Skeptic » eSkeptic » December 24, 2014

The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine



Announcing the Spring 2015 Season
of Distinguished Science Lectures

MARK YOUR CALENDAR! The Skeptics Society is pleased to announce another season of our Distinguished Science Lecture Series at Caltech. All lectures begin on a Sunday at 2pm in Baxter Lecture Hall on the Caltech campus, unless otherwise stated (such as when lectures take place in Beckman Auditorium). Lecture events usually feature a Q&A period after the talk, and a book signing by the author. Also, lecture-goers are invited to meet and talk to the speaker and socialize with fellow skeptics over dinner and libations at Burger Continental in Pasadena. Missed a lecture? Most can be ordered on DVD.

Bill Nye, the Science Guy

in conversation with Michael Shermer, discussing Bill’s new book: Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation
Bill Nye Bill Nye

Sun., Jan. 25, 2015 at 2 pm
Beckman Auditorium

SPARKED BY A CONTROVERSIAL DEBATE in February 2014, Bill Nye has set off on an energetic campaign to spread awareness of evolution and the powerful way it shapes our lives. In Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, he explains why race does not really exist; evaluates the true promise and peril of genetically modified food; reveals how new species are born, in a dog kennel and in a London subway; takes a stroll through 4.5 billion years of time; and explores the new search for alien life, including aliens right here on Earth. With infectious enthusiasm, Bill Nye shows that evolution is much more than a rebuttal to creationism; it is an essential way to understand how nature works—and to change the world. Don’t miss this enlightening “In Conversation” with Bill Nye, hosted by Michael Shermer.

A book signing will follow the lecture. We will have copies of the book, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, available for purchase. Can’t attend the lecture? Order Undeniable from Amazon.

Order tickets in advance

Followed by…
  • The Moral Arc: How Science Leads Humanity Toward Truth, Justice, and Freedom
    with Dr. Michael Shermer
    Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 2 pm
  • The Village Effect: How Face-to-Face Contact Can Make Us Healthier, Happier, and Smarter
    with Dr. Susan Pinker
    Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 2 pm
  • Living the Secular Life: New Answers to Old Questions
    with Dr. Phil Zuckerman
    Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 2 pm
  • How to Clone a Mammoth: The Science of De-Extinction
    with Dr. Beth Shapiro
    Sunday, May 3, 2015 at 2 pm
  • The Upright Thinkers: The Human Journey from Living in Trees to Understanding the Cosmos
    with Dr. Leonard Mlodinow
    Sunday, May 17, 2015 at 2 pm

Marcelo Gleiser, On Demand
The Limits of Science and the Search
for Meaning

DO ALL QUESTIONS HAVE ANSWERS? How much can we know about the world? Is there such a thing as an ultimate truth? To be human is to want to know, but what we are able to observe is only a tiny portion of what’s “out there.” In The Island of Knowledge, Dartmouth College astronomer and physicist Dr. Marcelo Gleiser traces our search for answers to the most fundamental questions of existence. In so doing, he reaches a provocative conclusion: science, the main tool we use to find answers, is fundamentally limited. Order The Island of Knowledge from Amazon. Read more…

Vimeo On Demand is Now Optimized for Mobile Phones and Tablets!
Rent this video for $3.95 for a 72-hour period.

Rent this video for only $3.95 or
Watch 38 lectures for only $49!

INSTRUCTIONS: Click the button above, then click the RENT ONE button on the page that will open in your Internet browser. You will then be asked to login to your Vimeo account (or create a free account). Once you complete your purchase of the video rental, you will then be able to instantly stream the video to your computer, smartphone, or tablet, and watch it for the rental period. Videos play best on Vimeo when you allow the entire video to buffer before viewing it.


Weekly Highlights

INSIGHT at Skeptic.com sheds light, offers critical perspective, and serves as a broadly accessible, evidence-based resource on mysteries of science, paranormal claims, and the wild, woolly, wonderful weirdness of the fringe. This week’s highlights are:

Tim Farley
Obituaries of Skepticism in 2014

Tim Farley compiles a list of people with a connection to skepticism who have died in 2014.

Read the Insight

Ani Aharonian
The Myth of Learning Styles

Ani Aharonian considers claims that matching instructional style to individual learning styles will yield superior learning. She argues that this appealing idea lacks an evidence-based foundation, despite its popularity.

Read the Insight

Daniel Loxton
The Forgetfulness of Skepticism

Daniel Loxton discusses skepticism’s inattention to its own history, and sets up a reflection for another post to follow.

Read the Insight


Tom Flynn
Skepticality Classic:
The Trouble With Christmas
SKEPTICALITY EPISODE 245

In this episode of Skepticality, Derek decides to get a bit nostalgic and brings you a classic interview from the Skepticality archives. Back in 2005, our first year, Swoopy and Derek had well known author Tom Flynn on the show for an interview about his book, The Trouble With Christmas. We figured it’s worth a replay, since it’s that time of year, and all…

Skepticality (the Official Podcast App of Skeptic Magazine) is available on the App Store
Skepticality (the Official Podcast App of Skeptic Magazine) is available at Amazon for Android
Skepticality (the Official Podcast App of Skeptic Magazine) is available on Windows Store

Get the Skepticality App — the Official Podcast App of Skeptic Magazine and the Skeptics Society, so you can enjoy your science fix and engaging interviews on the go! Available for iOS, Android, and Windows 8 devices.


About this week’s eSkeptic

In issue 2.3 (1994) of Skeptic magazine, John Keller wrote a letter of analysis on “The Science of Santa,” taken from Spy magazine, in which he humorously demonstrated the impossibility of Santa delivering presents to hundreds of millions of children around the world in one night. For example, for Santa to visit 822.6 homes per second, the sleigh must travel at 650 miles per second. This will cause the lead pair of reindeer to absorb 14.3 quintillion joules of energy per second, bursting into flames and pinning Santa to the back of the sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force. Keller concluded that “if Santa ever did deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he’s dead now.”

In this week’s eSkeptic, we draw from the archives of Skeptic magazine issue 2.4 (1994) in which Gerald Huber, from Germany, begs to differ.

At the time this article was written, Gerald Huber was a student of mathematics at the University of Regensburg in south-east Bavaria. He studied logic theory and Ablian groups. The study of the paranormal and pseudoscience was his hobby.

Nickology, the S-effect,
and the Quantum of Santa

by Gerald Huber

As a long time professional Nickologist I can only conclude that John Keller is not familiar with the relevant literature. Though he may have a valid point with his refutation of some of the wilder claims of popular Nickology, his indiscriminate aspersions on the whole field betray a lack of scholarship and understanding.

Naturally, serious researchers of Nickology do not believe that there is literally an overweight, red-clothed man who delivers presents to all the children in the world. The intellectual nexus of Nickology is rather the investigation of certain mid-winter anomalies. “Santa” is an ontologically neutral term for these anomalies and implies none of the wilder theoretical constructs about reindeer or whatever. Unfortunately the word “Santa” has been tainted by the folklore version, so that those of us in the field encourage the use of the more neutral “S-effect.”

Impressive progress in Santa research has been made but, of course, I agree that so far there is no comprehensive theory which can integrate all the research results. If you compare the few decades which have been devoted to the serious investigation of Nickology with the 200 years which electromagnetism required in order to achieve its mathematical formulation through the Maxwell equations, then this becomes understandable. Then, too, critics are apt to overlook the fact that in comparison to the ever-present electromagnetic effects, the S-effect is rare and elusive and can only be observed with great difficulty. What we need is patience and more patience. Unfortunately, I must note that it is abusive articles like the one by Keller which make it difficult for serious Nickologists to achieve the acknowledgement from the scientific community which is needed to develop the field to a stage where the elusive effects can be harnessed and begin to contribute to the good of mankind as a whole.

Although there is strong suggestive evidence from the fields of microNickology (the careful statistical analysis of very small anomalies in gift distribution), responsible Nickologists don’t insist that the S-effect is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As seekers of scientific truth the Nickologists remain open to the possibility that someday a mundane explanation for the noted anomalies might be found after all. We only ask the scientific community to accept that there are obviously phenomena which can and should be dealt with scientifically. Like all proto-science Nickology has not yet developed a fully systematized research program. It pains us that the so-called skeptics with their closed minds try to turn this into an unwarranted attack on the scientific status of Nickology. However, the history of science is replete with premature carping. If serious researchers were to pay undue attention to this quibbling, then progress in science would come to a halt.

Though total replication on demand of the mid-winter phenomenon cannot be guaranteed (though this is also true for all the social sciences), there are encouraging parallels in the experimental results from a number of experimenters in a variety of places using different protocols and experimental setups.

Of course, we agree that there are people out there who call themselves Nickologists, although they lack the scientific qualifications. There are also medical quacks, but does this invalidate the science of medicine? Nickology should be judged by its most responsible representatives, most precise data and most intellectually challenging theories, and not merely by those who make the easiest target. Instead of holding scientific Nickology responsible for the wild claims of the popular fringe, true skeptics should join with the sincere Nickologists in their effort to give this field a firm position in the scientific world by setting up chairs and research institutes.

A closer examination of Keller’s criticisms of Nickology shows them to be faulty and irrelevant. For example, in order to calculate the GDV (gift delivering velocity) he assumes that Santa has to be sequentially present at every spot where the S-effect takes place. However, recent advances in quantum mechanics suggest that such an assumption is unfounded. Modern Nickologist theory envisages the possibility that the S-effect is a non-localizable correlation between certain dates of the year and the frequencies of appearances of gifts. Though outside critics repeat like broken records their claim that these effects are in contradiction to physical laws, they only manage to demonstrate their own scientific ignorance. Keller’s criticism, I’m afraid, is based on an outdated worldview.

Many debunkers of Nickology claim that the burden of proof rests solely on the Nickologists. This attitude, however, is hardly the way to promote the growth of science. Instead, science proceeds by comparing various hypotheses against one another. But the debunkers avoid the honest and painstaking work of real scientists in developing and testing their theories. They confine themselves to attacking the models of the Nickologists without even trying to give positive alternative hypotheses (e.g., a detailed survey of gift distribution in Holland has shown that the observed effect cannot be explained totally in terms of a conventional theory). Although conventional theories like “Wealthy parents buy more costly gifts” explain the effect in part, there is still an intriguing residue of unexplained correlations. Instead of developing a model for these unexplained correlations and testing it, the skeptics (or “conventional theorists” as they should better be called) flatly reject the effect with glib remarks like “It’s obviously a coincidence.” Such an a priori attitude of refusing to even discuss an empirically established effect can hardly be called science.

Every argument which seems to be able to weaken the case for the S-effect, no matter how far-fetched, is brought into play. Critics like the well-known anti-Nickologist, Virginia, hold that even the pure possibility that a Nickologist may have faked his results makes them unreliable. Other sciences are, of course, not measured by such strict standards. Indeed, the application of such extreme measures would serve to make the pursuit of any science futile because you can never exclude fraud with absolute certainty. The self-proclaimed critics of Nickology don’t address this issue. Like any other science, Nickology is self-correcting and it can readily be observed that the most knowledgeable critics of Nickology are the Nickologists themselves.

Polemics and generalisations will not lead us towards a resolution of the Santa controversy; only careful research can do this. Unfortunately, articles like the one by Keller create a climate of witchhunting and make it hard for scientific Nickologists to get funding for future research (e.g. the Swiss Gnome Research Centre, which has long played a leading role in the investigation of the S-effect is now in grave danger of folding). So my plea to all truly rational skeptics can only be to think again and give Nickology the chance it deserves. It is not wounded pride which has prompted me to write this article, but the sincere fear that a true part of human experience might otherwise be lost to science. END


Make your 2014 donations before
the end of the year.

Help your Skeptics Society—a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization—to promote science and critical thinking. Read about this year’s annual fundraising drive. We are seeking your support in bringing our Distinguished Science Lecture Series at Caltech to the world. You can make a tax-deductible donation online using your credit card, or by downloading a printable donation card to make your donation by cheque. You may also make a donation by calling 1-626-794-3119. All donations are tax deductible.

Make a tax-deductible donation
to your Skeptics Society

8 Comments »

8 Comments

  1. Julian Haraud says:

    jajajajaja!

  2. xxxxxxxxxxx says:

    There is a full explanation of all the factors in the Santa Claus legend. Every single part of the legend can be explained by the hypothesis that Santa is a shipwrecked Kryptonian. His pet reindeers’ ability to fly, his own ability to rise up a chimney, his super-speed, his ability to carry so many tons of gifts, invulnerability to the side-effects of traveling at super-speed, and his ability to see through walls and at great distances to know when you are sleeping or awake, are all powers well-known to be those of Kryptonians on Earth.

    Santa was obviously on a exploration voyage and got stranded on earth. But instead of going into the superhero business and fighting super-criminals like some other Kryptonians have done, he decided to help his adopted world in another way; by making children happy so they would grow up to be better people. And it worked! The world is a better place because of his efforts.

  3. Chris Meds says:

    He succeeds in making his point of view sound very distinguished. But also in letting his insanity become public. Science is mainly about what’s most probable (based on evidence-based theories), not what’s merely possible. But possibilities should be looked into… you don’t know how fruitful/effectively promising something is until you give it a shot. I agree. But in this case, it’s absurd.

    Physical things (like “Santa”) in our everyday reality don’t and can’t undergo quantum effects like superposition, that argument of his was very poor in my opinion. Some scientist may think it’s possible but until there’s actual evidence it’s not to be respected. But this incurs the problem above, to test unlikely possibilities… The line should, at least, surely be drawn at things that are known to violate established laws of physics, right?

    • Bad Boy Scientist says:

      I take issue with science being about what is most probable – science is about explaining and describing natural phenomena (we call these explanations/descriptions ‘theories’ … well hypotheses until they’ve been corroborated).

      The hypothesis which best explains/describes the phenomena we see is the one we adopt… if two do the job equally well, we continue to prod and poke at them until one emerges better.

      Now, Occam’s razor is often used to ‘triage’ the competing hypotheses because there’s a seemingly endless number of convoluted explanations and we cannot examine them all in detail … but that is all about simplicity and not probability.

      How would we calculate the probability of an explanation being true in any case? It isn’t as if Nature rolls an N-sided die to determine which laws rule natural phenomena.

  4. DR.Sidethink says:

    Terence McKenna sez that Santa’s Elves are really ETs from the Archaic Revival .
    They will condescend to speak to you in Mushrom Language.

    Terence and I were close personal Friends since High Schol Daze, and His life celebrated diversiy and mindbork

    Dr Sidethink does not recommend his method of time travel

    Bob Pease

  5. Ronald Walker says:

    The whole “nickology” stuff notwithstanding, I get very frustrated in the exploits of apologists who try to explain the Bible and miracles. Plagues, burning bush, the Christmas star and all of that stuff.

    From a religious standpoint, a miracle is a miracle. Trying to explain it using science is a false path. Moreover, once one tries to use science then doesn’t one buy in to science? If the miracles are explained by science it is no longer a miracle it is reality. So, if they accept planetary alignment (Christmas Star) and insect secretions (Manna from Heaven) should they not also accept that Evolution is real and that virgins don’t get pregnant through their ear?

    Let’s say a manuscript is alleged to be an original in the handwriting of the evangelist Paul. How would the biblicists verify it? By scientific carbon dating or other methods? Then they also would have to accept all the science behind the billions of years of the age of the Universe?

    Please, religious apologists, just accept that a miracle is a miracle. If you accept the Bible as revealed and true, don’t try to rationalize it.

    • DR.Sidethink says:

      from this worldview, it is dangerous to have FAITH unless the “Proper mFAITH AUthoriries” are xonsulted

      This helps to protect us from SATAN who prowleth about the world seeking the ruin of soles

      Pope BoBBy II

Patreon: a new way to support the things skeptic creates

Get eSkeptic

Science in your inbox every Wednesday!

eSkeptic delivers great articles, videos, podcasts, reviews, event announcements, and more to your inbox once a week.

Sign me up!

Donate to Skeptic

Please support the work of the Skeptics Society. Make the world a more rational place and help us defend the role of science in society.

Detecting Baloney

Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic) by Deanna and Skylar (High Tech High Media Arts, San Diego, CA)

The Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic)

For a class project, a pair of 11th grade physics students created the infographic shown below, inspired by Michael Shermer’s Baloney Detection Kit: a 16-page booklet designed to hone your critical thinking skills.

FREE Video Series

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Understanding the difference could save your life! In this superb 10-part video lecture series, Harriet Hall, M.D., contrasts science-based medicine with so-called “complementary and alternative” methods. The lectures each range from 32 to 45 minutes.

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths of Terrorism

Is Terrorism an Existential Threat?

This free booklet reveals 10 myths that explain why terrorism is not a threat to our way of life or our survival.

FREE PDF Download

The Top 10 Weirdest Things

The Top Ten Strangest Beliefs

Michael Shermer has compiled a list of the top 10 strangest beliefs that he has encountered in his quarter century as a professional skeptic.

FREE PDF Download

Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future (paperback cover)

Who believes them? Why? How can you tell if they’re true?

What is a conspiracy theory, why do people believe in them, and why do they tend to proliferate? Why does belief in one conspiracy correlate to belief in others? What are the triggers of belief, and how does group identity factor into it? How can one tell the difference between a true conspiracy and a false one?

FREE PDF Download

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

Do you know someone who has had a mind altering experience? If so, you know how compelling they can be. They are one of the foundations of widespread belief in the paranormal. But as skeptics are well aware, accepting them as reality can be dangerous…

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths About Evolution

Top 10 Myths About Evolution (and how we know it really happened)

If humans came from apes, why aren’t apes evolving into humans? Find out in this pamphlet!

FREE PDF Download

Learn to be a Psychic in 10 Easy Lessons

Learn to do Psychic “Cold Reading” in 10
Easy Lessons

Psychic readings and fortunetelling are an ancient art — a combination of acting and psychological manipulation.

Copyright © 1992–2017. All rights reserved. The Skeptics Society | P.O. Box 338 | Altadena, CA, 91001 | 1-626-794-3119. Privacy Policy.