advising “clients” on life-altering decisions, based on gut-feelings, emotions, hunches, hopes, and intuition. Ironically, these are the very impulses that have contributed to the current economic crisis.

References

1. ^  www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2009-03-15-psychics_N.htm, www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1894843,00.html?xid=rss-topstories, www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=7356014&page=1
2. ^  www.astromoney.com
3. ^  www.marytbrowne.com
4. ^  www.afund.com
5. ^  www.californiapsychics.com/articles/Features/2451/A_Quick_Sale.aspx
6. ^  www.fengshuinetwork.net/jodi/articles/herald_sun_ontel_collapse.html
7. ^  www.smh.com.au/world/rogue-trader-relied-on-clairvoyants-for-advice-20090216-898m.html

Swine Flu Vaccine Fearmongering

by Dr Harriet Hall, MD

Fear is a curious thing. It often bears no relation to the actual risk of what we fear. When swine flu first broke out in Mexico, people were understandably afraid. Travel was restricted, schools were closed, and so many people stayed home that the streets of Mexico City were empty. As the disease spread around the world, Egypt developed a paranoid fear of pigs and committed national pigicide. They ordered the slaughter of all 300,000 of their country’s innocent little porkers, ignoring the fact that the flu is spread person-to-person, not pig-to-person. Now that the disease has officially been labeled a pandemic, fears have switched from the real threat of the disease to an imagined danger from the vaccine.

Some people just plain hate the idea of vaccines — to the point that they are willing to spread old falsehoods, make up new lies, distort the results of studies, misrepresent statistics, and endanger our public health. There are websites like “Operation Fax to Stop the Vax” and even anti-swine-flu-vaccine rap videos. Press releases, e-mail campaigns, talk shows, and blogs are being used to stir up irrational fears. These people are irresponsible fearmongers. They are wrong, and they are dangerous.

Background

The 1918 flu. The flu epidemic of 1918 started as a mild disease in the spring, called the “3-day fever.” Most victims recovered in a few days; there were few deaths. Then in the fall, it turned into something far more severe. It was the same flu strain, but it had become more virulent. Some victims died within hours. Healthy young adults were as susceptible as children and the elderly. It affected remote villages as well as urban areas. It attacked 1/5 of the world’s population and killed 50 million people.

Wartime conditions may have favored the evolution of a more virulent strain. In peacetime, the sicker stay put and the mildly affected move around. In the trenches, the mildly affected stayed on duty and the sicker were sent on crowded trains to crowded field hospitals. Today, places with social upheaval might have similar effects favoring a virulent strain.

The 1976 swine flu. In February, 1976 a strain of H1N1 influenza similar to the 1918 strain killed a soldier at Fort Dix. Officials feared a pandemic and over-reacted. In actuality, the H1N1 strain was limited to the Fort Dix area and quickly died out, and another related strain only persisted until March. Nevertheless, a swine flu vaccine was developed and was given to 48,000,000 Americans, 22 percent of the population. The vaccination program was stopped in December after 532 cases of paralysis from Guillain-Barré syndrome were linked to the vaccine and 25 people died. It had been a false alarm, and more people died of the vaccine than of the disease. The risk of getting Guillain-Barré from the vaccine was approximately 1 in 100,000.

The 2009 swine flu. Between April 15 and July 24, 2009, there were 43,771 confirmed and probable cases of H1N1 influenza (“swine flu”) in the U.S. There were 5,011 hospitalizations and 302 deaths, 39 percent among those aged 25 to 49, in contrast to the usual flu where 90 percent of the deaths are in people over age 65. For comparison, the more common strains of flu have been killing around 36,000 people a year in the U.S. Swine flu has been declared a phase 6 pandemic by the World Health Organization: that is a measure of its spread, not of its severity.

What are the chances that the new swine flu will follow the course of the 1918 flu? We have no way of knowing. All we can do is hope for the best and prepare for the worst. In addition to the annual flu vaccine for the usual common strains, a specific vaccine for the H1N1 strain is being prepared and tested to see whether one or two shots will be needed to produce a satisfactory immune response. So we may be offered as many as three shots this year. Supplies will be limited, at least in the short run, so the CDC has announced these priorities:

• Pregnant women
• Household contacts and caregivers for children younger than 6 months of age
• Healthcare and emergency medical services personnel
• All people from 6 months through 24 years of age
• Persons aged 25 through 64 years who have health conditions associated with higher risk of medical complications from influenza.

What if it fizzles out like the swine flu of 1976? That’s already ruled out: the 1976 flu had fizzled by March; the new swine flu hasn’t shown any signs of fizzling yet. We will be monitoring numbers of cases and vaccine complications very carefully, assessing the risk/benefit ratio, and we’re not likely to repeat the mistakes of 1976.

The Lies and Distortions vs. the Facts

item of interest…

An excellent guide to the confusions and contradictions of alternative medicine written with clarity, integrity and authority. What works? Who can you trust? What alternative cures have positive results? More…
ORDER the book

I can’t hope to address all the misinformation that is circulating, and even if I could, more new lies would come out by the time I finished writing. Here are some of the ones I have heard. A correspondent in the Netherlands forwarded me an alarmist e-mail that is circulating in Europe.

Claim: It alleges that only one person has died of swine flu in the UK, and it questions whether he really had flu. It tells us “you are slated for vaccination against a disease which poses no credible threat whatsoever.”

Fact: As of August 27, the death toll in the UK was 66. As of Sept. 1, 2009, 2184 deaths had been reported worldwide. Most rational people would call that a credible threat.

Claim: Guillian-Barré Syndrome is a newly concocted name for a much more familiar condition: Polio.

Fact: Ridiculous! Polio is a distinct disease and its symptoms are very different from those of Guillain-Barré syndrome. A diagnosis of polio can be confirmed by finding the actual poliovirus particles in body secretions or cerebrospinal fluid. The last case of “wild polio” in the U.S. occurred in 1979. Polio has been eradicated in most countries; Guillain-Barré still occurs regularly in every country.

Claim: Guillain-Barré is still being caused by flu vaccines. A study based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) found 54 cases of GBS reported after vaccination in the U.S. in 2004; 57 percent of these followed flu vaccines and the rest followed other vaccines.

Fact: The VAERS is a voluntary reporting system that accepts all reports of symptoms or illnesses that occurred after vaccination. It even accepted a fraudulent report claiming that a man had been turned into The Hulk by his influenza vaccine. To find out whether the VAERS reports mean anything, it is necessary to compare the incidence of the condition in those vaccinated to the incidence in the unvaccinated. Guillain-Barré syndrome affects 1 to 4 of every 100,000 people around the world every year, and the increased risk from vaccines is currently estimated at no more than one in a million.

Claim: It usually takes several years to test a drug and show that it is safe, but the swine flu vaccine is going to be fast-tracked for quick approval.

Fact: A new flu vaccine has to be developed every year to respond to the new strains that are constantly evolving. Time does not allow for the same kind of testing we require for approval of a new pharmaceutical. Time is even shorter for the swine flu this year. We have a lot of experience in producing new flu vaccines every year, and there is no reason to suspect that this year’s batches will be any more dangerous than usual. Because of fast-tracking, we will be monitoring very closely for side effects. We have a choice between fast-tracking and being prepared for a serious outbreak, or being slow and cautious and totally unprepared.

Claim: 4,000 people were afflicted with Guillain-Barré Syndrome in 1976.

Fact: At least 1 in 100,000 people would have gotten Guillain-Barré syndrome anyway. The excess cases attributed to the vaccine were estimated at 532 (some sources say half of that number), and most of them recovered fully; 25 deaths were attributed to the vaccine.

There are several websites where writers with a bad track record for scientific credibility (like Joseph Mercola and Gary Null) advocate vaccine refusal. The Health Freedom movement wants the government to forget about trying to protect the public and give us the freedom to harm ourselves by using untested, disproven, useless, or even dangerous treatments.

Claim: Legislation allows for you to be isolated or quarantined or “incarcerated in relocation centers” if you refuse vaccination during a declared Pandemic Emergency. This is a violation of human rights and of the Constitution.

Fact: If you have active TB, the government has not only the power but the responsibility to require treatment or quarantine so you don’t sit next to me on the bus and cough in my face. If you contract Ebola virus, I sure hope you will be quarantined to reduce the death toll. Quarantine is legal, is mandated by legislation, and is accepted by international law. Sometimes the duty to protect most of the people in a society temporarily trumps a few individual human rights. The government is not going to require quarantine unless there is a serious threat that demands action.

Claim: People should be allowed to “self-shield.” For self-shielding you go home lock the doors and stay there. Then you can try to further protect yourself with nano-silver, homeopathic remedies, cold packs, vitamins, flavonoids, zinc, astaxanthin, magnesium, and other stuff.

Fact: A self-imposed quarantine is better than nothing, but I question whether it would be effective in practice. The suggested (untested) remedies might conceivably keep people entertained so they are more willing to stay home.

Claim: The CDC and the American Academy of Neurologists have asked neurologists to be vigilant in looking for cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome in people who have been vaccinated. This is an admission that they know the vaccine will be dangerous.

Fact: They clearly said¹ “they do not expect the 2009 H1N1 vaccine to increase the risk for the autoimmune disease” but since this is a concern with any pandemic vaccine, they will be on the alert. This is a good thing. If the incidence starts rising, they will know it earlier and be able to react more quickly than they did in 1976.

Claim: The threat of Guillain-Barré is a reason to reject vaccines.

Fact: No one understands what causes Guillain-Barré syndrome, but it can develop after an infection, surgery or vaccination. It is possible that people who develop GBS after vaccination might also have developed GBS after natural exposure to the disease. One expert said²,

From both the societal and individual perspectives, the risk of GBS after a flu shot pales in comparison to the risk of serious adverse events if infected with the influenza virus: 60 to 70 cases of GBS vs. 20,000 deaths from influenza. Keeping things on the same scale, people over 65 years of age can choose from a risk of one case of GBS per million people or 10,000 cases of hospitalization and 1500 deaths due to influenza.

Claim: Joseph Mercola writes about “Squalene: The Swine Flu Vaccine’s Dirty Little Secret.” He has claimed that the vaccine adjuvant squalene is dangerous, that the Gulf War Syndrome was caused by the squalene in anthrax vaccines, that squalene is “good” or “bad depending on how it gets into your body: “Injection is an abnormal route of entry which incites your immune system to attack all the squalene in your body, not just the vaccine adjuvant.” And the only reason they put adjuvants in vaccines is to save money.

Fact: Squalene is found naturally in the human body. It is a precursor of cholesterol and other compounds necessary to human health. Squalene antibodies were found in Gulf War veterans; but the rate turned out to be no higher in those who had Gulf War Syndrome than in those who didn’t. Squalene antibodies were found at similar rates in people who had never been exposed to squalene in vaccines. The anthrax vaccine has been ruled out as a possible cause of Gulf War Syndrome. Anyway, it turns out there was no squalene in the anthrax vaccine!

American flu vaccines do not contain adjuvants, but maybe they should. Adjuvants enhance the body’s innate immune response to the antigens in vaccines, making vaccines more effective. And they allow for broader cross-reactivity against viral strains not included in the vaccine³. Mercola says adjuvants are added just to increase profits, but the pharmaceutical and health industries could make far more money treating patients in an epidemic than they could ever make trying to prevent one.

There is a large body of data demonstrating the safety of squalene. Flu vaccines containing MF59, a squalene-based adjuvant, have been used in Europe for 10 years, with 22,000,000 doses given; and no serious adverse events have occurred, only mild local reactions. The vaccine does not raise the incidence or titers of anti-squalene antibodies. The World Health Organization (WHO) considers it safe⁴.

items of interest…

For those of you who don’t live in California and can’t make it to the Skeptics Distinguished Lecture Series at Caltech, you can watch these recent lectures on DVD.

• Why People Behave Badly
    with Dr Barbara Oakley
    NEW on CD this week
• Losing My Religion
    with William Lobdell
    NEW on CD this week
• Black Holes Sing
    with Dr Janna Levin
• Thank God for Evolution
    with Michael Dowd
• browse ALL lectures
     in our inventory

Claim: Flu vaccines are not very effective and don’t protect everyone. The effectiveness is particularly low in the elderly.

Fact: This claim is true, but… In recent years, flu vaccines have been 75 percent effective in preventing hospitalizations for flu, and 75 percent is way better than nothing. No vaccine is 100 percent effective. Flu vaccine is particularly problematic because of the constantly mutating strains of the virus. Nevertheless, the benefits of vaccines are clear. It is true that the elderly are not as well protected by the vaccine (efficacy rates have been estimated at 50 percent or less): that’s why it’s so important for younger people to be vaccinated, reducing the prevalence of the disease in the population and thereby reducing the likelihood of the elderly being exposed. In other words, don’t just get the flu shot for yourself, get it for Grandma.

Claim: Mercola says “Injecting organisms into your body to provoke immunity is contrary to nature.”

Fact: Nature kills people. Doing something contrary to nature is what medicine is all about. It’s a good thing.

Claim: “The potential for a weaponized vaccine to be the vector for a weaponized flu cannot be discounted.”

Fact: Most far-fetched conspiracy theories are wrong. I have no trouble discounting this one. The potential may be there, but the likelihood is homeopathic.

Claim: People should make their own decisions about their health care.

Fact: One of the basic principles of medical ethics is autonomy: patients have the right to accept or reject any treatment. Modern doctors try to involve the patient in the decision-making process, but most people are ill-equipped to make health decisions on their own without getting information and guidance from a health care professional. In a recent survey⁵, 30 percent of Americans believed that there had been a case of smallpox in the United States in the past five years, and 63 percent thought there had been a case somewhere in the world in the past five years. They didn’t know that the last case in the U.S. occurred in 1949 and the last case in the world occurred in 1977 in Somalia; 25 percent thought it was likely that they would die if they got the smallpox vaccine (the actual risk of death from the vaccine is one per million). People who are uninformed and scientifically illiterate are not capable of making rational decisions about health matters.

Mercola’s advice for preventing flu: Eliminate sugar and processed foods from your diet, take a high quality source of animal-based omega 3 fats like Krill Oil, exercise, optimize your vitamin D levels, get plenty of sleep, deal with stress, and wash your hands.

Fact: Washing your hands is a good idea.

Mercola claims: “Vitamin D deficiency is the likely cause of seasonal flu viruses.”

Fact: Now really! Vitamin D deficiency in a human body can no more “cause a virus” than it could “cause a cat.” Perhaps he meant vitamin D deficiency could predispose a body to infection, and there is some research to suggest that it might. Some have claimed that taking vitamin D supplements will prevent the flu, but there is no evidence to support that.

Mercola’s claims and arguments were decisively eviscerated on Science-Based Medicine by Dr. Joseph Albietz⁶. Not only are Mercola’s assertions demonstrably false, but they reveal a profound misunderstanding of immunology. Unfortunately, he reaches a large audience of scientifically naïve people who believe his every word.

In response to Dr. Albietz’s article, there were some interesting comments from readers that further demonstrate the anti-vaccine mindset and the ability to distort information to promote a cause.

Claim: The government is going to mandate that everyone get the swine flu vaccine.

Fact: No such proposal has been made. The government couldn’t do it even if it tried, because there won’t be enough doses to go around. That’s why they’ve issued recommendations prioritizing who should get the vaccine first.

Claim: George Bush signed an agreement that if a pandemic emergency arose and the President declared a national state of emergency, control of the government would be passed to the United Nations. Blue-helmeted UN soldiers would run our country and the Constitution would be suspended.

Fact: It was simply an agreement to facilitate international cooperation, to share information and enhance collaboration in the event of an emergency. It says nothing about the UN at all, much less about relinquishing sovereignty to the UN or any other organization. The actual agreement can be read online at www.spp.gov/pdf/nap_flu07.pdf

The same person pointed out that shots hurt and that alone should tell you something. “Yet you are willing to trust these people with your lives to make a vaccine that the Creator never intended the human body should need, and let them inject it into your body? You people are scary or insane!”

No, it is the anti-vaccine zealots who are scary. They are not insane, just self-deluded and misguided. I hope the swine flu won’t develop into a reprise of 1918; but if it does, the false information these people are spreading could be responsible for a great deal of death and suffering. Freedom of speech is a good thing, but this kind of fear-mongering is almost as bad as shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

References

1. ^  Press release from the American Academy of Neurology, August 31, 2009. Available online at: www.aan.com/press/?fuseaction=release.view&release=757
2. ^  Grabenstein, J.D. 2000. “Guillain-Barre Syndrome and Vaccination: Usually Unrelated.” Hospital Pharmacy 36:2, 199–207. Available online at: www.factsandcomparisons.com/assets/hospitalpharm/IMM1.pdf
3. ^  O’Hagan D.T. 2007. “MF59 is a Safe and Potent Vaccine Adjuvant that Enhances Protection Against Influenza Virus Infection.” Expert Rev Vaccines 6(5):699–710.
4. ^  Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, World Health Organization. 2006. http://tinyurl.com/squalene-adjuvant
5. ^  Blendon, R.J., et al. “The Public and the Smallpox Threat,” NEJM 348(5):p. 426–432. 2003. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/348/5/426
6. ^  Albietz, J. 2009. “A Defense of Childhood Influenza Vaccination and Squalene-Containing Adjuvants: Joseph Mercola’s ‘Dirty Little Secret’ Science-Based Medicine,” Aug 21. www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=851

A Tale of Two Sci-Fi Conventions

by Daniel Loxton

I-Con 2, c. 1989

Long, Long Ago, in a hotel Far, Far Away, a paranormal-obsessed Junior High nerd walked into a science fiction convention — and his life changed forever. That was 20 years ago, at a little con in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Of course I was that kid.

When I arrived at “I-Con 2” I was magic-besotted. I believed everything. My passion for science fiction and fantasy led naturally to a passion for cryptozoology and the paranormal.

For years I’d approached these weird topics with youthful but serious devotion, devouring every source I could get my hands on. In those days, that meant pro-paranormal books, one after another. Those books were an echo chamber, each third-hand source building on other third-hand sources. I had no idea there was another, critical literature digging into these same subjects. How could I? There were no podcasts, no blogs. The Skeptical Inquirer, a little journal-format periodical, was not available on newsstands. Skeptic didn’t exist at all.

All this made I-Con’s panel on “science and the paranormal” a sure draw for me. I wanted to know more about aliens and CIA psychics and the search for monsters! When would the proof be uncovered?

What I found in that bland beige conference hall was a shocking, wonderful revelation. I discovered that paranormal mysteries can be solved.

The main speaker on the panel was the late, great Barry Beyerstein, a scientist and CSICOP Fellow. Some of you may remember Barry, in which case you’ll know what I mean when I refer to his warm, genial approach to skepticism. I’ve written elsewhere about Barry’s impact on me that day, so I won’t repeat it here, except to say: his mission to the land of the nerds worked. I am a professional skeptic and activist today because Barry Beyerstein took time from his research to speak to paranormal fans at a science fiction convention — and because he approached that task with warmth and enthusiasm. As the audience pelted him with our naïve questions (surely science couldn’t explain the miracle of fire-walking?), he respectfully treated each question as a genuine search for knowledge. There in that beige room, he made us feel that we were all partners in turning the lens of science toward the mysteries of the universe.

Dragon*Con 2009

Because I discovered the skeptical literature at a sci-fi con, I’ve always known that this was a fertile ground for skeptical outreach. I’m proof of this, but it shouldn’t be a surprise. Sci-fi is a culture of DVD extras. For nerds like me, the enchantment of Star Wars is only enhanced by learning how Industrial Light and Magic creates the effects. We’re open-minded enough to take seriously an idea like ghosts or alien abduction, but also interested enough to care how the legend came to be — and whether it’s true.

For this reason, I was ecstatic when Skeptic’s own Derek & Swoopy (of Skepticality) launched the “Skeptrack” conference within Atlanta’s Dragon*Con last year. What a profound opportunity! And, I was honored this year to represent the Skeptics Society as an official guest.

For those who don’t know, Dragon*Con is among the largest conventions in the world for sci-fi, fantasy, and related pop culture. For four days every year, Atlanta’s downtown core is dominated by over 35,000 rambunctious (and elaborately costumed) fans. These thousands of Jedis, aliens, and robots bring with them a direct annual economic impact of $21,000,000.¹ The convention is so enormous that it occupies four Vegas-style mega-hotels (the Hilton, Marriott, Hyatt and Sheraton), all of which book up months in advance.

At that scale, there are many events happening at any given moment,² all grouped thematically into dozens of “tracks.” Each track offers four days of related programming — four days of lectures about costuming, or about robotics, or Star Trek, or skepticism — at which over 500 guests speak. These guests range from sci-fi royalty (William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy did rare joint appearances this year, one of them humorously disrupted by Patrick Stewart) to scientists to artists. (A highlight for me was meeting legendary dinosaur artist William Stout, who also designed the convention logo.)

Daniel Loxton confers with a trusted colleague.

Skeptrack 2009 was an amazing experience. I was thrilled to join lifelong heroes like Eugenie Scott and Joe Nickell on stage, and to trade notes with luminaries like Phil Plait, Ben Radford, Richard Saunders, and the crew of The Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast (not to mention the fanboy glee I felt spotting Buck Rogers alum Erin Gray, or hanging out with my good friend R2-D2).

It’s widely felt that the James Randi Educational Foundation’s “Amazing Meeting” (TAM) conference is the premier event for organized skepticism, and I absolutely agree. TAM is the center of the skeptical universe, but Skeptrack is a remarkable achievement whose potential cannot be overstated. In its second year, Skeptrack is already a full-blown skeptics conference, offering more programming to a larger audience than did TAM2. And, because Skeptrack is embedded within Dragon*Con, it offers unique assets — and unique promise for growth and outreach.

Skeptrack is cheap to attend. Right now, memberships for four full days of Dragon*Con 2010 are available for $60 per person. This does not include food, and lodging at the main conference hotels is quite expensive, but simply paying to get through the door is a lower bar to entry at Skeptrack than at any other leading skeptics convention.

Skeptrack is family friendly. This is a pivotal point. In a skeptical movement built on “Skeptics in the Pub” and other adult-oriented activities, Dragon*Con offers a rare opportunity for skeptical parents: affordable childcare! (And, there’s no shortage of wondrous sights and costumes for kids of all ages to enjoy.)

Volunteer Cheryl Hebert guards the Skeptics Society table at Dragon*Con — before engaging the flux capacitor on her dirigible.

Skeptrack is fun, because Dragon*Con is fun. Dragon*Con has more to offer than just skepticism. It’s also a colossal party — a party full of steam-punks and Klingons and superheroes. James Randi, unable to attend this year for health reasons, contributed a video greeting in which he emphasized how much fun he’d had the year previous — and how amazed he was by the uniformly jolly, good-natured mood of the conference. It’s rare to see a large Saturday night party crowd without a few fistfights, but nerds are nice — and Dragon*Con isn’t that kind of party. (One local told me the crime rates actually go down with the influx of Dragon*Con’s tens of thousands of rowdy convention-goers. I have no idea if that’s true, but it certainly felt plausible.)

Skeptrack is offered alongside pro-paranormal programming. This can give paranormal believers essential exposure to skeptical arguments. It can also take skeptics out of our own echo chamber to hear to what paranormal proponents actually say. Two such crossover events stood out for me. At one pro-cryptozoology lecture (WATCH the video on Youtube) I attended, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education stood up to ask probing questions about the food sources for hypothetical yetis — while other skeptics, seated behind her, live-tweeted the discussion. How often do you see that? Another highlight was a heated exchange in which ghost-hunters challenged Joe Nickell following his packed talk on the subject of hauntings.

Skeptrack is smack dab in the middle of over 35,000 people who have already paid to attend. While more established skeptical events have the edge in prestige and gravity, the upstart Skeptrack has far and away the greatest potential for direct outreach. To become a first-time attendee at TAM7, one had be sufficiently interested to travel to Las Vegas and pay between $320 and $495 to register. This fee was well worth it, but it necessarily meant that TAM7 spoke to dedicated skeptics — the leadership, by one way of looking at it, or the choir by another. Skeptrack, on the other hand, can attract a wider audience from the general population of Dragon*Con attendees — not only dedicated skeptics, but also the mildly curious. The barriers to first-time participation for those who are already attending Dragon*Con are extremely low. They just have to walk in the door of the track room. Dragon*Con membership is a flat all-access fee, so it’s simply a matter of Skeptrack making itself visible and attractive.

Daniel Loxton speaks on a Skeptrack panel based upon his “Where Do We Go From Here?” and What Do I Do Next? projects

This is easier said than done, of course. Dragon*Con is, as Star Trek’s Q might put it, “wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross.” How can skeptical lectures compete for attention against costume parades, or panels featuring movie stars? One way is word of mouth, of course. Some people told me they stumbled into Skeptrack last year, loved it, and returned with friends this time around. In other cases, our own celebrities (like MythBuster Adam Savage) lure passerby to skeptical events.

Still other sci-fi fans come to their first skeptical talks on purpose — as I did 20 years ago — to learn what’s really true about weird stuff. This type of basic, introductory Skepticism 101-type material (are there really aliens? Can people really read minds? What is up with fire-walking?) has the ability to draw audience and fulfill our mandate for educational public service.

We saw this power this year, in a presentation called “The Truth About Ghosts and Ghost Hunting.” This was a brass-tacks introductory skeptical talk from hands-on paranormal investigators Ben Radford and Joe Nickell. It was traditional, it was straightforward — and it was standing room only. Every chair, aisle, and piece of wall of the Skeptrack room was packed. Even better, the lively question and answer session revealed a full range of belief in the audience. Joining the skeptics were angry hard-core ghost proponents, and, more importantly, people very much like I was all those years ago: open-minded believers who were surprised and challenged to discover another point of view.

Bringing that point of view to the people who need it is the reason skepticism exists. Optimizing that outreach, collaborating with many skeptics from many groups to inform and illuminate — that is the potential I see shining so brightly at the heart of Dragon*Con.

After all, where better to find a bold future than a science fiction convention?

References

1. ^ Cannon, Debby. “The Impact of the Hospitality & Tourism Industry on Atlanta.” (Atlanta: J. Mack Robinson College of Business.) Retrieved September 14, 2009.
2. ^ Read the Dragon*Con Pocket Program . (PDF)

LogiComix: An Epic Search for Truth
(with a Connection in Frankfurt)

by David Cowan

Normally I’d wait until I finish reading a book before I write my review. But LogiComix is — er, unusual, and not just because it’s a graphic novel about a dead logician. Three chapters into it, I’m captivated and enchanted by the playful, clever, innovative use of self-reference. For example, the prologue opens with co-author Apostolos Doxiadis reading a draft of his story. As we intrude upon his thoughts, he invites us to meet Berkeley computer scientist Christos Papadimitriou, whom Apostolos must recruit to help him with the book. When Apostolos tells Christos the story he’d like to craft, we, the readers, get to hear it too! Along the way, Christos asks questions, points out problems, and makes suggestions to Apostolos as well as to his illustrators Alecos Papadatos and Annie di Donna. As the story unfolds, the creative team debate how to best move it forward. By the end Christos and we together come to understand that LogiComix is deliberately not LOGIC FOR DUMMIES, but rather a true story about passion, family, war, love, tragedy and hope.

So if the LogiComix creative team can be characters writing their story as it goes, then I can do the same in this review. If that violates some rule, I wouldn’t know because I am in no way a professional book reviewer. Here are my only qualifications for writing this review:

1. I have a fancy degree in theoretical computer science centered mainly on the works of those logicians portrayed in this story.
2. I am a practiced blogger, so I can emulate authority on any subject.
3. My dear friend Vivian Leal of Kepler’s Bookstore asked me to review this book.
4. As I type, I am on a Lufthansa flight from St. Petersburg heading home to San Francisco, so I have some time.

When Vivian asked me to review LogiComix, I readily agreed. Not only do I love both Vivian and Kepler’s, but I can also say that I love Christos Papadimitriou. I’ve never met him, but he did also happen to co-author my favorite college textbook Elements of the Theory of Computation, a beautifully elegant introduction to Turing machines and recursion that even I could understand. His co-author back then was Harry Lewis, my CS121 professor and also my undergraduate advisor. (Still, like Papadimitriou, Lewis never knew who I was, though once he passed me by in Harvard Yard and raised his eyebrows at me in an acknowledging way that made me feel a real connection.) Coincidentally, I would have never met Vivian had I not befriended her husband Daniel 23 years ago back in CS121 — another debt I owe Christos Papadimitriou.

So far, the graphic novel format of LogiComix (now popularized by the Wimpy Kid and Maus series, as well as The Invention of Hugo Cabret) is working well for me. The throwback to comic books promises to make even Boolean Algebra an accessible topic to all, just as Scott McCloud recently did with a comic book about Google’s new Chrome browser architecture. But more importantly, Apostolos draws us into the story with visuals that not only support the narrative but also relay sub-plots and emotional texture. Often we see a human side to the characters that they otherwise don’t acknowledge, such as a jealous look from a wife, or a 12-year-old boy subtly covering his lap while his beautiful French nanny reads him a love sonnet. (I’m reminded of the beautiful French nanny who charmed me as well — so much so that I married her. Hmm, can’t this plane fly any faster?)

The excited 12-year-old is our hero — the great mathematician Bertrand Russell who devoted not only his career but his life to the pursuit of a provably logical foundation for mathematics, as Euclid had purportedly done for geometry (at least before Lobachewski and Riemann each had his way with Euclid’s assumptions). Embedding yet another layer of recursion into LogiComix, Russell tells his own story in the form of a lecture delivered at an American university on Sept 4, 1939, the day the UK joined World War II. The lecture, titled “The Role of Logic in Human Affairs” promises an answer to the question hurled at him by isolationists as to whether Russell, as a World War I conscientious objector, supports the war this time around.

Russell’s own account of his childhood is a contrasting story of privilege and borderline abuse. Orphaned as an infant, “Bertie” lived with his grandfather — a former British prime minister — and a domineering grandmother who imprisoned Bertie in rules and superstitions. Eventually Bertie discovered the family secret that madness had taken his father’s life and disabled his uncle. So when he learned geometry — constructed proof by proof upon common sense and reason — BERTRAND embraced logic and science as tools to not only understand the world, but to preserve his own sanity.

Bertrand Russell’s Epic Search for Truth

Russell studies mathematics at Cambridge University, and proceeds to seek out the great minds of his time, to find some articulation and validation of the basic tenets underlying mathematics. Russell overcomes his shyness to engage the greatest professors of his time with his questions (a thrill I remember well from studying the Sacks Theorem of recursion theory from Professor Sacks himself).

Russell’s travels take him to Germany just 10 minutes before my Lufthansa pilot announces our imminent arrival in Frankfurt, where I’ll make my connection to San Francisco. Russell’s account of those days in Germany evokes that nation’s unique capacity for both logic and madness. There he meets his future best friend, housemate and collaborator Alfred Whitehead, who had created the first formal system for algebra. He meets Gottlob Frege, who had founded modern logic studies by introducing the concept of Boolean variables, though eventually Frege becomes paranoid, and as early as 1925 starts ranting about a Final Solution for the” Jewish problem.” Finally RUSSELL meets Georg Cantor, inventor of Set Theory, who was already then losing his mind.

The interplay of logic and madness is a recurring theme of LogiComix, as Russell struggles to stave off madness himself (with only partial success, as readers will learn).

Another recurring theme of the story is Russell’s failures at love, as he depends solely on logic to master courtship, marriage and child-rearing, even as everyone around him succumbs to irrationality. His memoirs — humble and candid –recount his nerdy fumbles followed by his inconsiderate prioritization of work over family. (That reminds me — I’ll use my layover in Frankfurt to call my family. Today is the kids’ first day of school, and they should know how proud I am.)

As Russell strives to formalize the logic behind math, he gravitates toward set theory, until he himself has an epiphany now known as Russell’s Paradox, which can be simplified to this question: Does the catalog of all books (and book reviews!) that do NOT exhibit self-reference include itself in the listing? Either answer leads to a logic contradiction. Russell’s Paradox deflates everyone who has been working on Set Theory. RUSSELL was surprised that Cantor himself takes the paradox as a sign from God.

As Russell embarks on his epic search for truth, he continues to engage the greatest minds of the century, but along the way he must navigate wars, women (enticing but difficult) and the madness that often accompanies logical genius. At one point he mentors the young Ludwig Wittgenstein, the renowned philosopher and father of cognitive psychology. Ultimately, poor mental health ravages Wittgenstein’s family, and Wittgenstein dismisses Russell’s call for formalizing mathematics as irrelevant to the real world.

Having made my connection out of Frankfurt, I’m now traversing the Continent just as Russell recounts his own travel through France, where he engages Klein, Dedekind, Poincare and Hilbert. I must confess that I didn’t learn (or remember) Hilbert’s work, and LogiComix fails to impart an intuitive understanding of his philosophy. Now that I think of it, the story fails to explain the work of any of the great logicians, so unless you already know the ideas, you’re somewhat in the dark as to how they relate to Russell’s search. (For example, the characters don’t explain how an infinite set can be countable.) Having said that, I can’t protest too much because Papadimitrious himself complains about this in the story. Apostos insists that the story should trump the math.

[What I learned only upon finishing the book is that it does come with a terrific glossary that expounds upon the thinkers and their work. I wish I had known about it while I was reading the story. You’re now duly notified.]

Russell spends many years working and living with Whitehead trying to adapt Set Theory to overcome his paradox, but Volume II of their Principia Mathematica is interrupted by Russell’s greatest professional setback — Kurt Godel’s delivery of the Incompleteness Theorem. Essentially Godel proves the futility of a developing a formal system of logic rich enough to represent arithmetic by showing how one can formulate a paradox for any such system. Although Apostos and Papadimitriou mention this in the glossary, I wish the story itself explained how Godel himself used recursion to prove his theorem. It is really the most beautiful proof I have ever seen, and to this day I remember that moment in Math 141 when we reached the end of this proof. For weeks we had been learning Godel’s scheme for symbolically representing arithmetic concepts and applying obscure theorems (e.g. the “Pigeonhole Principle”) that took us in bizarre directions. But on that last day, the bits and pieces all magically converged into an inescapable conclusion. I got those goosebumps you get when you witness someone stretch the limits of human ability.

But in a way Godel’s Theorem liberates Russell, who redirects his logical faculties to more worldly affairs. Apostos brings it all home when Russell shares his life’s lessons with the American audience. (Judging from the view, I believe that I’m now back in the States as well!)

Influential and Similar Works

LogiComix marries the elements of many great works. Obviously, Apostos explores and uses self-reference in much the same way as Houfstadter’s masterpiece Godel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. Another clear influence is Kurt Vonnegut, whose book SlaughterHouse Five featured the author’s voice in a similar lament of the madness behind World War II. At one point, Papadimitriou even mentions Vonnegut’s Breakfast of Champions to exemplify a self-referential novel.

Milton Steinberg’s As A Driven Leaf, about the Talmudic rabbi Elisha ben Abuyah who actually lived around the turn of the second century, tells a similar tale of an epic search for truth. Elisha rejects Judaism in favor of Greek logic, only to regret it in the end. But while Russell must ultimately concede the limitations of logic, he would never return to his grandmother’s superstitions. In fact when Whitehead’s son was killed in the war, RUSSELL couldn’t even attend the funeral.

Although surely not an influence here, Caveh Zahedi’s hilarious, racy film I Am A Sex Addict would, I believe, also appeal to many LogiComix fans. Like LogiComix, it liberally uses real time self-reference to document the hero’s lusty mishaps with women, and the lessons he learns about love.

So LogiComix is part Godel-Escher-Bach, part As a Driven Leaf, part I Am a Sex Addict, and of course part Tintin.

The Fundamental Question: What Makes A Good Book?

Must it be engaging, provocative, emotional, beautiful, instructional, or right? Or some combination of the above? There is no universal answer. But acknowledging this incompleteness allows us to take the next step — to use the tools we have to assess each book independently (which gives you a hint as to what Russell’s told his audience of pacifists in 1941). So if I learned anything from LogiComix, I learned that I needn’t answer the fundamental question in order to recommend it. This is a story that engages, provokes and instructs the reader. But more importantly, I liked it.

So now that the flight attendant is insisting that I stow