Killing Cats for Sport and Profit

On January 11, 2018, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) released its “scientific review” of the Canada lynx in the contiguous U.S., which concluded that the species “may no longer warrant protection” under the ESA (Endangered Species Act of 1973).

An estimated 2,000 Canada lynx remain in the wild, its range extends from Maine, to northeastern Minnesota, and westward to western Montana, northeastern Idaho, north-central Washington and western Colorado. Lynx are a long-legged cousin of the bobcat – with tufted ears. Lynx can grow almost 36 inches long and weigh up to 30 pounds. These reclusive, snow-loving cats prefer dense forest habitat and feed primarily on the snowshoe hare, but will take pine squirrels when times are tough.

According to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s own scientist, Megan Kosterman, 50% of each lynx home range must be mature, dense forest to provide optimal habitat for lynx to breed and raise kittens, and no more than 15 percent of each lynx home range should be clearcut. Not a single National Forest is complying with this ecological recommendation – a system failure devastating to population trajectories.  FWS refuses to address this issue. Continue reading “Killing Cats for Sport and Profit”

Too Many People? On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs

We’ve all heard it: “That can’t possibly be true—too many people would have to be involved. Somebody would have spilled the beans by now.” In fact, that is usually the first reaction I hear from people I’ve tried to enlighten about topics such as 9/11. It’s almost like a knee-jerk reflex, and it’s apparently enough to stop them from even considering any conspiracy theory further.

This objection has become all the more relevant in light of some of the recent discoveries made on this blog. For example, if so many celebrities are indeed twins, how is it possible that we haven’t heard about it? Wouldn’t hundreds or thousands of people working in the entertainment industry know about this? And what about all the paparazzi?  So how come nobody has come forward?

The “too many people” objection got a major boost in January with the publication of a paper by physicist David Grimes, entitled, “On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs.Massive media coverage followed, touting his magic formula that “proved” once and for all that conspiracies were bound to fail. (To get a sense of this coverage, just type the following search terms into google: large-scale conspiracies reveal.) “Ah, those conspiracy theorists! Can’t they see it’s impossible? This was written by a physicist at Oxford University and published in a peer-reviewed journal. What more proof do you need?”

I’m here to show you that the paper actually proves the exact opposite of what we are told. That’s right, I’m telling you that the paper actually supports the viability of large-scale conspiracies. I also want to offer a few more words about the “too many people” response. But first, a bit about the author of the paper and the journal it was published in. Continue reading “Too Many People? On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs”

Critical thinking skills and conspiracies (Part 3)

See Part One
See Part Two

In the JFK assassination, skeptics noticed a high death rate among witnesses due to unnatural causes such as car accidents, gunshot wounds, suicides. Death by accident is a rare occurrence, so let’s say that the chances that any one of us will die today in a car accident is one in 500. That’s actually very low. The odds of death by car accident are much higher, but I do not know what they are. Insurance actuaries make such calculations.

But when two, three, or a dozen important witnesses are CONNECTED to a single event, such as the JFK murder, then we have commonality and can multiply probabilities. Say that only three witnesses died in unusual circumstances (it is many, many more): 500 x 500 x 500 = one in 125,000,000. Yes – one chance in one hundred and twenty-five million that those three deaths would happen under normal circumstances.

This does not mean that such coincidences are impossible. Other factors, such as longevity, time frame and personal habits (drinking and drug use) must be considered. We have not PROVED anything. It is merely analytical EVIDENCE. But people who are skilled in critical thinking realize that three witnesses to one event all dying in unusual circumstances is highly suspicious, is in fact an ANOMALY. Further investigation and higher suspicion is warranted. That is simply how investigators reason. It is their logical backdrop.

People who rely on coincidence theory to explain away related phenomenon sometimes use a gymnastic trick to twist statistical probability on its head. What are the odds, they ask, that a golf ball hit from a tee will land on a particular blade of grass on the golf course?

The answer is both astronomical and meaningless. The odds that it will hit some blade of grass (assuming it does not land in a sand trap) is nearly 100%. But one event by itself is not meaningful. It is only RELATED events that matter. So the golf example is better asked as follows: What are the odds that two golf balls struck from the tee hit the same blade of grass?

The answer is, bear with me: (One divided by (one divided by / the number of grass blades on a green)) squared. Astronomical, many many billions to one.

The example, meant to “debunk” conspiracy theorists, is nonsense.

I will refer back to this post as I move forward with various conspiracies and theories. The purpose is to demonstrate that conspiracy theorists are solidly grounded in statistical analysis, while people who rely on faith in our government and other institutions are not. Further, conspiracy theorists are more skilled at basic problem solving, and rely on evidence more than faith, and are not afraid to think bad thoughts about events, leaders, and the implications if we have some bad people in power. Such things are common throughout history.

End, Part 3

Critical thinking skills and conspiracies (Part 2)

See Part One

The most common example used to demonstrate the principles of critical analysis of evidence is the coin toss. It is easy to follow. Statistics is a branch of mathematics, and deals with probability. Nothing is impossible in statistical analyses, and probability only measures likelihood that some event will or will not happen.

A single coin toss yields the following possibilities: Heads (50%), tails (50%). That never changes. However, it is a little more complicated when we measure the probability of more than one coin toss. What are the chances that if we flip a coin twice, that it will come up heads BOTH times?

The answer is 25%, or one chance in four. We get this answer by multiplying the chance of heads (50%) for each coin toss. 50% X 50% = 25%. The odds of three heads in a row? 50% x 50% x 50% = 12.5%, or one chance in eight.

When phenomena are RELATED, we can MULTIPLY probabilities of their occurrence together. Two coin tosses are RELATED phenomena.

So, what are the odds of tossing a coin and getting heads ten times in a row? The answer is 50% raised to the tenth power, or 50% x 50% … ten times, or the decimal .0009765625. That works out to one chance in 1,024. It is not impossible. It is merely highly unlikely.

So what if you have already rolled heads ten times in a row? What are the odds of rolling heads an eleventh time? (50%. Any single coin toss is always a 50-50 chance.)

We are often told that conspiracy theorists discount the possibility of coincidence. We do not. We are simply critical thinkers with a grasp of statistical probability. The odds, for instance, of one hijacking being pulled off by a small group of men armed only with box cutters is slim, say one in 25. So many things could have gone wrong. The odds of that happening four times in one day is one in 25 to the fourth power, 1/390,625. Of course, 25 is just a number I grabbed, but the point is that the chances of success were not 100%, and the chances of four successes that day were simply astronomical.

Couple that unlikelihood with other events of the day, such as the complete failure of the United States air defense system, and you might begin to understand why high skepticism about the official story is in order.

End, part 2
See part 3
_________________
PS: Suppose that the probability of success of an airline hijacking using only box cutters was higher – suppose that each of the four supposed hijackings on 9/11/2001 had a 50% chance of success. Even then, the chances of four successes would be only one in sixteen (50% raised to the fourth power).

Critical thinking skills and conspiracies

Note to reader: This post originally appeared on Monday, 3/16, and the first reactions I got were that it was too long. I therefore decided to re-post it in three parts, the second and their to appear tomorrow and the day after. Comments that appear before 8:42 were in response to the entire post.
_____________________________
The post below was meant to establish that religion is an important part of human existence. Most people are religious, and it is a positive force in their lives. I note, however, that in matters of religious belief, by definition, there is no use for critical thinking. It is based on FAITH, which by definition requires no proof.

As noted in the post, religion exists and is a powerful force because people

  • need authority figures;
  • are suggestible;
  • and want simple answers

That is the human condition. I too am human. I have these same impulses.

It is my contention that most Americans who believe the official stories about the great crimes of our times do so based in a kind of religious faith. Critical thinking about say 9/11 or Boston or other crimes does not support the official stories. I called this faith “Americanism.”

Dr. Judy Wood, who examined the evidence around the events in the World Trade Center and destruction of the seven buildings there, came away with a completely different take on the matter, suggesting that the evidence points to use of directed energy in some form. Normal physical laws of matter and motion were not evident in the events that occurred that day. For example, buildings did not “collapse” but rather turned to dust before our eyes, and plasma (usually called “fire”) occurred without heat. It can be explained, but not in our normal frame of reference.

But beyond the physical evidence, she too speculated on why Americans are so quick to believe the official story, and postulated three reasons:

  • 1: Poor problem solving skills;
  • 2: Groupthink; and
  • 3: Fear of the implications if the official story is a lie.

This post is intended to offer some basic mathematical principles, not to school anyone, but rather to use as a backdrop when examining evidence in future posts. My writing for the near future will be about evidence, and I will rely on a skill set known as “critical thinking,” often easily forgotten in our busy lives. So this is merely review.

TO BE CONTINUED
Part 2
Part 3

Holy crap! EU lands space ship on fricking comet!

imageThe Rosetta landing was an inspirational feat, and may tell us if we are alone in this universe (so very highly unlikely!) But more than that, on seeing what they pulled off there I realized that the impetus for space exploration has exited the United States (if it was ever here to begin with).

The most important missions in American space history were done under the names Voyager and Galileo. Those missions, wholly publicly funded, were stunning successes. The moon landings, if they happened at all, were an impressive feat. But why, pray tell, did we never go back, advance the technology, expand our horizons beyond the moon? Why did we retreat from 248,000 miles to 200? Huh? Huh?

Far more likely, Apollo was a stalking horse for development of ICBM technology and placement of weapons in space.

But we did it American way – with lies, fakery, deceit, all mixed up with excessive patriotism.

Anyway, just as the beacon of democracy has left the United States, now residing in Russia and China, so has the impulse to move forward in space exploration. Rosetta is an impressive technological achievement, and may yield the answer to the question long sought in so many other ways: Are we alone?

Uselessly overadvantaged

We have also noted how power structures successively dominate over human affairs had for aeons successfully imposed a “specialization” upon the intellectually bright and physically talented members of society as a reliable means of keeping them academically and professionally divided – ergo, “conquered,” powerless. The separate individuals’ special, expert glimpses of the separate, invisible reality increments became so infinitesimally fractionated and narrow that they gave no hint of the significant part their work played in the omni-integrating evolutionary front of total knowledge and it’s power-structure exploitability in contradistinction to its omni-advantaging potentials. Thus the few between become uselessly overadvantaged instead of the many becoming regeneratively ever more universally advantaged.
(Buckminster Fuller, Critical Path, p162)

My first reaction on reading the above was that Fuller did not need to write like that. The wording is dense and arcane, difficult to parse. The whole of the book Critical Path is difficult reading, and much of it goes right by me in a comfortable way – I am happy not to need to know what he is writing about.

But this passage stuck with me because it answers a question I have long wondered about – how our society manages to marginalize its best and brightest, leading them to useless careers doing specialized work that has no real purpose other than to cordon them off and render them into eunuchs.

I just completed a very complicated tax return for a client. I am one of those “gifted” souls who can do that sort of thing (I pause here: I am in a profession littered with people of remarkable talent in this field. I have sat in rooms with them and died a slow death of tedium and boredom. There seems to be no personality in these rooms, no humor or self-deprecation, no awareness that most of what we do just doesn’t matter.) As a young man with children I needed to make a living, and so became an accountant and then studied for the CPA exam, passing it on my first attempt. In a class of perhaps 100 or so candidates, I was the only one to do so.

Special, eh? At one point when I had an office in Billings, MT, I looked at a bank of six files and realized that three of them were devoted to history, current events, my real passion. I was not advancing in the professions as I was supposed to. I was distracted by real life.

Those rooms full of accountants, those seminars I sit through, are a waste of human energy. We do nothing more important than to protect wealthy people from overpaying their taxes. Slowly over time the IRS as roped us in and brought us around to work for it and against our client, by law. But even so, one step above all of that is pointlessness. So what? If my client for whom I just gave birth to the tax return ends up paying a thousand more than he should have, I have failed, he’ll never know it, and life goes on unaffected in total by my laborious pursuit.

As professions go, there are more demanding ones than accounting and taxation. Astrophysics is demanding, as is music, metallurgy, civil engineering, medicine. Each if these have yielded tremendous benefits to is, made our lives better and easier. I have no illusions about that.

Here’s another example of specialization: Dow, back in the sixties, bragged about “better living through chemistry.” Dow manufactured napalm, a mixture of gasoline and gels that burns human flesh. In its early versions, people exposed to napalm could jump in water and escape some of its effects, even survive. The Dow Boys fixed that however, and napalm advanced in its usefulness because it still burned humans up even when immersed in water.

Not too far from us here in Morrison is a Lockheed plant. They are an important part of Denver’s economy, with many high-paid specialists busy making weapons. That’s common throughout our country. The whole of Southern California and Silicon Valley, MIT, major Texas communities are nothing more than Pentagon dependencies. These are our best and brightest. We live in a rich country that has a crappy public education system, useless news and information, rotting infrastructure, highly inefficient transportation, a crappy medical delivery system, a crappy diet, mindless entertainment and a deeply indoctrinated citizenship.

And our best people, smartest and most useful, are specialized and know nothing of any useful pursuit to solve these, our most vexing problems. They are busy devising new ways to murder people.

That’s specialization. Fuller said it very well – he must have, as his passage caught my eye, made me think. Well done.

Worth watching …

imageYou all probably know about this, since I am usually several years behind on TV viewing.

Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan’s widow, and Seth McFarlane, who gave us Ted, have produced a new Cosmos series with Neil deGrasse Tyson in the place of Sagan. It is a wonderful production, with graphics so intense that our recent houseguests, who are our age, were enthralled, could not look away. I imagine that it would have the same effect on kids. There will never be another Sagan, but Tyson is very warm and has that ability to make complex matters understandable to us, a sign of true intelligence.

imageThe first thirteen episodes are available on Netflix without ads, and current episodes are to be aired on Fox and National Geographic Channel.

Fathoming the unfathomable

Recently I came across a TED talk* by Elaine Morgan, an old gal and a counter-cultural writer who has challenged the academic world with her advocacy of the water-born theory of human evolution. It’s been around for a while. She did not originate the theory, as her degree is in English, which should rule her out without argument. Yet the idea has explanatory power that others lack. We have little body hair, we are amazing swimmers, and we know that other species have evolved from water, gone back to water – it’s not unusual. None of that is definitive, of course.

Today I learned of a new theory to challenge the Big Bang – the Big Chill. Advocates, based in Australia, claim that this theory has more explanatory power than the BB, perhaps even approaching a “unified theory” that relativity theorists have so long sought in futility.

I have no clue, of course. But I like this sort of debate where an entire framework is challenged. Of course the old guard dismisses these ideas! That’s how science works. It takes new people to bring in new ideas. (Unfortunately, Elaine Morgan is an octogenarian.)

Are there unknown unknowns? Most assuredly. Every age has prided itself on advancements over the preceding ages. Mark Twain, in his book Connecticut Yankee, wowed (and murdered) knights and kings with electricity. He was on the cutting edge, as we are now.

But scientific hubris is unwarranted. We are self-engrossed and wholly attentive to further exploring those things we know. There is little money available for unknowns – DARPA exists for that reason. (Like most of our R&D, it is a disguised subsidy to industry parading as a national defense program.) We are unable to fathom discoveries and ideas that upset the broad existing structure of science. Galileo and Copernicus did this, as did Newton and later, Einstein.

To imagine that it won’t happen again? Please.
______________
*Not available on line

Why not ice cream for breakfast?

I have been struggling to come up with a way to incorporate the suffix “itute” onto the word “dietitian” as a means of conveying the essential bankruptcy of that profession. Another profession equally bankrupt, economics, lends itself quite easily – “econitutes.” They are, as Keynes reminded us, usually slaves of some dead and “defunct economist.”

It would be interesting to study the intellectual depth of every profession, including my own. Most of us are just going through the motions, repeating received wisdom. True depth and understanding is rare, and those who have it rise to the top. But in the dietary fields, along with economics, quite the opposite is true. With economics the driving force is easily understood. Powerful people who benefit from low taxes and little regulation want it kept that way, and so finance the schools that teach the horse shit that dominates the field.

Dietitians are different – I don’t know of any who are wealthy. Like chiropractors, they have to sell a low-value product and so dress it up as science. A few of them are lucky enough to latch on to some moneyed interest – Bronson Arroyo, a pitcher for the Cincinnati Reds, hired one during the offseason last year. And she, of course, preached to him the standard wisdom of the profession – eat carbs in large quantities, minimize fat. Watch out for them trans-fats! (As if such a thing even existed.)
Continue reading “Why not ice cream for breakfast?”