skeptic.za.org Blogroll

[Lenny Says] Zuma’s zizi

Fri, 18 May 2012 16:52:00 GMT

I’m pretty certain that news of the well hung painting in the Goodman Gallery in Johannesburg by artist Brett Murray of President Jacob Zuma, is spreading like wildfire and causing great consternation and anger in certain circles. Well that’s to … Continue reading →

[Thought Leader] May the e-force be with us all

Fri, 18 May 2012 13:39:00 GMT

The first time I really discovered the sheer, raw power of instant electronic communication over the internet was a kamikaze affair. A friend was being treated very unfairly, I thought, by an organisation we both had dealings with. So I decided that enough was enough; wrote a heavy-duty email about what I thought of the...

[Thought Leader] The economic week in review: Timeo Danaos

Fri, 18 May 2012 11:14:00 GMT

Fear of the Greeks was the dominant economic theme of the week. Greece’s failure to form a new government after inconclusive parliamentary elections last week drove markets broadly lower as concerns mounted that Europe’s debt crisis may soon get a lot worse. Elsewhere, America’s central bank hinted that the world’s largest economy may require further...

[01 and the universe] The Scientific Method

Fri, 18 May 2012 11:03:00 GMT

I'm frequently astonished by a lot of people's attitudes towards science. Specifically how easily they can accept one set of science's findings without question, while simultaneously rejecting others.

My favourite example of this is when someone uses the Internet to make or share any anti-scientific claim. They do this with complete confidence in every piece of technology involved in that process: the keyboard they type on, the screen they read from, the processors, memory chips and other transistors inside their computer, their Internet connection... all the way to the screen of the person the message is intended for.

Seldom is a thought given to how any of that stuff was designed or invented. Nor to the fact that the very same scientific method was used to produce that technology as whatever it was they were denying in the first place, be it evolution, anthropogenic climate change, synthetic pharmaceuticals... you name it.

The assumption seems to be that there are different scientific methods depending on what kind of science we're talking about. Perhaps "assumption" is too strong a word, since that implies that someone's given it some thought and arrived at that conclusion, but I suspect it's not even that. It's more likely some kind of intuition... a gut feeling. In my experience, I find it more effective to think with my brain than with my digestive system.

What Is The Scientific Method?

Perhaps the education system has something to do with this failing. I remember being taught "science" in school that bore little to no resemblance to what I understand it to be today.

What I was taught to call the "Scientific Method" was something like:

Produce the question (which we never did. It was always given to us by the teacher - thus eliminating any sort of creativity from the process)
Define the method (again, given to us beforehand)
Document the results
Draw conclusions.

And that was it.

Problem is, in reality the process doesn't stop there. After #4 you go to publication, peer review and then replication. These are arguably the most important parts of the process - the parts that distinguish science from things like alchemy and just making things up. Let's look at them quickly:

Publication: after writing a fully detailed paper on your experiment, you submit it to a scientific journal to be published. The journal will have its panel of adjudicators (usually experienced volunteers from the branch of science the journal deals with) look through your work and get back to you with any questions, corrections or other criticism that may be required. After as many iterations of this process as are needed, your paper may be deemed worthy of publication.
Peer review: Once published in the journal, your colleagues and counterparts in the rest of your field will have the opportunity of evaluating and commenting on it. Although some of the peer review has already happened while going through the publication phase, this is a much wider audience with a wider variety of expertise.
Replication: If any of your colleagues or counterparts find your work interesting, they may try to replicate your results in their own labs. They'll try to match (or improve upon) your methodology, and will then publish their own results. If their results match yours, your study gains weight. If theirs don't match yours, then you obviously did something wrong, and your paper will be discredited. Back to the drawing board for you.

What Good Is It?

The thing about science and the scientific method is that it's self-correcting. If someone makes a mistake and produces dodgy results, their mistake will eventually be discredited and pushed aside in favour of other studies that are stronger. Any errors are found and eliminated by the scientific community as a whole. Good ideas are upheld, bad ideas fall away.

Science is the only way of knowing anything. By testing the world, and retesting, and retesting, we can eventually reach a point where we can start to make reliable predictions about it. This is how we learn as babies, too: by testing gravity again and again, we learn that things will tend to fall towards the ground, and not towards the sky. We'll learn that it hurts to touch hot things, and that some things reliably taste better than others.

A scientist

Science is the formalisation of that same process of discovery, of testing and retesting, and of drawing reliable conclusions. The scientific method includes collaboration with all other scientists everywhere, combining all the studies into a single literature so as to draw even more reliable conclusions.

But Science Gets Things Wrong

Well yes and no. Individual scientists (or teams of scientists) get things wrong all the time. The vast majority of hypotheses turn out to be false. Even whole communities of scientists can be mistaken about things.

But again, science is self-correcting. Those errors are eventually found and eliminated, making way for better and more accurate understanding.

Poison or panacea?
Ask a journalist.

Something that probably goes a long way to promoting the idea that science gets things wrong is the news headlines that constantly report this or that "breakthrough", which either yields nothing or is refuted again by some other "breakthrough" months or years later.

The problem here is that people in the media often understand the science no better than most people. They use the word "breakthrough" because it sells papers (or click-throughs or whatever), without really understanding what it means.

Science seldom works in breakthroughs - sudden, paradigm-shifting new insights that change how things are done. They happen from time to time, but they're rare. Generally science works slowly, in a steady stream of small, incremental discoveries. Each new discovery contributing in a small way to the broader understanding of the world.

That right there is the biggest failing, in my opinion, of the scientific method as we know it today: it's slow. Really slow. Some erroneous ideas have to wait until their proponents literally die of old age before they're successfully overturned. While that may not be a big deal when it comes to cosmology or palaeontology, it can be a big deal when it comes to medicine or agriculture. In those fields, slowness costs lives.

I imagine that its frustration with that slowness that drives people to embrace quackery. When they keep hearing "We can cure your disease in the next five to ten years." from the scienctific medicine fraternity, but the homeopath says "I can cure your disease right now." why would they want to wait? Especially if they're not equipped to discern that homeopathic interventions are a scam.

Science Isn't Perfect

Also as a result of the slow progress of science, in the short term it can't correct for unscrupulous behaviour of individual scientists, teams or organisations. Where science and industry meet (like in pharmaceuticals) the profit motive can inspire fallible human scientists to behave badly.

The pharmaceutical industry has a known history of pushing products through testing, not being adequately open with their results and that sort of thing. It's a problem, and people have died as a result. Science as it is today isn't quick enough to deal with that, so it falls on other institutions like courts and governments to place strict regulations on those sorts of industries.

Andrew Wakefield

Even scientific journals arent impentrable to the unethical. The case of Andrew Wakefield is a lesson in that respect, where a researcher behaved unethically, possibly forging his results and ultimately getting a wothless paper published in a highly prestigious journal. This error is largely responsible for the resurgence in anti-vaccine activism in the 21st century and has also cost lives. It took close to a decade for the journal to retract the paper, but the damage was already done.

But, again, science is self-correcting. Despite its current imperfections, it improves itself with time. As methods arise to compensate for these deficiencies, they too will be incorporated into the practice of science, and things will get better.

To misquote Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda: "[Science] isn't the best way to [know anything about the world], it's just the only way."

[Thought Leader] Rebuilding the Eurozone brick by Bric(s)

Fri, 18 May 2012 10:04:00 GMT

Europe is in crisis. After a reasonably calm last few months, massaged by a trillion-euro stimulus from the European Central Bank, it seems as if the dark clouds are once again forming over the continent. This comes after the news that Spain’s bond yields have skyrocketed based on concern that the country (which is the...

[Timbuktu Chronicles] WinSenga | Hand-Held Pregnancy Scanner

Fri, 18 May 2012 10:00:00 GMT

Ventures Africa reports:

Second-year students at the Makerere University College of Computing and Information Technology (CIT), in Uganda, have invented a hand-held pregnancy scan-like machine called WinSenga. The machine, which consists of a funnel-like pinnard horn similar to the one used by midwives, can be used to scan a pregnant woman’s womb or detect problems such as ectopic pregnancy or abnormal foetal heart beats. “We called it WinSenga to relate to traditional birth attendants,” the team said. The students- Aaron Tushabe, Joshua Okello and Josiah Kavuma, said the project was carried out under the tutelage of Dr. Davis Musinguzi

Continuing:

The device allows the examiner to determine the age, weight, position and breathing pattern of the foetus. This will give the examiner a clue on what treatment to give. With this device, you can know how old the foetus is, whether it is underweight, its position and breathing pattern. Then decide on what precaution to take or the treatment to give,” said Tushabe. “You can access the information anytime you log on because once you are done with diagnosis, it records automatically,” he added.

“At $3,000 (sh7.3m) it is cheaper and affordable compared to the ultrasound scan.”

More here

[Thought Leader] I apologise for apartheid

Fri, 18 May 2012 08:01:00 GMT

By Ronèe Robinson Ag hemel – wat op aarde het FW besiel? (What on earth got into FW?) Does he really believe that apartheid merely failed because black people did not want to live with separate development? What about all the injustices that were perpetrated under apartheid? Apartheid was not merely about a dream (or...

[The Science of Sport] Olympic buzz: Road to London as Merritt speaks on Pistorius

Thu, 17 May 2012 21:55:00 GMT

Olympic buzz: Merritt speaks on Pistorius

One quick thought today, to keep the Olympic momentum going, as we're now only 71 days away from the Olympic Games. The story is LaShawn Merritt commenting on Oscar Pistorius, which is noteworthy mainly because it's the first time that anyone has voiced a concern over Pistorius' participation and potential advantage. And yes, it's "only" Merritt, but it's the first salvo in what is likely to be an ongoing debate on one of the biggest stories of this Olympic Year.

It's also a topic I've covered extensively in the last few years, because it's one of the biggest sports science stories in athletics (with Caster Semenya being the other), and so in need of scientific understanding. Merritt's statements are thus the catalyst to bring up an "old" topic, and if you've read this before, feel free to give it a miss this time!

Before I get into the Merritt comments, might as well post these links for those who might be interested in reading more on the research. These five links explain it in about as much detail (but in a simplified way) as I think is possible for a complex case. I have no doubt that I will be referring to these links over and over in the next 71 days

A statement by Peter Weyand and Matthew Bundle explaining the confusing background to the case, and why they knew immediately that he had an advantage, but it didn't come out until 18 months later
A second statement by Weyand and Bundle, this time expanding on the science of why Pistorius has a large advantage during sprinting - it concerns the mass of the blades and never seen before sprinting mechanics
My first post on the advantage of Pistorius - setting up the theory and providing the evidence from the first round of testing
Part 2 of the series, this time looking at the CAS evidence that had Pistorius cleared, and how it was deplorable science to manipulate the finding
Part 3 of the series - the Weyand/Bundle analysis, which finds that Pistorius has a large advantage because of lighter limbs, faster swing times and less force

By way of background, links 1 and 2 were actually written in response to my 3-part series (links 3 to 5), because Peter Weyand and Matthew Bundle had read the posts, and wanted to put their own case across. It was also symptomatic of the media coverage, because Weyand had been interviewed numerous times about Pistorius, but clearly felt unable to get his viewpoint across to journalists who frankly didn't care for scientific integrity, but rather wanted to tell a heart-warming story.

Weyand and Bundle thus wrote those two statements at the end of 2011, to attempt to get the scientific facts and truth out. Hopefully the lazy media pay attention in 2012.

LaShawn Merritt speaks on Oscar Pistorius

LaShawn Merritt has become a polarizing figure in athletics, because of his ban for doping two years after he tested positive for the steroid hormone dehydroepiandrosterone. His defence? He'd taken a penis enlargement drug, and he served a 21-month ban. He was then involved in a legal case that would eventually see an IOC rule that would have prevented him from competing in the Olympic Games scrapped, and he will defend his Beijing gold in London. That certainly makes Merritt a controversial figure, and his statements this past week on Pistorius will only add to the controversy.

Briefly, in this interview, Merritt raised concerns that Pistorius' carbon fiber blades might one day allow him to outrun able-bodied competitors. Merritt recounts a story of a Paralympic double-amputee who reportedly improved by 2 seconds within a few months as a result of a slight increase in leg length (this is a common story, incidentally, which I have heard from other sources for a number of athletes - small changes in prosthetic limbs produce large improvements in performance). Merritt's concern, then, is that technology is constantly improving, and he has encouraged the authorities to monitor the situation.

Now, the merits of Merrit's (sorry) position can be debated. Many will say that he's a drug cheat and should be dismissed out of hand (as many of you did on Twitter). And while I can certainly see that Merritt's views may not be credible, I think that's a) missing the point, and b) a parallel issue - I'd be hesitant to hear Merritt out if he's talking about doping and the dangers of supplement use, but this is a different issue. It's too easy to shoot the messenger. I think it's more important to ask whether "what" they are saying may be true, rather than attacking "who" is saying it.

Having said this, I'd argue that Merritt's reasons for speaking now are perhaps slightly off - it should not solely be a case of "let him run for now but if he gets too fast then stop him". I've always argued that the principle, not the performance or the person, should be the key factor. It is an interesting question, however, as to how authorities would ensure that advancements in technology don't take the 2009 blades and improve them to the tune of 2 seconds. Again, prototypes are constantly being introduced, and anyone who believes that the "blades are the same as the ones from 1996" (as Pistorius has claimed in interviews) is delusional about technology and the commercial influence driving its progress. Indeed, Prof Hugh Herr, one of the scientists instrumental in getting Pistorius cleared (more on the "science" used for this below) is the beneficiary of an enormous amount of money from Ossur, Pistorius' prosthetic blade sponsor, specifically to help develop better prosthetic limbs that will one day outperform human limbs. So technology does move forward, but this is an interesting side note.

To me, Merritt speaking out is interesting, because it's the first time anyone with profile has spoken up about what is such an emotive topic that many are hiding out of fear of the fall-out, should they dare suggest anything is amiss about Pistorius.

The issue is thus not one of "trusting" Merritt, or believing him, it's really just of interest that the "off-limit" topic has been broached. I just wish that more scientists and experts would comment publicly, because opinion may be far stronger than what has been reported. The media coverage of Pistorius has been overwhelmingly emotive, with the science almost always being downplayed - journalists seem to accept as gospel the simple answer provided to their often very simple questions. Few are asking the difficult questions about the process that cleared Pistorius, and the only "scientists" who are speaking out are Hugh Herr and the rest of the CAS research team that cleared him. The Weyand-Bundle research is never properly examined, and nor do independent scientists comment on that scientific process and debate. The end result is a hall of smokescreens and mirrors, and the Pistorius PR machine rolls on, convincing editors and journalists that there is no advantage.

The science: Head vs Heart

The opposite may in fact be true, if only the media would really interrogate what happened at CAS, what the researchers did and get to the bottom of that "scientific research". It would also help if the scientific community projected its opinions outwards, rather than internally. Recently, we hosted a visiting scientist at our university. Their area of expertise is tendons and movement. They presented video footage of tendons under load, and spoke of how elasticity, fatigue and energy return would impact on performance. It is amazing to see how similar animal limbs are in appearance and function to the carbon fiber blades worn by Pistorius.

So an obvious question after this presentation is what they feels about Pistorius? They refused to answer this, responding more or less as follows "I have strong views on that, but I don't want to state them publicly. My head says one thing, my heart says another". In other words, "I know what I believe, but I'm not prepared to face the potentially hostile reaction, so I choose rather to stay silent". That to me is abdicating a professional responsibility because of a fear of public reaction. It's showing that truth is less important than perception, and that to me is a cowardly response from science, and I would extend this to say that in general, the science has been "cowardly" on this issue - it has, since the beginning, been "someone else's problem", until eventually, that "someone else" was only ever going to speak in favour of Pistorius, regardless of what the evidence showed. I would argue that people in positions of intellectual influence have a responsibility to speak out, regardless of the perception and reaction - if it's true, then say it. That's the driving ethos of this site, but perhaps that is just me.

As Pistorius embarks on his European season, needing to run the A-qualifying standard once to make the SA team, this debate is bound to spark up again. It's a fascinating one, and not least of all because of the science vs ethics debate. I can fully appreciate the conflict, and I even respect the position of those who argue that Pistorius should run despite the advantages because he is an inspiration (he is) who is good for the sport (he may be), and because he's the only one and is not winning. I disagree with the viewpoint, but I can respect why people might say it. But what I can't agree with is one that says "there is no advantage", because in three rounds of scientific testing, not a single thing has been found that disproves the theory that he has an advantage. Whether it is metabolic, energetic, mechanical, or fatigue related, every single piece of evidence confirms the theory and hypotheses, and points to a large advantage. So the "no advantage" argument is wrong.

Then there's also the process by which the testing was conducted, poorly managed at first, then challenged, possibly manipulated and then the legal process that saw only half the data presented to CAS before a decision was made. From A to Z, this was a case in bad science meets PR and law. And that looks set to continue into August.

Ross

[Lenny Says] For whom the tolls swindles

Thu, 17 May 2012 17:03:00 GMT

No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent, A part of the main... Each man’s death diminishes me, For I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell … Continue reading →

[Thought Leader] Palestinian solidarity and the responsibility of South African intellectuals

Thu, 17 May 2012 11:51:00 GMT

By Nina Butler “I wish you empowerment to resist; to fight for social and economic justice; to win your real freedom and equal rights.” These are the stirring words of Omar Barghouti in his open letter to “people of conscience in the West”. The prominent Palestinian human rights activist gave an indication of the poetic...

[01 and the universe] South African Crank of the Week: Danie Krugel

Thu, 17 May 2012 11:01:00 GMT

Like last week's Crank of the Week, Michael Tellinger, Danie Krugel has made a name for himself in the media peddling some pseudoscientific nonsense.

Unlike Tellinger, however, I am now convinced that Krugel is not simply a self-deluded ideologue, but is, in fact, a deliberate fraud.

Trying to locate a better barber

That's an assessment I only made very recently, though. I'm not a detective or a court of law, so I can't make any legal claim that his actions are fraudulent. What I can do, however, is apply my sceptical insights and skills to the material available to me, and draw a conclusion based on that. And it what it looks like to me is an intentional fake.

Let's look at the history of the case.

Danie Who?

Danie Krugel is a former police officer from Bloemfontein who more recently became employed doing security work at the University of the Free State.

In 2007 he made an appearance on the bastion of journalistic integrity, Carte Blanche, self-applying the superhero moniker "The Locator", and claiming that he could find any person, living or dead, anywhere in the world.

What's He On About?

It seems that Krugel invented a machine that allows him to use DNA and Quantum Mechanics to somehow track people over vast distances. Seriously. That's what he claims.

Like Spock's Tricorder. (This explains the haircut too)

On his television debut, he was claiming that he had used his device to find the victims of Gert van Rooyen, a paedophile and serial killer who was active in Pretoria in the 1980's. Van Rooyen's victims' bodies were never found, but Krugel thought his ~~magic box~~ invention was up to the task.

Gert van Rooyen's victims

Although Krugel's search did yield a few human bone fragments, they didn't belong to van Rooyen's victims. Didn't stop Krugel (and Carte Blanche) from counting it as a hit.

A few months later, Krugel was in the headlines again, this time for sticking his nose into the case of the dissapearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007. He used his mysterious box to point out some spots where he thought the girl's body could be. The police rightfully ignored his interference, and nothing came of it. They also ignored a raft of other chancers using their gimmicks of choice to try and find little Maddie and make a name for themselves off the McCanns' tragedy.

Krugel seems to prefer little, blonde,
white girls.

Not long after, Krugel made some noise about adapting his device for medical purposes: using it to detect cancer inside people's bodies. Then he went quiet.

I don't know if he was active or not, but some years passed when there was no mention of him in the media. Until last week - the 5th anniversary of Maddie's disappearance.

Why Is He A Crank?

Well, because he's promoting nonsense. Not only is there no known mechanism through which his machine could work, but he also refuses to let anybody take a good look at it. In fact, only recently has he allowed anyone to see it in operation. Here's the video:

In case you didn't want to waste your bandwidth on it, let me give you a précis.

It starts off with Krugel sitting behind a desk, wearing an aluminium helmet and with a grey caterpillar on his upper lip. He goes into a long schpiel about the police ignoring his evidence in the McCann case. He says that he hopes they'll pay attention to him now "...for Madeleine".

Seems sweet and sincere, right? Sure. Why not.

He goes on to do a demonstration of his invention. First he takes a hair-brush which he says belonged to Madeleine McCann. He removes a hair from the brush and fastens it to a plate with a little hole in it. Behind the hole is what looks like one of those little LED presentation pointers, which Krugel calls a "laser". He doesn't explain how information can be passed from the hair to the "laser".

Krugel fires his "laser" across the hair and near to another device he describes as a "grabber". The grabber is literally a black box with a little blue button on it. He makes no mention of how the grabber works, only that it somehow picks up the "frequency" of the hair. Note he doesn't shine the "laser" at the grabber - he shines it past the device. He doesn't explain how information can be transferred from the "laser" to the grabber.

Then he takes the grabber and puts in on top of another device which is clearly labelled as the "KTT" ("Krugel Theory Tester", apparently). He just puts in on top of the large, circular display on top of the device and doesn't explain how information is transferred from the grabber to the KTT.

Then the camera angle changes. This is important. Up till now, he's been sitting behind a desk, with all the devices sitting on the desk in front of him. Now we're looking down, over his shoulder, as he's holding the KTT with one hand. In his other hand is the hair brush. As he waves the brush in front of the device, the needle on the KTT's display follows the brush like a compass follows a magnet (with a bit of a time-lag)

Looks pretty compelling, except for this:

Do you see it?

His left hand is hidden from view, underneath the device. Why is it there? Why isn't the device on the table? Why does he need to be touching it?

He doesn't explain that. And I'm pretty sure I know why: he's operating some kind of switch or dial under there to make the needle move. I've watched the video many times, and because the quality isn't great, and the camera is hand-held and shaky, it's difficult to tell for sure. But it looks to me like his arm is flexing. That means his fingers are working under there. That's right: deliberate fraud.

As always, I'm willing to be proven wrong. I wrote to Danie in 2007 proposing that I assist him in doing a double-blind trial to determine the device's accuracy. He ignored it, but the offer is still open. Not only that, but if his device passes the test, I'll support his application to the JREF for their million Dollar prize. And I won't even ask for a finders fee when he wins the Nobel prize for physics.

That's right, the Nobel prize. See, Danie's device simply cannot work according to the laws of the universe as we know them today. Although he talks about it being "science", the mechanism he claims is unknown to science today. If it were real, we'd have to throw out the laws of physics as we know them, and that would entitle him to a Nobel prize.

Danie claims not to me motivated by money (as far as I can tell, he hasn't asked for payment for his services so far), which is fair. But if that's the case, why won't he publish the design for his device for free online, so that everyone can build their own KTT and find their own loved ones? He doesn't explain that either.

I was once the administrator of a website called Stop Danie Krugel. I let it lapse because there hadn't been any reports of his activites in years. Looks like it's time to resurrect it. I'll gladly accept donations to that end, if you'd like to support it. Hit me up on Google+ if you're keen.

Do you have a crank in mind you'd like me to cover in future editions of this series? Head over to Google Moderator to vote on the ones already suggested, and feel free to suggest more.

[ASSAF Blog] Extract from Minister Pandor’s budget vote address in Parliament on 15 May 2012

Thu, 17 May 2012 10:36:00 GMT

We are excited at the work ASSAF is doing to increase access to journals on-line and to increase the visibility of South African research. The implementation of SciELO (Scientific Electronic Online) SA open access platform has provided free access to SA scholarly journals. 22 journals are on the platform and there are plans to grow [...]

[Timbuktu Chronicles] Adaptive Construction at Anam City

Thu, 17 May 2012 10:00:00 GMT

From Nigeria an Anam City update:

The project was an exciting collaboration between our design team and local bamboo craftsmen. Harnessing local knowledge and indigenous building techniques, and capitalizing on skills and craftsmanship particular to bamboo construction, we were able to create a very stable space-frame truss system to carry a fairly expansive roof on just four columns.

Having initially developed the design through sketches and digital models, we discovered that creating a physical model was an incredibly powerful tool for communicating the design to Dominic and Peter, two Anamite bamboo carpenters, who were able to quickly and clearly understand the necessary components and connections involved.

More here

[McBrolloks] “Unfortunately, the South African authorities want to sidestep it and are reportedly preparing an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which oversees the High Courts.” Of course, our government wants to help Mugabe and his cronies get away with those atrocities.

Wed, 16 May 2012 15:31:00 GMT

A Landmark Ruling in South Africa By PETER GODWIN For the past decade, South Africa has been the preferred vacation spot, shopping destination and international transit hub for members of the tyrannical and murderous government ruling its northern neighbor, Zimbabwe — a government that has rigged elections, beaten and killed opposition activists and ruined a [...]

[Timbuktu Chronicles] Anti Malarial Nanofibre Fibres and Apparel

Wed, 16 May 2012 10:00:00 GMT

Wired UK reports on a Nanotechnology collaboration between Frederick Ochanda & Matilda Ceesay :

...material scientist Frederick Ochanda has teamed up with designer Matilda Ceesay to create what is described as a "fashionable hooded bodysuit" embedded at the nanolevel with insecticides to ward off mosquitos that could carry malaria.

Regular mosquito nets are treated with insect repellant, which lasts about six months. The material that the bodysuit is made from, however, contained clustered crystalline compounds known as metal-organic frameworks, which allow three times more insect repellant to be loaded than a traditional net. This means that the garments could be worn throughout the day to provide protection that doesn't wear off as quickly over time.

Frederick Ochanda, a postdoctoral associate at Cornell's Department of Fibre Science and Apparel Design teamed up with Gambian fashion designer Matilda Ceesay to create the hooded bodysuit and five other outfits.

More here

[McBrolloks] Another great article by Victor Stenger. This is what makes the fundies jump up and down and foam at the mouth, while they scream about their “religious liberties” and their right to oppress others.

Tue, 15 May 2012 17:22:00 GMT

Victor Stenger Physicist, PhD, bestselling author Scientists and Religion Posted: 05/15/2012 12:07 pm This essay first appeared on Science & Religion Today. I find it surprising that most scientists, believers and nonbelievers alike, refuse to apply their critical thinking skills to matters of religion. Unless religious teachings impinge directly on their work, such as in opposing [...]

[Timbuktu Chronicles] Innovation in Africa

Tue, 15 May 2012 12:03:00 GMT

On CNN's Marketplace Africa,Yours truly on the basis for innovation:

Continuing,what innovation means in practical terms:

[01 and the universe] Why Michael Tellinger Is Wrong - Part 1 of N

Tue, 15 May 2012 11:51:00 GMT

Given the popularity of my inaugural Crank of the Week post last week, I've decided that I'll need to spend some more time examining Michael Tellinger's claims more closely.

One thing: I'm not going to spend any money buying his books. I'm going to rely on the material he makes free on the Internet (of which there is a lot) and syntheses of his ideas from sources I trust.

Pictured: Buyer's Remorse

If you think my analyses could benefit from having his books around, I welcome donations to that end. If you bought a copy of Slave Species of God, which you're embarrassed to have sitting on your bookshelf, but can't bring yourself to throw away, here's your opportunity to get rid of it. Ideally I'd prefer an electronic copy though, if such a thing exists.

If you'd like to do that, drop me a message on Google+ and we'll make arrangements.

Right, with that out of the way, let's get started.

One of the claims that both Tellinger, and his intellectual progenitor Zecharia Sitchin, promote is that of a geographic pole shift caused by a gravitational interaction with the planet Nibiru 10 000 years ago or so. This claim doesn't exist in isolation, however - it's taken as fact (by them) in supporting many of their other claims.

So if we were to show this claim to be false, the rest of them should all come tumbling down like a house of cards. Getting them to admit that would be another matter altogether.

Why Do They Make This Claim?

As far as I can tell, the genesis of this idea is in the book of Genesis itself. (lol! See what I did there?)

The premise here is that ancient mythology should be read as if it's historical fact. Since the book of Genesis contains a story in which the whole world was flooded, that must, in fact, have happened.

So what could cause a global flood? Rain wouldn't do it, because there isn't enough water to achieve it. No, the only possible cause is a tsunami bigger than any tsunami ever recorded - one capable of travelling thousands of kilometers inland and engulfing, basically, everything.

Way, WAY bigger than this

And what could have caused such a tsunami? The sudden displacement of large bodies of water.

(By now you should be starting to see the tenuous nature of Tellinger & Sitchin's logic - an idea is postulated, then taken as the factual basis for the next idea, which is then the basis for the next, and so on. But we're not there yet, so let's get back to it.)

And what could have caused such displacement? A sudden, violent event that caused the ice caps of the Earth to simultaneously shift loose from their positions, crashing into the sea and instantly melting.

What could have caused that? A violent, geographic pole shift.

A What?

Basically this is when the geographic pole, the axis along which the planet spins, changes. Sounds feasible, right? I mean, why shouldn't that happen?

The Physics

So could a gravitational interaction with planet Nibiru cause a polar shift?

Nope.

First, there's no planet Nibiru. But I'll deal with that in more detail in a future post. For argument's sake, let's presume that it does exist. Time to put on your Let's Pretend Hat. Ready? Okay.

The silliness of the hat is
directly proportional to
the silliness of the claim.

Problem is, gravity just doesn't work that way. In order to cause the Earth's crust to shift around like that, the gravitational field from the other planet would need something to 'grab onto': a structure of significant mass that would make the planet irregular in shape. Although the Earth does bulge a little at the equator, the variance there just isn't enough to provide the torque necessary to move anything. You'd need a mountain several orders of magnitude taller than Mount Everest (or even Olympus Mons - the tallest mountain in the solar system). And there's no way a mountain that large could ever have existed on Earth.

It didn't work in Star Trek either

So what could do it? Well, according to Dr Stuart Robbins of the Exposing PseudoAstronomy blog and podcast, you could only do this if you had something like a tractor beam from Star Trek: a highly focussed gravitational (or whatever) field aimed specifically at one part of the planet.

And since there's no known mechanism for such a device, and since there's no apparent reason why any super-advanced civilisation (they'd have to be considerably more advanced than Sitchin's Annunaki are supposed to be - a Type II civilisation, or close to it) would want to do that, I think we can safely dismiss that notion.

A quick point here, the geographic pole has wandered a bit over time. Between that and plate tectonics, we know that the polar axis hasn't always been where it is now, in relation to the continents as they are today. But these changes are small and very, very slow. Certainly not significant in recent prehistory, or even since the first humans evolved.

Also, we should be careful not to confuse the notions of a geographic pole shift, which doesn't happen, and a magnetic pole reversal, which happens all the time - geologically speaking. A magnetic pole shift couldn't cause any flooding at all, and probably wouldn't even have been noticed by humans before the discovery of magnetism and the invention of the magnetic compass.

The Evidence

So what actual evidence is there that such a thing happened.

Well, there's the book of Genesis, the Epic of Gilgamesh, Unu Pachakati, Tiddalik, Khun Borom... and so on. The ancient world is full of flood myths, which Sitchin/Tellinger suggests (and then assumes to be fact) is evidence that there was, in fact, a global flood catastrophe - and that those myths are the historical retelling of that event.

Sounds plausible on the surface, right?

Sure it does. Except for the fact that there's no physical evidence supporting that notion. None whatsoever. Sure, people like Graham Hancock put forward silly notions about weathering on the Sphinx and such, but none of those are accepted by people who know what they're talking about.

So how is it that all these cultures seem to share the same myth?

Well, here's the thing: human communities tend to be near water. We need fresh water to drink, and the ocean provides a ready supply of food, as well as migratory and trading opportunities. When you live close to water, there's one thing that's certain: you're going to have to deal with things like floods and tsunami from time to time. Given how destructive and often surprising these events can be, it only stands to reason that those people would record those events in their oral and written traditions.

Does that mean that all those myths must be describing the same event? Nope. Each myth could be describing a separate event, or could even consist of fictionalised or combined accounts of multiple events, rolled into one. Most of these cultures probably experienced multiple catastrophic floods in their times. Also, as cultures move, conquer or are conquered by others, and share their stories with each other, it also stands to reason that their similar myths would blend together over time. This goes a long way to explaining why, for example, the different middle-eastern flood myths are so similar in form, even if they're different in the details.

Noah or Utnapishtim? There's no need to decide.

It also explains why cultures that don't come from near major water sources tend not to have flood myths.

In fact, the notion of a global flood that affected everyone everywhere is, in itself, impossible. Even though most of the Earth's surface is covered in water, there isn't really all that much water on the surface, relatively speaking. Even if the ice caps melted completely, there still wouldn't be enough water to cover everywhere.

See all those bits that aren't blue?

So Where Does That Leave Us?

Well, given that there's no reason to believe that there was ever a global flood, there's no reason to postulate a cause for said flood.

The premise is false, the hypothesis makes no sense, the evidence is misinterpreted (or just made up) and the theory is bogus. There's no reason to accept any of it, and the whole thing, from start to finish, is pure fiction. Jenga!

In other words, when it comes to the ideas of a global flood and a geographic pole shift, Michael Tellinger is wrong.

[My Blog] Where’s this free will you’re talking about?

Tue, 15 May 2012 11:50:00 GMT

I’m starting to get frustrated with feminists who think that, as long as they ‘choose’ to wear high heels, it’s OK. Who think that, as long as they ‘choose’ to be a SAHM, it’s OK. Who think that, as long as they ‘choose’ to iron their partner’s shirts, it’s OK. It isn’t OK. Well, let [...]

[Synapses] Installing Cyanogenmod on your Samsung Galaxy S2

Tue, 15 May 2012 09:20:00 GMT

An idiots' guide to installing CyanogenMod 9 (ICS 4.0.4) on your Samsung Galaxy S2

[QUITSTORM] Africa: The only Continent that embraced Bisexualism.

Tue, 15 May 2012 04:57:00 GMT

Towards the end of 1990s, there was an alleged gay wedding in a small barber shop in Wandegeya. If I recall well, it was around 1998. Many media houses published the event and it took only a short time for the President of Uganda to react. He ordered his tigers to go out in Wandegeya Township to find these so called 'faggots' and lock them up.

I was a hawker by then and I knew nothing about sexuality. I was not in anyway an activist and never thought of it. I must say that at this time, I was homophobic. I had never met a gay person in my life, but I hated them so deeply, just as the President did. My hatred towards GLBT people have got its roots in my religious background, but not because I really knew what it meant to be gay.

The publication of this event in Wandegeya forced me to go out there and read extensively about what it means to be gay. My research proved that people do not learn to be gay and that they had no choice about it. It affirmed that some people are born that way and you can do nothing to change them. And that homosexualism is not a habit. The word gay itself had less meaning to me. I must add that ignorance really fueled my hate towards a group of people I knew nothing about, just like most of you.

The publication of this wedding kept on going and much hatred was out there. I wrote to the Daily Monitor newspaper. I do need to check my archives to know the date which my letter was published. One thing I must note is that by this time I saw no need to keep records, today I need to recall this email but I cannot see it. This is a lesson well learnt.

In that simple email that I wrote, I asked the President (he was out of the country earlier when activists in UK forced him to comment about his remarks towards the gay wedding), He replied that “there were no gays in Uganda”. So in my email, I asked the President, if you claimed that there are no gays in Uganda, what about the group called Homoactive Uganda? Actually, there was no such group at the time, but it was just an attempt to see the reaction of both the political arena and from the communities. I knew so little that people read letters published in news.

I was overwhelmed by the replies I got. A big number of them were hard-hitting on me for responding to the President and who was I to respond to him? In their view, no one could respond to the President’s remarks. He was final and fountain of honour in the land. Other emails were calling me a hero. Some emails called demeaning names and others were asking me directions to where homo active group located or met. But there was one man, Chris, who wrote to me and requested to meet me. I agreed, not knowing what exactly the person willing to meet me would discuss, this brought in some fears but I had already decided to go. I wrote the email to the Daily Monitor NOT because I was gay; I simply wanted to see the reaction. And I met so many people in person which encouraged me to push for more freedoms, indeed some of them were homosexuals themselves although I have lost contact for over 90% of these people.

We discussed equality and human rights issues for GLBT people with Chris and how best we can address the problem. In the following week, I met several pro-GLBT equality Government officials in their office, I was surprised to note this yet on the streets of Kampala, homophobia was blazing like wild fires. I recall one official pulled out a brand new book that am struggling to recall its author and title, it was about sexuality and he had destroyed the first pages of the book to be on a safe side just incase his boss get notice of it. This guy was kind and simple, Yes he was gay I think. (He never told me about his sexuality). I lost contact with him too; he contributed deeply to the equality struggle despite of him being in the closet.

Another official at Kampala Club pulled out two books of Bishop John Shelby Spong titled “Living in sin? A bishop rethinks Human sexuality”. This is a must read book for all religious folks. This is the book that ended my homophobia. It’s a great book for all who want to know about views on human sexuality written by a churchman.

Chris is in Uganda and I met him few weeks ago after almost 12 years. Meeting him in 2001 was the beginning of what you now know as the GLBT movement in Uganda, although many people try to bury it and they have taken credit for defending GLBT rights other than me, my work will always exist--be it documented or not. The celebration of any small achievement by GLBT rights activist is a collective responsibility of so many silent heroes and heroines that we must always recognise their role.

The journey is too detailed for the purposes of this article. Nonetheless, I wanted to briefly address the issue of homophobia in Africa. Of all continents, Africa is the only place where sex is natural and its essential significance. There was no homophobia before colonialists. And the only normal way of having natural sex in Africa was being bisexual. In Africa, many people had sex anywhere by anyone any time. And it was ok. Africans could have sex by both women and men and this makes the Africa the only sexually active bisexual continent. Bisexuality has existed in Africa since time immemorial.

To understand my opinion, you would need to talk to the foreign gays in Uganda. Talking to them will reveal so much more than what you may expect. I have been talking with Heaviside (not real name), a gay friend from Europe. He had lived in Uganda for over ten years and he told me he had got more sexual advances and enjoyment from married and straight people in Uganda. The men who are having sex with him are men and married, If a bigger percentage of Africans are bisexuals, then why the hatred towards gays? For this question, Heaviside has got an answer from his own observations.

Heaviside says that real straight men cannot be threatened by gays. It’s only bisexuals that are under threat. In Africa, people used to have sex with anybody in secrecy and there was no tags like gay, lesbian or bisexual. These tags were introduced by colonialists and religions. The introduction of these tags founded the threat towards the natural way of enjoying sex yet the inhabitants of Africans, wanted to keep their great sexual adventures under cover, and this can be proved by Heaviside who is facing so many homophobic people during day and evening, these are the very same people he do have sex with. From his point of view, a bigger percentage of people in Africa enjoy natural sexual adventurism and that’s bisexualism although he admits that there are those who are 100% gays and 100% heterosexuals and not attracted to bisexualism.

Heaviside noted that, as a result of white male obsession in Uganda by Ugandans, many women are coming to him, and when he tells them that he loves Dick so deeply, they got to note that he is gay, for them being gay is all about anal sex, so some women had told him how they will walk an extra mile and offer what he wants most (according to them, that’s anal sex) and one beautiful lady asked him if he could bring out her brother for him. Whom she had no idea about his sexuality.

This is now puzzling; can we say these men and women were bisexuals? Or they saw Heaviside as a walking ATM machine that could bail them out of poverty? Should we think that Africans would put homophobic views aside when it comes for money especially when it's night time? The answer is yes.

Religions are the cause of all the hatred and hate speech against GLBT people in Africa. There were no tags on sexuality in Africa before the coming of colonialists and religious groups. Indeed there are countries in Africa that didn’t have any legislation against homosexuality. Take an example of Rwanda, up to now, its laws are silent when it comes to homosexuality. Why don’t Africans return to their natural understanding sexuality and end homophobia? After all, the colonial masters left 50 years ago and they made an extra-ordinary move on arrival to their respective countries. Some countries have legalised same-sex marriage, others are still struggling with this issue. But at least no First World country arrests and imprisons GLBT people.

However, the anti-gay religious bigots of those countries have come to Africa to foster hatred that cannot be done in more enlightened countries. You can always count on religions to perpetuate hate, violence, social and political oppression.

[Lenny Says] He’s White and he’s right

Mon, 14 May 2012 19:33:00 GMT

This is South Africa, post-apartheid… 18 years to be precise. It’s come to this. No, no, no. Actually it’s been like this for 18 years. Whenever a White person speaks out against the Black government, about the sad state of … Continue reading →

[McBrolloks] Of course, the religious can’t get even the basic questions of morality right. Like slavery and apartheid in the past, and gay marriage today. Then they have the gall to say they hold the high ground on morality. Makes me laugh!

Mon, 14 May 2012 14:43:00 GMT

May 13, 2012 After Obama’s Decision on Marriage, a Call to Pastors By PETER BAKER and RACHEL L. SWARNS WASHINGTON — About two hours after declaring his support for same-sex marriage last week, President Obama gathered eight or so African-American ministers on a conference call to explain himself. He had struggled with the decision, he said, but had come to believe it [...]

[Synapses] While you’re at it, take Holomisa to the HRC

Mon, 14 May 2012 13:45:00 GMT

I realise that there are lots of government officials who should be fired or suspended. But Patekile Holomisa, President of the Congress of Traditional Leaders, is such an embarrassment that I'd like him moved up the queue a little.

[Lenny Says] Mothers Day – A history

Sat, 12 May 2012 15:03:00 GMT

Tomorrow, the 13th of May will usher in the celebration of Mothers Day in many countries around the world. But how many of us know the history behind this cherished day? The YouTube video further below provides a latter-day history … Continue reading →