Neural networks are all the rage right now. But they're still flawed. So top tech companies are looking at new forms of AI better at handling uncertainty. The post AI Is About to Learn More Like Humans—with a Little Uncertainty appeared first on WIRED.

A mini-ITX board running the GNU Libreboot downstream of Coreboot sounds interesting for a fully free software HTPC/media center PC, right? Too bad this new motherboard port is for an i945 board released back in 2008 and has integrated a painfully slow original, single-core Atom chip...

Vitenskapskomiteen for mattrygghet (VKM) slapp i dag en ny rapport hvor de på oppdrag fra Mattilsynet har sett på om det faktisk er noen vesentlige fordeler med økologisk fremfor konvensjonell mat og matproduksjon.

Deres resultater er nedslående for tilhengere av økologisk dyrket mat. En gjennomgang av forskningen viser ingen klare fordeler med tanke på hverken næringsinnhold, helsefordeler eller trygghet med økologisk dyrket mat. Forskjellene i for eksempel næringsinnhold handler ofte mer om hvordan og hvor maten dyrkes, enn om den dyrkes konvensjonelt eller økologisk.

Dette er i tråd med hva større metaanalyser har vist tidligere. Det finnes små forskjeller på næringsinnhold og rester av sprøytemidler, men det er ikke noe som tyder på at dette har reelle helsemessige fordeler for forbrukerne. Erik Arnesen har også skrevet om dette tidligere i sin bloggpost «Overdreven tro på ‘økologisk’ og ‘etisk’ mat».

To argumenter for økologisk matproduksjon

Jeg har i mange år sagt at det kan finnes gode argumenter for økologisk matproduksjon, men næringsinnhold og helsefordeler er ikke to av dem – selv om det dessverre synes å være det fremste salgsargumentet for tilhengere av økologisk mat. Derimot finnes det to andre faktorer som kan veie tungt i favør av økologisk landbruk, nemlig dyrevelferd og miljøfaktoren.

Dessverre – eller heldigvis (for dyrene) – viser VKM sin gjennomgang av forskningen at det ikke er noen tydelige fordeler med tanke på dyrevelferd her i Norge. De skriver:

- Med unntak av mindre jurbetennelse og mer melkefeber i økologiske storfebesetninger, er det ikke funnet forskjeller i sykdomsforekomst mellom dyr i økologiske og konvensjonelle besetninger, sier Næss.

– Forskningen viser at det generelt er liten forskjell i velferden til husdyr i økologiske og konvensjonelle besetninger i Norge. Forskjellene i velferd er størst i fjørfeproduksjon, sier Næss.

Lite forskjell på sykdomsforekomst altså, men kanskje dyrene, spesielt fjørfe, er noe bedre stilt når det gjelder frihet og leveforhold i økologisk landbruk. Det er i så fall positivt, men heller ikke det er bare fordeler:

Forskning viser at mer plass og tilgang på utearealer er positivt for dyrenes velferd, men at økologisk drift samtidig gir større utfordringer med parasitter, sykdom og risiko for rovdyrangrep.

Større frihet for dyrene påfører dem også større risiko. Heller ikke her synes det altså å være klare fordeler med økologisk landbruk, selv om de finnes ulikheter som kan være både positive og negative.

Klima og miljø

Hva så med miljøaspektet? Dette sier ikke VKM sin nye rapport noe om, men det er kanskje en av de viktigste årsakene til å velge økologisk – hvis det faktisk er bedre i et miljøperspektiv. Hva viser forskningen?

Vel, heller ikke her er det sort/hvitt. Jeg har kikket på noen metaanalyser, og konsensus synes å være at mens økologisk landbruk er miljømessig mer gunstig per dyrkningsareal, er arealkravet for økologisk landbruk så pass mye større at vinningen går opp i spinningen.

En britisk metaanalyse konkluderte slik:

From the paper’s meta-analysis it can conclude that soils in organic farming systems have on average a higher content of organic matter. It can also conclude that organic farming contributes positively to agro-biodiversity (breeds used by the farmers) and natural biodiversity (wild life). Concerning the impact of the organic farming system on nitrate and phosphorous leaching and greenhouse gas emissions the result of the analysis is not that straightforward. When expressed per production area organic farming scores better than conventional farming for these items. However, given the lower land use efficiency of organic farming in developed countries, this positive effect expressed per unit product is less pronounced or not present at all.

En annen metaanalyse sier omtrent det samme:

The results show that organic farming practices generally have positive impacts on the environment per unit of area, but not necessarily per product unit.

Hvor mye mer arealkrevende økologisk dyrket mat er, kommer litt an på maten som dyrkes. En metaanalyse publisert i Nature konkluderte slik:

Our analysis of available data shows that, overall, organic yields are typically lower than conventional yields. But these yield differences are highly contextual, depending on system and site characteristics, and range from 5% lower organic yields (rain-fed legumes and perennials on weak-acidic to weak-alkaline soils), 13% lower yields (when best organic practices are used), to 34% lower yields (when the conventional and organic systems are most comparable). Under certain conditions—that is, with good management practices, particular crop types and growing conditions—organic systems can thus nearly match conventional yields, whereas under others it at present cannot.

Forskere ved Bioforsk har også flere ganger gått ut og påpekt at mye av «hypen» rundt økologisk mat i stor grad er myter. (Det er de heller ikke alene om.) Når det gjelder påstanden om at økologisk dyrket mat er mer klimavennlig, skriver de:

Økologisk produksjon kan føre til mindre klimagasser per arealenhet. Men målt per produsert enhet mat er ikke utslippene signifikant mindre. Dersom en tar hensyn at økologisk landbruk har større arealbehov, og dermed fører til redusert CO2-binding i skog eller økt utslipp av CO2 og lystgass som følge av dyrking av myr, er det liten tvil om at økologisk mat gir større klimagassutslipp.

Ideen om større biologisk mangfold ved bruk av økologisk landbruk, bestrides også:

Innenfor jordbruksarealet kan økologiske gårder ha større biologisk mangfold på grunn av mer ugras og insekter og et rikere fugleliv. Men lavere avlinger fører til større arealbehov og dermed ødeleggelse av naturlige biotoper hvor det biologiske mangfoldet er større enn i et jordbrukslandskap.

Krumspring fra Oikos

Fascinerende nok var Oikos på banen allerede i går, altså før rapporten fra VKM var offentliggjort, for å være prinsipielt uenige!

Her ser det ut til at de bedriver ganske alvorlig cherry picking av data, bruker resultater fra andre land og forhold som ikke er relevante for norske forbrukere, trekker frem positive måleresultater innen ernæring uten noen kjent klinisk kjent effekt for mennesker, og generelt sett virker ganske uinteresserte i hva VKM og Mattilsynet faktisk kommer frem til. Jeg har mer tiltro til en systematisk gjennomgang av forskningen, slik VKM har gjort, enn å plukke studier som bekrefter det Oikos ønsker å promotere som sannhet.

Det er som om de roper at «uansett hva den nye VKM-rapporten viser så er vi uenige fordi vi allerede har bestemt oss!» Hvorfor ellers skulle de være på banen med en mot-artikkel allerede før de har sett VKM-rapporten? Det hele er et litt pinlig og suspekt skue…

Konklusjon

Rapport etter rapport ser altså ut til å knuse mytene rundt økologisk landbruk. Det er hverken tryggere, sunnere eller bedre for dyr, planter eller miljø å velge økologisk.

Men det er viktig å understreke at det som gjelder dyrevelferd og dyrehelse handler om Norge. Her har vi heldigvis strenge regler for dyrehold, bruk av antibiotika og andre forhold som ofte trekkes frem som fordeler ved økologisk landbruk. I andre land er nok fordelene ved økologisk landbruk vesentlig mer markant på disse feltene, men heller enn å jobbe for mer økologisk landbruk globalt sett, burde man heller stramme inn regelverket på disse områdene i EU og USA.

Et annet aspekt er at det kanskje kan bli mer gunstig med økologisk landbruk i tiden fremover hvis man blir flinkere til å utnytte dyrkningsarealene bedre. Kanskje arealeffektiviteten til økologisk landbruk en dag vil komme på linje med konvensjonelt landbruk? Da kan det hende at klimaregnestykket endrer seg.

Per i dag finnes det likevel ingen vektige og entydige argumenter for å velge økologisk.

Nathaniel Johnson over at Grist has written a series of articles on genetically modified organisms (GMO). As an investigative journalist he decided to do what I call a “deep dive” on this one issue to try to sort out fact from fiction, and which side (anti or pro) has the better arguments. He acknowledges that this was a journey of discovery and he was learning as he went along.

His most recent article, I think, is the most interesting: What I learned from six months of GMO research: None of it matters. In this latest installment he discusses the meta-lessons he learned in his journey through GMO – which seem to me like core skeptical principles. His article is an eloquent discussion of these principles, worth a read in its entirety, but I will further discuss here.

The main thing that Johnson learned is that people generally do not arrive at and defend positions based upon a careful analysis of the facts. Rather they have a narrative that fits their world view, and they defend that narrative despite the facts. This, of course, is familiar territory for skeptics.

In fact, regarding GMO he reasonably argues that the stakes are rather low. The risks of GMO are generally low and mixed (some benefit here, some downside there). The benefits of GMO are likewise highly variable, but none of them are transformative. With or without GMO technology, the agricultural industry will look and behave pretty much the same, and our food supply will be pretty much the same.

This is not to say they make no difference, but in the grand scheme of things the stakes are far lower than one would guess by the emotional intensity of the debate. Why the disconnect?

He further notes the folly of discussing GMO as a monolithic entity, and dings both sides of the debate for this fallacy. Each GM organism must be examined on its own merits. I would extend this point by saying that GMO technology itself includes a range of interventions. For example, transplanting genes from a closely related variety should be considered a significantly different intervention than transplanting a gene from a different kingdom of life.

Also, different GMO crops have different purposes – resisting pests, resisting herbicide, and improving nutritional content, for example. Assessing the net environmental impact of Roundup ready crops is a very different thing from assessing the nutritional advantage of golden rice. Conflating these into one argument is absurd.

Why, then, do people generally discuss GMO as one entity? Johnson had to confront the many-headed beast of comments to his articles on a controversial topic. This experience appears to have given him some insight into the answer, and I think he does put his finger on it exactly.

Johnson realized that people generally do not form scientifically nuanced opinions based upon the best science and evidence. Rather, they have a narrative, and they see everything through the lens of that narrative. Again - this is very old news to skeptics. Johnson writes:

When Dan Charles was researching his (terrific) book, Lords of the Harvest, he bumped up against some of the same quandaries I encountered, and concluded that the importance of these narratives was tantamount.

“The dispute over genetic engineering involves facts, to be sure,” he wrote. “But its parties disagree far more passionately over the story. They quarrel over the nature of the characters, the plot, and over the editing. They also feud over the unknowable: the ending.”

The debate isn’t about actual genetically modified organisms — if it was we’d be debating the individual plants, not GMOs as a whole — it’s about the stories we’ve attached to them.

GMO critics dislike GMO because they dislike the corporate agricultural complex it represents. That is why, in my opinion, Monsanto has been so demonized. GMO = Monsanto = Corporate Greed and Malfeasance. When discussing the facts regarding GMO it is very common to be labeled as a “Monsanto apologist” or “shill.”

Johnson makes a very apt analogy to abstinence only sex education. The religious right dislikes promoting the use of condoms as a way to mitigate the risks of premarital sex (unwanted pregnancy and spread of disease) because it supports a moral position they dislike. Similarly, anti-GMO activists dislike golden rice because is supports an agricultural industrial complex they dislike, not because of the specific risks and benefit of golden rice.

In other words, it is not about the facts. It is about the narrative. This is further driven by our need for simplicity – the narrative is clean and simple, and washes over a great deal of complexity and nuance.

On the flip side, pro-GMO advocates have their own narrative – the triumph of human technology and ingenuity, or perhaps the power of the free market.

Skeptics, of course, have their own GMO narrative – fallacious vs science-based thinking. Both extremes are wrong because they base their thinking on simplistic notions (like the naturalistic fallacy or the pristine power of the free market) rather than a fact-based individual assessment of each GM product. Johnson has simultaneously noticed that people largely base their opinions on narratives rather than facts, and moved himself into the skeptical narrative.

I am not criticizing Johnson’s evaluation (it’s spot on) just extending it a bit. People are variable and complex, and in the real world I find people spread throughout the entire spectrum, incorporating every permutation of valid and invalid arguments. While there is a valid and very useful insight in the notion that opinions are largely narrative-based, don’t fall into the false dichotomy of splitting the world into competing narratives. For every exemplar there will be those who break the mold or fall in-between.

It is the skeptical narrative that I find challenges me the most. There is utility in identifying patterns of argument that represent iconic positions. The pitfall for skeptics, however, is falling into the trap of dealing with individual people as if they were the iconic position they represent – treating individuals as labels.

To some extent this is unavoidable. When discussing issues I need to break them down into the basic positions that most people take. It is simply unwieldy to account for every possible individual variation on these themes. Further, we are social creatures and we have culture. Therefore we have group narratives that are reinforced by subcultures, and this does tend to produce legions of cookie-cutter opinions.

But I think it is important to  focus on individual arguments and individual pieces of evidence, rather than treating a position as a package. Further, when discussing an individual person, address their position, not the label you have attached to them.

So while many people generally fall into the pro-GMO or anti-GMO camp, and these camps do tend to share a common and self-reinforcing narrative, also be alert to and open to the individual variations that people will bring to these narratives.  Also, don’t define one group by the narrative of their opponents. That tends to produce cardboard caricatures.

Unfortunately, I think we need to embrace the complexity, as much hard work as this is. But on a bright note, this approach also can provide clarity. The GMO issue really should emphasize the best scientific evidence and arguments. The politics will still involve value judgments, but at least we can identify them and know when we are discussing the science and when we are discussing values and opinion. Confusing the two is a source of much mischief.

by @juan_domenech

Bare en kjapp liten kommentar til dette oppslaget på alternativ.no som flere har sendt meg:

Her kan vi lese følgende:

Muskel- og skjelettlidelser fører til svært mange sykemeldinger i Norge. Fastlegen i Berlevåg mener at de som velger behandling hos den lokale naturterapeuten klarer seg bedre.

Forskere ved NAFKAM har undersøkt Berlevåg-fenomenet:

–Berlevåg er en liten kommune, med én alternativ behandler som har hjulpet innbyggere der i mer enn 15 år. Dette kombinert med at færre blir sykemeldt der, gjorde at vi syntes det var interessant å undersøke stedet nærmere, sier forskerne Nina Foss og Silje Folkvord til alternativ.no

Og hva gjør denne alternative behandleren?

Den erfarne behandleren i Berlevåg har bakgrunn i naturopati, refleksologi, øre-akupunktur, akupressur og muskelmassasje. Det er hovedsakelig dyptgående massasje hun bruker i behandling av denne pasientgruppen, men også akupunktur. Denne behandleren, som også er utdannet sykepleier, anslår at over 80 % av pasientene hun behandler lider av muskel- og skjelettlidelser.

NAFKAM sin undersøkelse viste at det var stor utskifting av offentlig helsepersonell i Berlevåg, og innbyggerne syntes dette var et problem. Det er forståelig. Man vil gjerne at legen skal huske hvem man er og kunne følge et sykdoms- eller symptomforløp over lang tid. Å til stadighet få en ny person å forholde seg til, som man må fortelle alt til på nytt, og som ikke får med seg utviklingen i sykdom/symptomer over lang tid, er slitsomt.

I rak motsetning til dette finner vi altså den alternative behandler som har vært på stedet lenge, og som kjenner sine pasienter. Behandleren kan derfor hilse på pasienten ved navn, høre hvordan ting har gått siden sist, snakke om dagligdagse ting og generelt sett gi en mindre stressende og mer aksepterende ramme rundt behandlingen. Pasienten slipper å føle seg som en hypokonder som må forklare det man er redd skal oppfattes som et bagatellmessige symptom for femte gang – med den underliggende følelsen av at man alltid må overbevise om at det virkelig er et problem. (Jeg vet i hvert fall at jeg ofte har det slik hos legen.)

I tillegg gir denne alternativbehandleren behandling som i stor grad handler om berøring. Pasienten får legge seg ned og bli tatt på. Det er massasje og trykking under føtter og andre steder på kroppen – kombinert med samtale og ro.

Virker dette? Selvsagt. Som jeg tidligere har skrevet i bloggen, og som jeg også påpeker i boken min «Placebodefekten», så har jeg stor tro på denne type behandling. Jeg kaller det «rasjonell massasje». Ro, samtale og berøring/massasje, uten mystiske forklaringer og urealistiske lovnader. Det er ikke rart at Berlevåg opplever at befolkningen har nytte av et slikt tilbud.

Jeg har selv argumentert for at hvis det offentlige ville tilby en times gratis massasje til alle ansatte, eller til alle voksne innbyggere, en gang i uken, så hadde vi sett mye lavere sykefravær og kortere helsekøer. Det å gi folk muligheten til å bli fysisk berørt og massert i en times nytelsesoase i hverdagen, vil utvilsomt kunne ha positiv helseeffekt. Det høres kanskje ut som et radikalt forslag, men jeg er ganske sikker på at den samfunnsøkonomiske innsparing ville være stor.

Spesifikke og uspesifikke behandlingseffekter

I Berlevåg har man sett at innbyggerne ønsker et samarbeid mellom det offentlige helsevesen og alternativ behandling. Men det er her det skurrer for meg. Hvorfor kaller vi dette for alternativ behandling? Dette handler ikke om alternativ behandling. Effekten har ingenting med naturopati, refleksologi, øre-akupunktur eller akupressur å gjøre. Og da kommer vi til noe som også er mye av kjernen i min bok, dette med forskjellen på spesifikke og uspesifikke behandlingseffekter.

Det vi ser i Berlevåg er fruktene av de uspesifikke behandlingseffekter. Det som ikke har noe direkte med behandlingen å gjøre. Det handler ikke om å trykke på spesielle punkter. Det handler ikke om meridianer. Det har ingenting å gjøre med at soner under fotsålene henger sammen med ulike organer i kroppen. Det har ingenting å gjøre med at punkter i øret henger sammen med ulike organer i kroppen. Det handler ikke om balansering av energier og chakraer. Det har altså ingenting å gjøre med den spesifikke behandling og tilhørende uvitenskapelige forklaringsmekanismer. Derimot så har det alt å gjøre med selve behandlingssituasjonen. De uspesifikke effektene. Ro. Fokus. Empati. Samtale. Stressreduksjon. Berøring. Massasje. Tid.

NAFKAM har for lenge siden innsett at disse behandlingsmetodene ikke virker. En kikk på nettsidene til NIFAB viser at vitenskapelig konsensus er nedslående for alle kjente, store alternative behandlingsmetoder. Det vil si: de har ingen spesifikk behandlingseffekt. Derfor har NAFKAM begynt å undersøke de uspesifikke effektene. Det kan være vel og bra så lenge de er tydelige på å informere om forskjellen. Det gjør de dessverre ikke alltid like godt.

I artikkelen på alternativ.no kan man lett sitte igjen med inntrykket av at resultatene i Berlevåg viser at for eksempel refleksologi (fotsoneterapi) virker. Det gjør det ikke. Det er basert på en fullstendig utdatert ide om hvordan kroppen er bygget opp.

Derimot er det liten tvil om at det kan ha god effekt å la en sliten ansatt få legge seg ned, nyte en times ro og fred hvor de kun kan tenke på seg selv og slippe stress fra jobb og barn og ektefelle og julehandel, og bli trykket under føttene. Smerteopplevelse, blant annet i rygg, henger i stor grad sammen med stressnivå, og får man stresset ned folk vil også opplevelsen av smerte reduseres og bevegelighet økes.

Avstressingstilbud i offentlig regi

Problemet er at det koster penger:

Legen i Berlevåg konkluerer med at alternativterapeuten har vært viktig for dem som sliter med disse plagene og at behandlingen hos denne terapeuten bidrar til at de unngår sykemelding.

Legen mener også det hadde vært bra om alternativ behandling kunne tilbys innenfor offentlige støtteordninger, slik at alle kunne få tilbudet uansett økonomisk situasjon. Nå er det kun de som har råd, som kan få denne behandlingen så ofte som de opplever at de trenger den.

Ja, la oss få offentlig støtte til ro og massasje. Men ikke kall det alternativ medisin. Ikke bruk ord som refleksologi og akupressur. Kall en spade for en spade. Dette er offentlig sponsning av et avstressingstilbud. Det trenger vi. Det er positivt. Jeg hadde takket ja til dette på et blunk. Det helbreder ikke alvorlig sykdom, men det kan bedre symptomene fra mye kronisk sykdom, og forebygge eller lindre en del stressrelaterte lidelser, fra høyt blodtrykk, søvnløshet, hodepine, eksemer, allergier, ryggproblemer og mer.

Undertittelen på boken min er «Hvorfor alternativ behandling virker som den virker». Svaret jeg gir i boken er i stor grad «uspesifikke behandlingseffekter», hvorav placeboeffekt er en liten del av hele bildet.

Alternativ behandling «virker» fordi vi mennesker har et stort behov for å bli sett, få våre vondter anerkjent, få trygghet i diagnoser (selv om de bare er tullediagnoser), få trygghet i en kur (selv om det bare er tullekurer), få snakke om våre vondter med noen som har tid til å lytte (lavterskel «psykologitilbud»), få lov til å fokusere på oss selv i en hverdag hvor alle krever av oss, og få avstressing og berøring.

Berlevågs alternative behandler kan tilby alt dette. Det trenger vi mer av i det offentlige helsevesen. Mange leger er også flinke til å gi mye av dette, men de er som regel begrenset av tid, og man kan ikke gå fast til legen ukentlig for å få dekket dette behovet. Så la oss ansette rasjonelle massører i alle landets kommuner. La oss gi folket avstressingstilbud i offentlig regi. La oss tilby folk de uspesifikke behandlingseffektene som alternativbehandlere har tjent penger på, pakket inn i løgn og bedrageri, i alle år.

Det ville gitt oss en todelt effekt: Et friskere folk, samtidig som vi hadde slått bena under mye av markedet for alternativindustrien. Det hadde ført til litt mindre uvitenskapelighet og løgn i samfunnet. Ingenting hadde vært bedre enn det.

Decimal numbers are sometimes difficult to work with because they can't always be stored with exact precision. This also leads to difficulty in displaying the value of a decimal number because you need to deal with getting the precision right. Fred G. found this bit of ingenuity:

  // File format
  //
  // ABBBBBCDDDDDEEEEEEE...
  //
  // A - bytes 0-0   integer portion of field x (range: 0-9)
  //     (done this way because we can not represent a decimal number exactly)
  //
  // B - bytes 1-5   decimal portion of field x (range: 00000-99999 to represent 0.00000-9.99999)
  //     (done this way because we can not represent a decimal number exactly)
  //
  // C - bytes 6-6   integer portion of field y (range: 0-9)
  //     (done this way because we can not represent a decimal number exactly)
  //
  // D - bytes 7-11  decimal portion of field y (range: 00000-99999 to represent 0.00000-9.99999)
  //
  // E - bytes 12-18 discount rate (range: 0.00000-9.99999)
  // ...
  public class Xyz {

    public class Data {
       private double ab;
       private double cd;
       private double e;
       // ...

       public Data(double ab, double cd, double e /* ... */ ) {
         this.ab = ab;
         this.cd = cd;
         this.e  = e;
         // ...
       }

       public double getAB() { return ab; }
       public double getCD() { return cd; }
       public double getE()  { return e;  }
       // ...
    }

    public String createDataToWriteToFile(List<Data> list) {
      DecimalFormat df1 = new DecimalFormat("0.00000");
      DecimalFormat df2 = new DecimalFormat("00000");
      DecimalFormat df3 = new DecimalFormat("0");

      StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();

      for (Data d : list) {
          String s = df3.format(Math.floor(d.getAB())) + 
                     df2.format((d.getAB() - Math.floor(d.getAB()))*100000) +
                     df3.format(Math.floor(d.getCD())) + 
                     df2.format((d.getCD() - Math.floor(d.getCD()))*100000) +
                     df1.format(d.getE());
          sb.append(s);
          sb.append("\r\n");
      }

      return sb.toString();
    }
  }

If only there were a reliable existing way to turn decimal numbers into a string for easy printing and display...

If you’re a fan of quick visual jokes, I heartily recommend following the new Twitter account @FacesPics that archives photographs of objects, buildings, and other things that look unmistakably like faces of people or animals. Launched earlier this month the account already has 162,000 followers and counting, and for good reason. Sure, some of these photos have been bouncing around for ages, but it’s good they’ve finally found a home.

Yesterday I discussed the proposal by Robert Lanza he calls biocentrism – that consciousness creates the universe. While he is trying to portray himself as  ”one of the leading scientists in the world,” and right up there with Darwin and Einstein, his “theory” is nothing new or unique to him. It is the same quantum woo tripe that has been debunked for decades. In fact, he is “not even wrong” – his ideas present no testable hypotheses.

I have already discussed his “god-of-the-gaps” style argument regarding the Big Bang and why there is something instead of nothing. I started to discuss his abuse of quantum mechanics; specifically his confusion of particles interacting with the environment with the effects of a conscious observer. The very experiments he refers to, the double-slit experiments, demonstrate that the presence or absence of a conscious observer is irrelevant. All that matters is if the photons interact with anything, such as a detector, while they are passing through the two slits.

More Quantum Woo

His quantum woo does not end there, however. He also refers to quantum entanglement, which I grant is one of the more counterintuitive aspects of quantum mechanics. Once particles are entangled, let’s say because they were created as a virtual pair, their properties are linked and complementary – if one particle is spin up, the other will be spin down. Here comes the weird part: even if the particles have been separate for millions of years traveling along their own paths, as soon as you measure the spin of one particle and force its probability to collapse to a definite property, the other particle will also collapse and will have the opposite property.

This all seems like spooky action at a distance, with one particle communicating even across the light-years to the other particle, instantly. We know this is not the case, however. You cannot use quantum entanglement to communicate information, and no experiment involving quantum entanglement has ever violated relativity’s speed-of-light speed limit. The only reasonable conclusion is that the two particles are not communicating instantly across distance. Something else is going on.

Also there is the phenomenon of decoherence – the more either particle interacts with its environment, the more likely it is that the two particles will become disentangled. In fact it’s difficult to create a careful experimental condition to tease out the weird phenomenon of quantum entanglement. It is not something that is happening in the messy macroscopic world.

Lanza also refers to the many-worlds-hypothesis – this is the notion that every quantum collapse of the wave-form of every elementary particle actually splits off a separate universe. Therefore, somewhere out there are countless universes in which every possible quantum outcome has occurred. Lanza argues that physicists “believe” in the many worlds hypothesis, but I tend to see it as wild speculation. There is certainly no evidence for this notion, and as far as I know, no way to even test it.

Further, even if the many-worlds-hypothesis is true, the same line of thought that leads to this idea also leads to the conclusion that all of those other universes are forever separate and inaccessible to us, trapped as we are in or own universe. So, while it is an interesting idea, it has no practical implication.

By now you can probably tell where Lanza is going – quantum mechanics is really weird and counterintuitive, therefore my particular brand of supernaturalism is true.

The Anthropic Principle

Lanza then goes on to his next mystery, the anthropic principle. I will let him explain it:

Why are the laws of physics exactly balanced for animal life to exist? There are over 200 physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that it strains credulity to propose that they are random — even if that is exactly what standard contemporary physics baldly suggests. These fundamental constants of the universe — constants that are not predicted by any theory — all seem to be carefully chosen, often with great precision, to allow for existence of life and consciousness (yes, consciousness raises its annoying head yet another time). We have absolutely no reasonable explanation for this.

This is essentially correct, the universe has all the physical laws necessary, and sometimes within a very narrow band of tolerance, to allow for stable complex forms such as life. Further, we have no idea why this is the case. Lanza is trying to make the gaps argument that our current understanding of the universe does not work, therefore we should listen to his biocentrism nonsense. As I stated in part I, he is confusing the fact that our current scientific understanding is incomplete with the idea that it is fundamentally flawed and needs to be chucked out. This is the same line of argument used by science-deniers, like creationists.

I will admit that the anthropic principle does present a perplexing puzzle. This does not mean that the universe had to be created, by either a god or by our own consciousness. It simply means we have more science to do.

There are proposed answers to the anthropic puzzle. One possibility is that the laws of the universe are not random. There is some deeper law that constrains what the physical constants of the universe must be.

Another possibility is that there are many arrangements of the physical constants that would allow for a conscious being to evolve and question the origin of those physical constants. We are only seeing one. And of course whatever being evolves, the laws of their universe will be compatible with them, by definition. This is the “weak” form of the anthropic principle.

Yet another possibility is that there are many universes, perhaps even infinite, and in each one the physical laws are shuffled. Only in those universes compatible with the evolution of consciousness will there be beings capable of asking questions about the laws of their universe.

There may be other possible answers as well. The fact that we currently do not know is neither surprising (given the current state of our knowledge) nor indicative of any fundamental problem with our understanding of reality. We simply need to keep digging deeper.

Consciousness

Finally, Lanza gets directly to the issue of consciousness. Here he makes the same mystery-mongering arguments as the dualists:

This, consciousness, is not a small item. It is not like anything else. Indeed, it is nothing like anything else. Consciousness is awareness, or perception, which in an utter mystery has somehow arisen from molecules and goo. How did inert, random bits of carbon ever morph into that Japanese guy who always wins the hot dog eating contest?

He is confusing our knowledge of how brain function manifests as consciousness and subjectivity with the evidence that it does. I have written extensively about this already – every relevant experiment shows that mental function is brain function. We do have some knowledge about how the brain works and how it creates mental phenomena, but certainly our knowledge is incomplete. However, there is absolutely no reason to reject the neuroscientific model of consciousness, which remains a very successful research paradigm.

Lanza also makes a category mistake – he argues that because we cannot explain consciousness as a physical property of matter, that there is therefore something mysterious about it. This is a hyper-reductionist argument, however. I cannot explain the workings of a car engine by studying the properties of steel either. That function occurs at a higher level of interaction.

You cannot understand consciousness by studying molecules or goo – ever. Consciousness occurs at a higher level of interaction. It is a manifestation of the particular arrangement and physiological function of cells in the vertebrate brain.

Conclusion

Robert Lanza’s arguments are shockingly fallacious and are not only easy to refute, they have already been refuted many times. Yet Lanza, in his other life, appears to be a successful researcher. Speculating about this apparent paradox is interesting and may contain some useful lessons.

This may be a cautionary tale about stepping outside of one’s area of expertise. Lanza is a biologist, not a quantum physicist. But this alone does not explain the deep morass into which he has sunk. It does seem that a massive ego is also involved – he does not appear to appreciate the depth of his ignorance of physics.

This too does not seem sufficient, for it is not just his facts but his logic that is severely off. A commenter to yesterday’s post pointed out an interview in which Lanza discusses the death of his sister, and how this helped him realize that death is not permanent because consciousness exists outside of space and time. Here we have a significant motivation to embrace something like biocentrism. It is likely that biocentrism is ultimately the sophisticated rationalization of a smart guy dealing with the pain of mortality.

Such rationalizations can create significant blinders, causing a scientist to embrace pseudoscience.

I have to also include the possibility that Lanza simply lacks a deep understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of science. A successful researcher can be technically skilled and able to think well within the confines of their expertise, but still lack a deep appreciation for the critical thinking and skeptical basis of science in general. There are certainly many examples of this.

Being a world-class researcher does not necessarily protect someone from going down the rabbit hole of pseudoscience. This is yet another example of why teaching critical thinking and the philosophy of science is so important to science education – even at the highest levels of education.

Earlier this week Massimo Pigliucci over at Rationally Speaking wrote an intriguing blog post asking whether or not there is a pseudoscience black hole – a point beyond which a pseudoscience gets sucked in and can never escape? Asked from the other direction – are there any historical examples of a pseudoscience that became legitimate, essentially turned out to be true?

I thought this was an interesting enough question to pick up the ball and explore the question further.

First, the question requires a discussion of what is pseudoscience. This is a common topic of discussion among skeptics. Any definition must contend with the demarcation problem – there is no bright line between legitimate science and pseudoscience. Rather, there is a smooth continuum, although I do think the distribution along that continuum is bimodal.

The differences between science and pseudoscience have to do with process, not subject matter. Pseudoscientists display a number of typical behaviors  (I will quickly list some of them here, but I am overdo for an updated post just on this topic):

1 – Hostile to criticism, rather than embracing criticism as a mechanism of self-correction
2 – Works backward from desired results through motivated reasoning
3 – Cherry picks evidence
4 – Relies on low grade evidence when it supports their belief, but will dismiss rigorous evidence if it is inconvenient.
5 – Core principles untested or unproven, often based on single case or anecdote
6 – Utilizes vague, imprecise, or ambiguous terminology, often to mimic technical jargon
7 – Has the trappings of science, but lacks the true methods of science
8 – Invokes conspiracy arguments to explain lack of mainstream acceptance (Galileo syndrome)
9 – Lacks caution and humility by making grandiose claims from flimsy evidence
10 – Practitioners often lack proper training and present that as a virtue as it makes them more “open.”

Even world-class respected mainstream scientists may allow some pseudoscientific behavior to creep in. Further, rank pseudoscientists may be right on certain points or actually produce some useful evidence. One way to restate Massimo’s question is this – is there a point along the spectrum toward pseudoscience beyond which a pseudoscientist cannot return, and if so, approximately where is that point?

When considering individuals, rather than topics, I would say anything is possible. Respected scientists can descend into full pseudoscience later in their careers, with Linus Pauling being the classic example. It’s also possible that a pseudoscientist can see the error of their ways and reject their prior claims, although a dramatic example of this does not come readily to mind.

Massimo’s question was framed more toward the belief rather than the believer – is there any claim that was considered pseudoscience but now is accepted by mainstream science? This is problematic because pseudoscience is defined by its methods, not its claims. So, if pseudoscientists turned out to be correct in the end, it would be almost by pure luck and chance. This is not impossible, people can be right for the wrong reasons.

Is there, however, an event horizon – a point of no return? Again, I think there is a demarcation problem, meaning a fuzzy boundary, and therefore no sharp event horizon. I do think that the longer a claim is rejected as pseudoscience the less likely it is that it happens to be true.

The fun comes in trying to think of examples. Massimo raised the possibility of acupuncture. While I agree that acupuncture has gained a certain amount of mainstream acceptance, this is despite being a pure pseudoscience, not evidence that it is legitimate. In my opinion, acupuncture is merely an example of a sophisticated pseudoscience that does a good job of infiltrating mainstream institutions by camouflaging itself as a real science. When you dig deep, however, there is nothing but pseudoscience.

Acupuncture also raises another problem of categorization, which Massimo discusses. What if acupuncture has some efficacy through a purely physiological mechanism, and all of the pre-scientific explanations about chi and life force are still pseudoscience? Can it then be said that “acupuncture” is not completely pseudoscience?

I say no. This gets to the definition of what is acupuncture, which I contend is placing thin needles into acupuncture points (regardless of the explanation). The evidence shows that acupuncture points do not exist, and that where or even if you stick needles through the skin adds nothing to efficacy. There may be some non-specific effects from superficial or incidental aspects of acupuncture (such as conditioning, or counter-irritation) but this does not rescue acupuncture from being pseudoscience.

As another example of this point, blood letting (phlebotomy) is an accepted treatment for polycythemia (too many red blood cells) and also certain conditions of excess iron. Does this mean that blood-letting as practiced under Galenic medicine is not pseudoscience? Of course not. It is a coincidence that removing blood has very limited clinical applications that have nothing to do with the practice or philosophy of blood-letting.

Massimo also brings up herbalism, and does explore the complexity of this example. Herbalism is complex because it contains many practices and beliefs. Simply stating that herbs are a rich source of potential pharmacological ingredients is accepted science. It is even true that most cultures identified local plants that can be exploited for medicinal or other purposes.

However, many modern examples of herbalism as a system of medicine are pseudoscientific. They are often based on the naturalistic fallacy, or even supernaturalism (stating, for example, that God created herbs specifically to be medicines for Homo sapiens.) Many practices within herbalism are based on anecdotes and tradition, and do not follow any rigorous scientific methodology.

In searching for other examples of pseudosciences that escaped from the gravitational pull of the black hole, other problems of definition arise. To qualify as a “pseudoscience” it is not enough that a claim was not initially accepted. Most scientific ideas begin out on the fringe and are treated with initial skepticism, until they meet their burden of evidence, and then are gradually accepted. So being initially rejected, like the H. pylori theory of gastric ulcers, is not enough.

Some pseudosciences, like phrenology (reading personality from the bumps on the skull), may get certain claims correct. It turns out that the brain is compartmentalized to some degree, as early phrenologists predicted. All the other claims of phrenology, however, are wrong, and once this was discovered by neurologists phrenology descended into pure pseudoscience. Now it persists as a tiny fringe belief.

In the end I cannot think of any examples of a belief that fully resided in the camp of pseudoscience whose core claims (not minor or incidental aspects of the pseudoscience) turned out to be correct and were later accepted by mainstream science.

Science is mostly about probability. It is not impossible that a belief that arises through pseudoscientific methods will turn out, by chance, to be true. It’s just highly unlikely. Most new hypotheses in science will turn out to be wrong. Those that have been shown to be wrong long enough to consider their proponents pseudoscientists, because only fatally flawed methods can still promote the claim, are really unlikely to later turn out to be true.

Very unlikely things do happen. So probably at some point in history there will be a dramatic example. One reason I am confident that no example exists now is because if there were such as example, pseudoscientists would be forever flogging it in the face of skeptics.

Further, while I cannot categorically say that any belief currently considered a full pseudoscience will never be confirmed and escape the pull of the black hole, I think the chance of that happening is vanishingly small.

Homeopathy, creationism, ESP, cold fusion, free energy, acupuncture, the growing Earth, astrology, vitalism, and dowsing are very likely to forever remain pseudosciences.

However, if one of these claims turned out to be true, its contemporary proponents would still be pseudoscientists. Remember, science vs pseudoscience is about method, not specific beliefs. Being right by chance despite using invalid methods still makes one a pseudoscientist – just a lucky pseudoscientist.

As promised, Deepak Chopra has written a follow up article about what he calls The Rise and Fall of Militant Skepticism. As we saw in part 1, Chopra remains consistent with his reputation for being intellectually superficial and careless, more interested in propping up his particular brand of mysticism than genuinely engaging with his critics.

In part 2 Chopra also continues his practice of erecting massive strawmen, consistent with the narrative standard in his corner of the wooniverse. He begins by once again conflating atheism with skepticism. Clearly he did not read or comprehend any of the skeptical responses to his first post. Now he trots out the tired claim that skeptics are negative and want to kill curiosity – it’s all just so tedious.

He also uses a strategy that I see increasingly within the subculture of many pseudosciences, specifically trying to adopt the language of skeptics but turning that language back against skeptics, as if they thought of in the first place.

Chopra writes:

None of this is news. The fate of militant skepticism, whatever it may be, will drift apart from the serious business of doing science. After all, no scientific discovery was ever made by negative thinking. There has to be an open-minded curiosity and a willingness to break new ground, while the militant skeptics represent the exact opposite: they are dedicated to the suppression of curiosity and protecting rigid boundaries of “real” science.

Every statement in that paragraph is wrong. Skepticism is about the serious business of doing science, which combines open-minded curiosity with rigorous methodology. Of course what happens is that whenever skeptics point out a lack of rigorous methodology the true believer claims that we are trying to kill their curiosity. At least Chopra spared us the standard comparison to Galileo.

Skeptics are not about defending any arbitrary boundaries of the content of science. Rather, we are trying to explore and define how to maximize the quality and reliability of the process of science and apply it to popular areas of belief where a proper process is lacking. Skepticism is about process, not conclusions.

Strawmen having been dutifully slain, Chopra moves on to the meat of his current essay, which is little more than a summary of the standard modern justifications for mysticism:

But by a strange and unexpected chain of events, real science finds itself at a turning point where skepticism itself is proving to be a dubious attitude. The standby of the scientific method – gathering objective data to prove objective facts – has been undermined. The reason for this cannot be stated in a single sentence, because too many shadowy findings, suppositions, and theoretical conundrums are woven together.

Chopra goes on to outline the four pillars of “What the Bleep do we Know,” “The Secret” and any brand of “quantum” nonsense you ever heard: The first two pillars essentially amount to, “quantum mechanics is weird, therefore science is bunk and my mysticism is true.” Specifically, the observer effect – making an observation of a system influences the behavior of the system. Also the uncertainty principle – at its most fundamental level, particles are not fixed objects but are waves of probability.

Of course it was rigorous science that identified the problems with classical physics and then discovered quantum effects as a potential solution. We have not drilled to the bottom of this well as yet. None of this undermined the process of science. Further, these weird quantum effects have essentially no effect on the macroscopic world, which behaves classically.

What Chopra is doing is what cranks have been doing since there was science – looking beyond the fringe of science and declaring, “here there be dragons.”

Pillar three is:

“The emergence of time and space, either through the Big Bang or at this very moment, remains mysterious. The pre-created state of the universe is a deep mystery.”

I’m not even sure how this supports Chopra’s dubious point. He’s just pointing to something science has not yet figured out. It is possible that we may never know how space and time came about. So what? It seems that Chopra is making the absurd argument that because science does not currently know everything, or may not be able to explain everything, there is something wrong with science as it is currently practiced.

Of course this is what the mystics want – science cannot explain X because it is too rigid and narrow. But, if we expand science to include my mysticism, then we can explain everything. Never mind that we will have to abandon the very principles of science in the process, and ignore those nasty skeptics who are pointing this out. They just want to kill my curiosity because…Hmmm, let’s see. They’re afraid. They lack imagination. Oh, because they are all really militant atheists. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Pillar number four is, of course, consciousness.

The whole issue of consciousness, long ignored because of science’s aversion to subjectivity, has become a major concern, principally for two reasons. The assumption that the brain is the producer of the mind has never been proved; therefore, it presents the possibility of being wrong. Second, if consciousness is more like a field effect than a unique human trait, the universe itself could be conscious, or at least possess the qualities of proto-consciousness, just as DNA possesses the possibility for Homo sapiens even at the stage when life forms were only single-celled organisms.

The “assumption” that the brain causes the mind is really a hypothesis, and to say that it has not been proven is to misrepresent both the process and findings of science. Of course, this goes to the heart of Chopra’s Eastern mysticism regarding a universal consciousness. This is his creationism.

There are multiple lines of evidence that support the hypothesis that the mind is the biological functioning of the brain. As I have written before:

For example, if the brain causes the mind then: there will be no documented mental function in the absence of brain function; altering the brain biologically will alter the mind functionally; mental development will correlate with brain development; and mental activity will correlate with brain activity (this holds up no matter what method we use to look at brain activity – EEG to look at electrical activity, PET scanning to look at metabolic activity, SPECT scanning to look at blood flow, and functional MRI to look at metabolic and neuronal activity).

The arrow of causation clearly goes from the brain to the mind. There does not appear to be any functional limit to how the mind can be altered by altering the brain. Of course we do not understand everything about how brain function manifests as mental function. But that it does is solid and uncontroversial.

Chopra’s premise is therefore wrong, but he goes onto say, essentially – if I am right, then I am right. If consciousness is a field effect (something for which there is absolutely no evidence), then my consciousness mysticism may be true.

This also is a common fallacy of true-believers – present minor unknowns or even problems with a standard scientific explanation, exaggerate them as much as possible, and then substitute pure speculation that has far deeper and even fatal problems. This is all a great example of motivated reasoning.

Before you read further you have to turn off your irony meters. Don’t turn down the gain, turn them completely off. Chopra writes:

These four mysteries or problems, whatever you label them, undercut skepticism – and more or less demolish militant skepticism – because they make science question its belief in such things as materialism, reductionism, and objectivity.

Here Chopra makes his agenda clear – undermining the philosophical basic of science itself. He wants to change the rules of science in order to allow in his pseudoscience. The mystics will be declaring the deaths of materialism, reductionism, and objectivity indefinitely, while proper science marches on unperturbed.

I make a habit of asking every neuroscientist I encounter, for example, what they think about the notion that brain function is the mind. Their response has always been the equivalent of, “well, duh!” They laugh off any dualistic notion or quantum consciousness nonsense, and then proceed to find more neuroanatomical correlates of mind and behavior. The materialist, reductionist paradigm is working just fine.

Further, while objective outcomes are always preferred, scientific methods can be turned to subjective phenomena – just very carefully.

He goes on:

Let’s drop the bugaboo about metaphysics and look with open eyes at two critical aspects of philosophy that can come to the aid of science at this moment. One is ontology, which asks what is reality? or how can we discover the difference between reality and illusion? The other is epistemology, which asks what is knowledge? and how do we come to know about the world?  Neither looks like a burning issue in everyday life, but they are, because each has a positive and negative pole.

This is where Chopra ironically is trying to sound like a skeptic. The whole point of skepticism is to explore what is real and how do we know. The idea that Chopra is trying to steal the philosophical high ground is just laughable.

Then he leaps off the cliff:

The negative pole is found with militant skeptics, who are wedded to an outmoded belief that the five senses are basically reliable, that only physical things are real, and that “pure” objectivity is possible, with the corollary that subjectivity will always be the enemy of real science. This last belief totally ignores the indisputable fact that every experience, including the experience of doing science, is subjective. Militant skepticism blocks the way to an expanded science that is trying to grapple with the issue of how the observer is woven into the object he observes.

I invite Chopra to read my article describing what skepticism is, and focus his attention on the section about neuropsychological humility. Skeptics have been writing, lecturing, and talking about the limits of human objectivity for years, the challenges of doing science, and how our brains construct reality. Chopra appears to be completely out of touch with his subject matter.

Also, the statement that “only physical things are real” is so vague as to be meaningless. How do you define “physical?” Energy and space-time are not matter, but they are real. Perhaps by physical he means part of the universe, in which case the sentence becomes, “only real things are real.” Otherwise he is getting into the thorny issue of how to define the supernatural.

Conclusion

Not only does Chopra mischaracterize the issues about which he presumes to write, he does not even demonstrate that he knows what the issues are. He erects one massive strawman after another about what skepticism is, relying upon long debunked false tropes, and clearly has never engaged meaningfully with skeptics.

His entire edifice can be summarized as – science doesn’t know everything, and skeptics are negative, therefore we have to change science, abandon its core principles and methodology, to allow for my cultural brand of mysticism, of which I am a very profitable guru.

Every now and then I come across a stunning example of pseudoscience, an exemplar, almost raising pseudoscience to an art form. Some pieces of scientific nonsense read almost like poetry. Such examples make me wonder what is going on in the mind of the pseudoscientist – to me, the most fascinating question.

One example I recently came across is the idea that we can reprogram our DNA through words alone. Just about every red-flag of pseudoscience is flying high with this one. Here is the theory in a nutshell:

Only 10% of our DNA is being used for building proteins. It is this subset of DNA that is of interest to western researchers and is being examined and categorized. The other 90% are considered “junk DNA.” The Russian researchers, however, convinced that nature was not dumb, joined linguists and geneticists in a venture to explore those 90% of “junk DNA.” Their results, findings and conclusions are simply revolutionary! According to them, our DNA is not only responsible for the construction of our body but also serves as data storage and in communication. The Russian linguists found that the genetic code, especially in the apparently useless 90%, follows the same rules as all our human languages. To this end they compared the rules of syntax (the way in which words are put together to form phrases and sentences), semantics (the study of meaning in language forms) and the basic rules of grammar. They found that the alkalines of our DNA follow a regular grammar and do have set rules just like our languages. So human languages did not appear coincidentally but are a reflection of our inherent DNA.

The 10% figure reminds me of the trope that we only use 10% of our brains (which is completely untrue). The idea is appealing because believers in magic can fill the remaining 90% with whatever they need to give some superficial plausibility to their magic. Now DNA is the new brain.

As a very interesting aside, the concept of Junk DNA has recently had some controversy. What is not controversial is that only about 1.2% of the base pairs in human DNA code directly for proteins. The rest of the genome is “non-coding DNA.” The popular term “Junk DNA” has been applied to non-coding DNA to convey the basic idea that this DNA does not do anything – it’s like the closet full of junk you can’t throw out because there may be something useful in their. Unused bits of DNA accumulate in the genome over evolutionary time and there really isn’t a mechanism for trimming it down.

From the beginning of the concept of non-coding DNA, however, geneticists knew that some non-coding regions were involved in regulating gene expression. So some non-coding DNA is regulatory. The question is – how much? This is a difficult question to answer, as the more we explore the function of the genome the more complexity we are likely to find.

Recently the ENCODE project has sought to discover how much of the genome has function. This has only deepened the controversy. To summarize the current state of things, a current estimate of the percent of the genome that is regulatory is 8-9%, added to the 1.2% that is coding, and you have your 10% figure. However, that is likely a conservative estimate. At the upper end there are estimates that as much as 20% of the genome may be functional.

Along, however, comes the ENCODE project and they are now claiming that 80% of the genome is functional. There are serious problems with their analysis, however, which has garnered heavy criticism. The primary problem is that they define as “functional” any part of the genome that does anything – without demonstrating that what it does serves any purpose. One critic gave as an analogy that the heart makes beating sounds. The ENCODE project would then list making sounds as a function of the heart, even though heart sounds are incidental to its function.

As a further aside, creationists have keyed in on this debate for their own purposes. Since “junk” DNA is evidence of our evolutionary past, creationists have always tried to dismiss it, so they love the ENCODE project’s liberal definition of “function.”

Getting back to reprogramming DNA, the author of the above quote refers to dubious research claiming that our DNA is a language. Well, coding DNA certainly follows a language, but the analogy to any human language is superficial. Non-coding DNA has a variety of patterns, including long stretches where a short segment is repeated over and over. These segments have no analogy to language. It seems there was a great deal of cherry picking and creative interpretation to argue that DNA is like a language.

The author then leaps from this poor and tortured analogy to the conclusion that therefore human languages developed because of the language-like structure of DNA. Such fanciful leaps are a hallmark of pseudoscience.

They go on to argue that because DNA is like a language, you can talk to it (in “the human” language) and by talking you can reprogram the DNA. This is because the DNA has “frequencies” and your voice has “frequencies.” See how that works.

“Frequencies” is definitely a new favorite of pseudoscientific technobabble. It sounds sciencey but is used in a meaningless way – another common feature of pseudoscience. He relies heavily on the research of Peotr Garjajev, who claims to have research showing that DNA can be reprogrammed.

Here we have claims for what would be several stunning breakthroughs, none of which are supported by a paper trail of peer-reviewed replicated research. He is not building his castle on the sand, he’s building it in the clouds.

But of course, the purpose of such nonsense is to provide superficial plausibility to pure magical nonsense, and the new age crowd has of course seized upon this junk research to vindicate all their claims for psi phenomenon, self-healing, whatever you want.

It all reads like bad science fiction – but bad fiction that knows how to play to people’s desires. It seems like reprogramming DNA is going to become a staple of the new age and magical healing crowd for some time.

A MUST READ..!!!

This is a vital information – literally of life and death – Be sure to read it and send it to those who appreciate it.

[...]

The main cause of Breast Cancer is the use of anti-perspirant!

Denne advarselen har gått sine runder på Facebook mange ganger, så det er vel på tide med en liten gjennomgang. For de som ikke vil lese alt kan jeg avsløre allerede nå at advarselen er basert på flere faktafeil og er altså ikke korrekt.

Men la oss se litt nærmere på deler av den medfølgende teksten. Den fremmer i all hovedsak tre påstander.

Påstand 1: Kroppen kvitter seg med giftstoffer gjennom svetting

Most products on the market are a combination of anti-perspirant/deodorants.
Look at the labels!
Deodorant is fine,
ANTI-PERSPIRANT, NO.
The concentration of toxins causes
cell mutation:
CANCER. Here’s why:

The human body is just a few areas where it can eliminate toxins: behind the knees, behind the ears, the English area and armpits.
Toxins are eliminated through perspiration.
The anti-perspirant, as the name says, prevents you from perspiring, thereby inhibiting the body to eliminate toxins through the armpits.
These toxins do not magically disappear.
As not come with sweat, the organism ta deposited in the lymph glands found under the arms.

Tull. Kroppen skiller ikke ut «giftstoffer» gjennom svetting. Svette er en funksjon kroppen bruker for å kjøle seg ned, og består i all hovedsak av vann, iblandet litt andre stoffer som natriumklorid (salt), laktat, feromoner, albumin (eggehvitestoff) og urea. Det kan også inneholder ørsmå mengder sink, kopper, krom, jern, nikkel og bly, kalsium og magnesium.

Eventuelle giftstoffer som skulle ha samlet seg i kroppen, for eksempel kvikksølv, alkohol eller rester av legemidler eller sprøytemidler, må skilles ut av blodet ved hjelp av lever og nyrer. Disse stoffene forsvinner da ut av kroppen gjennom urin eller avføring, ikke gjennom svetten.

Det er for øvrig bygget opp en stor alternativ industri rundt myten om at man kan «svette ut toksiner», men det er altså bare tull. Du kan ikke påvirke kroppens evne til å skille ut giftstoffer, og dette skjer uansett ikke via svette eller huden.

Å bruke antiperspiranter som hindrer svetting vil altså ikke påvirke kroppens evne til å kvitte seg med skadelige stoffer på noen som helst måte. Lever og nyrer klarer det helt utmerket uavhengig av om du smører antiperspirant i armhulene eller ikke. Ergo vil heller ikke giftstoffene akkumuleres i lymfenodene under armen og føre til brystkreft, slik bildet og teksten påstår. Det finnes ikke engang noen forbindelse mellom lymfekjertlene og svettekjertlene, så dette faller uansett på sin egen urimelighet.

Påstand 2: De fleste tilfeller av brystkreft opptrer i den øvre, ytre kvadrant av brystet

Teksten fortsetter:

Most breast cancers occur in the upper outside quadrant of the breast area.

Dette er misvisende. Den amerikanske kreftforeningen skriver på sine nettsider:

Lymph nodes can be found throughout the breasts and have an important role. The underarm (axillary) nodes filter most of the liquid lymph flowing out of the breast before it goes back into the body’s bloodstream. These nodes are under the arm, in the upper outer quadrant of the breast, and near the collarbone.

The breast quadrants are not actually all the same size. About half of all breast cancers develop in the upper outer part of the breast, probably because there is more breast tissue in this area. The number of breast cancers in the upper outer part of the breast is in proportion to the amount of breast tissue in that area.

There is no evidence to suggest that the location of cancers within the breast is related to using antiperspirants or underarm shaving.

Relativt til mengde brystvev, og altså antall celler, oppstår altså ikke mer kreft i nevnte område av brystet enn andre steder i brystet.

Facebook-bildet hevder videre:

Precisely where are the glands in men seems to occur to a lesser extent, but are not exempt from
Breast Cancer develop because of the anti-perspirant used instead of soap and water.
The difference lies in the fact that when men use anti-perspirant, not applied directly to the skin, they do so in large part on the hair of the armpits.

Women who apply antiperspirant or aftershave shaving the underarms, increase the risk due to tiny injuries and skin irritations which make harmful chemical components to penetrate more quickly into the body,

Men stemmer dette? Får menn mindre brystkreft fordi antiperspiranten i stor grad fester seg på underarmshårene heller enn rett på huden? Nei. Den amerikanske kreftforeningen skriver:

Men are much less likely than women to develop breast cancer, mostly because men have much less breast tissue than women. Women have about 100 times more breast tissue than men and are about 100 times more likely to develop breast cancer.

Hormones also play a role. Men with metabolic or genetic conditions that lead to increased estrogen levels have an increased risk of developing breast cancer.

Underarm hair and antiperspirant absorption have not been linked to male breast cancer risk.

Menn får sjeldnere brystkreft fordi vi har rundt 100 ganger mindre brystvev enn kvinner, og altså 100 ganger færre celler i dette området som vi kan få kreft i. Et lavere nivå av østrogen gjør også at menn er mindre utsatt for å få brystkreft.

Påstand 3: Antiperspiranter fører til brystkreft hos kvinner

Som vi nå har sett så er denne påstanden feil. Men Facebook-bildet har en avsluttende oppfordring:

Please pass this informatión everyone …
Breast Cancer is becoming frighteningly common and this warning may save some lives.
If somehow doubt this information, they can make their own investigations
They’ll probably come to the same conclusion.

Vel, for oss som gjør vår egen gransking, så er svaret ganske klart: Antiperspiranter fører ikke til brystkreft. Den amerikanske kreftforeningen skriver:

There are no strong epidemiologic studies in the medical literature that link breast cancer risk and antiperspirant use, and very little scientific evidence to support this claim.

In fact, a carefully designed epidemiologic study of this issue published in 2002 compared 813 women with breast cancer and 793 women without the disease. The researchers found no link between breast cancer risk and antiperspirant use, deodorant use, or underarm shaving.

A study published in 2003 looked at responses from questionnaires sent out to women who had breast cancer. The researcher reported that women who were diagnosed with breast cancer at a younger age said they used antiperspirant and started shaving their underarms earlier and shaved more often than women who were diagnosed when they were older. But the study design did not include a control group of women without breast cancer and has been criticized by experts as not relevant to the safety of these underarm hygiene practices.

Probably, in general, younger women are more likely than older women to shave their underarms and use antiperspirants, whether or not they develop breast cancer later. For instance, most women born in the 1950s and 1960s may have started shaving earlier and using antiperspirants more often than women born in the 1930s and 1940s. Many women may also shave and use antiperspirants less often as they get older. These are more likely explanations of the researcher’s findings than the suggestion that these practices cause cancer. Of note, the study asked about underarm products that the women were using at the time the questions were answered, not what they used before they developed breast cancer.

En stor studie på 1600 kvinner utført i 2002 undersøkte om det fantes en sammenheng mellom brystkreft og bruk av antiperspiranter, og konkluderte slik:

The risk for breast cancer did not increase with any of the following activities: 1) antiperspirant (OR = 0.9; P =.23) or deodorant (OR = 1.2; P =.19) use; 2) product use among subjects who shaved with a blade razor; or 3) application of products within 1 hour of shaving (for antiperspirant, OR = 0.9 and P =.40; for deodorant, OR = 1.2 and P =.16). These findings do not support the hypothesis that antiperspirant use increases the risk for breast cancer.

Men hva med aluminium?

I det siste har det vært en del bekymring rundt dette med aluminium og risiko for kreft. Dette springer ut av en ørliten studie på 17 kvinner hvor man mente å ha funnet aluminium i brystvev hos kvinner med brystkreft. Men studien sammenlignet ikke mengden aluminium i dette brystvevet med mengden aluminium andre steder i kroppen, ei heller mengde aluminium i brystvev hos kvinner uten kreft, og forteller oss derfor lite.

Det finnes ingen indisier på at aluminium i deodoranter skulle kunne føre til brystkreft. Les mer om det her.

Hva med parabener da?

Enkelte har ogstå fryktet at parabener i deodoranter kan gi brystkreft. Dette fordi parabener kjemisk sett ligner på østrogen, og dette hormonet kan ved høye nivåer øke risiko for brystkreft. Denne hypotesen holder likevel ikke vann fordi den østrogenlignende effekten av parabener er så svak at den vil «drukne» i effekten av det naturlige østrogenet i kroppen eller andre kjemikalier vi får i oss gjennom maten vi spiser.

Som Cancer Research UK skriver, så er det ingenting som tyder på at parabener i deodoranter kan øke risikoen for brystkreft.

Konklusjon

Bruk av deodoranter eller antiperspiranter øker ikke risiko for brystkreft. Det som derimot øker risiko for brystkreft er lite fysisk aktivitet, alkohol og overvekt. Mosjoner mer og drikk mindre alkohol – og bruk din antiperspirant med god samvittighet.

Vil du lese mer om dette kan du se den amerikanske kreftforeningens grundige gjennomgang av denne myten, eller du kan lese Hoax-Slayer sin artikkel.

Years ago, Movietech Solutions created ticketing and management software for movie theatres. The DOS version of their flagship app had been quite popular with smaller and mid-sized chains throughout North America for years, so it was no surprise that when the Windows 95 version was announced - with its integration with front-line touch screens, self-service kiosks, and boatloads of management reporting - that it was quickly adopted. For the most part, the upgrades happened without issue. New hardware would be ordered and installed by a local IT person, data migrated and business carried on as usual. Except for when it didn't. When this happened, corporate sent out James. A.K.A. 'The Cleaner'.

While there is definitely a Bad @$$ sound to the title, being a cleaner is just a combination of trainer, installer and jack-of-all-trades. James would spend a few days on-site putting the pieces together, followed by a couple of days training the staff on the new system, handling any hardware issues that arose and basically getting the software through the teething stage.

So, it was of little surprise that during this hectic time, James came into the office one morning and before he could reach his desk, was immediately met by his manager who appeared more caffeinated than normal.

"I'm afraid you have to go out to Annapolis, Nova Scotia, ASAP. Their entire system is down and after working with the backline engineers all night, we can't figure what's happening. It seems like the on-board network has failed on the server. But only after the system has worked for a few minutes."

"Did they fail back to their legacy box in the meantime?" James replied in a very serious tone while mentally suppressing an eye roll.

"That's just it - their local IT guy had a 'change of heart' and decided to walk off with their old server. James, they're a 6 site installation who just paid for our premium support and are running their business like it's the 1950's."

James straightened up a bit. "OK - that is a little different. I'm on it."

Once he got into Annapolis, the next step was to find the client's first cinema that was experiencing the problems. The map he had picked up at the airport was decent, but as he got closer to the address, the surrounding area became more suspect. Not ghetto, but definitely with a touch of film noir. While parked at the side of a street in the downtown area consulting a map, James was approached by the hooker. Given the size of Annapolis, there was likely to be just the one. Her appearance immediately brought to mind that famous big screen purveyor of sex for money. No, not Julia Roberts...visualize Jon Voight.

After dispatching the hooker, James made his way to the theatre. The area had improved, but still had a downtrodden feel to it. Not that James was overly concerned. He had been to his share of seedy places. And this was Canada, where even the muggers are polite enough to say "thank you' after they've taken your wallet.

The side entrance to the theatre was down a dank alley. James made his way to the door and knocked. After a brief moment, it cracked open slightly.

"Are you the cleaner?" came a gruff voice from inside.

"Yeah, that's me...I'm here to fix things."

James made his way to the front of the theatre. Apparently, with no other way to operate, the staff had resorted to distributing paper raffle tickets to the patrons. Which made it challenging to show management the money, much less the more interesting details. But the staff was relieved to see him and he was taken immediately to the server room.

At first glance, nothing appeared to be a problem. James logged into the server and checked out the usual suspects. No issues at all. Still, erring on the side of caution, James shut the server down, replaced the network card and brought the system back up. In a matter of moments, it was completely functional. The staff got back to the job of selling tickets.

A phone call was made to Mark to let him know the situation. It did not take a genius to suggest that James might want to stick around for a while to see if anything unexpected happened. So James went downstairs and starting talking to the staff about what happened. Apparently, the system just stopped working. They turned it off and own, which fixed the problem. But only momentarily. After about 10 minutes, the system would again go off-line.

Right about then, it happened. Suddenly the front-line ticketing system started throwing errors. What they had was a failure to communicate. With a sigh, the staff grabbed the raffle tickets while James hustled back to the server room. Nothing appeared to be wrong with the server at all.

Then, one of the staff came in.

"The system is working again."

James was puzzled. He hadn't actually done anything. Most certainly nothing to make the system start working. He logged out of the system, picked up a phone and placed a call to the IT support at his company. Moments later, the same staffer entered the room.

"System's down."

James looked up at the server. An interesting, yet familiar pattern of colors and shapes danced over the screen. We had all seen the noodle pipes screen saver before. It was beautifully rendered and hypnotic in its own way. He hit a key and the pattern disappeared. As he hurried to the ticketing area, he met the staffer coming the other way.

"System seems fine now."

If one can mentally facepalm, that's exactly what James did. The pipes screen saver. It uses OpenGL. And because of that, when it was active it took 100% of the server's CPU. Letting every other request to the server time out.

Going back to the server room, James logged in, changed the screen saver from the beautiful tubes to a blank screen. In other words, from a screen saver that took 100% of the server's CPU to one that didn't. As he sat down, waiting the requisite 10 minutes to make sure his hunch was correct.

As James made his way to the next site, the thought about how he was going to explain to his manager to explain that he had just flown 500 miles to turn off a screen saver.

 

Photo credit: ilovememphis / Foter / CC BY-ND

Da TV2 for et par dager siden la ut denne meldingen på Facebook, kom det naturlig nok mange kommentarer. På dette tidspunkt visste vi ikke det tragiske utfallet av kapringen, men jeg bet meg merke i følgende kommentar:

Denne mannen, som jeg har anonymisert, men velger å kalle for GJ, referer her til selve busskapringen. Drapene visste vi ennå ikke noe om. Likevel er drap det verst tenkelige utfall av en slik hendelse, og jeg finner det fascinerende at denne fyren faktisk tenker at Norge nå er et av de mest utrygge land å bo i.

Så la oss se litt på det. Wikipedia har en oppdatert oversikt over antall mennesker som blir myrdet i ulike land hvert år. Vi snakker da om forsttelige og overlagt drap. Tallene er hentet fra en rapport laget av United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) i 2012 og viser at av 207 land er det bare 8 land med færre forsttelige/overlagte drap enn Norge. Vi har 0.6 drap per 100.000 innbyggere. Det er rundt halvparten av gjennomsnittet for Nord-/Sør-/Vest-Europa, og bare en brøkdel av drapstallene for Øst-Europa, USA, og andre deler av verden.

GJ mener også at det bare blir verre og verre, noe som heller ikke er korrekt. Tallet på drap har vært synkende de siste 20 år, og ligger nå rundt 40 prosent lavere enn det var midt på nittitallet. Ser man bort fra 22/7 har det aldri noensinne vært så få drap i dette landet de siste 30-40 år som nå^*.

Men man kan alltid bli tryggere. GJ har 8 land å velge mellom hvis han vil flytte til et sted med færre drap. Hvis han vil holde seg i Europa, kan ha flytte til Island eller Monaco. Det er de eneste to land med færre drap enn Norge. I hele Europa. Hvis han er litt mer dristig, kan han flytte til Brunei, Japan, Fransk Polynesia, Singapore, Hong Kong eller Palau. Da er han bittelitt mindre utsatt for å bli myrdet, men sikkert mer utsatt for en del andre farer og utriveligheter.

(Illustrasjonen viser antall drap per 100.000 innbyggere.)

Jeg tror det kan være nyttig å heve blikket fra forsidene til tabloidavisene i nye og ne. Det er lett å se seg blind på overskrifter om vold og drap, og mange tenker at alt var så mye bedre før. En kikk på statistikkene viser at det ikke nødvendigvis stemmer. Det var riktignok mindre vold på nittitallet, men de siste 13 år har utviklingen flatet ut. Det har ikke blitt verre siden årtusenskiftet, og den grove volden er synkende. Ser vi på alle typer forbrytelser, ligger vi på samme nivå som tidlig nittitall, og det har vært en nedadgående trend det siste tiåret.

Og for de som ønsker å gjøre enda en feilslutning ved å koble det de tror er en «eksplosjonsartet økning i vold og kriminalitet» med økt innvandring; vel, heller ikke den koblingen holder vann.

Sammenlignet med andre europeiske land ligger vi også langt nede på listen hva gjelder voldskriminalitet. GJ kan flytte til Østerrike, Slovakia, Estland eller Polen om han vil ha mindre vold. (Og det ekstremt lave tallet for voldskriminalitet i Polen får meg til å mistenke at politiets register ikke henger helt med i svingene der.) Utover disse landene er det ikke så mange andre land i Europa som er tryggere enn nettopp Norge.

Strengt tatt tror jeg GJ skal holde seg akkurat der han er, om han ønsker å kunne føle seg trygg. Vi har det ekstremt bra i Norge, tross alt.

---

Dette året, 2013, ser ut til å få en oppsving i antall drap, men trenden går i all hovedsak nedover.

Jeg har tidligere skrevet om kosttilskuddet Chili Forte. Disse pillene inneholder en kombinasjon av chili, grønn te, krom og vitamin B3 og skal i følge produsenten øke forbrenningen og gjøre at du går mer ned i vekt – hvis du samtidig trener og legger om kostholdet ditt. I tillegg skal de kunne redusere ditt søtsug og dermed hjelpe deg til å redusere ditt kaloriinntak.

Som jeg viste i min bloggpost så er dette bare tull. Ingrediensene har ingen praktisk relevant effekt på forbrenning eller søtsug. Det er lurepiller og bortkastede penger.

Good For Me

Forleden dag dukket det opp en annonse i min Facebookfeed for et tilsvarende produkt som heter Good For Me Chili. På nettsidene sine sier de ingenting om hva kosttilskuddet skal hjelpe for eller mot, men skriver bare:

GOOD FOR ME CHILI er et kosttilskudd som passer mange typer mennesker. Produktet er basert på en blanding av urter og vitaminer bestående av chili, grønn te, niacin og krom.

Eh, javelja. Da så.

Innhold

Men det var noe som skurret, fordi ingrediensene i Good For Me Chili virket mistenkelig likt Chili Forte. Så jeg kikket innom nettsidene til begge for å sjekke. Der fant jeg at Chili Forte inneholder (per 2 piller):

Chili (Capsicum annuum) 480 mg, grønn te (Camellia sinensis) 300 mg, krom 100 ug (250% i % av referanseverdi), vitamin B3 (Niacin) 32 mg (200% av referanseverdi).

Mens Good For Me Chili inneholder (per 2 piller):

Innhold per daglig dose: Chili (capsicum annuum) 480 mg; Grønn te (Camellia sinensis) 300 mg; Vitamin B3 (Niacin) 32 mg 200%*); Krom 100 μg 250%*) av referanseverdi

Nøyaktig det samme altså.

Deretter kikket jeg på kontaktinformasjonen, og fant at begge selskapene har samme forretningsadresse. Chili Forte leveres av selskapet Lab Pharma AS, mens Good For Me leveres av, ja, Good For Me AS. Haakon Ringerike Hoftun er styreleder i begge selskap, de har samme regnskapsførerselskap, overlappende styremedlemmer, og likelydende vedtektsfestede formål. Det er altså i praksis samme selskap splittet i to ulike foretak.

Jeg sendte derfor en melding til Good For Me via nettsidens kontaktskjema for rundt 4 uker siden:

Hei!

Jeg får i blant opp reklame for produktet «Good for me Chili» på Facebook. Jeg ser at dette er samme selskap som selger «ChiliForte», og produktene ser identiske ut innholdsmessig.

Hva er egentlig hensikten med å ha to ulike navn og selskap, men med samme eier og postadresse, bak det som i praksis er samme produkt? Er dere i ferd med å fase ut ChiliForte for å gå over til Good for me? Eller motsatt? Eller skal produktene eksistere parallelt?

Ser frem til snarlig svar!

Jeg har ennå ikke mottatt noe svar. Dermed får jeg ta meg friheten til å undersøke og spekulere litt selv.

Pris

Her har vi altså to produkter med nøyaktig samme innhold fra det som i praksis er samme leverandør. Da er vel prisen den samme da? Nei. Good For Me Chili koster kr 298,- for en forsendelse med piller nok til to måneder. Det vil si en boks på 120 piller der man tar to piller hver dag.

Bestiller du hos Chili Forte, koster nøyaktig samme antall piller med nøyaktig samme innhold kr 398,-. De glorete Chili Forte-forpakningene koster altså en hundrelapp mer enn de litt mer nøytrale Good For Me Chili-forpakningene. Men innholdet er det samme.

Da må jeg atter en gang minne om lovnadene fra Lab Pharma:

Er det egentlig ærlighet å selge samme produkt til to ulike priser? Er det egentlig innovasjon å pakke samme produkt i ulike bokser for å tyne markedet? Viser det egentlig handlekraft når kundeservice ikke har tid til å svare på henvendelser, men derimot har tid til å slette alle kritiske kommentarer om produktene?

Det Lab Pharma og Good For Me gjør er slettes ikke ulovlig. Men det er etter mitt syn ganske flaut å lure sine egne kunder på denne måten. Hvis chilipillene kan selges for kr 2,48 per stykk til de som velger den ene forpakningen, så er det lureri å selge dem for kr 3,32 per stykk til de som velger den andre forpakningen.

Tvilsom markedsføringsstrategi

En kikk på Facebooksiden til Good For Me viser at de også benytter seg av rosabloggere til å markedsføre kosttilskuddene sine.

Bloggeren Lene Orvik benytter seg av sponsede lenker for å selge pillene til Good For Me – mot at hun selv sannsynligvis mottar provisjon for salg. Bloggposten er merket med teksten «Annonse i samarbeid med Good for me», så hun holder seg kanskje innenfor loven, men det er likevel trist at produsenten prøver å lure unge jenter til å ta virkningsløse kosttilskudd for å bli like «vakre og vellykkede» som sine bloggerforbilder.

Rosablogger Sophie Elise reklamerer også for Good For Me, men benytter seg ikke av sponsede lenker i teksten. Hva slags avvtale hun har med Good For Me er ikke godt å si, men det er tragisk at også hun lar seg bruke til å pushe tullepiller til unge lesere.

Alt dette er identisk med markedsføringsstrategien til Chili Forte – som de har fått mye kritikk for av blant annet Forbrukerombudet.

Konklusjon

Ingen av pillene virker. Både Good For Me Chili og Chili Forte er fullstendig unødvendige kosttilskudd uten noen relevante helsemessige eller slankende effekter. Å kjøpe slike kosttilskudd er bortkastede penger, men om du likevel insisterer på å la deg lure, så la deg i det minste lure til en litt rimeligere penge ved å velge Good For Me fremfor Chili Forte.

Deepak Chopra apparently has no love for organized skepticism. This is not surprising and his particular brand of spiritual pseudoscience has been a favorite target of skeptical analysis. He is also not the only one who has decided to fight back against the skeptics – if you cannot defend yourself against legitimate criticism, then shoot the messenger.

In a recent article Chopra renews his attack against what he calls “militant skepticism.” This is a blatant attempt, of course, to portray skeptics as extremist and on the fringe, a strategy that has been used against “militant atheists.” Chopra also uses his article to conflate skepticism with atheism, almost as if he is completely unaware of the internal discourse that has been taking place for decades within the skeptical movement.

Chopra writes:

The rise of militant skepticism clouded the picture, however, beginning with its popular attack on religion. The aim of Richard Dawkins, as stated in his best seller, The God Delusion, was to subject “the God hypothesis” to scientific scrutiny, the way one would subject anti-matter or black holes to scrutiny. In fact he did no such thing with God, for the scientific method requires experiments that can be replicated and facts that can be verified. Dawkins offered no experiments to prove or disprove the existence of God. What he actually did was to subject religion to a barrage of scorn and ridicule, attacking it on the rational improbability – as he sees it – that a deity could possibly exist.

This is an interesting bit of historical revisionism, although I think it probably just reflects Chopra’s complete unfamiliarity with his subject matter. The modern skeptical movement predates Dawkins by decades. We have had a clear philosophy and scope long before Dawkins appeared on the scene.

Dawkins is a highly respected figure among skeptics because of his powerful writing, his popularizing of science, and his unflinching criticism of pseudoscience. Most skeptics are atheists, and we also respect his defending science from the intrusion of religion and spirituality.

Where many skeptics, myself included, disagree with Dawkins is precisely in treating “the God hypothesis” as if it were only a scientific question. I say “only” because certainly it is possible to treat any supernatural hypothesis as if it were in the realm of methodological naturalism, and there is general agreement among skeptics when approached in this way the only reasonable conclusion is that there is no credible evidence to support the conclusion that any god exists, or that the laws of the material universe need to be extended to account for any alleged supernatural phenomena. If you frame God as a scientific hypothesis, it can be scientifically refuted. Looked at another way, the psychocultural hypothesis is a far better and more parsimonious explanation for belief in God than the actual existence of such a being.

The big “but” is that not everyone believes in God as a scientific fact. Some people choose to have faith in an unfalsifiable god, one that resides outside the realm of science. Once someone’s faith has retreated outside the realm of science, then science is no longer the tool by which one should address such faith. Logic and philosophy are now more appropriate, but you cannot say, by definition, that an unfalsifiable God can be scientifically proven to not exist.

In practice most people blur the line between an empirical God and an unfalsifiable God, in which case I believe the best approach is to point out the self-contradiction, and force them squarely either inside or outside the arena of science. Once completely outside the arena, they must surrender any pretense to actual knowledge and admit their beliefs are solely personal faith. If any part of their belief dips into the arena of science, however, then it is scientific fair game.

This is the debate, at least, that has been raging ever since there has been a modern skeptical movement. There are two basic camps, loosely referred to as the atheists and the skeptics (yes, there are lots of permutations and subtleties, but that’s the basic picture). Over time the relationship between these two camps has waxed and waned. At times we predominantly celebrate our intellectual overlap and common cause, at others our philosophical differences come home to roost.

Chopra appears to be aware of none of this. This would not be a problem as he is not part of the skeptical movement, but then he should not presume to write on a subject about which he apparently has such complete ignorance (not typically an obstacle for Chopra).

After setting up and knocking down a couple more straw men, Chopra writes:

The God Delusion, aided by a handful of other best sellers attacking religion in the same vein, did have one decisive effect, however. Science became yoked to the tools of rhetoric and demagoguery, going so far as to lose any trace of objectivity.

I have no idea what Chopra is referring to here, but I can guess, based on his previous writing. Now that he has conflated skepticism and atheism, and then falsely accused atheism of demagoguery, he concludes that scientific skepticism is also about demagoguery. Every link in that chain of thought is incorrect. This all serves Chopra’s purpose of attacking skepticism – which really is nothing more than a scientific and logical criticism of his nonsense.

Chopra, however, does not want to have a war with science, because he wants to pretend that his new age spiritualism is science. So he needs a villain, something to blame other than the complete scientific bankruptcy of his ideas. Skeptics are his convenient villain, but skeptics are just scientists or science promoters who are bothering to apply scientific reasoning to his claims. This is something with which most mainstream scientists will not sully themselves (which I think is a mistake, but that’s another post). So he conflates skepticism with atheism, and he has created his villain.

Chopra’s skeptical villain is a complete fiction, but that is a realm in which Chopra apparently feels comfortable.

Chopra finally gets to the specifics of his current boogeyman:

A distressing example has been occurring at Wikipedia, where a band of committed skeptics have focused their efforts to discredit anyone whom they judge an enemy.

He is correct in that there is a project within skeptical circles to keep Wikipedia scientifically accurate. Chopra would like his readers to think this is “militants” attacking their “enemies.” From the skeptical point of view, of course, this is simply a project for Wikipedia to accurately present scientific information about controversial topics. The goal is to prevent promoters of nonsense and pseudoscience from using Wikipedia for free advertising and spreading propaganda.

The more neutral perspective is that Wikipedia is a common battle ground for ideological opponents. This is a serious issue for Wikipedia, as they have to deal with editing wars. They partly deal with this by labeling certain entries as controversial, and also allowing different sections within an entry for the various perspectives. I guess Chopra would like to have free reign in Wikipedia without any opposing opinions being expressed.

For example:

You can see the results at the Wikipedia entry for Rupert Sheldrake, the British biologist who has served as a lightning rod for militant skeptics for several decades. Intelligent, highly trained, an impeccable thinker, and a true advocate for experimentation and validation, Sheldrake had the temerity to be skeptical about the everyday way that science is conducted.

Chopra would have you believe that Sheldrake in an “impeccable thinker” wrongly targeted by “militant skeptics.” The most generous characterization, rather, is that Sheldrake is a highly controversial figure. He is trying to actually change the nature and scope of science. He should not be shocked that there is pushback. Sheldrake is also, in my opinion, completely wrong, and is a very sloppy thinker who is trying to erode scientific standards in order to admit his particular brand of supernaturalism.

Of course, that is the debate. Let’s have it.

Conclusion

In my opinion, the big picture here is that Chopra is desperately trying to avoid actually engaging with science and skepticism. If he thinks he and Sheldrake and others he would consider his intellectual allies have a point, then make it. Bring it on.

The best way to promote your ideas, especially if you have the hubris to think they are revolutionary, is to engage with your critics. There are many careful and thoughtful public intellectuals (Dawkins included) who have put forward very cogent philosophical and scientific arguments against what Chopra is selling. If Chopra wants to promote his ideas he should try to understand and engage with those critics.

Instead, Chopra is building a cardboard villain to rail against. In so doing he is exposing his intellectual shallowness.

You will notice what Chopra has not done is address any of the actual intellectual pillars of scientific skepticism. If he wishes to do so, I would be happy to engage with him on this issue.

 

Who better than Walter White to deliver some of the world’s baddest chemistry jokes? If you’re reading this from the front page, hit the “Read More” link below for the rest of the jokes.

[Via NA | Reddit]

Ray Dalio is the founder of Bridgewater Associates, known to some as “the world’s richest and strangest hedge fund.” He has appeared on this blog before, talking about the upsides of negative feedback. Now Dalio has put together a beguiling 30-minute video that tries to explain how the U.S. economy actually works. Don’t be ashamed if you find out a lot you didn’t know — as Dalio makes clear, most policy makers don’t know much about the economy either.

A compilation of Halloween costumes for programmers by cartoonist Pablo Stanley for Koding.com.

What other pros and cons would you add to this comic? Let us know in the comments section below!!

Thanks Pablo!

Click This Link for the Full Post > Halloween Costumes for Programmers [Comic]

“Hey Stan, can I use mockingbird?” Andrew asked, leaning into Stan’s cube. He had to do some rigorous performance testing for a customer-reported issue.

Stan gave a start, ripped out his earbuds, and glanced back nervously. “Use sesame.”

Ah, sesame. Old Faithful, everyone’s go-to server for testing. Unfortunately… “It’s way too slow for what I need to do,” Andrew said. “I don’t need everyone hounding me for making it lag even worse.”

“No one’ll complain.” Stan’s hands shook as he replaced his earbuds. “Just trust me, dude- stay away from mockingbird.” His voice dropped to a whisper. “It’s cursed.”

“What?”

“genCore doesn’t run on mockingbird. Anyone who’s tried to figure out why… well, do you ever see anyone working on mockingbird? Huh?”

“Dude. genCore’s the easiest thing in the world to install and get running,” Andrew said. They were privileged to support one of the rare Java programs that actually delivered on the promise of effortless portability. “I’ll get it working.”

Stan hunched protectively over his keyboard. “Don’t come crying to me when you waste days, weeks, on that thing, and the customer asks for your head.”

“How much you wanna bet I’ll fix it?” Andrew challenged.

“If… if it means I don’t have to use sesame for everything?” Temptation allowed Stan to consider the impossible. “That’s worth a beer,” he whispered.

“Two,” Andrew countered.

“You’re on!”

Full of optimism, Andrew dropped into the lonely cube where the test servers loomed like monoliths. He swiped a layer of dust off the keyboard hooked into mockingbird, and tore away the sign some joker had taped to the monitor: BEWARE, ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE. After logging in, he tried to run genCore, but it exploded with UnknownMethodExceptions.

The stack trace within the program’s log file indicated an issue when loading the JDBC layer. Well, that’s easy, he thought. Probably an old or corrupt version of the JDBC jar.

Andrew copied said jar from sesame to mockingbird, then tried starting genCore on mockingbird again. Same error. He tried uninstalling and reinstalling the program. Same error. Copied over sesame’s jar one more time, and… same error.

The AC vent overhead cut on, sending a chill down Andrew’s spine. genCore was so stable that he never had to troubleshoot beyond the basic “Do you have CLASSPATH properly defined, and are all these jars in place?” Was he just forgetting something idiotic, or was he going crazy? He had to get someone else to look at this. Andrew fled the cube and returned to his own to IM Christine, one of the genCore engineers. Is there some other jar I’m missing or something?

Christine replied: No, that’s it for JDBC. Hang on…

Andrew waited. And waited.

“Hey!”

Andrew yelped and whirled around. Christine stood behind him, grinning. “Time for decaf, I think.”

“Yeah, decaf.” Andrew rubbed at the back of his neck.

“This makes no sense,” Christine said.

“Yeah, I know- crazy, right? Come on.”

Andrew led Christine to the server cube, where they both pulled chairs in front of mockingbird. “Let’s just make 100% sure the jars are the same across both servers,” Christine said.

“I already checked timestamps and file sizes,” Andrew said.

Christine ran through more tricks he wasn’t as familiar with, while a bad storm picked up outside their office walls. Thunder roared at the chance to destroy those within. “jinfo doesn’t report anything unusual. SHA–1 digests are the same. How about javap, checking for the class that’s blowing up?” She ran the command on both servers.

mrmcd@sesame.prod:lib$ javap -classpath genCorejdbc.jar com.somepackage.jdbc.childJDBCClass | grep childJDBCClass
Compiled from “childJDBCClass.java”
public class com.somepackage.jdbc.childJDBCClass extends java.lang.Object implements com.somepackage.jdbc.parentJDBCClass{
 public com.somepackage.jdbc.childJDBCClass() throws java.sql.SQLException;
 public com.somepackage.jdbc.childJDBCClass(java.lang.String, java.util.Properties) throws java.sql.SQLException;

mrmcd@mockingbird.prod:lib$ javap -classpath genCorejdbc.jar com.somepackage.jdbc.childJDBCClass | grep childJDBCClass Compiled from “childJDBCClass.java” public class com.somepackage.jdbc.childJDBCClass extends java.lang.Object implements com.somepackage.jdbc.parentJDBCClass{ public com.somepackage.jdbc.childJDBCClass() throws java.sql.SQLException; public com.somepackage.jdbc.childJDBCClass(java.lang.String, java.lang.String, java.lang.String, java.util.Properties) throws java.sql.SQLException;

“The constructors are different!” Christine said.

“How’s that possible? It’s the exact same file!” Andrew cried.

They cracked open the jar on mockingbird for a sanity check- and discovered it was holding the same constructor as sesame.

Christine muttered something impolite. Andrew felt himself going cross-eyed, and questioned his place in the universe. “Where the hell is this other constructor coming from? This stupid box really is cursed!”

“No, just running a JVM,” Christine tried to reassure them both. “Come on, let’s think… a different class with the same name is getting loaded first, from…”

“Hell?” Andrew offered.

Christine frowned. “genCore doesn’t add anything to the classpath on the fly. Do you have any shell scripts on here that might be-”

“I don’t know. I just want to go back to my cube and forget all about this!” Andrew cried.

“Pull yourself together, we can’t turn back now! Google’s gotta have something!”

Christine pulled up a browser on her smartphone, holding it between them, and searched for a refresher on Java’s class loading behavior. There they discovered the most horrifying revelation of all.

“Extensions! Extensions take precedence over CLASSPATH!” Andrew said. “Compare lib/ext on both servers, quick!”

Sure enough, they found a different version of genCorejdbc.jar in mockingbirds extensions folder. Once removed, it exorcized the demons, and genCore loaded properly.

Andrew doubled over, sighing with relief. “Thank crap that’s over.”

“No, it’s not.” Christine, pale, looked to him out of the corner of her eye. “Who put that jar file there in the first place?”

A deafening peal of thunder answered her nervous question.

Facebook of the Dead

When, if ever, will Facebook contain more profiles of dead people than of living ones?

Emily Dunham

Either the 2060s or the 2130s.

There are not a lot of dead people on Facebook. The main reasons for this is that Facebook—and its users—are young. The average Facebook user has gotten older over the last few years, but the site is still used at a much higher rate by the young than by the old.[1]There are a zillion surveys confirming this, such as this one from eMarketer.

The Past:

Based on the site's growth rate, and the age breakdown of their users over time,[2]You can get user counts for each age group from Facebook's create-an-ad tool, although you may want to try to account for the fact that Facebook's age limits cause some people to lie about their ages. there are probably 10 to 20 million people who created Facebook profiles who have since died.

These people are, at the moment, spread out pretty evenly across the age spectrum. Young people have a much lower death rate than people in their sixties or seventies, but they make up a substantial share of the dead on Facebook simply because there have been so many of them using it.

The Future:

About 290,000 US Facebook users will die (or have died) in 2013. The worldwide total for 2013 is likely several million.[3]Note: In some of these projections, I used US age/usage data extrapolated to the Facebook userbase as a whole, because it's easier to find US census and actuarial numbers than to assemble the country-by-country for the whole Facebook-using world. The US isn't a perfect model of the world, but the basic dynamics—young people's Facebook adoption determines the site's success or failure while population growth continues for a while and then levels off—will probably hold approximately true. If we assume a rapid Facebook saturation in the developing world, which currently has a faster-growing and younger population, it shifts many of the landmarks by a handful of years, but doesn't change the overall picture as much as you might expect. In just seven years, this death rate will double, and in seven more years it will double again.

Even if Facebook closes registration tomorrow, the number of deaths per year will continue to grow for many decades, as the generation who was in college between 2000 and 2020 grows old.

The deciding factor in when the dead will outnumber the living is whether Facebook adds new living users—ideally, young ones—fast enough to outrun this tide of death for a while.

Facebook 2100:

This brings us to the question of Facebook's future.

We don't have enough experience with social networks to say with any kind of certainty how long Facebook will last. Most websites have flared up and then gradually declined in popularity, so it's reasonable to assume Facebook will follow that pattern.[4]I'm assuming, in these cases, that no data is ever deleted. So far, that's been a reasonable assumption; if you've made a Facebook profile, that data probably still exists, and most people who stop using a service don't bother to delete their profile. If that behavior changes, or if Facebook performs a mass purging of their archives, the balance could change rapidly and unpredictably.

In that scenario, where Facebook starts losing market share later this decade and never recovers, Facebook's crossover date—the date when the dead outnumber the living—will come sometime around 2065.

But maybe it won't. Maybe it will take on a role like the TCP protocol, where it becomes a piece of infrastructure on which other things are built, and has the inertia of consensus.

If Facebook is with us for generations, then the crossover date could be as late as the mid-2100s.

That seems unlikely. Nothing lasts forever, and rapid change has been the norm for anything built on computer technology. The ground is littered with the bones of websites and technologies that seemed like permanent institutions ten years ago.

It's possible the reality could be somewhere in between.[5]Of course, if there's a sudden rapid increase in the death rate of Facebook users—possibly one that includes humans in general—the crossover could happen tomorrow. We'll just have to wait and find out.

The fate of our accounts:

Facebook can afford to keep all our pages and data indefinitely. Living users will always generate more data than dead ones, and the accounts for active users are the ones that will need to be easily accessible. Even if accounts for dead (or inactive) people make up a majority of their users, it will probably never add up to a large part of their overall infrastructure budget.

More important will be our decisions. What do we want for those pages? Unless we demand that Facebook deletes them, they will presumably, by default, keep copies of everything forever. Even if they don't, other data-vacuuming organizations will.

Right now, next-of-kin can convert a dead person's Facebook profile into a memorial page. But there are a lot of questions surrounding passwords and access to private data that we haven't yet developed social norms for. Should accounts remain accessible? What should be made private? Should next-of-kin have the right to access email? Should memorial pages have comments? How do we handle trolling and vandalism? Should people be allowed to interact with dead user accounts? What lists of friends should they show up on?

These are issues that we're currently in the process of sorting out by trial and error. Death has always been a big, difficult, and emotionally charged subject, and every society finds different ways to handle it.

The basic pieces that make up a human life don't change. We've always eaten, learned, grown, fallen in love, fought, and died. In every place, culture, and technological landscape, we develop a different set of behaviors around these same activites.

Like every group that came before us, we're learning how to play those same games on our particular playing field. We're developing, through sometimes messy trial and error, a new set of social norms for dating, arguing, learning, and growing on the internet. Sooner or later, we'll figure out how to mourn.

Happy Halloween!

Denne bloggposten skulle egentlig handle om noe annet. Den skulle handle om hvor vanskelig det er å diskutere voldtekt. Men mens jeg skrev oppdaget jeg av det finnes et viktigere poeng her. Heller enn å diskutere og kverulere rundt hvordan voldtekt oppfattes og debatteres av kvinner og menn, begynte jeg å skrive om hvordan jeg som mann aktivt unngår å bli en voldtektsforbryter selv.

Jepp. Det går nemlig an ser du. Mange tusen norske menn feiler hvert år, men med noen enkle grep kan man holde seg på matta.

Jeg var tidligere en særdeles usikker gutt og mann når det kom til kvinner og sex. Jeg debuterte seksuelt først da jeg var 20 år gammel, og hadde ikke hatt kjæreste, kysset eller tatt på en pupp før jeg gikk inn i to lange monogame forhold bare avbrutt av en liten singelpause. Jeg følte meg derfor ganske uerfaren, på tross av min alder. Og jeg syntes synd på meg selv.

Først da jeg ble singel igjen i en alder av 34 år begynte jeg å finne ut av meg selv og min seksualitet. I løpet av de rundt 20 kjønnsmodne år før dette hadde jeg mange mislykkede forsøk på å finne fysisk nærhet hos kvinner. Jeg gjorde ting jeg slettes ikke er stolt av. Aldri noe i nærheten av en voldtekt, men håpløse tilnærmelser og «tafsing» jeg aldri ville gjort i dag.

Hvorfor gjorde jeg noe så tåpelig og potensielt sårende og skremmende? Fordi jeg var usikker. Fordi jeg var redd. Fordi jeg desperat ønsket å føle den fysiske nærhet og det begjær jeg følte at andre opplevde rundt meg hele tiden. Jeg ville også være en del av dette. Og så prøvde jeg meg frem. På mitt eget fomlende og urutinerte vis. Jeg ville også smake den frukt jeg følte alle andre slafset i seg.

Kanskje jeg den gang hadde hatt godt av å bli minnet på et par viktige konsepter når det gjelder sex. Derfor skriver jeg denne bloggposten som en foreløpig oppsummering av hva jeg har lært rundt dette temaet. Hvis du blir provosert av at jeg skriver en bloggpost som kun er basert på synsing og følelser, så kan du slutte å lese her. Det nye Asterix-bladet skal visstnok være gøy. Stikk og les det heller. For alle andre som tåler at jeg lirer av meg litt synsing og personlige erfaringer, er det bare å lese videre. Asterix kan vente.

Ingen har rett på sex

Først og fremst må vi ha et poeng krystallklart: Ingen har rett på sex.

Uansett hva du har gjort, uansett hva dama har gjort, uansett hva noen har sagt eller hintet om, uansett hva du trodde eller håpet, uansett hva alle andre enn deg opplever, så har du ikke rett på sex med dama med mindre hun gir sin aksept.

Så enkelt er det. I tilfelle det ikke sank helt inn skal jeg gjenta meg selv, og nå peker jeg på deg: Du har ikke rett på sex. Selvmedlidenhet og en følelse av urettferdighet er ikke gyldige grunner til å tafse eller trenge deg på kvinner. Dine personlige problemer gir deg ingen seksuelle rettigheter.

Men hva om man misforstår? Hva om man tolker signaler feil? Hva om hun først ga sin aksept, men senere var usikker? Vel, vet du hva? Det finnes en enkel måte å unngå dette problemet på: Spør henne, og vent på et tydelig svar.

Det er ikke så vanskelig. Jeg gjør det hele tiden når jeg er med en ny kvinne.

«Går det bra at jeg tar på deg slik?»
«Har du det fint?»
«Er du sikker på at du ønsker dette?»
«Føler du deg komfortabel med det vi gjør?»

Det er mulig å forsikre seg om at hun vil, uten å ødelegge stemningen hvis man bare bruker hodet og sier ting på riktig tidspunkt og på riktig måte. Og hvis du likevel ødelegger stemningen ved å være overforsiktig? Vel, det er hvertfall bedre å gå glipp av et knull enn å knulle noen som ikke ønsker det. Enig?

Men for å kunne gi sitt samtykke må man være ved sine fulle fem. Det vil si at man ikke bør være beruset. Jeg har en veldig grei leveregel når det kommer til sex: Ikke ha sex med berusede kvinner.

Atter en gang: Svært enkelt i prinsippet, men du må gjøre noen valg i ditt liv for å oppnå dette målet. Det kan være vanskelig for mange, men for å løse et samfunnsproblem må man starte med seg selv.

To tommelfingerregler

La meg nå oppsummere min livsvisdom rundt sex:

1) Spør kvinnen om at hun virkelig ønsker å gå videre med sex.
2) Ikke ha sex med berusede kvinner.

Hvis alle menn hadde holdt seg til disse to reglene, hadde en vesentlig del av alle voldtekter vært eliminert. Mange mennesker hadde hatt færre emosjonelle arr. Mange mennesker hadde i dag levd lykkeligere liv enn de gjør. Noen som ikke lever i dag hadde levd.

Men vent, jeg nevner alkohol i samme åndedrag som voldtekt. Forsøker jeg meg på «victim-blaming» her? Å antyde at kvinnen selv er skyld i voldtekten ved at hun har drukket? Nei. Jeg snakker her hele tiden om at det er mannens ansvar å ikke ha sex med en kvinne som ikke kan gi sitt samtykke.

For en eventuell voldtekt sin del er det irrelevant om dama er beruset eller ikke, fordi ansvaret for handlingen ligger fullt og helt på mannen. Hvis hennes berusede tilstand gjør at du er i det minste tvil om at hun vet hva hun gjør, så stopper du.

Det er bedre å gå glipp av et knull enn å knulle noen som ikke ønsker det.

Det høres så plumpt ut, men jeg tror det gjemmer seg litt visdom i den setningen.

Hold deg edru

Et større problem er selvsagt at mannen som regel også er beruset i slike tilfeller, og i denne tilstand glemmer han kanskje mine to huskeregler. Han blir mer skjødesløs, mer pågående, og fanger ikke opp de signaler han ville gjort i edru tilstand. Hvordan løser man det problemet?

Vel, i mitt tilfelle er løsningen å ikke drikke. Jeg har ikke vært full på flere år, fordi da vet jeg at jeg ikke gjør noe idiotisk overfor en kvinne. Hvis jeg havner til sengs med ei jeg liker, så er opplevelsen ekstremt mye bedre når man også er edru. Selv har jeg knapt noensinne hatt sex i beruset tilstand, og jeg må si jeg synes synd på de som stort sett har hatt sine seksuelle opplevelser med promille involvert. Det er et sykdomstegn.

Når du er edru kan du først og fremst gi kvinnen en mye bedre opplevelse, fordi du er tilstede og lytter til hennes signaler, lærer kroppen hennes å kjenne, har finmotorikken i orden, kan kommunisere verbalt og intelligent, og kan dermed tilfredsstille henne på flere plan – noe som krever at du er oppvakt og ikke sløvet av rusmidler. I tillegg vil du ha en bedre opplevelse selv, noe du har gleden av å ta med deg i hukommelsen – uten at den er sløvet av rusmidler.

Vi skammer oss over den naturlige seksualitet

Dette er noe jeg skrev i min ganske lite aktive Tumblr-blogg for et par år siden:

Sex på Big Brother. Sex på Paradise Hotel. Sex på avisforsidene. Vi tror vi er liberale, men er dødsens redde for den naturlige seksualitet. Vi raver rundt fulle på byen hver helg for å ha en unnskyldning til å innrømme lyst. Vi er fulle av skam. Og det er en skam.

Vi velter over hverandre under blinkende lyskastere i rus og et evig ønske om å bli begjært og tilfredsstilt. Men vi tør ikke være seksuelle vesener. Vi må maskere lysten med utilregnelighet.

Og så skjer det 16 000 voldtekter hvert år.

Det ligger en eller annen sannhet i skjæringspunktet der et sted…

Jeg er sjelden ute i byen i helgene, men de få gangene jeg har måttet rusle gjennom Oslo sentrum en lørdagskveld, får jeg lyst til å gråte. Å se så mange mennesker rave rundt i fylla i det som i all hovedsak er en desperat søken etter nærhet, er tragisk. Å se så mange unge kvinner drikke seg fulle fordi det er lettere å si at «Jeg var så full så jeg endte opp med å ha sex med han kjekke fyren fra Nordstrand», enn å innrømme at man som jente er kåt og har lyst på sex, er deprimerende.

Kvinners sexlyst er fortsatt ganske tabu, i det Herrens år 2013. En kvinne skal ikke uttrykke en sterk seksualitet, fordi da er hun løs på tråden. Menn liker ikke kvinner som utfordrer dem seksuelt. Kvinner med en seksuell sult. Kvinner som, Gud forby, kanskje har hatt sex med mange, mange menn før deg.

Selv elsker jeg kvinner med en sterk seksualitet. Jeg elsker kvinner som tør snakke åpent om sex, om sex de har hatt og sex de har lyst på. Det har aldri virket truende på meg. Tvert i mot finner jeg det ekstremt tiltrekkende. Likevel registrerer jeg at mange menn synes slike kvinner er skumle. Og det er et handicap for kvinner. De henges ut og trakasseres fordi de har en seksualitet og tør å vise det.

Da er det lettere å drikke. Være «uskyldig» i at man endte opp med sex den kvelden. Skylde på utilregnelighet heller enn kåthet, når man på mandagen forteller venninner om helgens fangst. Det er en oppskrift på katastrofe, og den katastrofen ser vi i de tragiske høye voldtektstallene.

Og igjen: Dette er ikke «victim-blaming». Jeg sier ikke at kvinnen er skyld i å bli voldtatt ved å drikke. Ansvaret ligger igjen fullt og helt på mannen. Kvinnen har all rett til å være dritings om hun vil, uten at menn skal anse det som en mulighet for litt ukomplisert mus. Men den trenden som gjør at rus er blitt en så sentral del av mange menneskers jakt på nærhet, er definitivt en medvirkende faktor til at overgrep skjer.

Konklusjon

Min bønn til andre menn er derfor følgende: Vis hensyn. Du har ikke rett på sex. Men om du oppfører deg hensynsfullt, så har du mye større sjanse for at en kvinne vil ligge med deg. Tro meg, jeg vet.

Du burde ikke drikke for å finne motet, og hvis du «scorer» i fylla, så imponerer du neppe dama noe særlig uansett. I tillegg er det vesentlig høyere risiko for at du tråkker over en grense og på den måten ender opp med å skade kvinnen. Ja, kanskje blir du den voldtektsforbryteren du aldri selv trodde du kunne være.

Det er ditt ansvar, min gode mann. Ene og alene. Det er du som må stå ansvarlig for at du velger å drikke, velger å være pågående, velger å ikke lytte, og velger å kreve noe du ikke har krav på. Om kvinnen var full, ga utydelige signaler, hintet om noe du tolket som et ja, eller du følte at du fortjente det etter alle de drinkene du betalte for henne, er fullstendig irrelevant.

Det er ditt ansvar å få et ja. Det er ditt ansvar å spørre henne. Det er ditt ansvar å stoppe i tide.

Sånn, nå kan du også gå og lese Asterix.

---

Ja, jeg er klar over at også menn voldtas av både kvinner og andre menn, og at også kvinner voldtar kvinner. Men for å ikke komplisere teksten har jeg holdt meg til det som er det vanligste, og det som er relevant for mine egne erfaringer som heterofil mann, nemlig menn som voldtar kvinner.