Never before has American education in sci-
ence sunk so low, or the flood of books about
bogus science risen so high. Books discredit-
ing the paranormal are outnumbered by those
promoting astrology, angels, parapsychology,
bizarre forms of medicine and healing, the
prophecies of Nostradamus, the secrets of
the Great Pyramid, attacks on evolution, and
scores of similar follies. Martin Gardner is
among those science writers who believe that
this tide of irrationality needs to be stemmed
by informed writing.
For years Gardner has authored the
�Notes of a Fringe Watcher� column for
Skeptical Inquirer magazine. Weird Water and
Fuzzy Logic: More Notes of a Fringe Watcher is
a collection of Gardner�s columns, to which
are added thirty recent reviews of books that
deal with science, philosophy, theology, and
the paranormal.
The collection ranges widely over both
good and bad science. The reader will be
introduced to mind-wrenching probabili-
ty paradoxes and the surprising success of
Marianne Williamson in promoting A Course
in Miracles , claimed to have been channeled
by Jesus. Other entertaining columns cover
E-Prime, a language that omits all forms of
the verb �to be�; Norman Vincent Peale�s
naive beliefs in the paranormal; the fake re-
pressed memory therapy that is sending hun-
dreds of innocent parents and teachers to
prison; science blunders by famous writers;
the deplorable influence of Transcendental
Meditation on the career of magician Doug
Henning; Klingon and other artificial lan-
guages; and much more.
rrwi+iw imsl m
WEIRD WATER
& FUZZY LOGIC
More Notes of a Fringe Watcher
Martin Gardner
Author of Science: Good, Bad and Bogus
Prometheus Books
59 John Glenn Drive
Amherst, NewYork 14228-2197
Published 1996 by Prometheus Books
Weird Water and Fuzzy Logic: More Notes of a Fringe Watcher.
Copyright � 1996 by Martin Gardner
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the pub-
lisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Inquiries should be addressed to Prometheus Books, 59 John Glenn Drive, Amherst,
New York 14228-2197, 716-691-0133- FAX: 716-691-0137.
00 99 98 97 96 54321
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Gardner, Martin, 1914-
Weird water and fuzzy logic : more notes of a fringe watcher / Martin
Gardner.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 1�57392�096�7 (cloth : alk. paper)
I. Title.
AC8.G335 1996
081 � dc20 96-31113
CIP
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper.
CONTENTS
SKEPTICAL INQUIRER COLUMNS
1. Probability Paradoxes
11
2. Big Bang Is Alive and Well
23
3. Marianne Williamson and A Course in Miracles
29
4. Margaret Mead�s Great Samoan Hoax
38
5. E-Prime: Getting Rid of Isness
51
6. RMT: Repressed Memory Therapy
63
7. Weird Water, or H 2 Oh!
75
8. Pealeism and the Paranormal
83
9. The Cult of the Golden Ratio
90
10. Eyeless Vision and God
98
11. The Tragedies of False Memories
104
12. Literary Science Blunders
117
13. Science vs. Beauty?
131
14. Doug Henning and the Giggling Guru
140
15. Klingon and Other Artificial Languages
147
16. Fuzzy Logic
155
BOOK REVIEWS
17. From Here to Infinity
167
18. How Science Works and Fails
169
19. The Faith of Three Scientists
172
5
6 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
20. Speculations of Freeman Dyson 175
21. Sheldon Glashow on Science and Superstrings 178
22. Heinz Pagels on Minds and Computers 181
23. Symmetry from A to Zee 184
24. Mathematical Breakthroughs 186
25. Technology�s Awesome March 193
26. To Pluto and Beyond 195
27. Astronomers and God 198
28. Reading the Mind of Nobody 201
29. Is Western Culture Vanishing? 203
30. Pencils 206
31. Allan Sandage�s Cosmology 209
32. The Mystery of Consciousness 212
33. Is There a God? 216
34. The World of Stephen Jay Gould 219
35. Incredible Ramanujan 222
36. How to Make a PPO 225
37. Archeological Crankery 228
38. Joseph Campbell, �Racist� 231
39. Information Theory and the Universe 237
40. Mathematical Beauty and Certainty 240
41. More Speculations of Freeman Dyson 242
42. Richard Feynman, Magician 245
43. Is the Second Coming Coming? 248
44. Do Humans Spontaneously Combust? 252
45. Will Science Discover Everything? 255
46. Tunnels of the Mind 258
If science were explained to the average person in a way that is accessi-
ble and exciting, there would be no room for pseudoscience. But there is
a kind of Gresham�s Law by which in popular culture the bad science
drives out the good. And for this I think we have to blame, first, the sci-
entific community ourselves for not doing a better job of popularizing sci-
ence, and second, the media, which are in this respect almost uniformly
dreadful. Every newspaper in America has a daily astrology column. How
many have even a weekly astronomy column? And I believe it is also the
fault of the educational system. We do not teach how to think. This is a
very serious failure that may even, in a world rigged with 60,000 nuclear
weapons, compromise the human future.
Carl Sagan, Skeptical Inquirer (Fall 1987)
SKEPTICAL INQUIRER
COLUMNS
CHAPTER ONE
PROBABILITY PARADOXES
T he column that follows this prologue was written at the request of
Ken Frazier, editor of the Skeptical Inquirer. In the Summer 1991
issue of the Skeptical Inquirer Frazier published a report by Gary Posner
on an amusing flap generated by one of Marilyn vos Savant�s columns in
Parade. Ms. Savant had received more mail about her answer to a brain
teaser than she had ever received about any topic in a previous column.
Frazier in turn received more mail about Posner�s article than he had
received about any previous piece in the magazine.
It is truly astonishing how difficult it is for even professional math-
ematicians to comprehend the correct solution to the simple problem Ms.
Savant posed. I myself, after devoting one of my Skeptical Inquirer
columns to the problem, was besieged by letters and phone calls from
readers who wanted to argue that the correct answer was in fact wrong.
Here is Posner�s report, followed by Frazier�s postscript, in turn fol-
lowed by my column.
�NATION S MATHEMATICIANS
GUILTY OF �INNUMERACY,� �
BY GARY POSNER AND KENNETH FRAZIER
�When E. F. Hutton talks, people listen.� Who can forget those indelible
television commercials, in which the world came to a virtual standstill,
focusing its sole attention upon that oracle of financial wisdom (that is,
before Hutton went belly-up)? As a rule, when Marilyn vos Savant speaks
in her weekly Parade magazine column, �Ask Marilyn� (her byline notes
that she �is listed in the �Guiness Book of World Records Hall of Fame�
for Highest IQ�), people listen. In the instance discussed below, however,
they may have been listening, but they weren�t believing � although they
should have been.
The following �brain teaser� was submitted to vos Savant last year by
a reader:
11
12 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Suppose you�re on a game show, and you�re given a choice of three
doors. Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a
door � say, No. 1 � and the host, who knows what�s behind the doors,
opens another door � say, No. 3 � which has a goat. He then says to you,
�Do you want to pick door No. 2?� Is it to your advantage to switch
your choice?
In her column, vos Savant answered, �Yes, you should switch.� She
explained that, obviously, there is a V 3 chance that the original choice,
door No. 1, is the correct one. Therefore, there must be a 2 / 3 chance that,
since door No. 3 has now been eliminated as a possibility, the car is
behind door No. 2. For those readers requiring further explanation, she
illustrated the point with this example: �Suppose there are a million doors,
and you pick door No. 1. Then the host, who knows what�s behind the
doors and will always avoid the one with the prize, opens them all except
door No. 777,777. You�d switch to that door pretty fast, wouldn�t you?
Apparently not, based upon the chastising letters vos Savant received
from those who ought to know better � mathematicians who share CSI-
COP�s dismay over the nation�s state of �innumeracy.� In a follow-up col-
umn last December, vos Savant published some examples:
�I�m very concerned with the general public�s lack of mathematical
skills. Please help by confessing your error . . .� � Robert Sachs, Ph.D,
George Mason University.
�You blew it, and you blew it big! . . . You seem to have difficulty grasp-
ing the basic principle at work here. . . . There is enough mathematical
illiteracy in this country, and we don�t need the world�s highest IQ prop-
agating more. Shame!� � Scott Smith, Ph.D, University of Florida.
�Your answer to the question is in error. But if it is any consolation,
many of my colleagues have also been stumped by this problem.�
�Barry Pasternack, Ph.D, California Faculty Association.
In an effort to even more clearly illustrate the correctness of her orig-
inal answer, vos Savant invoked the classic �shell game,� in which a pea
is placed beneath one of three shells. The gambler/victim is asked to place
a finger on one shell, and the �house� then lifts away one of the others,
leaving behind two shells, one of which covers the pea. As vos Savant
explained, by removing one empty shell �we�ve learned nothing to allow
us to revise the odds on the shell under your finger.� She then presented
a �probability grid� containing all possible permutations of the game,
showing how �when you don�t switch, you win one in three times and
Probability Paradoxes 13
lose two in three. Try it yourself.� (The �shell game� is illegal precisely
because, despite the appearance of 50:50 odds, they actually favor the
�house� 2 to 1.)
One might have thought, or at least hoped, that this second column
would have settled the issue. But in her February 17, 1991, column, we
were treated to the following:
�I am in shock that after being corrected by at least three mathemati-
cians, you still do not see your mistake.� � Kent Ford, Dickinson State
University
�. � � Albert Einstein earned a dearer place in the hearts of the people
after he admitted his errors.� � Frank Rose, Ph.D, University of Michi-
gan
�. . . Your answer is clearly at odds with the truth.� � James Rauff,
Ph.D, Millikin University
�May I suggest that you obtain and refer to a standard textbook on prob-
ability. . . � Charles Reid, Ph.D, University of Florida
�. . . I am sure you will receive many letters from high school and col-
lege students. Perhaps you should keep a few addresses for help with
future columns.� � W. Robert Smith, Ph.D., Georgia State University
�You are utterly incorrect. . . . How many irate mathematicians are
needed to get you to change your mind?� � E. Ray Bobo, Ph.D.,
Georgetown University
�. . . If all those Ph.D.s were wrong, the country would be in very seri-
ous trouble.� � Everett Harman, Ph.D., U.S. Army Research Institute
�Maybe women look at math problems differently than men.� � Don
Edwards, Sunriver, Oregon
�When reality clashes so violently with intuition,� vos Savant
responded, �people are shaken.� In once again addressing the question
�Should you switch?� she apparently decided this time to invoke a more
universally accepted phenomenon. Suppose, she says, after choosing
door No. 1, and having the host step in and �give a clue� by opening one
of the two remaining doors, �at that point ... a UFO settles down onto
the stage. A little green woman emerges, and the host asks her to point to
one of the two unopened doors. The chances that she�ll randomly choose
the one with the prize are V 2 (as opposed to 2 / 3 chances of the original con-
testant winning by switching). But that�s because she lacks the advantage
the original contestant had � the help of the host If the prize is behind
No. 2, the host shows you No. 3; and if the prize is behind No. 3, the host
14 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
shows you No. 2. So when you switch, you win if the prize is behind No.
2 or No. 3. You win either way! But if you don �t switch, you win only if
the prize is behind door No. 1.�
And if that isn�t sufficiently clear, vos Savant asks the nation�s math
teachers to perform 400 trials of the �shell game� with their students, the
first 200 with no �switching,� followed by 200 �switches,� with random
selections to be made by rolling a die until a 1, 2, or 3 comes up. Even if
no �little green woman� arrives in a UFO to supervise the trials, I predict
a few red faces on those math instructors who will not see the light until
the results of the trials are tallied.
-Gary P. Posner
( Readers are also referred to Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its
Consequences, by John Paulos [New York: Hill and Wang, 1988].)
Dr. Posner, an internist in St. Petersburg, Florida, is a member ofMensa,
and founder of the Tampa Bay Skeptics.
EDITOR�S POSTSCRIPT
Mathematicians at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology came to vos
Savant�s defense. �You are indeed correct,� wrote Seth Kalson, Ph.D. �My
colleagues at work had a ball with this problem, and I dare say that most
of them � including me at first � thought you were wrong!� The same
thing happened with mathematicians at the University of Oregon. After 92
percent of the letters vos Savant received expressed belief she was wrong,
Frank Anderson, head of the University of Oregon�s Mathematics Depart-
ment, said, �Consensus is not the issue. She is 100 percent right.�
Skeptical Inquirer reader Lenna Mahoney, an atmospheric scientist in
Richland, Washington, writes that she too at first thought the answer was
obvious. �It wasn�t till I started writing a computer program to simulate
the set of choices that I realized I was wrong. You have more information
on the second choice because the emcee knew which curtain had the car
and took that into account when he chose which curtain to open; after all,
he couldn�t show the car without prematurely ending the game.�
Mahoney says not one of the several technical professionals, including
Ph.D. scientists, of her acquaintance who saw the thought problem got the
right answer by immediate intuition. And several came up with �very fan-
ciful ways of �proving� that the odds were even.� One �refused to accept
the results of my computer program,� arguing that �in short, if the pro-
gram didn�t agree with him it was wrong.�
Probability Paradoxes 15
�This circular rationale illustrates what I find fascinating about the
problem,� says Mahoney. �Not even experts have the correct intuition,
the incorrect answer is infinitely rationalizable using technical-type
rhetoric, and everyone thinks the solution is obvious. The basic subtle fal-
lacy seems to be the idea that because there is a choice of two unknowns
and only one is right the odds must be even. The point that intuition
ignores is that there were originally three choices, from which the two-
choice set was derived. It is remarkable that so many technical Ph.D.s
should miss that point.� � K.F.
* *
*
Now for my column:
The great controversy aroused by Marilyn vos Savant�s several
columns in Parade magazine about the problem posed by Monty Hall�s
three doors suggests that readers may like to see this and similar problems
discussed in more detail.
The three-door problem, in the form of three prisoners and a warden,
was floating around anonymously among mathematicians in the mid-
fifties. It is possible that I was the first to write about it, in my October
1959 Mathematical Games column in Scientific American. The column
was later reprinted in The Second Scientific American Book of Math-
ematical Puzzles and Diversions (1961), currently available as a Univer-
sity of Chicago Press paperback.
Here is how I described the problem:
Three men � A,B, and C � were in separate cells under sentence of
death when the governor decided to pardon one of them. He wrote their
names on three slips of paper, shook the slips in a hat, drew out one of
them and telephoned the warden, requesting that the name of the lucky
man be kept secret for several days. Rumor of this reached prisoner A.
When the warden made his morning rounds, A tried to persuade the
warden to tell him who had been pardoned. The warden refused.
�Then tell me,� said A, �the name of one of the others who will be
executed. If B is to be pardoned, give me C�s name. If C is to be par-
doned, give me B�s name. And if I�m to be pardoned, flip a coin to
decide whether to name B or C.�
�But if you see me flip the coin,� replied the wary warden, �you�ll
know that you�re the one pardoned. And if you see that I don�t flip a
coin, you�ll know it�s either you or the person I don�t name.�
�Then don�t tell me now,� said A. �Tell me tomorrow morning.�
The warden, who knew nothing about probability theory, thought it
over that night and decided that if he followed the procedure suggested
16 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
by A, it would give A no help whatever in estimating his survival
chances. So next morning, he told A that B was going to be executed.
After the warden left, A smiled to himself at the warden�s stupidity.
There were now only two equally probable elements in what math-
ematicians like to call the �sample space� of the problem. Either C
would be pardoned or himself, so by all the laws of conditional proba-
bility, his chances of survival had gone up from V 3 to V T
The warden did not know that A could communicate with C, in an
adjacent cell, by tapping in code on a water pipe. This A proceeded to
do, explaining to C exactly what he had said to the warden and what the
warden had said to him. C was equally overjoyed with the news because
he figured, by the same reasoning used by A, that his own survival
chances had also risen to V 2 .
Did the two men reason correctly? If not, how should each have
calculated his chances of being pardoned?
The following month I answered like this:
The answer to the problem of the three prisoners is that A�s chances of
being pardoned are V 3 , and that C�s chances are 2 / y
Regardless of who is pardoned, the warden can give A the name of
a man, other than A, who will die. The warden�s statement therefore has
no influence on A�s survival chances; they continue to be V y
The situation is analogous to the following card game. Two black
cards (representing death) and a red card (the pardon) are shuffled and
dealt to three men: A,B, C (the prisoners). If a fourth person (the war-
den) peeks at all three cards, then turns over a black card belonging to
either B or C, what is the probability that A�s card is red? There is a
temptation to suppose it is V 2 because only two cards remain face-down,
one of which is red. But since a black card can always be shown for B
or C, turning it over provides no information of value in betting on the
color of A�s card.
This is easy to understand if we exaggerate the situation by letting
death be represented by the ace of spades in a full deck. The deck is
spread, and A draws a card. His chance of avoiding death is 5, / 52 . Sup-
pose now that someone peeks at the cards, then turns face up 50 cards
that do not include the ace of spades. Only two face-down cards are left,
one of which must be the ace of spades, but this obviously does not
lower A�s chances to V r It doesn�t because it is always possible, if one
looks at the faces of the 51 cards, to find 50 that do not include the ace
of spades. Finding them and turning them face up, therefore, has no
effect on A�s chances. Of course if 50 cards are turned over at random,
and none prove to be the ace of spades, then the chance that A drew the
death card does rise to V r
What about prisoner C? Since either A or C must die, their respec-
Probability Paradoxes 17
tive probabilities for survival must add up to 1. A�s chances to live are
V 3 \ therefore C�s chances must be 2 / y This can be confirmed by consid-
ering the four elements in our sample space, and their respective initial
probabilities:
1. C is pardoned, warden names B (probability Vf).
2. B is pardoned, warden names C (probability '/ 3 ).
3. A is pardoned, warden names B (probability V 6 ).
4. A is pardoned, warden names C (probability V 6 ).
In cases 3 and 4, A lives, making his survival chances V y Only
cases 1 and 3 apply when it becomes known that B will die. The chances
that it is case 1 are V y or twice the chances (V 6 ) that it is case 3, so C�s
survival chances are two to one, or 2 / y In the card-game model this
means that there is a probability of 2 / 3 that C�s card is red.
It is obvious that this confusing problem is equivalent to Marilyn vos
Savant�s three-door puzzle. Let�s model it as a three-shell game. You
know that a pea is under just one shell, and you are told in advance � this
is a crucial assumption � that after you choose a shell, the operator (who
knows where the pea is) will turn over an empty shell. Because he can
always do this, it provides no new information about the pea�s where-
abouts. The probability you chose correctly remains V 3 even though only
two shells remain face down. The probability that the pea is under the
other shell rises to 2 / 3 because the two probabilities must add to 1 (cer-
tainty). Your chances are therefore doubled if you switch your choice to
the other shell. Of course if someone approaches the table without know-
ing what has gone on before, and is told only that the pea is under one of
the two shells, the probability for this person is 50-50 for each shell.
An even simpler probability brain teaser, equally counterintuitive, is
one I introduced in an April 1957 column, but discussed more fully in
October 1959. You find yourself sitting next to a stranger on a plane. The
following dialogue occurs:
You: �How many children do you have?�
She: �Two.�
You: �Is at least one of them a boy?�
She: �Yes.�
What is the probability that both are boys? One is tempted to say V 2 .
If one child is a boy, it seems that the other child is either a boy or a girl
with equal probability.
Surprisingly, this is incorrect. Assume that if there are two boys, they
are not twins. Call the older boy B1 and the younger B2. There are three
equally probable combinations that will meet the mother�s statements: B1
and a girl, B2 and a girl, and B1 and B2. In only one case are both boys,
so the chances both are boys is V v not V 2 . If you now ask, �Is your older
18 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
child a boy?� and she says yes, the equally probable cases reduce to B1
and a girl, and B1 and B2. The probability both children are boys then
rises to V 2 \
In my April 1957 column (reprinted in another University of Chicago
Press paperback entitled Hexaflexagons and Other Mathematical Diver-
sions) I gave a strongly counterintuitive problem that goes back at least
to 1911. It is another marvelous example of how easily one�s intuitions
can be misled by seemingly trivial probability questions.
You are playing bridge. After the cards are dealt, you turn to Ms.
Jones and ask, �Do you have at least one ace in your hand?� She truth-
fully answers yes. The probability she has at least one other ace is exactly
5359/14498, or .369+. This is a trifle more than V y You then ask, �Do you
have the ace of spades in your hand?� Again the answer is yes. What is
now the probability she has at least one other ace? Incredibly, it rises to
11686/20825, or .561+, which is better than V 2 l How can naming an ace
raise the probability of a second ace?
George Gamow and Marvin Stem, in their amusing little book Puz-
zle-Math (1958), showed how this can be understood by reducing the
deck to just four cards: ace of spades, ace of hearts, two of clubs, and jack
of diamonds. This �deck� is shuffled and dealt to two players. Ms. Jones�s
hand can be one of six that are equally possible:(AS, AH) (AS, JD) (AS
2C) (AH, JD) (AH, 2C) (JD, 2C).
If you ask Ms. Jones if she has at least one ace, five of the hands
allow her to say yes. Because only one has a second ace, the chances she
holds two aces are V s . If you now ask, �Do you have the ace of spades?�
three hands permit her to say yes, one of which has two aces. The proba-
bility of a second ace rises from V 5 to V y
There are scores of other paradoxes involving probability that are just
as mind-bending. I close with one that eminent philosophers and statisti-
cians are still debating. It was introduced by philosopher of science Carl
Hempel, and is known as �Hempel�s paradox.� Hempel invented it to show
how unclear our understanding is of what is meant by a �confirming
instance� of a theory.
Consider the conjecture All crows are black.� Everyone agrees that
each time you find another black crow it counts as a confirming
instance� that is, increases the probability� of the truth of the assertion
All crows are black. Finding a white crow would be a disconfirming
instance that would make the conjecture false.
Now consider the fact that the statement �All crows are black� is log-
ically identical with the statement �All not-black objects are not crows.�
So � you start looking at objects that are not black. You come upon a
green necktie. It clearly is not a crow, therefore it confirms the statement,
Probability Paradoxes 19
�All not-black objects are not crows.� But if it confirms that statement, it
follows with iron logic that a green necktie must be a confirming instance
of �All crows are black!� This of course seems absurd. It suggests that a
scientist can do ornithological research simply by looking around a room.
As rhymester Armand T. Ringer once put it:
I never saw a purple cow,
But if I ever see one,
Will the probability crows are black
Have a better chance to be 1?
You will understand why I cannot discuss this paradox further when
I tell you that in my Hexaflexagons book I have a bibliography for this
paradox that lists more than sixty references in books and journals where
widely different views about this paradox are defended.
The following two letters appeared in Skeptical Inquirer (Summer
1992), with my reply:
Martin Gardner�s brainteasers are not really paradoxes, although they
are certainly ingenious and amusing, as is everything Gardner writes.
The air of paradox about his probability �paradoxes� evaporates upon
reflecting that they arise from the subjectivist (personalist, Bayesian)
interpretation of probability he adopts, which is inconsistent with the
objectivist interpretation used in science. Let me explain.
In Gardner�s probability problems, there is a question of ignorance
or uncertainty, not of objective chance or randomness � which is when
probability considerations are legitimate. Let us begin with the simplest
problem, that of the woman who has two children, at least one of whom
is known to be a boy. It makes no sense to ask what is the probability
that the second child too is a boy, because he or she is already born with
a definite sex. The question would have made sense only during the
very short period of fertilization, because this is indeed a process of ran-
dom gene shuffling, where each of the sexes has nearly the same
chance, i.e., V 2 . Once the ovum has been fertilized, one of the probabil-
ities has expanded to 1 and the other has contracted to 0.
In the three-door problem the prisoners do not know who has been
pardoned by the governor. During the random shuffling of three slips of
paper with the names of the prisoners, each of these did have the same
probability, namely V v of being pardoned. But when the shuffling came
to an end and only one of the slips was picked, the probability of this
one expanded to 1 whereas the probabilities of the other two contracted
to 0. Alea jacta est! From here on the probability calculus has nothing
to say because the random process has stopped. The circumstance that
neither the prisoners nor their warden knew the outcome of the process
20 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
does not authorize them to engage in probabilistic speculations. Proba-
bilities can only be assigned to random events, and propositions are not
among them. I have dealt with these problems in my paper �Four Con-
cepts of Probability,� Applied Mathematical Modeling 5:306-12
(1981).
Finally, Hempel�s �paradox of confirmation,� about the way to go
about testing the proposition that all crows are black, is actually a fal-
lacy. A zoologist intent on putting the generalization to the test begins
by noting that it is about crows, so he will observe crows, not neckties,
socks, or what have you. (And he will eventually come upon albino
crows, which will refute the generalization in question.) The fallacy
originates in the logician�s exclusive attention to form and his neglect
of content, in particular reference, as I have shown in my Treatise on
Basic Philosophy, vol. 1, pp. 79-81 (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1974).
Mario Bunge, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Probability applies only to the future. The probability of flipping heads
in the future is V 2 . The probability that an already-flipped coin is heads
is either Vj or �/ v not V 2 . The result is fixed; we just don�t know what the
result is. In the example, once the governor decided whom to pardon,
the probability of being executed for A and C is V, or �/j, not something
in between. Knowing that B is to die does not change that fact. One
might discuss the probability of A guessing the correct answer, but that
is not the question posed.
In the example of the prisoners, A and C are said to have a large dif-
ference in probability of being executed. Why? How are these two peo-
ple different? There is only one difference: A asked a question and was
given an answer? What if C, not A, had asked and been given the same
answer. Then C would have a probability of being executed of V y and A
of z / 3 ! Gardner�s logic requires a belief that the act of asking the question
and receiving the answer alters the probability of being executed. The
probability of an outcome that has already been decided has been altered
by the transfer of information. Now that�s paranormal! What if C asked
after A had asked? Would the probabilities now shift to V 2 for each or
would each prisoner have simultaneous probabilities of V 3 and 2 / 3 ?
Perhaps this is the long-sought application of quantum mechanics
to the macroscopic world. Let�s call this paradox �Schroedinger�s Pris-
oner.� We know there will be two dead prisoners eventually, but we
won�t know which the second will be until we examine the corpses. . . .
Frederick W. Gilkey, Takoma Park, Md.
Martin Gardner Replies
Bunge and Gilkey are quibbling over a choice of language that is univer-
sally used by ordinary people, gamblers, mathematicians, and scientists.
Probability Paradoxes 21
If I draw a card from a deck, it is perfectly proper for me to say, �The
probability that this card is the Queen of Hearts is 1 / 52 .� Everybody knows
that the card either is the QH or is not the QH, and that what I mean is
that I calculate the probability to be V 52 that it will be seen as the QH if I
turn it over.
Consider the problem of the two children as modeled by a dime and
a penny. I flip both coins and a person with his back turned to me asks,
�Is at least one coin heads?� I say yes. No mathematician would hesitate
to say that the man could not correctly declare, �The probability both
coins are heads is V y � Everybody understands that the coins either are or
are not both heads. If he were to ask, �Is the penny heads?� and I answer
yes, the probability rises to V T
The three problems discussed in my column obviously are not para-
doxes in the sense of logical contradictions, but in the familiar sense of
being surprising and counter-intuitive. For a good analysis of the three-
door problem, and the second-ace problem, see �The Car and the Goats,�
by the distinguished mathematician Leonard Gillman in the American
Mathematical Monthly, January 1992. (Note that he uses the same lan-
guage I used.)
As for Bunge�s quick dismissal of Hempel�s notorious induction
paradox, it seems to me he evades Hempel�s subtle argument. To the
many readers who wrote about this paradox, I urge them to look up my
discussion in Hexaflexagons and Other Mathematical Diversions, a Uni-
versity of Chic? go Press paperback, and check some of the papers listed
in my four-page bibliography.
ADDENDUM
So great was the controversy generated by Marilyn vos Savant�s column
that the New York Times ran a front-page article about it: �Behind Monty
Hall�s Doors: Puzzle, Debate, and Answer?� by John Tierney (July 21,
1991). Letters about the article appeared in the August 11 issue. David
Jacobson provided similar coverage in his article �Read This! It�s Got
Math and a Bit of Everything,� in the Hartford Courant (March 1, 1991).
Professional mathematicians got into the act. The following papers
appeared in mathematical journals:
�Monty�s Dilemma: Should You Stick or Switch?� by J. Michael
Shaughnessy and Thomas Dick, Mathematics Teacher (April 1991):
252-56. See also the Letters section in the January 1992 issue.
�Ask Marilyn: The Math Controversy in Parade Magazine,� by
Anthony Lo Bello, Mathematical Gazette (October 1991): 275-77.
22 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
�The Car and the Goats,� by Leonard Gillman, American Mathemat-
ical Monthly (January 1992): 3-7.
For discussions of the problem preceding the Parade controversy see:
�The Problem of the Three Prisoners,� by David Brown, Mathemat-
ics Teacher (February 1966): 131-32.
�A Paradox in Probability Theory,� by Norton Starr, Mathematics
Teacher (February 1973): 166-67.
�Intuitive Reasoning About Probability: Theoretical and Experimen-
tal Analysis of the �Problem of the Three Prisoners,� � by Shinsuke Shi-
moto and Shin�ichi Ichikawa, Cognition 32 (1989): 1-24.
�Erroneous Beliefs in Estimating Posterior Probability,� by Shin�ichi
Ichikawa and Hiroshige Takeichi, Behavior me trica 27 (1990): 59-73.
�Let�s Make a Deal: The Player�s Dilemma,� by J. P. Morgan, N. R.
Chaganty, R. C. Dahiya, and M. J. Doviak, American Statistician (No-
vember 1991): 284-89, 347-48.
The problem is included in Frederick Mosteller�s Fifty Challenging
Problems in Probability with Solutions (Addison Wesley, 1965).
CHAPTER TWO
BIG BANG IS ALIVE AND WELL
A few years ago astronomers discovered that the universe is much
lumpier than they had supposed. Galaxies are not spread uniformly
throughout space. They tend to cluster along the imaginary surfaces of
enormous bubbles that surround monstrous voids, or along huge ribbons
that twist through space. This lumpiness seems to contradict the uniform
distribution of the microwave radiation believed to be the residual glow
from a primordial fireball. If the universe is so clumpy, why is this back-
ground radiation so incredibly smooth?
Spurred on by a small group of scientists, the media have seized on
these newly found large-scale structures as evidence that the big bang
(BB) theory is mortally wounded. Time (September 2, 1991) headed a
page �Big Bang Under Fire.� Dozens of reports on the BB�s demise have
appeared in newspapers and such periodicals as The Sciences (January/
February 1990) and England�s Nature (August 10, 1989). Plasma physi-
cist Eric J. Lerner has even written a book titled The Big Bang Never
Happened (Times Books, 1991), which has been widely and favorably
reviewed.
One might think that all conservative Christians would welcome BB
theory. Because no one has any clear idea of how a �quantum fluctuation�
can occur all by itself in nothing, the BB offers a convenient moment for
a Creator to start the process of cosmic evolution. (Of course empty space
is not pure nothing; it has to contain quantum fields capable of fluctuat-
ing). Indeed, many liberal Christians and philosophical theists have
viewed the BB in this light. But among fundamentalists still clinging to
the notion that God created the universe some ten thousand years ago, the
BB is anathema. To accept it would require accepting an evolving cosmos
billions of years old. Creationists are now all in a dither over prospects
that the BB may be overturned. It only shows, they say, how shaky mod-
em science is � maybe, just maybe, evidence for a young earth will soon
be forthcoming.
�Notes of a Fringe Watcher,� Skeptical Inquirer (Summer 1992).
23
24 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
It will not be forthcoming. Although BB theory may have to be mod-
ified, or even replaced by a new model, evidence that the universe is bil-
lions of years old is overwhelming. Not only that, but rumors of the BB�s
death are enormously exaggerated.
The term big bang was coined by British astronomer Fred Hoyle to
poke fun at the BB conjecture of physicist George Gamow. At that time
Hoyle favored an expanding steady-state model with no beginning and no
end. To keep the infinite universe always in the same overall state while
it balloons, new matter is constantly being created in the form of hydro-
gen atoms � though where those atoms come from was never explained.
Hoyle�s theory met its death when the cosmic background radiation was
detected.
At the moment, the BB�s chief rival is a theory proposed twenty years
ago by Hannes Alfven, a Swedish physicist and holder of a 1970 Nobel
Prize, now eighty-four years old. Alfven has a reputation as a maverick
whose proposals have been a mix of successful hits and unfortunate
misses. One of his controversial conjectures was the basis for his Worlds-
Antiworlds (Freeman, 1966). The book defended the view that half the
galaxies in the universe contain stars made of matter and that the other
half contain stars made of antimatter. Almost all astrophysicists now
agree that the universe is entirely matter.
In Alfven �s model, gravity is not alone in shaping galaxies. They are
formed mainly by the electromagnetism of titanic helical vortices in
plasma, an ionized (electrically charged) gas, often called a �fourth state
of matter,� that permeates the universe. Indeed, 99 percent of the universe
is plasma. Suns are made of plasma. Their winds are plasma. Plasma sur-
rounds the larger planets, including Earth. It is plasma that produces the
polar auroral lights. Fluorescent lights contain a form of plasma.
Only a few plasma physicists favor Alfven �s view that plasma shapes
the galaxies. If gravity was acting alone, they maintain, the large-scale
galactic clumping would have required at least a hundred billion years,
far exceeding the amount of time permitted by BB theory. The plasma
theory, they say, not only allows sufficient time for clumping, it also pre-
dicted just such clumping.
Although Alfven�s universe is infinite in time and space, it is not a
steady-state model like some of its rivals. Drawing on the views of Bel-
gian chemist Ilya Prigogine, it is a universe that began in chaos and is
steadily evolving more and more complex forms of order. At the begin-
ning was a uniform hydrogen plasma that had always existed. Over tril-
lions of years it began to develop vortices and gravitational instabilities
that finally, after hundreds more billions of years, formed galaxies, stars,
and planets. Unlike the BB model, Alfven�s universe is not running down
Big Bang Is Alive And Well 25
as its entropy increases, but is being continually wound up in ways that
Prigogine seeks to explain. Its future is unlimited and unpredictable.
Now, the greatest obstacles to this infinitely evolving cosmos are the
red shifts of distant galaxies, which are best explained by a uniformly
expanding, finite model. If you run the expansion backward, you reach a
time, 10 to 20 billion years ago, when the universe had to be an infinitely
dense singularity that exploded.
How does Alfven evade this evidence? His conjecture is that the
primeval plasma first produced a thin mixture of matter and antimatter
that gathered into huge clouds. Gravity caused each cloud to start to col-
lapse until the collisions of matter and antimatter produced an explosion
that covered a space hundreds of millions of light-years across and lasted
millions of years. Portions of each original cloud blew apart to form
smaller clouds of matter and antimatter that in turn exploded in myriads
of smaller bangs. Alfven calls this his �fireworks model.�
We live in what Alfven calls a �metagalaxy.� It arose from a little
bang that occurred 10 to 20 billion years ago, as indicated by the red
shifts. In infinite space an infinity of other metagalaxies is forming. Half
our galaxies are made of matter; the other half, of antimatter. Stars are so
far apart that when galaxies of opposite matter collide, they pass through
one another without mutual annihilation. The microwave background
comes not from the BB of a singularity. It is radiation from nearby stars,
smoothed by intergalactic plasma.
Eric Lemer acknowledges that there are grave difficulties with this
scenario, even though he is certain that BB theory has been refuted by the
universe�s large-scale structures and that something like Alfven �s model
will have to be substituted. Another alternative to BB cosmology is the
possibility that red shifts are not measures of receding velocities, but the
result of other, as-yet-unknown causes. If this is true, then of course our
metagalaxy is not expanding at all. Few cosmologists believe that any
other explanation of red shifting will be found, or that there is any evi-
dence to support Alfven �s fireworks.
Lerner�s battering of the BB theory would be more effective if he
would soften his rhetoric, which is like that so often used to support
fringe science. Not content with giving data and arguments against the
BB, and sketching alternative models, Lemer bashes the scientific estab-
lishment for its stubborn inability to accept new ideas. If BB theory is dis-
credited, he warns, would not the careers of hundreds of researchers be
threatened?
Although evidence against the BB remains far from persuasive,
Lerner�s enthusiasm is boundless. He likens the coming rejection of BB
theory to the Copemican revolution. Just as astronomers tried vainly to
26 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
patch up the Ptolemaic model with mystical epicycles, so (Lemer claims)
BB buffs keep patching their dying model with such �epicycles� as a sud-
den inflation of the universe immediately after the BB, mammoth cosmic
strings to sculpt the galaxies, yet undiscovered �dark matter� to keep
whirling galaxies intact, black holes, gut theories, superstrings, and other
improbable ad-hoc devices.
Lemer correctly perceives that if certain popular versions of the BB
go, a drastic revision of modem particle physics will be needed, perhaps
even a refinement of quantum mechanics. This is a tall order, especially
since Lemer has nothing to offer in the way of a better theory of particles.
The most surprising aspect of Lemer �s book is his plunge into a dubi-
ous sociology of science. He actually believes that the BB�s popularity
rests not on sound evidence but on an obsession with a free-market econ-
omy that allows the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. He thinks
the dream of working for a brighter future has been forgotten as greed
takes over. Along with the greed comes a pessimism about the future of
humanity, which in turn generates a pessimism about the future of the
universe. He subscribes to the view that if our universe is destined to die
from an overdose of entropy, or from a big crunch at the end of a con-
tracting phase, then the universe does seem, as in a much-quoted passage
from a book by Steven Weinberg, to be �pointless.�
Presumably, if we could only get rid of unfettered capitalism and sub-
stitute a more humane democracy, economic woes would be diminished,
hope for humanity�s future would revive, and scientists would replace the
pessimistic BB theory with an optimistic plasma model. The dying uni-
verse of BB theory would give way to a universe in which humanity
would flourish forever, evolving into higher and higher forms of intelli-
gence as it colonizes the stars. It is hard to believe, but Lerner goes out of
his way to point out that Alan Guth developed his inflationary model of
the BB at the very time that our nation was experiencing its worst mone-
tary inflation of the century!
Here is a sample of Lemer �s sociological speculations:
Obviously, the small-scale speculators of cosmology did not, in any
conscious way, imitate the large-scale speculators of Wall Street. Yet, as
in every other epoch, society�s dominant ideas permeated cosmology. If
the wealthiest members of society earned billions by mere manipulation
of numbers, without building a single factory or mill, it didn�t seem too
strange that scientific reputations could be made with theories that have
no more relation to reality. If a tower of financial speculation could be
built on debt � the promise of future payment � then, similarly, a tower
of cosmological speculation could be built on promises of future exper-
imental confirmation.
Big Bang Is A live A nd Well 27
Because science is always corrigible, there is indeed a possibility that
as more evidence accumulates the BB model will blow up with a bang, or
fade slowly with whimpers, or what seems most likely at the moment, be
steadily refined. It is true that astronomers change their models of the uni-
verse about every fifty years. As someone has said, cosmologists are
always wrong but seldom uncertain.
Unfortunately, the dogmatism of big-bangers is exceeded by the dog-
matism of their detractors. �The Big Bang is a myth,� Alfven has de-
clared, �a wonderful myth maybe, which deserves a place of honor in the
columbarium which already contains the Indian myth of a cyclic uni-
verse, the Chinese cosmic egg, the biblical myth of creation in six days,
the Ptolemaic cosmological myth, and many others.� Writing in Sky and
Telescope (February 1992), Lerner likens BB theory to the emperor�s
nonexistent clothes.
Lerner seems to think that we mortals, knowing we will soon die, are
less concerned about our own fate than about the fate of our universe hun-
dreds of billions of years from now! Here is his book�s stirring next-to-
last paragraph:
Do we live in a finite universe doomed to decay, where humans are
insignificant transitory specks on a tiny planet? Or are we instead the
furthest advance of an infinite progress in a universe that has neither
beginning nor end? Will our actions today have no meaning in the end
of all things, and are we now being swept into that inevitable decay? Or
does what we do here and now permanently change the cosmos, a
change that will echo through a limitless future?
If Lerner �s sociology is right, we may have to get rid of capitalist
greed before our scientists will open their minds to Alfven �s optimistic
cosmology. Lerner is confident that as new evidence against the BB is
forthcoming, the pendulum will start swinging the other way and cos-
mologists will abandon armchair theorizing for a model based more
firmly on hard empirical data. It is not clear whether he thinks such a
change in cosmology will help eliminate economic greed, or whether the
greed will have to go before the cosmology changes.
Although the BB is still favored by the vast majority of cosmologists,
who knows what big surprises our new telescopes and particle accelera-
tors have in store? We must wait and see.
28 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
ADDENDUM
As the Skeptical Inquirer�s Summer 1992 issue was on its way to press,
the startling news broke that NASA�s Cosmic Background Explorer
(COBE), peering back some 15 billion years into the past, found that the
microwave radiation was far from uniform. Fluctuations in the radiation
showed that soon after the big bang there were nonuniform patterns in the
radio waves sufficient to account for a rapid congealing of primeval gas
into large-scale structures.
The discovery was hailed as the most important in cosmology for the
past two decades. �If you�re religious, it�s like looking at God,� said
George Smoot, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Berkeley,
who led the research team. �The big bang,� exclaimed astrophysicist
Edward Wright, a member of Smoot�s team, �is alive and well, very
well!�
Still a mystery is the nature of the �dark matter� required by big-bang
theory to account for the galactic structure. As I write, there is yet no
word from Alfven or Lemer about their reaction to the news. My guess is
they are not likely to toss in their towels, but will be proposing an expla-
nation for the COBE results that is consistent with their plasma model.
CHAPTER THREE
MARIANNE WILLIAMSON AND
A COURSE IN MIRACLES
S hirley MacLaine, top New Age showbiz guru, has been shoved aside
by a new woman on the block, Marianne Williamson. For several
years now Williamson has been preaching up a storm about a massive
Course in Miracles, said to have been dictated by none other than Jesus
himself. Let�s start at the beginning.
Helen Cohen Schucman (1909-1981) was a psychologist on the staff
of the psychiatry department of Columbia University�s College of Physi-
cians and Surgeons. In the same department was William N. Thetford. In
her middle years Schucman became Thetford�s assistant at New York
City�s Presbyterian Hospital, where he headed the psychology department.
They were an unlikely pair. Thetford, a tall, handsome bachelor, was
fourteen years younger that Schucman. She was short, slight, and a pro-
fessed atheist. Suddenly in 1965 a strange thing happened. A silent �inner
voice� commanded her to take notes for a �course in miracles.� For
almost eight years (1965 to 1973) the Voice dictated at intervals. It was
not automatic writing, because Helen was always wide awake. If a phone
call interrupted the channeling, the Voice would stop and later take up
where it had left off.
Totally stunned, Schucman did not even believe the statements she
was scribbling in her shorthand notebooks. When she finally confided to
her boss what was happening, he advised her to keep scribbling. Her hus-
band, Louis Schucman, who ran a bookstore in Manhattan, seems also to
have been sympathetic. Thetford, previously an agnostic, became so in-
trigued that he began an intensive study of mysticism and world religions.
Schucman would read her notes aloud and Thetford would type them.
There is some dispute over how much the channeled material was edited.
Thetford claimed such changes were minor. From time to time they
would ask the Voice questions. Eventually a three-part manuscript was
produced. Until her death at seventy-one, Helen refused to be identified
as the channeler. Since then Thetford has also died.
�Notes of a Fringe Watcher,� Skeptical Inquirer (Fall 1992).
29
30 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Enter Judith Skutch, then the wife of Robert Skutch, a New York stock-
broker and former writer of television commercials. Bom in Brooklyn of
Jewish parents, Judy Skutch became extremely active in psychic circles.
Her Foundation for Parapsychology Investigation helped fund Stanford
Research Institute�s research on Uri Geller. She became known as �para-
psychology�s den mother.� When she began to read Helen Schucman�s
channeled manuscript she was floored, like Paul on the road to Damascus.
Abandoning her activities in parapsychology (she had taught the topic at
New York University) Skutch decided to devote all her energies to getting
A Course In Miracles into print. Her organization was renamed the Foun-
dation For Inner Peace, now located in Tiburon, California.
Reed Erickson, an American industrialist living in Mexico, shelled
out $60,000 for the Course�s first printing of 300 copies � a photocopy of
the typescript published in 1975 under the imprint of Freeperson Press,
San Francisco. The next year Judy�s foundation printed 5,000 copies in a
hardcover set of three blue-bound volumes, a total of 1,188 pages. Vol-
ume 1, 622 pages, is the Course. Volume 2, Workbook for Students, is 478
pages and describes an exercise for each day of the year. Volume 3, Man-
ual for Teachers, 88 pages, further explicates the Course. The set has now
sold hundreds of thousands of copies.
The Course quickly acquired ardent disciples. Psychologist Kenneth
A. Wapnick, a Jewish convert to Roman Catholicism, has dedicated his
life to spreading the new revelation. His Foundation for a Course in Mir-
acles, in Roscoe, New York, has published six books in which he strug-
gles to harmonize the Course with Christian doctrine.
The Course has spawned a dozen other books and more than a thou-
sand study groups here and abroad. Thetford coedited Choose Once Again,
a book of selections from the Course. Robert Skutch �s Journey Without
Distance is a history of the Course. His Messages from My Higher Self
was, he claims, produced by automatic writing while meditating.
Centerlink issued a disk version of the Course. Steven Halpem, a
New Age pianist, set passages from the Course to music. Miracle Distri-
bution Center put Halpern�s songs on audiotape, and Beverly Hutchinson,
who also lectures on the Course, is the vocalist. An ad says the songs are
�like jewels set in a background of velvet.� A wag named Michael Still-
water wrote a small handbook for gardeners titled A Course in Marigolds,
published by the Foundation for Dinner Peas.
Like Mary Baker Eddy, Helen Schucman produced reams of forget-
table verse. Judy Skutch issued a posthumous selection of Shuchman�s
poems in a book titled The Gifts of God. The poems read as if they were
written by the author of A Course in Miracles.
Before their divorce, the Skutches had four children. A daughter, who
Marianne Williamson and A Course In Miracles 31
is now Tamara (�Tammy�) Cohen, had exhibited as a child what her par-
ents took to be strong psy powers. In 1985, Cohen and her mother col-
laborated on Double Vision, a book in which each gives an account of her
psychic adventures. Judy Skutch now lives in Belvedere, California, with
her new husband, retired Army officer William Whitsun.
The Course had a profound impact on many notables in psi circles.
Willis Harman, who heads the Institute of Noetics, called it �the most
important book in the English language.� Glen Olds, former president of
Kent State University, was similarly smitten. A raft of top parapsycholo-
gists praised the book and testified that its exercises had cured their ulcers
and other ailments. Other prominent New Agers were not so impressed.
The Esalen Institute�s cofounder, Michael Murphy, had this to say:
But there�s much more of Helen in the Course than I first thought. She
was brought up mystically inclined. At four she used to stand out on the
balcony and say that God would give her a sign of miracles to let her
know that he was there. Many ideas from the Course came from the
new thought or metaphysical schools she had been influenced by.
Psychiatrist Gerald Jampolsky was a distinguished convert. The
Course banished his agony after a divorce and cured his alcoholism and
back pain. Well known for his work with terminally ill children, Jampol-
sky has written about the Course in books with such titles as There Is a
Rainbow Behind Every Cloud, Love is Letting Go of Fear, Teach Only
Love, Goodbye to Guilt, and Children as Teachers of Peace.
It is hard to believe that intelligent people could take seriously a work
that is little more than a crude rehash of ideas from the old New Thought
movement, which generated a vast literature about a century ago. Initi-
ated by an amusing quack, Phineas Parkhurst Quimby, the movement
sprouted into a variety of religions, of which the most successful were
Christian Science and Unity.
Like New Thought, which rang all the changes of today�s New Age,
including psi phenomena and reincarnation, the Course swarms with
Christian terminology, but uses it in Pickwickian ways. �Atonement,� for
example, is not the blood atonement of Jesus. It means �at-one-ment,� the
unity of each of us with everyone else and with God. Acceptance of this
�at-one-ment� is the equivalent of Christian conversion and rebirth.
Central to the Course is the Hindu notion that time and the physical
world are maya, or illusions. The sole reality is Love, which is the same
as God. Here is how the Course sums itself up in its brief introduction:
�Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the
peace of God.�
32 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
The opposite of love, we are told, is not hate but fear. All our major
decisions are choices between those two emotions. We can�t fear if we
love. We can�t love if we fear. What everyone else calls sin and guilt do
not exist. The course puts it bluntly: �There is no sin,� and �evil does not
exist.� Sin is merely false thinking and perception. We can be mistaken,
but in God�s eyes we are all guiltless. Even Judas did not sin, Schucman
was told. Sin, evil, sickness, even death, are illusions arising from an
absence of love, as darkness is the absence of light.
Here is how Mary Eddy Baker said the same thing in her book Ret-
rospection and Introspection :
[Christian] Science saith to Fear: �You are the cause of all sickness; but
you are a self-constituted falsity, � you are darkness, nothingness. . . .
You do not exist, and have no right to exist, for �perfect love casteth out
fear.� �... A demonstration of the unreality of evil destroys evil.
Like so many other New Agers, Thetford likened the unreality of the
world to the solipsism that tinges quantum mechanics. �Somehow,� he
said in an interview, �we are perceiving something that isn�t there, and it
is our perception of it which gives it reality.� As Shirley MacLaine likes
to say, we create our own reality.
Forgiveness is another basic concept of the Course. Once we experi-
ence atonement, cast out fear, and love one another and God, we auto-
matically forgive ourselves and others. Well, not really, because there is
nothing to forgive!
The Course�s �miracles� are not miracles in the biblical sense of vio-
lations of natural laws. They are simply �shifts in perception� that cast out
fear. However, a disturbing line in the Course reads: �Miracles enable
you to heal the sick and raise the dead because you made sickness and
death yourself, and can therefore abolish both.� I�m not sure just what
that means. Like Christian Science, the Course abolishes evil only by
redefining it. As an illusion, pain still remains. An old limerick puts it
crisply:
There was a faith-healer named Neil
Who said, �Although pain isn�t real
When I sit on a pin
And it punctures my skin
I dislike what I fancy I feel.�
As did New Thought, the Course places enormous stress on right
thinking � eliminating the negative, accentuating the positive. Its admo-
Marianne Williamson and A Course In Miracles 33
nitions, however, are expressed in such vapid cliches that they make Nor-
man Vincent Peale and Robert Schuller seem like profound philosophers.
Enter Marianne Williamson. Like Schucman, she comes from a Jew-
ish background. She is thirty -nine, a small, fragile brunette, who was bom
in Houston, where her father is a wealthy lawyer. A college dropout, she
became mired in a series of unhappy love affairs, alcohol and drug abuse,
a nervous breakdown, and endless sessions with therapists. She speaks
candidly of her �wild� youth and �angry left-wing� opinions. Reading the
Course, she says, was her �path out of hell.�
Williamson�s fervent preaching � she has the rapid-fire delivery of a
televangelist � soon attracted so many followers that Time (July 29, 1991)
and Newsweek (March 30, 1992) each devoted a full page to her growing
fame. In 1992 HarperCollins published her book A Return to Love:
Reflections on the Principles of A Course in Miracles. After Oprah Win-
frey said she had given away a thousand copies, the book jumped to the
top of the New York Times �How-to� best-seller list.
Williamson lives in West Hollywood as a single mother with her baby
daughter India Emmaline. In addition to lecturing regularly in Los Ange-
les and Manhattan, she has founded a Center for Living in both cities to
help victims of AIDS and other serious diseases. A project of the Los
Angeles Center, called �Angel Food,� provides meals for victims of
AIDS. It is supported by such Hollywood luminaries as Shirley
MacLaine, Bette Midler, Richard Gere, and Meryl Streep. Although not
an ordained minister, Williamson likes to �officiate� at marriages and
funerals. It was she who officiated at Elizabeth Taylor�s recent marriage
to Larry Fortensky.
Williamson�s theme song is �What the world needs now is love,
sweet love.� The word love must appear in her book more than a thousand
times, in such sentences as �We are all part of a vast sea of love. . . . Ix>ve
is a win-mode. . . . Only love is real. Nothing else actually exists. . . .
Love is to people what water is to plants.�
Here are some more gems of Marianne�s mushy metaphysics: �We are
pregnant with possibilities. . . . Nothing occurs outside our minds If
God is seen as electricity, then we are his lamps. . . . Gray clouds never last
forever. The blue sky does. . . . Time does not exist We�re always per-
fect. We can�t not be. . . . Sickness is an illusion and does not actually exist.�
�Jesus saves,� Williamson tells us, does not mean he rescues us from
perdition. It means �Love heals the mind. The leper was healed by Jesus
because �Jesus did not believe in leprosy.� �
Some converts to the Course are loath to admit that the Voice was the
voice of Jesus, but passages in the Course make this clear, and Helen
Schucman was openly frank about it. She spoke of how disturbed she had
34 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
been when the Voice first identified itself �in no uncertain terms.� One
reason she gave for remaining anonymous was so �the true author, Jesus,�
would always be the Course�s �sole inspirational figure.�
Williamson also assumes that the Voice came from Jesus, but she
adds that �Jesus� is merely a metaphor for the love inside us, not a �per-
son.� When Time and Newsweek ran their articles about Williamson, nei-
ther had the courage to name Jesus as the Course�s author. I sent Time a
letter asking why. It was not published; but I received a surprising letter
from an editor saying that, although they were aware that Schucman
claimed Jesus as the author, �space limitations� prevented them from
mentioning it.
More amusing is the fact that no article I�ve yet seen about the
Course reveals that Jesus once dictated instructions to Schucman on how
to construct an electronic machine that would heal sickness. Because only
love can heal, I assume the machine would heal through the love of those
who manufactured it. Robert Skutch, in his history of the Course, says
that the description of the device was shown to several �eminent scien-
tists.� Unfortunately, none was able to understand it.
What about reincarnation? Like the Course, Williamson waffles.
Death is unreal because when our bodies die, our spirit indeed lives on. It
is like removing an old suit of clothes, she writes, or like a book that
never ends. �The end of our physical incarnation is like the end of a chap-
ter, on some level setting up the beginning of another.�
Again: �We have been alive forever. We will be alive forever more.�
Does this mean previous and future lives on earth? Williamson is
vague. She quotes the Course as saying, �Reincarnation cannot, then, be
true in any real sense.� Why? �Because there is no linear time. If we have
past lives, or future lives, then they�re all happening at once.� This is
mystifying. Physicists like to define time as that which keeps everything
from happening at once. Can you imagine �living� in a timeless world
where everything happens at once?
�Heaven is here,� says the Course. �There is nowhere else. Here is
now. There is no other time.� Again: �Heaven is not a place. ... It is
merely the awareness of perfect oneness, and the knowledge that there is
nothing else; nothing outside this awareness, and nothing within.�
On the other hand, Williamson can write, �Angels are the thoughts of
God and in Heaven you will think like angels.�* Can you conceive of
�thinking� without time, and in a place that is not a place?
One can be a deep student of the Course, Williamson says, and either
*In her mystifying �glossary� at the close of Science and Health, Mary Baker Eddy
defined �Angels� as �God�s thoughts passing to man.�
Marianne Williamson and A Course In Miracles 35
believe or not believe in reincarnation. Whether she believes it the way
Shirley MacLaine does is hard to know. At any rate, we are mercifully
spared details about Williamson�s previous incarnations.
However, like MacLaine, Williamson is aware of her good looks,
humor, and charisma. Like MacLaine, she enjoys tossing around four-letter
words. Like MacLaine, she is self-absorbed and relishing her glitzy fame.
Like MacLaine, she is forever recalling episodes in her past, as if (for
instance) anyone cares to know she was once strongly attracted to a gay man.
In recent months she seems to have forgotten the Course�s lessons.
The New York Post (February 25, 1992) headed its �Page Six� column:
�Top-Selling Guru Trashed as Tyrant.� The column pictures Williamson
as �becoming a power sponge: abusing subordinates, throwing temper
tantrums, and forcing out highly connected board members who�ve
brought in celebrities and millions of dollars to her work.�
At one party, says the Post, Williamson �pitched a hissy� because the
host asked Shirley MacLaine to give the fundraising speech instead of
her. Also according to the Post, she told a talent manager �to go f
himself because she wasn�t properly introduced to Dolly Parton. She
seems to be on a major power trip. She�s gotten rid of everyone who dis-
agrees with her.�
Williamson is quoted as saying: �I should be allowed those reactions.
I�m not perfect.� Not perfect? Doesn�t the Course say everyone is perfect?
Williamson has called herself �a bitch for God.� Powerful Hollywood
people, reports �Page Six,� �are saying the description is two words too
long.�
Will the attractive guru rediscover love, sweet love? And will her fol-
lowers, along with other disciples of the Course, ever succeed in plugging
the holes in their heads?
On May 22, 1992, the New York Post reported that Random House,
offering an advance in the millions, had signed Williamson for two more
books: On Women* and The Healing of America. Jacqueline Onassis, a
Doubleday senior editor, wined and dined Williamson, but Random
House got the contract.
ADDENDUM
Several readers, including a rabbi, were disturbed by my identifying sev-
eral true believers in the Course as Jewish. I did this because I find it
* Random House published Williamson�s book on women in 1993 under the title A
Woman �s Worth.
36 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
amazing that anyone with a Jewish background would relish a book writ-
ten by Jesus. When I spoke on the phone with Helen Schucman�s hus-
band, I asked him if he believed that Jesus had dictated the Course. His
immediate response was, �How could I? I�m Jewish.�
I also went out of my way to mention Helen�s professed atheism, and
the Catholic background of one prominent promoter of the Course. I did
this because the Course so obviously contradicts both atheism and
Catholicism. If I were to write about Christian converts to, say, Islam,
would it not be relevant to mention that they were former Christians?
That the Voice claimed to be the voice of Jesus there is not the slight-
est doubt. Here are two passages from the Course : �If the Apostles had
not felt guilty, they never could have quoted me as saying, �I come not to
bring peace but a sword.� This is clearly the opposite of everything I
taught� (p. 87). �I raised the dead by knowing that life is an eternal
attribute of everything that the living God created� (p. 59).
In 1991 Kenneth Wapnick published a 521 -page biography of Helen
titled Absence from Felicity: The Story of Helen Schucman and Her Scrib-
ing of A Course in Miracles. I have not read this work, but D. Patrick
Miller, a journalist and admirer of the Course, sent me a copy of his review
of Wapnick�s book from Gnosis magazine (Fall 1992). As Miller tells us,
Wapnick reveals a lot of dialogue between Helen and the Voice �that was
too personal to be published.� For example, on one occasion Jesus
explained to Helen why he had sent her shopping to a certain bargain base-
ment. It was because a salesman there needed her advice! Miller adds:
Despite such intimate guidance, Schucman never wanned to the volu-
minous message of spiritual healing and brotherhood that she transmit-
ted, and it failed to heal her troubled relationship with Thetford. �By the
time I met them in late fall of 1972, right after the Course was com-
pleted,� Wapnick writes, �their relationship was at an all-time low, and
it only seemed to worsen from there. It was almost as if Helen were
determined to prove that the Course was ineffective at least, and dele-
terious at worst, enabling her to feel more justifiably bitter about her
life.� She died of pancreatic cancer in 1981, her conflicts with Thetford,
Jesus, and the Course still apparently unresolved.
Miller is harsh on Williamson�s book for its �flat, artless prose style.�
He attributes this to the fact that several ghostwriters had a hand in shap-
ing the text.
Miller also sent me a copy of his article �A Course in Miracles: A Bal-
anced View,� which appeared in Brooklyn�s New Age magazine Free
Spirit (December/January 1990-91). Miller had spoken to everyone
closely connected with the Course, and was the last to interview Thetford
Marianne Williamson and A Course In Miracles 37
before he died in 1988. The article bristles with revealing material.
Helen�s mother, Miller tells us, �dabbled both in theosophy and Christian
Science.� The influence of Christian Science on the Course, as I pointed
out in my column, is pervasive, especially in its denial that the physical
world is �real,� and its pretense of being Christian while abandoning such
basic Christian doctrines as original sin and the atonement. Three times
in Science and Health Mary Baker Eddy explains �atonement� as mean-
ing �at-one-ment� with God.
According to Miller, the major religious influences on young Helen
came from her Roman Catholic governess and a Baptist cook. In her later
years she was fascinated by the writings of Edgar Cayce, and became a
member of the Cayce Foundation in Florida.
Miller shares Wapnick�s belief that Helen�s professed atheism was a
sham:
�Helen�s atheism makes a good story,� Ken Wapnick told me, �but it�s not
really true. You can�t be that militant against something unless you
believe in it at some level. There were periods of Helen�s life when she
went to Mass every day; she was attracted to it without believing in it. She
had two purses full of Catholic rosaries and medals, accumulated prior to
the Course. She had a deep knowledge of the Bible. Helen really adopted
a pose, because she was a psychologist who had to be an atheist.�
Wapnick, who abandoned plans to enter a Catholic monastery after
reading a rough manuscript of the Course, became its principal editor. He
and Helen worked for a year on shaping the text. It was not easy, because
at times Helen would burst into laughter and say she couldn�t understand
a word of what a sentence meant. Wapnick would then have to interpret
it for her and put it into clearer English.
Thetford told Miller that Helen always exhibited a split personality
with respect to the Course. Willis Harman, in his foreword to Robert
Skutch�s history, Journey Without Distance, recalls Helen saying, �I
know the Course is true � but I don�t believe it.�
In their newsletter, The Lighthouse (September 1993), Kenneth and
Gloria Wapnick revealed that they left out portions of the Course dictated
by Jesus, but which he asked them to remove In an earlier issue
(December 1992) the Wapnicks disclosed that is was Jesus who ordered
them to copyright the Course. The Copyright Office told them the work
could not be copyrighted as anonymous. On the other hand, the Lord had
forbidden Helen to put her name on the Course. The Wapnicks compro-
mised. The work�s author was registered as �anonymous,� followed by
Helen�s name in parentheses!
CHAPTER FOUR
MARGARET MEAD�S
GREAT SAMOAN HOAX
I n an earlier column on Margaret Mead, reprinted in my book The New
Age, I focused mainly on Mead�s occult beliefs and her conviction that
the earth is being observed by extraterrestrials in flying saucers. Only a
brief mention was made of Derek Freeman�s Margaret Mead and Samoa:
The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth (Harvard Univer-
sity Press, 1983). This explosive book roundly trounced Mead for flagrant
errors in her most famous work, Coming of Age in Samoa: A Psychologi-
cal Study of Primitive Youth for Western Civilization (Morrow, 1928).
Since I wrote that column, new and irrefutable evidence has come to
light proving that young Mead was indeed the gullible victim of a play-
ful hoax. Her book, until recently considered a classic, is now known to
be of minimal value � an amusing skeleton in anthropology�s closet.
Mead was twenty-three in 1925 when she went to Samoa as a Colum-
bia University graduate student working under Franz Boas, then the
nation�s most eminent anthropologist. At that time cultural anthropology
was in the grip of extreme environmentalism, understandable as a reac-
tion against earlier ethnocentric anthropologists who faulted alien cul-
tures for failing to conform to the values of the anthropologists� own soci-
ety. Boas could not accept the notion of a biologically determined human
nature that would provide the basis for ranking cultures in terms of how
well they met human needs. Genetic elements. Boas wrote in The Ency-
clopedia of the Social Sciences, are �altogether irrelevant as compared
with the powerful influence of environment.�
For Boas and his protegee Mead, human nature consisted entirely of
such body needs as food, water, and sex. How a culture copes with those
needs was seen as enormously varied in ways that could not be evaluated
across cultural boundaries. In brief, for Boas there were no universal
human values.
This extreme view, known as �cultural relativism� or �cultural deter-
minism,� poses obvious difficulties. How, for example, can a relativist
�Notes of a Fringe Watcher,� Skeptical Inquirer (Winter 1993).
38
Margaret Mead�s Great Samoan Hoax 39
condemn slavery, seeing that slavery was integral to so many great cul-
tures from ancient Greece to our own nation�s South before the Civil
War? How can a relativist object to the racism of Hitler�s Germany, the
torturing of heretics by the Inquisition, or the burning and hanging of
witches? However, this is not the place to discuss the defects of cultural
determinism. Instead, I shall stress the fresh evidence that Mead was
shamelessly hoodwinked by two Samoan pranksters.
Derek Freeman, an Australian anthropologist, summarizes this new
evidence in three papers: �Fa�apua�a Fa�amu and Margaret Mead,� in
American Anthropology (December 1989); �There�s Tricks i� thi� World�
(a quote from Hamlet), in Visual Anthropology Reviews (Spring 1991)
and �Paradigms in Collision,� in Academic Questions (July 1992). It is
from these articles that I take what follows.
When Mead visited Samoa she was under the impression, based
solely on hearsay, that Polynesians were as sexually promiscuous as
anthropology graduate students. Because she thought their sex lives were
unrestrained, Mead was convinced that Samoan adolescents never suf-
fered the anxieties and torments of Western teenagers.* Her mentor,
Boas, sent her to Samoa for the express purpose of confirming this view,
thereby providing strong support for his radical cultural determinism.
Because Mead spoke very little Samoan, she conducted most of her
interviews through interpreters. Her principal informants were two native
�girls� (as Mead herself called them), Fa�apua�a Fa�amu, who spoke Eng-
lish, and her friend Fofoa, who did not. All three �girls� were about the
same age. In a letter, Mead called the other two her �merry companions.�
Embarrassed and offended by Mead�s constant questions about sex, a
taboo topic in Samoa, the two merry companions decided to play on
Mead what they thought would be a harmless joke. Such pranks on out-
siders were and are a common form of Samoan fun. The two girls had no
inkling that Mead was an anthropologist who would go home and write a
book about what they told her. To them she was just a young, naive, med-
dlesome tourist.
With sidelong glances at each other, and lots of giggling, the two
merry companions told Mead everything she wanted to hear. Yes, adoles-
cents had complete sexual freedom, moving stress-free from childhood to
adultery. Samoans were a happy, free-love people. Poor Mead bought it
all. Samoa, she wrote in her book, is �a casual, problem-free society� in
which the ambition of every adolescent girl is �to live with as many
*The classic work on the storms and stresses of the �coming of age� of American
children was the two-volume work Adolescence, by psychologist G. Stanley Hall, pub-
lished in 1904.
40
Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
The jacket of the first edition of Mead�s book shows two young Samoans,
bare above the waist, romping under a full moon toward a tryst under the
palm trees.
lovers as possible� before she marries. Even after wedlock sexual free-
doms are permitted. Not only was the book avidly read by our nation�s
�flaming youth,� eager for sex without commitment, but anthropologists
praised it to the skies. In his foreword to the book Boas called it a
�painstaking investigation� of a �culture so entirely different from our
own.� Bertrand Russell, Havelock Ellis, H. L. Mencken, and other
famous writers joined in the chorus of adulation.
After Mead�s book appeared, disturbing news began to emerge from
more qualified investigators of Samoan life. Unanimously they concluded
that Samoan Society was exactly the opposite of what Mead had por-
trayed. It was a culture of strict parental controls and unbending sex
taboos. Female virginity was so highly prized that brides were tested for
virginity before they were allowed to marry! Adolescents had the same
difficulties in coming of age as they had in Western lands. But so great was
Mead�s growing reputation as the nation�s top female anthropologist, and
so firmly entrenched was cultural relativism among anthropologists and
sociologists, that Mead�s book remained an admired work for more than
half a century. It is still in print in both hardcover and paperback editions.
Freeman�s book, the first to accuse Mead of having been flim-
flammed, aroused his colleagues to unbelievable fury and vindictiveness.
Freeman was called �crazy,� �fueled by academic venom,� a person who
Margaret Mead�s Great Samoan Hoax 41
�threw nothing but spitballs.� He was accused of bribing Samoans to
support his bizarre opinions and of having �attacked a missionary with an
axe.� Melvin Embler attacked Freeman in �Evidence and Science in
Ethnography: Reflections on the Freeman-Mead Controversy,� in Ameri-
can Anthropologist (yol. 87, 1985, pp. 906-909).
At the 1983 meeting of the American Anthropological Association, in
Chicago, a special session was devoted to vilifying Freeman. Later that
day a motion was passed denouncing his book as �unscientific.� Here is
how British philosopher Karl Popper reacted in a letter to Freeman:
Many sociologists and almost all sociologists of science, believe in a
relativist theory of truth. That is, truth is what the experts believe, or
what the majority of the participants in a culture believe. Holding a
view like this your opponents could not admit that you were right. How
could you be, when all their colleagues thought like they did? In fact,
they could prove that you were wrong simply by taking a vote at a meet-
ing of experts. That clearly settled it. And your facts? They meant noth-
ing if sufficiently many experts ignored them, or distorted them, or mis-
interpreted them.
Not until 1987 was Freeman completely vindicated. Fofoa had died
in 1936, and Fa�apua�a was presumed also dead. To Freeman�s surprise
she was very much alive and eager to talk. For decades, she said, she had
been burdened with guilt over the huge success of Mead�s book, and now
was relieved at last to be able to tell her story. A lifelong Christian, she
swore to the truth of her account with a hand on a Samoan Bible.
When Mead intimated that Fa�apua�a was promiscuous, Fa�apua�a
was shocked. At that time she was what in Samoa is called a laupou, or
ceremonial virgin. After comprehending what Mead wanted them to say,
the two girls decided to play a typical Samoan prank on this curious
young woman from America. They never dreamed that Mead would base
an entire book on their lies.
When Larry Gertenstein interviewed Fa�apua�a for his article �Sex,
Lies, Margaret Mead, and Samoa,� in the Australian magazine Geo (June-
August 1991), the elderly woman, now a grandmother and nearing ninety,
said that when Mead asked where she and Fofoa went at night they would
pinch each other and say, �We spent our nights with boys, yes, with
boys!� Samoan girls, Fa�apua�a added, �are terrific liars when it comes to
joking. But Margaret accepted our trumped-up stories as though they
were true. Yes, we just fibbed and fibbed to her.�
Had Mead ever pressed her two merry friends for verification of their
lies, Fa�apua�a said, they would have at once confessed, but Mead never
42 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
challenged anything. She just scribbled it all down avidly in her note-
books. There was a rumor that Mead had an affair with a young Samoan.
It is not known if this is true, but Fa�apua�a said she and Fofoa firmly
believed it, and this made them feel less hesitant in hoaxing their visitor.
On three occasions Mead was made a �ceremonial virgin� of Samoa.
These honors, which she greatly enjoyed, would never have been con-
ferred on her if she had revealed that she was married at the time! It was
said that Mead, during one of the ceremonies, danced about bare-chested.
Cultural relativism may be dying a slow death as more and more
anthropologists and sociologists rediscover what they could have learned
decades ago from John Dewey, a strong believer in a common human
nature as a foundation for a naturalistic ethics. Here are some passages
from Dewey�s essay �Does Human Nature Change?� in Problems of Men
(Philosophical Library, 1946):
The existence of almost every conceivable kind of social institution at
some time and place in the history of the world is evidence of the plas-
ticity of human nature. This fact does not prove that all these different
social systems are of equal value materially, morally, and culturally. The
slightest observation shows that such is not the case.
_... By �needs� 1 mean the inherent demands that men make
because of their constitution. Needs for food and drink and for moving
about, for example, are so much a part of our being that we cannot
imagine any condition under which they would cease to be. There are
other things not so directly physical that seem to me equally engrained
in human nature. I would mention as examples the need for some kind
of companionship; the need for exhibiting energy, for bringing one�s
powers to bear upon surrounding conditions; the need for both cooper-
ation with and emulation of one�s fellows for mutual aid and combat
alike; the need for some sort of aesthetic expression and satisfaction; the
need to lead and to follow, etc.
Whether my particular examples are well chosen or not does not
matter so much as does a recognition of the fact that there are some ten-
dencies so integral a part of human nature that the latter would not be
human nature if they changed. These tendencies used to be called
instincts. Psychologists are now more chary of using that word than
they used to be. But the word by which the tendencies are called does
not matter much in comparison to the fact that human nature has its own
constitution.
Freeman points out that back in 1945 anthropologist G. P. Murdock
provided a long list of universals common to all known cultures. A simi-
lar case for them was made by Donald Brown in Human Universals
Margaret Mead�s Great Samoan Hoax 43
(1991). Still another defense can be found in Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt�s
massive Human Ethology (1989).
Freeman quotes an anthropologist as saying, �There is no such thing
as human nature independent of culture.� Obviously true. Freeman
agrees, but the same truth can be put the other way around: �There is no
such thing as culture independent of human nature.�
Freeman believes that what he calls an �interactionist paradigm shift�
is now taking place in anthropology. A crude, outdated relativism is
slowly giving way to the sensible view that cultures arise from an inter-
play of genetics and environment. Perhaps the time is approaching when
cultural anthropologists will have the courage to declare, without shame,
that evils such as slavery, racism, infanticide, genocide, and tobacco
smoking are not value-free customs comparable to such folkways as traf-
fic regulations and fashions in dress, but behavior that can be condemned
on the basis of values common to humans everywhere.
ADDENDUM
My column on Mead provoked a large number of letters both favorable
and unfavorable. The Skeptical Inquirer (Summer 1993) published letters
from three anthropologists, followed by my rejoinder.
John R. Cole
I was surprised by Martin Gardner�s article for a couple of reasons. I
believe he may rely too strongly on the case made against Margaret Mead
by Derek Freeman with Mead now dead and unable to reply. More impor-
tant, I question his rather extreme and puzzling definition of the �cultural
relativism� taught by anthropologist Franz Boas and Gardner�s assertion
that this idea was at great odds with John Dewey�s philosophy.
In fact, Franz Boas and philosopher John Dewey co-taught courses at
Columbia University on the nature of culture and the relationship
between education and biological determinism. Both were adamant cul-
tural determinists in the �nature-nurture� argument. Both men are widely
regarded as founders of the modem �humanist� movement, which em-
phasized human behavioral plasticity and the possibility of improving
society through education, defining morality without recourse to divine or
biological absolutes, and by learning from diverse cultures rather than
condemning the �other.� Boas was one of the leading spokespersons for
racial and religious tolerance until his death in 1943; like Dewey (and
unlike most professional scholars) he devoted huge amounts of time and
44 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
energy to public writing, radio interviews, advising popular movements,
and so forth, on the need to respect cultural differences without assuming
the superiority of white. Western European mores � while at the same
time tirelessly campaigning against racism, sexism, culturally imposed
inequality, imperialistic warfare, and many other �progressive� issues;
he worked extensively with Dewey and others on these matters. Boas in
fact died at a luncheon he was helping to sponsor to support Paul Rivet
and the French Resistance.
I once asked Boas�s daughter Franziska about the possible conflict
between her father�s relativism and his political activism. She replied, in
essence, that her father taught his students what he taught his family: not
to judge people harshly because they differ from your culture, but to
defend human dignity and oppose suffering � by taking the lead in your
own society, showing that doing �right� does not get defined as just doing
things the way �normal, middle-class Europeans do them,� one gains the
authority to criticize harmful cultural practices in other cultures as well.
Cultural relativism is such a cornerstone of the skeptical, humanistic
movement that I do not like to see it portrayed otherwise. It certainly has
its problems, and at worst it can be used by a Jerry Falwell to slander any
form of respect for other peoples� beliefs, but that certainly was not Boas�s
approach or goal. It was not the �moral relativism� Gardner implies.
Margaret Mead, did, in fact, say some oversimplified things in public
about the absoluteness of cultural relativism. I challenged her on this a
couple of times when I was in one of her classes and was not satisfied with
her �public,� pat answer, which seemed to imply that �all behaviors are
equal.� But this was not her view in serious conversation or in her long life
of work for specific goals, such as opposing war, sexism, and inequality.
Some � maybe a lot � of the critique of her book Coming of Age in
Samoa is accurate. Mead was indeed looking for evidence that there were
people a lot different from her own, happier with their sexuality, and
proof that �normal� was not limited to the supposed Victorian ideal. Boas
did send her in search of evidence to demonstrate that the Euro- American
middle class was not the only viable way of life, and she was undoubt-
edly too uncritical of informant information.
Without defending everything in Coming of Age in Samoa, in her last
years Mead and some of her allies in fact made some serious counterar-
guments. (Freeman�s complaints and others like them were in the wind
long before he published them.) Sadly, she confided possibly important
information to friends while maintaining that it was important not to
�stoop to reply.� The result, of course, leaves her reputation tarnished
probably more than it should be. At least one of her long-time assistants
told me of her frustration at living up to her promise not to �hit back.�
Margaret Mead�s Great Samoan Hoax 45
Gardner is correct that this was unscientific conduct, but silence is not
quite the same thing as agreement with charges or the inability to reply.
Incidentally, Gardner does not mention that one of the factors that led
anthropologists to defend Mead so strongly was Freeman�s seeming to
save his attack until after her death when he had been nursing it long
before. Also, there was resentment that he seemed to break the story sen-
sationalistically via press conferences and press releases with comments
along the lines of how his book was going to put an end to Mead�s repu-
tation once and for all. Many thought his success on the talk-show circuit
made his claims look less scientific (although Mead was a champion on
that route). Instead of �adding to an earlier ethnography,� or �revising� it,
or correcting errors (not everything in it was wrong), Freeman made it his
mission to destroy the reputation of the book�s recently deceased author.
In any case. I�m troubled to see this blanket denunciation of cultural
relativism. Boas and Mead and others have used the concept to advocate
tolerance of diversity without defending human suffering, which is, of
course, a widespread human norm.
John R. Cole is an anthropologist at the University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Theodore Schwartz
Such is my great respect for Martin Gardner, whom I identify with skep-
ticism, that I was grieved to see the lapse in his own skepticism in �The
Great Samoan Hoax.� The article shows what happens when skepticism
is applied to only one side of a polemic. I do not see evidence of close
critical reading of Derek Freeman�s (1983) book and certainly not of
Margaret Mead�s (1928; 1930) two books on Samoa. I wrote one of the
many reviews (Schwartz 1983) of the Freeman book (together with
Mead�s), striving to be objective and balanced (an aim that I thought
needed no apology in this journal). Mead�s second field trip was to
Manus, in what is now Papua New Guinea, a few years after her work in
Samoa. When she returned to Manus twenty-five years later (1953), I
worked with her as a field assistant while doing my own doctoral re-
search. I was neither her student nor an acolyte; we both agreed and dis-
agreed on many things, but I observed her work at firsthand and was able
to check her earlier work in Manus. I do not find it credible that she was
so mistaken or taken in as Freeman argues and Gardner swallows.
One could write Freeman�s book by negating every sentence in
Mead�s. I will not repeat here what I wrote in my review. There is much
more in her book than the tales of trysts to which Gardner refers, which
46 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
were to some degree institutionalized as a part of Samoan and Polynesian
culture. The idea that the anthropologists� informants (now correctly re-
ferred to as �associates� and �collaborators�) systematically lie to the
gullible anthropologist over an extended period is a story that I have
heard quite often, not just with respect to Mead. We are aware that peo-
ple often tell us what they think we are eager to hear, although of course
this doesn�t apply to Freeman and those who interviewed Mead�s infor-
mants fifty years later.
What we study disappears before our eyes over a few decades. I have
made a dozen field trips to Manus over the past forty years. There is much
that I was once told and can document that would now be denied, as peo-
ple construct a past suited to present beliefs and values. What is remark-
able is that some of pre- or early colonial native culture survives, although
often underground or under a deep reluctance to speak of past customs so
thoroughly condemned by Christian modernity. Freeman�s own book is
not without contradictory indications with respect to Samoan sexual
morality. Mead�s other book on Samoa, like her second book on Manus, is
a scholarly monograph on kinship and social organization. I am sure that
there are both errors and omissions, as there are in her Manus works. They
are nevertheless remarkable for the time in which they were done.
That Mead was highly intelligent, quick, perceptive, and phenome-
nally energetic cannot be taken from her. Gardner�s inclusion of mere
gossip, which followed her wherever she went, that she took native
lovers, that she danced bare-breasted, does him no credit. Freeman con-
vinces me that Mead gave a one-sided picture of Samoan culture and tem-
perament (as does he). She was partly mistaken. Having labored for
decades to prove this, it seems odd that Freeman could now offer, and
Gardner accept, the idea that she was the �hoaxee� rather than the
�hoaxer.� I believe that she was neither, but rather that she was partly in
error, biased by a wish to prove her point and dramatize it as was her
wont. So, for example, she failed to give a full account of Samoan aggres-
sivity. She discounted the Samoan cult of virginity. (I argue it is likely that
Freeman has done the opposite.)
As for the elementary discourse on human nature, spare us! Free-
man�s and Gardner�s �interactionism� is at a level that no sane person
denies � and when it gets more specific, as in some of the claims of socio-
biology, Freeman also balks. The �biology� that Boas (a person of tower-
ing stature in the founding of anthropology) combated was not that of a
generic biological substrate to human behavior and culture, but rather that
of racism and eugenics that would explain the differences among cultures
(and individuals) by biological difference. Freeman and Mead, were it not
for his quest to redeem the Samoan people from her depiction of a relaxed
Margaret Mead�s Great Samoan Hoax 47
sexuality, would fully agree in rejecting the idea that differences between
Samoan and American behavior and culture were biological.
Further, Boas and Mead believed that when any universalistic char-
acterization of human nature was offered, it was subject to what Mead
called the �yes, but the Eskimo . . test. The issue that Mead addressed
was not whether puberty was a universal biological event, but whether
adolescence inevitably had the characteristics of �storm and stress� attrib-
uted to it by psychologists like G. Stanley Hall. Puberty here is the near-
genotype; adolescence is phenotypic, what particular cultures make of
puberty. Even if Mead were wrong about Samoa, the point is solidly
established by many other studies in Polynesia and elsewhere that the
concomitants of puberty are variable, that cultures run the gamut from
sexual permissiveness to repressiveness, as has our own Amer-European
culture in different subcultures and historical periods. The only biological
determinism that this would offend would be a straw man as phony as the
cultural determinism that Freeman and, alas, Gardner choose to engage.
Any sensible formulation of cultural relativism and cultural deter-
minism would see it for what it then was, a well-founded antidote to
racism and ethnocentrism. Gardner suggests that the values by which we
condemn genocide or infanticide must be grounded in the biological base
of human nature. I would suggest that these values are emergent, and as
yet incompletely so, from cultural evolution.
REFERENCES
Freeman, Derek. 1983. Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking
of an Anthropological Myth. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Mead, Margaret. 1928. Coming of Age in Samoa: A Psychological Study of Prim-
itive Youth for Western Civilization. New York: William Morrow.
_. 1969 (orig. 1930). Social Organization in Manu�a. Honolulu: Bishop
Museum.
Schwartz, Theodore. 1983. �Anthropology: A Quaint Science.� American An-
thropologist 85, no. 4 (December): 919-29.
Theodore Schwartz is a professor of anthropology at the University of
California at San Diego, LaJolla.
Frank Lee Earley
I greatly appreciated Martin Gardner�s article. As Karl Popper said, �The
habit of calling its own findings into question and attempting to disprove
48 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
them is the core of scientific work.� From that perspective, Gardner has done
notable service on the Margaret Mead issue and on many previous occasions.
There is, however, one troublesome aspect of the article: Gardner�s
treatment of cultural relativity. He takes the most extreme possible view
in citing Boas (�there were no universal human values�), erroneously
equates that position with cultural determinism, and then implies that
anthropology adopted the whole package.
In fact, the anthropological approach to cultural relativity is quite dif-
ferent. Cultural relativity begins with the recognition that there are many
ways of solving human problems; and it is the task of anthropology to
research and understand all of them. If the task is to understand, then
adopting a priori judgments about what is good or bad becomes an imped-
iment to the study. We can understand any cultural behavior only if we
find the assumptions on which it is based. If an American anthropologist
begins a study by expecting that the target population ought to behave
like Americans, and that other behaviors are bad, savage, primitive, child-
like, or ignorant, then what chance would the researcher have of learning
why Aztecs sacrificed their best warriors or why Americans ask their best
athletes to maim themselves in football games?
From the understanding about cultural assumptions and the systems
of logic that drive human behavior, anthropologists can define not only
the limits of human behavior (the cultural universals specified by Franz
Boas, Clark Wissler, and others in the 1930s and since), but the beneficial
or harmful consequences that stem from various systems or elements of
culture. From these definitions and insights comes the large, growing, and
very useful practice of applied anthropology.
Applied anthropology, as Gardner is probably aware, is one of only a
few disciplines that attempt to make improvements in the human condition
by blending academic research and practical application of social knowl-
edge. The Society for Applied Anthropology (SAA) in 1948 adopted an
elaborate and very useful statement on ethics. The ethics statement has
been revised several times since then and has never assumed, as Gardner
blithely asserts, that there are no universal values. The statement deals
specifically with the anthropologist�s obligations to science, to human
dignity and rights, and to the communication of knowledge and research.
This ethical and universalist approach to cultural studies, and the very
vigorous debate in anthropology over the Mead-Freeman controversy,
indicates that Gardner has misunderstood the anthropological use of cul-
tural relativity.
Frank Lee Earley is an anthropologist and Social Science Department
Chair at Arapahoe Community College, Littleton, Colorado.
Margaret Mead�s Great Samoan Hoax 49
Martin Gardner Responds
Several times John Cole faults Freeman for publishing his book on Mead
after she died. This seems unfair. Holding the book until after her death
was an act of kindness. Had he published it earlier. Mead admirers would
have accused him of bashing a sick, elderly woman, perhaps contributing
to her demise.
Rather than continue to defend Freeman, or to repeat criticisms of
Mead I have made elsewhere (especially in my book The New Age, where
I focus on her lifelong beliefs in psychic phenomena and her late in life
conviction that we are being observed by aliens in flying saucers), let me
try to erase some ambiguity about the term �cultural relativism.�
Terms with a strong meaning at one time often grow weak over the
years. If cultural relativism is taken today to mean only that cultures vary
enormously and that one must not judge an alien culture by the standards
of one�s own, then of course everyone should be a cultural relativist. How-
ever, when young Mead wrote about Samoa, the term had a more contro-
versial, philosophical meaning. It denied the existence of �cultural univer-
sals� � metabiological needs that were common to humans everywhere.
In his essay �What Is Human Nature?� the Polish anthropologist Bro-
nislaw Kaspar Malinowski answered by defining it as a set of such needs
as breathing, eating, drinking, sex, rest, activity, sleep, micturition, defeca-
tion, escape from danger, and avoidance of pain. As I pointed out in an early
essay �Beyond Cultural Relativism� (reprinted in my Order and Surprise ),
the amusing thing about this list is that it gives human nature to a cow.
It was an easy step from such a narrow concept of human nature to the
notion that the task of cultural anthropology is not to decide what is good
or bad about cultures, but merely to study their multifarious patterns. In
actual practice, however, cultural relativists constantly issued value judg-
ments that crossed cultural boundaries. Boas and Dewey were indeed
friends who shared lofty ideals about tolerance, democracy, and world
progress, but these ideals rested on different philosophical foundations.
Consider racism, such an integral part of our Southern culture. When Boas
attacked it, on what podium did he stand? Pinned down, he would have
been forced to say that his opinions and actions emerged from his own cul-
tural background, not from values that could be defended objectively.
Melville Herskovits once defined cultural relativism as �a philosophy
which, in recognizing the values set up by every society to guide its own
life, lays stress on the dignity inherent in every body of custom and on the
need for tolerance.� Admirable words, but as one reviewer commented,
dignity and tolerance are not accepted values even in American culture.
Similar contradictions can be found in the writings of dozens of
50 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
anthropologists of Boas�s day. Ruth Benedict�s Patterns of Culture, for
instance, includes a vitriolic attack on the mores of American business
tycoons. She considered them worse than hardened criminals. True, their
behavior is the product of a business subculture, but it never occurred to
Benedict that her attack ran counter to her book�s main theme.
When Clyde Kluckholn attacked cultural relativism in his paper �Eth-
ical Relativism: Sic Et Non,� he was roundly chastised by colleagues.
There are, he said, common human needs and motives �so deep and so
generic that they are beyond the reach of argument.� Calling attention, he
continued, to the diversity of cultural behavior is an excellent way to
combat ethnocentrism, but the more important task now for cultural
anthropology is to search for common elements within the diversity � ele-
ments that can become the basis of a worldwide naturalistic ethics.
This was Dewey�s view. It is Karl Popper�s view. I suspect it is the
view of all three letter writers. If so, it would be a clearer use of language
if they would stop redefining cultural relativism and instead recognize it
as an extreme philosophical view that long ago had its day.
After writing the above, a reader called my attention to page 412 of Jane
Howard�s Margaret Mead: A Life (1984). Mead claimed that wherever she
went to do field work she was always accompanied by two �spirit guides.�
The sad fact is that Mead was enormously gullible, with very little com-
prehension of how to conduct controlled investigations of an alien culture.
In April 1996 a play titled Heretic, by Australia�s leading dramatist
David Williamson, opened at the Sydney Opera House to an enthusiastic
sell-out crowd. Based on Freeman�s critique of Mead, the play purports
to be an LSD dream inside Freeman�s head. Mead appears on stage dis-
guised at times as Marilyn Monroe, Jackie Onassis, and Barbra Streisand.
Boas wears a pink suit, red bowtie, and black cowboy boots.
Freeman�s 1983 book, retitled Franz Boas and the Flower of Heaven:
�Coming of Age in Samoa � and the Fateful Hoaxing of Margaret Mead,
was published down under. The 1996 edition is dedicated to Williamson.
For a review of the play, see �Fantasy Island,� by Peter Monaghan, in Lin-
gua Franca (July/August 1996, pp. 7-8).
The Debate, at Heart, Is About Evolution,� a recent paper by Free-
man defending his efforts to combat anthropology�s overemphasis on
environment, can be found in The Certainty of Doubt: Tributes to Peter
Munz, edited by M. Fairburn and W. H. Oliver (New Zealand: Victoria
University Press, 1996).
CHAPTER FIVE
E-PRIME: GETTING RID OF ISNESS
A man who shouts �Your house is on fire� may not be able to define
exactly what he means by your and house and is and on and fire, but he
might still be saying something quite important.
� J. B. Priestley
F rom time to time, individuals become smitten with a strong urge to
reform the English language. Improving spelling has been the most
popular impulse. George Bernard Shaw was a prominent champion of
such a cause. The philosopher-critic I. A. Richards developed Basic Eng-
lish, a simplified subset of English that he hoped would become a unify-
ing world language. Today�s writers and editors seek to replace mascu-
line-loaded words like mankind and chairman with gender-neutral words
like humanity and chairperson. The philosopher John Dewey wanted to
drop the word truth from philosophical discourse, substituting for it �war-
ranted assertability.�
In recent years, the most curious proposal for a subset of English has
come from the ranks of General Semantics, a movement started in the
United States some sixty years ago by the Polish-bom Count Alfred Hab-
dank Skarbek Korzybski. The new language is called �E-Prime.� Few
outside the movement were aware of it until Cullen Murphy wrote about
it in � �To Be� in Their Bonnets: A Matter of Semantics,� in the Febmary
1992 issue of the Atlantic Monthly. The article aroused a great surge of
interest among the magazine�s readers.
Count Korzybski was far from the first to be concerned with seman-
tics, the study of how signs, especially words, relate to things. An enor-
mous literature on the topic existed long before the Count even heard of
the term. Philosophers going back to Plato and Aristotle had, of course,
been much concerned with analyzing the meanings of words. The Ameri-
can philosopher Charles Peirce pioneered the modem study of signs, and
more recent philosophers, such as Charles Morris, Alfred Tarski, Rudolf
�Notes of a Fringe Watcher,� Skeptical Inquirer (Spring 1993).
51
52 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Camap, and W. V. Quine, wrote extensively about semantics. (See the long
article, �Semantics, History of,� in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)
However, it was Korzybski�s massive work Science and Sanity
(1933). and popularly written books by Stuart Chase and other enthusi-
asts, that brought the word semantics into public use. Let me expose my
bias at once by quoting what I said about Science and Sanity in my 1952
book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science:
It is a poorly organized, verbose, philosophically naive, repetitious
mish-mash of sound ideas borrowed from abler scientists and philoso-
phers, mixed with neologisms, confused ideas, unconscious meta-
physics, and highly dubious speculations about neurology and psychi-
atric therapy.
It was not that Korzybski said anything wrong about semantics but
that what he said was trivial. Everybody knows, to use one of Korzybski�s
best-known slogans, that �the map is not the territory.� Everybody knows,
to quote another slogan, that �the word is not the thing.�
Except in formal logic and mathematics, all words have fuzzy defin-
itions. Fuzzy logic, a flourishing new approach to formal logic, has been
designed to handle fuzzy sets. (See this book�s chapter 16.) Chairs fade
off in many directions, along continua, into things no one calls a chair. No
sharp lines divide day from night, tall from short, beautiful from ugly, or
the front of your head from the back of it. (Are your ears in front or in
back?) Moreover, everything changes in time. You are not the person you
were many years ago. The universe was once the size of a pinpoint.
Korzybski was down on Aristotelian logic for its emphasis on identity
in such syllogistic statements as �All men are mortal.� (�Men� obviously
includes women, but does it include our apelike ancestors?) To emphasize
nonidentity the Count distinguished between chair 1, chair 2, chair 3, et
cetera. This is called indexing. Changes in time are indicated by dating:
chair 1920, chair 1992, et cetera. �Et cetera� symbolizes the many, some-
times infinite, referents a noun can have. ETC. is the title of the general
semantics movement�s leading journal, a quarterly founded by the late (he
died in 1992) Samuel Ichiye Hay aka wa. He edited ETC. for twenty-six
years, before becoming a controversial Republican senator from Califor-
nia. Many introductions to general semantics have been written, but
Hayakawa�s Language in Action (1941) has been by far the most popular.
Science and Sanity, the 800-page bible of general semantics, was
published in 1933 by the Count himself. When I was a philosophy student
at the University of Chicago, I used to attend lectures at his Institute of
General Semantics. It was said that he chose the building for the Institute,
E-Prime: Getting Rid oflsness 53
Cover of the Summer 1992 ETC., showing forms of �to be� slashed out of
English. Note the symbolic bee at upper right.
1234 East Fifty-sixth Street, because its address had the first six digits in
numerical order. The Count was a stocky man who shaved his head and
liked to wear ar .ny-type clothing. He frequently interrupted his talks by
shouting, �Bah. I speak baby stuff.� A man of enormous ego, he fancied
himself one of the world�s greatest philosophers. Charles Morris told me
that when the university�s philosophy department sponsored a sympo-
sium on semantics, Korzybski was invited to speak. He refused because
he was not allowed to deliver the main address.
As the word general implies, Korzybski broadened the meaning of
semantics to include all the ways that living things interact with the out-
side world. The turning of a sunflower toward the sun is a �semantic reac-
tion.� A baby vomiting to get a second nursing, the Count wrote, is her
�semantic way of controlling �reality.� � The most debatable aspect of Sci-
ence and Sanity is its great emphasis on how learning to evaluate words
properly can raise one�s intelligence, increase one�s health and happiness,
and cure all sorts of neuroses, psychoses, and psychosomatic ills. Korzyb-
ski coined the word unsane for people who are not far enough gone to be
in mental institutions, but whose neurotic behavior springs from an inabil-
ity to distinguish their mental maps from the outside territory.
The Count strongly disliked the overuse of �is� and all other forms of
�to be.� Such words, he argued, are a primary source of semantic mis-
54
Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Count Korzybski as �General Semantics.�
chief. We naively assume that all apples are red, forgetting that some are
green and some are yellow. Race prejudice arises from such notions as
�all blacks are mentally inferior.� �Isness,� the Count declared, �is insan-
ity.� Incidentally, a vast philosophical literature preceding general seman-
tics deals with identity. A famous paper by George Santayana, first pub-
lished in 1915, is titled �Some Meanings of the Word Is.�
Almost all philosophers consider Science and Sanity a crankish work.
�It is my considered opinion that Science and Sanity has no merit what-
ever,� wrote the distinguished philosopher of science Ernest Nagel in a
letter to the New Republic (December 26, 1934), replying to readers who
objected to his earlier (October 24) hatchet review of the book.
Bertrand Russell was the modem philosopher Korzybski most
admired. The feeling was not mutual. In a letter to be found in Dear
Bertrand Russell (1969, p. 103), a collection of Russell�s correspondence,
he wrote: �I have never admired the work of Korzybski and I do not, in
any degree, endorse the supposed connection of Aristotelian logic with
mental illness.�
For the American philosopher W. V. Quine�s low opinion of the
Count, see his autobiography, The Time of My Life (1985, p. 140), where
he calls him �Wayward Waywode� (waywode is a Polish term for an army
general). In Quiddities (1989, p. 232), Quine chastises Korzybski for
E-Prime: Getting Rid of Isness 55
going to such absurd extremes in his attacks on identity � the Count wrote
in Science and Sanity (p. 194) that �1 = 1� is false because one 1 is on the
left, the other on the right. As Quine puts it, �He confused the ink spots
with the number, abstract and invisible.�
Alfred Tarski, the great Polish mathematician and logician, had this
to say about Korzybski in his classic paper �The Semantic Conception of
Truth� (1944):
It is perhaps worthwhile saying that semantics as it is conceived in this
paper (and in former papers of the author) is a sober and modest disci-
pline which has no pretensions of being a universal patent-medicine for
all the ills and diseases of mankind, whether imaginary or real. You will
not find in semantics any remedy for decayed teeth or illusions of
grandeur or class conflicts. Nor is semantics a device for establishing
that everyone except the speaker and his friends is speaking nonsense.
Note that when the Count said �Isness is insanity,� he used the word
�is.� Was this really necessary? He could have said, �Constant use of �is�
tends to damage one�s perception of reality.� Would it not be helpful,
therefore, to develop a subset of English in which all forms of �to be� �
is, are, am, was, were, been, et cetera � are verboten?
In the late 1940s, this thought occurred to general semanticist D.
David Bourland, Jr. He called such a purified language �E-Prime.� The
term comes from the formula E' = E - e, where E is ordinary English from
which e (all forms of �to be�) is subtracted. He first explained his pro-
posal in �Introduction to a Structural Calculus: A Postulational Statement
of Alfred Korzybski �s Non-Aristotelian Linguistic System� (i General
Semantics Bulletin, nos. 8 and 9, 1952). In the same journal (nos. 32 and
33, 1965/66), he followed with �A Linguistic Note: Writing in E-Prime.�
The idea of writing and speaking E-Prime caught on quickly among
a small group of dedicated Korzybskians. Papers written entirely in E-
Prime began to appear. E. W. Kellogg III, after many years of arduous
training, actually mastered the ability to talk fluently, without hesitations,
in E-Prime! He is on record as saying he even dreams in E-Prime, and that
learning to speak it greatly improved his mental and physical health.
Writing E-Prime is less difficult, though still not easy. Cullen Murphy
struggled so hard to put his Atlantic Monthly article into E-Prime that he
said it gave him a headache that lasted a week.
Korzybskians are now divided over E-Prime into three factions. Purists
insist that the language is of little value unless all forms of �to be� are
excised. Moderate E-Primers object to total exclusion. They prefer a lan-
guage called E-Choice (after a grade of meat), in which �to be� forms are
56 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
used sparingly. Anti-E-Primers grant that learning to write or speak E-Prime
may be a useful teaching device to impress on students the need for careful
thinking about words, but that E-Prime should not be used otherwise.
Literature arguing the merits and demerits of E-Prime is growing in
the books and journals of general semantics. An anthology defending E-
Prime, To Be or Not, was published by the International Society for Gen-
eral Semantics in 1991. The book�s back cover crisply summarizes the
volume�s content:
Some of the benefits: lively, concise writing and speaking; clearer, more
critical thinking; better communication, evaluation, and decision making.
In E-Prime, you can�t say �lam,� and this results in a different and health-
ier way of evaluating yourself and others. The use of E-Prime can trans-
form how you relate to the world and to yourself � for the better! Try it.
The entire Summer 1992 issue of ETC. was devoted to the E-Prime
controversy, with twenty-one papers for or against the language. It is
filled with examples of how to translate common speech into E-Prime. If
a stranger asks, �What�s your name?� you can�t answer, �My name is
John Smith.� You must say something like �People call me John Smith.�
If a child points to something red and asks, �What color is this?� you
should reply, �I call it red,� or �Everyone calls it red.� You must not tell
a child, �That animal you see over there is an elephant.� In E-Prime you
say, �People call that animal an elephant.� To be more precise you should
say, �People who speak English call that animal you see an elephant.�
Note that even this sentence implies that the object seen is an animal, but
getting rid of all implied forms of �to be� is impossible.
Was Keats a greater poet than Eddie Guest? You can�t say �he was�
in E-Prime. The correct statement is: �I consider Keats a greater poet than
Eddie Guest.� This implies that Keats and Guest were poets, but we let
that pass. Is it raining? Your correct reply is: �I see rain falling.� Is Bill
Clinton president of the United States? Your E-Prime answer: �American
voters have elected him president.� You can�t just say �Yes,� because that
endorses the identity in the question. Even Korzybski�s famous statement
that the map is not the territory violates E-Prime. Correctly rephrased it
says, �The map and the territory do not share identical properties.�
Although it is possible to eliminate from English all explicit forms of
�to be,� is it worth all the trouble? Critics of E-Prime, many within the
ranks of general semantics, point out that it takes months, sometimes
years, to master the art of writing and speaking E-Prime. It is quixotic to
expect anyone outside the ranks to go to all this trouble. If we did not con-
stantly use fuzzy words we couldn�t talk at all. The fact that no two cows
E-Prime: Getting Rid oflsness 57
are alike doesn�t make the word cow useless in such sentences as �All
cows have udders.� If you want to tell a neighbor his house is on fire, you
don�t stop to think that your, house, fire, on, and is lack precise defini-
tions. Even if you warned him in E-Prime by saying, �I see flames on
your roof,� you are using fuzzy words.
Critics also remind enthusiastic E-Primers that there is no empirical
evidence that persons who speak the language have become healthier or
happier or have learned to think more clearly. As one contributor to the
E-Prime issue of ETC. said, the language seems so preposterous to out-
siders that stressing it may be bad public relations. It suggests to outsiders
that general semantics is an eccentric cult.
Translating ordinary language into E-Prime may well be good train-
ing for someone just learning the kindergarten levels of semantics, but it
strikes me as almost as useless an exercise as translating English into
words that avoid the letter E. Because E is the alphabet�s most common
letter, it is not easy to write good English without using it. Nevertheless,
entire novels without the letter E have been published. The best specimen
in English is Gadsby, by Ernest Vincent Wright, printed by the author in
Los Angeles in 1939. Wright said he had to tie down his typewriter�s E-
bar to keep him from typing an E. In 1969 the famous French novelist
Georges Perec published La Disparition (The Disappearance), a novel in
which E had totally disappeared. It is said that some French critics praised
the novel without realizing a letter was missing. Here we have a different
kind of E-Prime, E (English) from which e is subtracted. The language
might even have some slight value in impressing on students of cryptog-
raphy how much E is overused in English and French spelling.
Korzybskians have written poetry in E-Prime. If their enthusiasm for
it continues, I wouldn�t be surprised if someone wrote a novel in E- Prime.
In 1993 E. W. Kellogg hoped to publish a workbook for high school Eng-
lish classes that would be written in E-Prime. I considered composing this
column in E-Prime, but when a headache developed after the first few
paragraphs, I gave it up and went back to common English.
ADDENDUM
My column on E-Prime provoked the following letters, all printed in the
Skeptical Inquirer (Fall 1993):
When Shirley Temple, after a magnificent career as a child star followed
by a graceful adolescence, married and gave birth to a daughter, the
New York Daily News headline read: �Now Shirley Has a Real Live
58 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Dolly All Her Own.� From which I concluded that Shirley Temple had
grown up, but the headline writer hadn�t.
I got somewhat the same feeling when I read Martin Gardner�s
1952 animadversions on general-semantics (g-s), which he injected into
his piece on E-Prime, English without the verb �to be� (SI, Spring
1993). The discipline founded by Alfred Korzybski in 1933 continues to
grow and develop, but Gardner seems stuck in the time-track.
I appreciate that Gardner does recognize clearly that E-Prime is not
a necessary practice of general-semanticists, whose reactions may be
enthusiasm, indifference, or to use it just as a training device. But those
differences are hardly likely to result in the �bloody reprisals� feared by
Cullen Murphy; general-semantics finds no virtue in enforcing dogmas.
Instead, with its basic notions of consciousness of abstracting, and of
the uncertainty and incompleteness of all statements, it encourages
good-humored striving for agreement. Small wonder philosophers who
want �The Truth� to stand still until they can engrave it in stone find g-s
�crankish.�
G-s had numerous successful offshoots, like Gerard Nierenberg�s
Art of Negotiation, or Albert Ellis�s Rational-Emotive Therapy (Ellis
even translated some of his books into E-Prime), or the many researches
listed in Kenneth Johnson�s compilation Graduate Research in General
Semantics.
But what might interest Gardner are our resolutions of semantical
paradoxes that have plagued philosopher-mathematicians most of this
century. James D. French and I have demolished four famous ones:
Frege�s �Village Barber�; Berry�s Paradox; Russell�s �Class of Non-
self-including Classes�; and Grelling�s �Heterological Terms.�
Stuart A. Mayper, Editor, General Semantics Bulletin,
Ridgefield, Conn.
As a director of the International Society for General Semantics, I have
some comments on Martin Gardner�s essay on Alfred Korzybski.
Gardner quotes Bertrand Russell�s negative reactions to Korzyb-
ski �s work; but early in the 1930s, Russell sent the following cable to
Korzybski from London: �Your work is impressive and your erudition
extraordinary. Have not had time for thorough reading but think well of
parts read. Undoubtedly your theories demand serious consideration.�
That telegram is cited in Science and Sanity, in the back of the
book, along with seven pages of strongly favorable quotations from
twenty-one other men of great attainment, representing fifteen different
fields.
Russell Meyers, chief of neurology and chairman of the Division of
Neurosurgery at the University of Iowa, 1946-1963, once described
Science and Sanity as �the most profound, insightful, and globally sig-
nificant book I have ever read.� I would infer from that statement that
E-Prime: Getting Rid oflsness
59
Meyers, who also held academic positions in psychology, neuropsy-
chology, and speech pathology, found nothing too terribly amiss with
Korzybski�s extensive discussions of the nervous system, conditional
reactions, and mental illness.
Gardner reports that Korzybski said �1 = 1� is false, on page 194
of his book. Of course, Korzybski said nothing of the sort, on page 194
or anywhere else. We know that he accepted mathematical statements of
equality as true, because he described them as being �always correct in
mathematics� (p. 195).
With regard to the symbolic expression �1 = 1� Korzybski denied
absolute sameness in all aspects (identity). He did not discuss 1 as a
number (which was W. V. Quine�s mistaken interpretation), but as a
symbol. Every symbol has its physical aspect. Even internal words are
the result of electrochemical reactions in the brain. Hence, �not identi-
cal in all aspects.�
James D. French, Albany, Calif.
The dogmatism, name-calling, inaccurate quotes, repetition of rumors,
insulting and misrepresentative cartooning, etc., in Gardner�s �E-Prime
and Isness� hardly serve the skeptical cause. Gardner�s �map� only
vaguely resembles the �territory� of general-semantics.
While indicating some of the controversy within the general-
semantics community surrounding E-Prime, which eliminates all forms
of the verb �to be,� Gardner absolutistically rejects any significant use-
fulness for E-Prime, or for general-semantics for that matter.
Neither Korzybski nor all general-semanticists have suggested
eliminating all uses of the verb �to be.� However, Korzybski�s applied
neurolinguistic focus and denial of identity (defined as � �absolute
sameness� in �all� aspects�) does lead to, among other things, an empha-
sis on avoiding the � �is� of identity,� which connects a noun to a noun,
and the � �is� of predication,� which connects a noun to an adjective.
Someone may say, �General semantics is a cult� or �General
semanticists are eccentric.� Such statements may reflect an absolutistic
and dogmatic way of evaluating, which, through neurolinguistic mech-
anisms, may tend to reinforce such dogmatism in oneself and others.
If anything, the development of E-Prime and the debate surround-
ing it indicate that general semantics remains a growing and healthily
diverse discipline that has much to contribute to the development of a
nonabsolutistic, nondogmatic skepticism.
Bruce I. Kodish, Baltimore, Md.
Martin Gardner�s forty-year-long antipathy for Alfred Korzybski and
general semantics flared up again in his �E-Prime: Getting Rid of
Isness.� From the title, one might think the article was about E-Prime,
the use of English without any form of �to be.� But most of it consists
60 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
of a rehash of tired old stories about Korzybski�s eccentricities and ego-
tism, and putdowns of him from various old sources. None of this had
much to do with E-Prime, which others developed long after Korzyb-
ski�s death. The article devoted only a few paragraphs to a rather thin
critique of E-Prime.
As near as I can understand it, Gardner�s main (if not only) point is
that he feels the benefits of E-Prime are not worth the alleged trouble of
using that language.
However:
1. Albert Ellis, the founder/guru of Rational Emotive Therapy, has
written his books in E-Prime, and considers E-Prime important in that
system of therapy.
2. An increasing number of teachers of English composition are
having their students write in E-Prime, to help them develop greater
accuracy, clarity, and readability.
The Skeptical Inquirer does a fine job challenging and exposing the
illogical, the irrational, and the unreasonable. But I think you�ve chosen
an inappropriate target here.
Robert Wanderer, San Francisco, Calif.
Thank you for Martin Gardner�s article on E- Prime.
I began teaching in 1961, and � together with a colleague, Fred
Smith � was told to emphasize critical thinking. How to proceed?
We began by using Chase�s Guides to Straight Thinking (1954). We
were careful about generalizations made. We tried to avoid words like
always and never, which allow for no exceptions. We made efforts to
complete comparisons (�Bigger than what?�) and discussed impres-
sions given. On writing projects students used words in dictionary ways
and tried to avoid �self-evident truths.� We developed an awareness of
�Black/White Thinking� and singular causations.
The focus continues. We emphasize distinctions between com-
monly agreed-upon �facts� and the values and interpretations loaded
onto these facts. On term projects each student �focuses on a perceived
social injustice� and selects an �expert in the area.� Then each: (1) sum-
marizes the expert�s facts, (2) summarizes his or her prescriptions, and
(3) judges reliability by analyzing credentials and logic.
Gardner says that �translating ordinary language into E-Prime may
well be good training for someone just learning the kindergarten level
of semantics.� In high school, we are on the �kindergarten level of
semantics�! I don�t tell students to get rid of �isness� or to write in �E-
Prime,� but apparently 1 have been influenced by Korzybski�s ideas. As
used in the ways described, understandings derived from general
semantics have been one of the continuing bright spots in my teaching
career.
Martin Gardner says: �I wouldn�t be surprised if someone wrote a novel
in E-Prime.� And, in fact, someone has, at least in part. Veteran science-
fiction readers will be familiar with the name of Alfred Elton van Vogt,
author of such novels as The Weapon Shops of Isher and Sian, and the
short story �Black Destroyer,� which owed a great debt to John Camp-
bell�s �Who Goes There?�
In late December 1971, van Vogt received a phone call from a
senior editor of Saturday Review � The Sciences asking him for an arti-
cle on general semantics. Van Vogt wrote the article, titled �The Seman-
tics of Twenty-First Century Science,� but policy changes within the
Saturday Review organization made its publication impossible. It even-
tually appeared in an anthology called The Best of A. E. van Vogt, pub-
lished in 1976 by Pocket Books. In the introduction to the article, van
Vogt wrote: �What does this [general semantics] have to do with real-
ity? General semantics is a systematic approach to reality, that�s what.�
In the article�s afterword, van Vogt concludes: �But we may cer-
tainly deduce from the foregoing arguments that reality is not yet avail-
able in literature except intuitively, and then only in the works of a few
geniuses.� Link this statement to the article�s third paragraph, where
van Vogt writes: �Some years ago I wrote two science-fiction novels.
The World ofNull-A and The Players ofNull-A, in which, in thousands
and thousands of paragraphs, I employed the various GS recommended
usages for rectifying what might be called the shortcomings of English.
_. . . For my second semantics-oriented novel, The Players of Null-A, I
wrote a twenty-two-paragraph explanation of GS, and used one para-
graph as the heading of each chapter. The summation took three weeks
to do. When it was out of the way, I had essentially completed my eight-
year study of general semantics.�
Andrew Dagilis, Verdun, Quebec, Canada
I�d like to point out that there is an entire language that doesn�t use the
verb �to be�: the Klingon tongue created for the Star Trek movies and
television series. This feature later caused its inventor headaches when
he was asked to translate Hamlet�s �To be or not to be� for Star Trek VI:
The Undiscovered Country.
Klingon may be a fictitious tongue, but it has its own dictionary and
I�ve met people at science-fiction conventions who speak it for fun.
[See this book�s chapter 15.]
Zen Faulkes, Department of Biology,
University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C., Canada
Aha! I thought so! It wasn�t I. A. Richards who devised Basic English,
but C. K. Ogden.
John Brunner, South Petherton, Somerset, U.K.
62 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Martin Gardner Responds
Bertrand Russell�s polite thank-you note was written before he carefully
read Science and Sanity. The statement I quoted was his considered opin-
ion, as well as the opinion of all other leading philosophers of science.
Readers are urged to check the final chapter of Max Black�s Lan-
guage and Philosophy. The Count�s misunderstandings of Aristotelian
logic, Black writes, led him into countless absurdities. �Very little
remains of Korzybski�s theory of abstractions except some hypothetical
neurology fortified with dogmatic metaphysics.� Ernest Nagel, reviewing
Black�s book, said: �Black�s restrained but nonetheless devastating cri-
tique of the basic ideas on which Korzybski rests his pretentious claim is
alone worth the price of the book.� For Rudolf Carnap�s low opinion of
the Count, see the index of Dear Carnap, Dear Van (1990), a collection
of letters between Carnap and Quine.
The eminent semiotician Thomas Sebeok found my column amusing
and accurate. Like me, he attended the Count�s lectures in Chicago, find-
ing him �arrogant and unpleasant.� He recalls the enormous ill feelings
that arose between the Count and Hayakawa before the Count�s Japanese
disciple founded ETC.
I did not say Richards �invented� Basic English. I said he �devel-
oped� it, albeit an ambiguous verb easily misinterpreted. Ogden was
indeed the inventor, but for forty years Richards was its chief developer
and promoter. Basic�s famous list of 850 words was the collaborated
effort of the two friends.
Yes, Van Vogt was fascinated by general semantics. He was even
more fascinated by Scientology, actually working for years as one of its
therapists. I didn�t know about the Klingon tongue, which proves I�m not
a Trekkie.
* *
*
Interest in E-Prime seems not to have diminished among Korzybskians.
A second anthology, More E-Prime: To Be or Not II, was published in
1994, edited by Paul Dennithome Johnston, David Bourland, Jr., and
Jeremy Klein. Albert Ellis, psychiatrist, wrote the Foreword. �This vol-
ume,� so reads an ad, �offers the inquisitive reader unique vistas of a fas-
cinating linguistic territory, whose exploration has just begun.�
RMT: REPRESSED MEMORY THERAPY
I n March 1992, a group of distinguished psychologists and psychiatrists
banded together to form the False Memory Syndrome (FMS) Founda-
tion. The organization is headquartered in Philadelphia under the direc-
tion of educator Pamela Freyd. Its purpose: to combat a fast-growing epi-
demic of dubious therapy that is ripping thousands of families apart, scar-
ring patients for life, and breaking the hearts of innocent parents and other
relatives. It is, in fact, the mental-health crisis of the 1990s.
The tragic story begins with Freud. Early in his career, when he made
extensive use of hypnotism, Freud was amazed by the number of mes-
merized women who dredged up childhood memories of being raped by
their fathers. It was years before he became convinced that most of these
women were fantasizing. Other analysts and psychiatrists agreed. For
more than half a century the extent of incestuous child abuse was mini-
mized. Not until about 1980 did the pendulum start to swing the other
way as more solid evidence of child sexual abuse began to surface. There
is now no longer any doubt that such incest is much more prevalent than
the older Freud or the general public realized.
Then in the late 1980s a bizarre therapeutic fad began to emerge in
the United States. Hundreds of poorly trained therapists, calling them-
selves �traumatists,� began to practice the very techniques Freud had dis-
carded. All over the land they are putting patients under hypnosis, or
using other techniques, to subtly prod them into recalling childhood sex-
ual traumas, memories of which presumably have been totally obliterated
for decades. Decades Delayed Disclosure, or DDD, it has been called.
Eighty percent of the patients who are claimed to experience DDD are
women from twenty-five to forty-five years old. Sixty percent of their
parents are college graduates, 25 percent with advanced degrees. More
than 80 percent of their parents are married to their first spouse.
Here is a typical scenario. A woman in her thirties seeks therapy for
symptoms ranging from mild depression, anxiety, headaches, or the
�Notes of a Fringe Watcher,� Skeptical Inquirer (Summer 1993).
63
64 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
inability to lose weight, to more severe symptoms like anorexia. Her ther-
apist, having succumbed to the latest mental-health fad, decides almost at
once that the symptoms are caused by repressed memories of childhood
abuse. Profoundly shocked by this suggestion, the woman vigorously
denies that such a thing could be possible. The stronger her denial, the
more the therapist believes she is repressing painful memories.
The patient may be hypnotized, or given sodium amytal, or placed
into a relaxed, trancelike state. Convinced that a childhood trauma is at
the root of the patient�s ills, the therapist repeatedly urges the woman to
try to remember the trauma. If she is highly suggestible and eager to
please the therapist, she begins to respond to leading questions and to less
obvious signs of the therapist�s expectations.
After months, or even years, images begin to form in the patient�s
mind. Shadowy figures threaten her sexually. Under continual urging,
these memories grow more vivid. She begins to recognize the molester as
her father, or grandfather, or uncle. The more detailed the visions, the
more convinced both she and the therapist become that the terrible truth
is finally being brought to consciousness. To better-trained psychiatrists,
these details indicate just the opposite. Childhood memories are notori-
ously vague. Recalling minute details is a strong sign of fantasizing.
As the false memories become more convincing, the patient�s anger
toward a once-loved relative grows. The therapist urges her to vent this
rage, to confront the perpetrator, even to sue for psychic damage. Stunned
by their daughter�s accusations, the parents vigorously deny everything.
Of course they will deny it, says the therapist, perhaps even suppress their
own memories of what happened. The family is devastated. A loving
daughter has inexplicably been transformed into a bitter enemy. She may
join an �incest survivor� group, where her beliefs are reinforced by hear-
ing similar tales. She may wear a sweatshirt saying, �I survived.�
No one doubts that childhood sexual assaults occur, but in almost
every case the event is never forgotten. Indeed, it festers as a lifelong
source of shame and anger. Studies show that among children who wit-
nessed the murder of a parent, not a single one repressed the terrible mem-
ory. Not only do victims of child incest not repress such painful memories
(to repress a memory means to completely forget the experience without
any conscious effort to do so); they try unsuccessfully to forget them. That
traumas experienced as a child can be totally forgotten for decades is the
great mental-health myth of our time � a myth that is not only devastating
innocent families but doing enormous damage to psychiatry.
In the past, when juries found a parent guilty of child incest, there has
been corroborating evidence: photos, diaries, letters, testimony by others, a
history of sexual misconduct, or even open admission of guilt. Juries today
RMT: Repressed Memory Therapy 65
are increasingly more often judging a parent guilty without any confirming
evidence other than the therapy-induced memories of the �victim.�
Patients as well as their families can be scarred for life. They are led
to believe that bringing suppressed memories to light will banish their
symptoms. On the contrary, the symptoms usually get worse because of
traumatic breaks with loved ones. Moreover, this treatment can also cause
a patient to refuse needed therapy from psychiatrists who have not fallen
prey to the FMS epidemic. Pamela Freyd has likened the traumatists to
surgeons doing brain surgery with a knife and fork. Others see the epi-
demic as similar in many ways to the great witch-hunts of the past, when
disturbed women were made to believe they were in Satan�s grip. The
Devil has been replaced by the evil parent.
FMS takes many forms other than parental sexual abuse. Thousands
of victims are being induced by traumatists to recall childhood participa-
tion in satanic cults that murder babies, eat their flesh, and practice even
more revolting rituals. Although there is widespread fascination with the
occult, and an amusing upsurge in the number of persons who fancy
themselves benevolent witches or warlocks, police have yet to uncover
any compelling evidence that satanic cults exist. Yet under hypnosis and
soporific drugs, memories of witnessing such rituals can become as vivid
as memories of sexual abuse.
Thousands of other patients, highly suggestible while half asleep, are
now �remembering� how they were abducted, and sometimes sexually
abused, by aliens in spaceships from faraway planets. Every year or so
victims of this form of FMS (assuming they are not charlatans) will write
persuasive books about their adventures with extraterrestrials. The books
will be heavily advertised and promoted on talk shows, and millions of
dollars will flow into the pockets of the authors and the books� uncaring
publishers. Still another popular form of FMS, sparked by the New Age
obsession with reincarnation, is the recovering of memories of past lives.
Pop-psychology books touting the myth that memories of childhood
molestations can be suppressed for decades are becoming as plentiful as
books about reincarnation, satanic cults, and flying saucers. Far and away
the worst offender is a best-seller titled Courage to Heal (Harper & Row,
1988), by Ellen Bass and Laura Davis. Although neither author has had
any training in psychiatry, the book has become a bible for women con-
vinced they are incest survivors. Davis thinks she herself is a survivor,
having recalled under therapy being attacked by her grandfather. A survey
of several hundred accused parents revealed that in almost every case
their daughters had been strongly influenced by Courage to Heal. (See
box for some of the book�s more outrageous passages.)
From the growing literature of FMS cases I cite a few typical horrors.
66 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Passages from Courage to Heal, the �Bible� of Incest Survivors
�You may think you don�t have memories, but often as you begin to talk
about what you do remember, there emerges a constellation of feelings,
reactions, and recollections that add up to substantial information. To say,
�I was abused,� you don�t need the kind of recall that would stand up in a
court of law. Often the knowledge that you were abused starts with a tiny
feeling, an intuition. . . . Assume your feelings are valid. ... If you think
you were abused and your life shows the symptoms, then you were.�
�If you don�t remember your abuse you are not alone. Many women don�t
have memories, and some never get memories. This doesn�t mean they
weren�t abused.�
�If you maintained the fantasy that your childhood was �happy,� then you
have to grieve for the childhood you thought you had You must give
up the idea that your parents had your best interest at heart If you have
any loving feelings toward your abuser, you must reconcile that love with
the fact that he abused you. . . . You may have to grieve over the fact that
you don�t have an extended family for your children, that you�ll never
receive an inheritance, that you don�t have family roots.�
�If your memories of the abuse are still fuzzy, it is important to realize that
you may be grilled for details Of course such demands for proof are
unreasonable. You are not responsible for proving that you were abused.�
�If you�re willing to get angry and the anger just doesn�t seem to come,
there are many ways to get in touch with it. A little like priming the pump,
you can do things that will get your anger started. Then once you get the
hang of it, it�ll begin to flow on its own.�
�You may dream of murder or castration. It can be pleasurable to fantasize
such scenes in vivid detail Let yourself imagine it to your heart�s con-
tent.�
A twenty-eight-year-old woman accuses her father of molesting her when
she was six months old. �I recall my father put his penis near my face and
rubbed it on my face and mouth.� There is not the slightest evidence that
a child of six months can acquire lasting memories of any event.
Betsy Petersen, in Dancing with Daddy (Bantam, 1991), tells of
being convinced by her therapist that she had been raped by her father
when she was three. �I don�t know if I made it up or not,� she told the
therapist. �It feels like a story,� he replied, �because when something like
that happens, everyone acts like it didn�t.�
RMT: Repressed Memory Therapy 67
In 1986 Patti Barton sued her father for sexually abusing her when
she was seven to fifteen months old. She did not remember this until her
thirty-second therapy session. She recalls trying to tell her mother what
happened by saying, �Ma, ma, ma, ma!� and �Da, da, da, da!�
Geraldo Rivera, in 1991, had three trauma survivors on his television
show. One woman insisted she had murdered forty children while she was
in a satanic cult but had totally forgotten about it until her memories were
aroused in therapy. Well-known entertainers have boosted the FMS epi-
demic by openly discussing their traumas on similar sensational talk shows.
Comedienne Roseanne recently learned for the first time, while in therapy,
that she had been repeatedly molested by her parents, starting when she was
three months old! Her story made the cover of People magazine. Her par-
ents and sisters deny it and have threatened legal action. A former Miss
America, Marilyn Van Derbur, has been in the news proclaiming her
decades-delayed recollection of abuse by her father, now deceased.
It is an alarming trend that a dozen states have revised their statute-
of-limitations laws and now permit legal action against parents within
three years of the time the abuse was remembered ! In 1990 the first con-
viction based on �repressed memory� occurred. George Franklin was
given a life sentence for murdering an eight-year-old in 1969 almost
entirely on the basis of his daughter�s memory, allegedly repressed for
twenty years, of having witnessed his murdering her friend.* A year later
a Pennsylvania man was convicted of murder on the basis of a man�s
detailed account of what he had seen when he was five, but had totally
forgotten for sixteen years.
Although therapists usually deny asking leading questions, tapes of
their sessions often prove otherwise. If no memories surface they will
prod a patient to make up a story. After many repetitions and elaborations
of the invented scenario, the patient starts to believe the story is true. One
therapist, who claims to have treated fifteen hundred incest victims,
explained her approach. She would say to a patient: �You know, in my
experience, a lot of people who are struggling with many of the same
problems you are have often had some kind of really painful things hap-
pen to them as kids � maybe they were beaten or molested. And I wonder
if anything like that ever happened to you?� Another traumatist says:
�You sound to me like the sort of person who must have been sexually
abused. Tell me what that bastard did to you.�
The FMS epidemic would not be so bad if such therapists were frauds
interested only in money, but the sad truth is that they are sincere. So were
*Franklin�s conviction was recently reversed, his daughter�s testimony being called
unreliable.
68 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
the doctors who once tried to cure patients by bleeding, and the church-
men who �cured� witches by torture, hanging, and burning.
Better-trained, older psychiatrists do not believe that childhood mem-
ories of traumas can be repressed for any length of time, except in rare
cases of actual brain damage. Nor is there any evidence that hypnosis
improves memory. It may increase certitude, but not accuracy. And there
is abundant evidence that totally false memories are easily aroused in the
mind of a suggestible patient.
A two-part article by Lawrence Wright, �Remembering Satan� ( New
Yorker, May 17 and 24, 1993), tells the tragic story of Paul Ingram, a
respected police officer in Olympia, Washington, who was accused by his
two adult daughters of sexually abusing them as children. Ingram�s fam-
ily are devout Pentecostals who believe that Satan can wipe out all mem-
ories of such crimes. Ingram remembered nothing, but after five months
of intensive questioning, he came to believe himself guilty. Psychologist
Richard Ofshe, writing on �Inadvertent Hypnosis During Interrogation�
(International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 11 [1992]:
125-55), tells how he fabricated an imaginary incident of Ingram�s sex-
ual abuse of a son and daughter. After repeated suggestions that he try to
�see� this happening, Ingram produced a written confession!
Jean Piaget, the Swiss psychologist, tells of his vivid memory of an
attempted kidnapping when he was two. The thief had been foiled by
Piaget�s nurse, who bravely fought off the man. When Piaget was in his
teens the nurse confessed that she made up the story to win admiration, even
scratching herself to prove there had been a struggle. Piaget had heard the
story so often that it seeped into his consciousness as a detailed memory.
Paul McHugh, a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins University, in �Psy-
chiatric Misadventures� (American Scholar, Fall 1992), writes about a
woman who under therapy came to believe she had been sexually
assaulted by an uncle. She recalled the exact date. Her disbelieving
mother discovered that at that time her brother was in military service in
Korea. Did this alter the woman�s belief? Not much, �I see, Mother,� she
said, �Yes. Well let me think, if your dates are right, I suppose it must
have been Dad.�
Although the incest-recall industry is likely to grow in coming years,
as it spreads around the world, there are some hopeful signs. Here and
there women are beginning to discover how cruelly they have been
deceived and are suing therapists for inducing false memories that caused
them and their parents great suffering. They are known as �recanters� or
�retractors.�
Another welcome trend is that distinguished psychologists and psy-
chiatrists are now writing papers about the FMS epidemic. I particularly
RMT: Repressed Memory Therapy 69
recommend the book Confabulations (Social Issues Research Series,
Boca Raton, Fla., 1992) by Eleanor Goldstein, and the following three
articles: �Beware the Incest-Survivor Machine,� by psychologist Carol
Tavris, in the New York Times Book Review (January 3, 1993); �The Real-
ity of Repressed Memories,� by Elizabeth Loftus (psychologist, Univer-
sity of Washington), American Psychologist 48 (May 1993, pp. 518-37);
and �Making Monsters,� by Richard Ofshe and Ethan Watters, in Society
(March 1993). Most of this column is based on material in those articles.
Copies can be obtained, along with other literature, from the FMS Foun-
dation, 3401 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. The phone number
is 215-387-1865, Fax: 215-387-1917.
The FMS Foundation is a nonprofit organization whose purpose is to
seek reasons for the FMS epidemic, to work for the prevention of new
cases, and to aid victims. By the end of 1992, only ten months after its
founding, more than two thousand distressed parents had contacted the
Foundation for advice on how to cope with sudden attacks by angry
daughters who had accused them of horrible crimes.
I trust that no one reading this column will get the impression that
either I or members of the FMS Foundation are not fully aware that many
women are indeed sexually abused as children and that their abusers
should be punished. In its newsletter of January 8, 1993, the Foundation
responded to criticism that somehow its efforts are a backlash against
feminism. Their reply: Is it not �harmful to feminism to portray women
as having minds closed to scientific information and as being satisfied
with sloppy, inaccurate statistics? Could it be viewed as a profound insult
to women to give them slogans rather than accurate information about
how memory works?�
The point is not to deny that hideous sexual abuse of children occurs,
but that when it does, it is not forgotten and only �remembered� decades
later under hypnosis. Something is radically amiss when therapist E. Sue
Blume, in her book Secret Survivors, can maintain: �Incest is easily the
greatest underlying reason why women seek therapy It is my experi-
ence that fewer than half of the women who experience this trauma later
remember or identify it as abuse. Therefore it is not unreasonable that
more than half of all women are survivors of childhood sexual trauma.�
As Carol Tavris, author of Mismeasure of Women, comments in her
article cited above: �Not one of these assertions is supported by empiri-
cal evidence.�
70 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
ADDENDUM
It was no surprise that many defenders of RMT (Repressed Memory
Therapy) would send letters blasting my column. Two such letters, and
one favorable letter, appeared in the Winter 1994 issue of the Skeptical
Inquirer :
Re Martin Gardner�s �The False Memory Syndrome� (SI, Summer 1993):
Some traumas for some people clearly are repressed; other traumas for
other people are clearly not repressed. Repressions may last for years.
In World War II, there were hundreds of documented cases of bat-
tlefield trauma-induced neuroses, characterized by symptoms appearing
after the trauma and an inability to remember the trauma. Among help-
ful treatments used by the military and VA was a brief psychotherapy
utilizing hypnosis or sodium pentothal interviews with the aim of
quickly restoring a pre-traumatic level of functioning. Heightened sug-
gestibility of the patients was not a problem, since other people knew
what had happened.
Patients usually do try to get external confirmation of what they
uncover insofar as it deals with externally observable events. With
incest, however, the people best able to confirm or deny have a strong
motive to lie if it is true.
Patients who accept false events as �real� memories (during badly
conducted psychotherapy) do badly in their subsequent life. In psycho-
analytic therapy this is not so much a problem; eventually the truth will
be discovered as patient and therapist investigate and consider all pos-
sibilities. An honest psychotherapist may not know the truth for a long
time; it is therapeutic for patients to learn to tolerate uncertainty and to
consider that the reconstructed memory might or might not be true. But
courts want the �truth� immediately.
Because of the social importance of memories the American Psy-
chological Association has formed a task force to survey all we know
about memory from both experimentation and clinical observations.
Bertram P. Karon, Professor, Department of Psychology,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.
For a journal purportedly devoted to �scientific investigation of the
paranormal,� the inclusion of �The False Memory Syndrome� by Mar-
tin Gardner in your summer issue is disturbing, to say the least. This is
an area in which I can speak from some knowledge: I am one of those
�better trained� (will Harvard do?), �older� therapists, a writer of one
book (Second Childhood, Norton, 1989) and many journal articles, and
a teacher (of memory, among other subjects) on the postgraduate level.
More important, however, I keep up with the literature: I would say, off-
RMT: Repressed Memory Therapy
71
hand, that I have read carefully at least ten full-length professional
books and two hundred or more professional articles, as well as lay arti-
cles on the subject of delayed memory, including all of those cited in
Gardner�s contribution. In addition, just this year I have, in the interests
of skepticism, curiosity, and open-mindedness, attended a lecture by
John Mack, M.D. (surely an �older� Harvard psychiatrist, he of the
UFOs), and a conference in which Pamela Freyd (she of the False Mem-
ory Syndrome Foundation) played a major part. I was greatly unim-
pressed � in fact, horrified � by both of them, each with an axe to grind
that blinded them to consideration of real data. Unfortunately, I feel the
same way about Gardner.
In the interests of brevity, I will focus on a fundamental point made
by Gardner: �No one doubts that childhood sexual assaults occur, but in
almost every case the event is never forgotten� (italics mine). This state-
ment is in direct contradiction to evidence established in myriad serious
studies. Let me refer him to just one small journal article that summa-
rizes a retrospective study of two hundred admissions to an emergency
room in which the admission records recorded sexual assault of female
children under the age of twelve (Linda Meyer Williams, �Adult Mem-
ories of Childhood Abuse: Preliminary Findings from a Longitudinal
Study,� The Advisor, Summer 1992): 38 percent of a hundred of those
interviewed seventeen years later did not remember the abuse or the
hospitalization, which had been objectively documented. I have,
myself, had clients who remembered childhood sexual abuse for the
first time as adults, in or out of therapy, and, upon talking to the
accused, were actually supported in their allegations by confessions
and, sometimes, apologies. Still others located witnesses, or other unim-
peachable evidence, such as records of a forgotten childbirth (due to
forgotten incest) at a home for unwed mothers. Similar findings of cor-
roborated accusations are documented in Herman�s recent scholarly
book, Trauma and Recovery. So, surely Gardner�s assertion here is bla-
tantly incorrect. In addition, his spurious comparison of delayed mem-
ory of sexual abuse to claims of �past lives� and UFO abductions puts
a poor light on his intentions to be objective and fair-minded.
Marian Kaplun Shapiro, Ed.D.,
Licensed Psychologist, Lexington, Mass.
Martin Gardner�s column about the false memory syndrome (SI, Sum-
mer 1993) is an outstanding expose of a pseudoscientific practice with
devastating consequences for patients and their families. I commend
Gardner for writing it and Skeptical Inquirer for publishing it.
Forrest M. Mims III, Seguin, Texas
72 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Martin Gardner Replies
I have no objection to anything said by Bertram P. Karon. No one denies
that traumatic memories can be repressed. The question is whether the
thousands of such memories now being elicited by zealous, untrained,
self-deceived therapists are genuine or are the product of dubious tech-
niques abetted by sensational books read by the patients.
There are many ways memories of child abuse can be substantiated.
A father capable of raping his four-year-old daughter betrays such psy-
chotic behavior that it is almost impossible for there to be no other
records of his mental illness. Wives, siblings, and other relatives seldom
have reason to maintain a state of �denial.� There can be confirming
diaries and letters, or at times a full confession. When there is no evidence
at all, coupled with vigorous denials by relatives and a history of the
alleged victim�s love and admiration for the alleged perpetrators, incalcu-
lable harm can be done both to parents and to their innocent families by
therapy-induced false memories.
Marian Kaplun Shapiro�s doctorate is in education. This does not qual-
ify her to practice psychiatry. She is a self-proclaimed hypnotherapist.
Her praise of Judith Herman�s book is misplaced. Herman did indeed
find that in fifty-three cases of incest survivors, thirty-nine found corrob-
orative evidence. This seems impressive until you learn that thirty-nine
survivors had no loss of memory to begin with. �It wouldn�t be surpris-
ing,� said University of Arizona psychologist John Kihlstrom in a recent
lecture, �if these individuals were able to validate their memories. Confir-
mation of abuse is not the same as confirmation of repressed memories.�
In Herman�s study, patients with nonrepressed memories reported sex
abuse when they were eight or older. Those who recalled abuse only after
prolonged therapy reported an average abuse age of four to five years.
Why were these memories pushed so far back? Because, Kihlstrom sug-
gests, they had to push them back to a time when they couldn�t remem-
ber anything else.
Shapiro objects to my comparing repressed memories of child sex
abuse with similar memories of Satanic rituals, UFO abductions, and past
incarnations. But techniques for evoking such memories are exactly the
same in all four areas. In the case of Satanic cult memories, the therapy
is just as widespread.
I urge readers to check the sensational two-part article �Remember-
ing Satan,� by Lawrence Wright, in the New Yorker (May 17 and 24,
1993), Leslie Bennetts� article in Vanity Fair (June 1993), Gayle Han-
son�s article in Insight (May 24, 1993), and Claire Safran�s piece in
McCall�s (June 1993). Better still, write for literature to the False Mem-
RMT: Repressed Memory Therapy 73
�Jim Ryan. Reprinted by permission.
ory Syndrome Foundation, 3401 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
This rapidly growing organization, supported by eminent psychiatrists,
was formed in 1993 to combat the greatest witch hunt and mental health
scandal of this half-century.
Ms. Shapiro fired back in the Summer 1994 issue:
I could respond at great length about the content of Martin Gardner�s
�reply� to my letter regarding False Memory Syndrome. However, in
this letter I will, with difficulty, restrict myself to a response to his inac-
curate references to me, as these are potentially injurious to my profes-
sional reputation.
It is telling that Gardner needs to bolster his arguments with an art-
ful but deceptive end run on my credentials. First, he says that my doc-
torate does not qualify me �to practice psychiatry�; however, it is only
he who looks foolish here, since I clearly identified myself not as a psy-
chiatrist, but as a licensed psychologist. Next, and far worse, he
employs character assassination by labeling me a �self-proclaimed hyp-
notherapist,� which is tantamount to being called an unethical clinician,
practicing a specialty without appropriate training. I cannot allow that
statement to go uncorrected: After about two hundred hours of postdoc-
toral training in hypnotherapy, I have been certified as a hypnotherapist
by the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis (ASCH), a well-estab-
74 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
lished training organization recognized by the American Psychological
Association and the American Psychiatric Association. In addition, I
have been certified at the ASCH�s highest level, that of consultant qual-
ified to train and supervise other licensed clinicians in hypnotherapy.
Had Gardner taken the time as a �scientific inquirer� to ask me, before
publishing his derogatory and incorrect characterization, I would have
been glad to furnish any relevant documents in relation to my qualifi-
cations. Surely a basic of responsible journalism is to check the accu-
racy of one�s assertions � especially potentially defamatory ones �
before publishing them.
Marian Kaplun Shapiro,
Licensed Psychologist, Lexington, Mass.
Martin Gardner Responds
Freud began his career as a hypnotherapist, but soon abandoned hypno-
tism as a worthless technique, an opinion shared by most psychiatrists
today. Nevertheless, I apologize to Marian Kaplun Shapiro, who has a
doctorate in education, for using the adjective �self-proclaimed.� She has
indeed been thoroughly trained in the use of hypnotism for treating the
mentally ill.
WEIRD WATER, OR H 2 OH!
How sweet from the green mossy brim to receive it,
As poised on the curb it inclined to my lips!
Not a full blushing goblet would tempt me to leave it,
The brightest that beauty or revelry sips.
� Samuel Woodworth, �The Old Oaken Bucket�
W e are so familiar with ordinary water that we forget how magical it
is. Cool it and it turns into a solid. Heat it and it vanishes into thin
air. Under certain weather conditions it becomes snow, with its beautiful
crystals. Salt water covers most of the earth�s surface, from which it rises
as invisible vapor to make clouds. The clouds condense to produce salt-
free rain, which in turn fills rivers and lakes. The rivers flow into the sea,
and the awesome cycle repeats endlessly. Clearly, life as we know it could
not exist without water.
�Be careful with water!� reads one of Ashleigh Brilliant�s aphorisms.
�It�s full of hydrogen and oxygen.� Is it not amazing that, when those two
gases combine, something emerges, seemingly from nowhere, with totally
different properties? �Water-lover� Bloom, in Joyce�s Ulysses (pp. 442-
43), fills almost two pages with poetic musings on the wonders of water.
In view of water�s omnipresence, it is hardly surprising that it would
be involved, throughout history, with all sorts of preposterous claims. In
recent decades there have been two outstanding instances, neither of which
turned out to hold water. In 1968 a top Soviet chemist startled the scientific
world by revealing tests showing that distilled water, when it condensed in
hairlike capillary tubes, turned into �polywater,� so called because it
acquired a polymeric molecular structure with fantastic properties. Federal
agencies squandered millions on polywater research. Hundreds of reports
were published in scientific journals before it was shown that polywater
doesn�t exist. It was nothing more than ordinary water contaminated by
human perspiration and silica from glass and quartz containers.
�Notes of a Fringe Watcher,� Skeptical Inquirer (Fall 1993).
75
76 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Another much-publicized flap over a peculiar kind of water occurred
in 1988, when a French biochemist, funded by a firm that made homeo-
pathic medicines, announced a dramatic confirmation of homeopathic
theory. Homeopathic doctors maintain that when one of their drugs is
diluted in water to such a degree that no molecule of the substance
remains, the dose somehow becomes extremely potent. The French labo-
ratory claimed that when all the molecules of a certain antibody are
removed by repeated dilutions, the water, owing to some unknown
process, manages to �remember� the antibody�s properties. �Water with a
memory� it was called. This watery claim, too, quickly evaporated when
serious flaws were found in the French experiments. (See my article on
this in the Winter 1989 Skeptical Inquirer, reprinted with an Addendum in
On the Wild Side [Prometheus Books, 1992].)
A book would be needed to cover all the spurious claims made in the
past for water�s curative properties. We all know the medieval legend
about the Fountain of Youth, and how it spurred Ponce de Leon to search
for it in Florida. The New Testament (John 5:2-9) tells of a pool at
Bethesda where an angel periodically �troubled the water,� giving it the
power to cause miraculous cures. Since recorded history, all over the
world, certain pools, wells, and springs have been thought to have great
healing powers.
During the previous century and the first half of this century, health-
giving bottled �mineral water,� said to come from natural sources, was
widely advertised and sold. Mineral springs, especially those with hot
water, were visited by millions of eager bathers. In recent decades com-
panies have made enormous profits selling bottled water to customers
who assumed it was free of the chemicals in tap water. In some cases,
inspections showed that the bottled water actually came from taps.
The British philosopher Bishop George Berkeley, for whom Berke-
ley, California, is named, wrote an entire book extolling the healing pow-
ers of water contaminated by tar. Holy water, blessed by pagan and Chris-
tian priests, has for centuries been taken by believers to have healing
properties. Oral Roberts once mailed to his financial contributors tiny
vials of water that he and his son Richard had blessed.
Belief in the curative power of ordinary water reached its apex in the
1850s, when hydropathy, or water cure, became a mania in America and
Europe. All over the land, especially in New England, water-cure resorts
sprang up, charging rates only the wealthy could afford. They were
patronized by millions of the ill, including such famous men and women
as William James and Harriet Beecher Stowe. Stowe spent ten months at
a water-cure resort, and her husband was there later for a year. Hundreds
of books promoted hydropathy. There were several impressive journals,
Weird Water, or H 2 Oh! 77
notably the popular Water-Cure Journal, published by the Fowler broth-
ers, the nation�s best-known phrenologists.
A classic crank work, Rational Hydropathy (1900), was written by
the Seventh-day Adventist (before he was excommunicated) John Harvey
Kellogg. The inventor of breakfast cereal, he was founder and head of the
famous Battle Creek Sanitarium, in Michigan. My copy, a 1906 third
revised edition, is three inches thick, has 1,217 pages, weighs five
pounds, and contains 293 illustrations, some in full color. Every known
ailment, according to the doctor, can be cured or helped by proper appli-
cations of cold, hot, or tepid water. Here is what Kellogg has to say about
the sitz bath (bathing in a sitting position with water above the hips):
The sitz bath is useful for chronic congestions of the abdominal and
pelvic viscera, diarrhea, piles, dysentery, constipation, uterine diseases,
and genital and urinary disorders. In treating female diseases it is an
indispensable remedy. It is very valuable in various nervous affections,
especially those which immediately involve the brain.
Kellogg defined a �douche� as a stream of water aimed at any part of
the body. More than thirty different kinds of douches are discussed, with
photographs. The soles of the feet, Kellogg wrote, are connected by
nerves to the bowels, genitals, and brain. �A short, very cold douche to
the feet, combined with strong pressure . . . dilates the vesicles of the
uterus, and is hence useful in amenorrhea.�
Bathing feet, we are informed, alleviates �headaches, neuralgia,
toothache, catarrh, congestion of the abdominal and pelvic organs, colds,
and cold feet.� How good to know that hot water will warm cold feet! A
wet towel wrapped around the body �is a very efficient remedy for con-
stipation, chronic diarrhea, and most other intestinal disorders. It is
equally valuable in dyspepsia, torpid liver, enlarged spleen, and uterine
derangements.�
I am indebted to reader Ben Carlton for sending me recent literature
promoting what it calls �Catalyst Water.� In July 1980, Harry Reasoner,
on CBS�s �60 Minutes� television show, interviewed John Wesley
Willard, the elderly inventor of Catalyst Water, and many of his enthusi-
astic patients in Rapid City, South Dakota. Ingredients in the water�s
secret formula, Willard said, act as a catalyst, transforming the water into
a powerful curative agent. Several people in Rapid City told Reasoner
how rapidly Willard�s water cured their severe ailments. A farmer insisted
his wheat crop greatly increased after he soaked the seeds in Catalyst
Water. Giant fruits and plants were shown, allegedly produced by spray-
ing buds with Catalyst Water.
78 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
A recent advertising brochure from Lyke and Associates, in Hoffman
Estates, Illinois, says that in ten years it has sold more than two million
bottles of the water. The price listed is $24.95 per bottle, plus $4.00 for
UPS shipping. Dan Vasil, a chiropractor, is quoted in the brochure as say-
ing the �catalyst� alters the water�s molecular structure, �making its mol-
ecules smaller.� This allows them to �penetrate the cell�s walls at a much
greater rate and carry nutrient to where it needs to be.�
Catalyst Water can be imbibed or applied locally to the skin. You can
add it to bath water and brush your teeth with it. The Lyke brochure prints
stirring testimonials of cures. No addresses are supplied, and a note
reveals that �names have been changed to protect privacy.� This of course
makes it impossible to check authenticity. The testimonials tell how the
water cured sinusitis, skin ulcers, liver spots, arthritis, irregular heart-
beats, warts, constipation, sore throats, and insomnia. It stopped cataract
growth, allowed a diabetic to decrease his insulin, and made a woman�s
face look younger. Literature from other firms selling the water claims
that it grows hair, preserves food, cures cancer in cows, cleans walls and
paintbrushes, and unclogs drains.
A phone call to William Jarvis, CSICOP�s medical-claims expert,
turned up the bizarre history of Catalyst Water. It was originally called
�Willard�s Water,� after its discoverer, who was then a chemistry profes-
sor at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, in Rapid City.
In the 1930s Willard patented a detergent used to clean passenger trains.
Later he discovered it had marvelous curative properties for both humans
and beasts. He attributed this to the fact that it decreases surface tension,
allowing water to permeate cell membranes more readily.
For many years �Doc� Willard sold his water through CAW Indus-
tries. CAW being the initials of �Catalyst Altered Water.� His son,
William J. Willard, eventually took over the firm. After the great boost
provided by �60 Minutes,� several other firms acquired distribution rights
for the water. Domino Chemicals, in New York, called it �biowater.� Sol-
vent, Inc., in Kansas City, Kansas, advertised �Willard�s Water as seen on
CBS �60 Minutes.� � In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Russ Michael, president
of the Fountain of Youth International Trust, published a book about the
water called Miracle Cures. He puts �Dr.� in front of his name because
he holds a doctor of divinity degree from the Church of Humanity, which
he himself founded.
In 1982, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) threw cold
water on Willard and his son by refusing to approve their water as medi-
cine. The Willards agreed to stop promoting it as a curative agent. FDA
laboratories found that the water, in spite of claims that it used no �chem-
icals,� contained varying combinations of rock salt, lignite, sodium
Weird Water, or H 2 0h! 79
metasilicate, sulfated castor oil, calcium chloride, and magnesium sulfate.
The amounts are so small, however, that drinking the water apparently
has no baleful effects.
Another type of weird water, designed to replace gasoline in cars,
periodically enters the news. A Portuguese immigrant named John
Andrews, who settled in McKeesport, Pennsylvania, early in the century,
was such a claimant. He said he had discovered a mysterious green pow-
der which added to tap water would run engines more efficiently than gas.
Successful tests of his powder in 1916 generated considerable press cov-
erage. The Navy was said to have offered him $2 million if he would dis-
close his formula and train ten naval officers on how to make the powder.
Andrews insisted he be paid first. The Navy refused, and Andrews van-
ished for many years. Interest in his powder was revived in 1942 by Drew
Pearson�s favorable report (May 22, 1942) on his popular radio show
�Washington Merry-Go-Round.�
Andrews was finally located on a farm in Elizabethtown, Pennsylva-
nia. Now in his sixties, he denied ever being offered large sums for his
secret. It was said that Andrews had been a Canadian seaman in his youth,
and that he was mysteriously murdered in his final home in Liberty, Penn-
sylvania. I have not been able to verify either of these claims. His death
gave rise to the rumor that big car and oil firms did him in to keep his
great discovery off the market.
The best source on Andrews is The Wilson Era by Josephus Daniels
(1946), chapter 15. As Secretary of the Navy, it was he who had been
interested in Andrews�s claims. See also chapter 3, on suppressed inven-
tions, in George O. Smith�s Scientists� Nightmares (1972), and John
Toland�s �The Truth About Suppressed Inventions,� in Cavalier (May
1955). Toland also covers the inventions of Charles Pogue and Jess
Ritchie, mentioned later in this chapter.
In 1973, Guido Franch claimed to transform water into what he called
�mota� fuel (�atom� backward), also by using a green powder. Occult jour-
nalist Tom Valentine interviewed him for the National Exchange tabloid
(January 1977). Franch said he learned his secret formula from a German
scientist, but at other times he claimed he got it from spacemen who lived
on Neptune. He wanted $250,000 up front to disclose his secret, $10 mil-
lion in escrow, and one cent per gallon royalty on all fuel sold.
In 1976, Jean Chambrin, in Rouen, France, claimed he could run
engines on a mixture of 60 percent water and 40 percent alcohol ( Atlas
World Press Review, December 1975 and February 1976). Archie Blue, in
London, extracted $17,000 from three businessmen for a similar scheme
( Toronto Star, October 12, 1977).
Inventions designed to obtain cheap energy by extracting hydrogen
80 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
from tap water turn up every few years around the world, but invariably
prove to be as worthless as perpetual motion machines. The most recent
major flap of this sort in the United States was in 1976. It involved a
hydrogen converter a bit larger than a trunk, invented by sixty-one-year-
old Sam Leach of Southern California. He called it the SLX, the SL being
his initials. The machine was said to separate water�s hydrogen from oxy-
gen in a self-sustaining reaction that required almost no energy input. If
it worked, it obviously would change world economics by providing
unlimited cheap energy to heat homes, run cars, and so on, without even
polluting the air.
Leach was so convincing, and his prototype models worked so well,
that he actually sold rights to two companies: The Presley Company, and
MJM Hydrotech. Both sales were widely publicized in 1976 (see the New
York Times [March 29, April 23]; Newsweek [April 19]; and Science News
[April 24]). Presley�s stock quadrupled in value in just three months,
causing the SEC to suspend trading on April 3.
Physicists were unanimous in calling the machine a fraud. They
pointed out that laws of thermodynamics make it impossible to obtain an
energy output greater than the input. Leach accused the physicists of
�tunnel vision.� Of course nothing ever came of the SLX, and I�ve been
too lazy to find out what finally happened to it or to Mr. Leach.
In 1990 a firm called the Water Fuel Cell, in Grace City, Ohio, issued
a sales manual of several hundred pages about their method of powering
engines with tap water. Its manual swarms with biblical quotations fore-
telling this great breakthrough. In 1992, the Reno Gazette-Journal (May
18) reported that physicist Rudolf Gunnerman could run car engines with
a 50-50 mix of water and gasoline. What he called �catalytic poles� split
the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Plasma physicist Milton Rothman
exploded Gunnerman�s claims in �Running on H 2 0,� an article in CSI-
COP�s Skeptical Briefs newsletter (September 1992).
The notion that mammoth corporations, fiercely competitive, sup-
press such inventions is, of course, baloney. It is regrettable enough when
the media, ever eager to sensationalize science, publicize miracle-water
inventors. It is more tragic when honest but ignorant investors stubbornly
refuse advice from knowledgeable physicists, only to find themselves in
hot water as their funds dribble down the drain.
ADDENDUM
The danger of relying on hydrotherapy and other forms of fringe medi-
cine is that one can die. The enormous popularity of water cures led to
Weird Water, or II /)h! 81
many such tragedies. I will cite only one. John Roebling, the engineer
who designed Brooklyn Bridge, had a foot amputated after an accident.
His faith in hydrotherapy was so unshakable that he refused medical treat-
ment and promptly died of preventable tetanus. See The Great Bridge by
David McCullough (1983) for details.
Richard Metcalf�s Rise and Progress of Hydrotherapy (1906) is a
well-documented history of the water-cure craze. For information on the
history of Seventh-day Adventist health reform and the commanding role
of Sister Ellen White, see Ronald Numbers�s Prophetess of Health-. A
Study of Ellen G. White (1976). On hydrotherapy in the United States,
two good references are The Great American Water-Cure Craze by Harry
Weiss and Howard Kemble (1967), and Wash and Be Healed by Susan
Caylett (1987).
Engineering consultant Thomas A. Hunter sent me a memo he had
prepared for Homelight Corporation in 1974. It stated that Guido Franch,
through a firm called Cyclomatic Engineering, in Des Moines, Iowa,
offered to reveal his formula for a nonretumable payment of $10,000,
with $990,000 to be placed in escrow for 120 days until Homelight satis-
fied itself that the green powder worked, plus a minimum royalty of $1
million per year for five years. Nothing came of the offer.
Hunter also sent two other articles by Tom Valentine that appeared in
a tabloid called The National Tattler. In �Man Who Turns Water into
Gasoline Can Still Do It: Spurns Financing,� Valentine reports on numer-
ous offers rejected by Franch because he could not get a nonretumable
cash advance. Another article by Valentine titled � Tattler Investigation
Shows How Big Business Suppressed Inventions That Could Aid Man-
kind� is about three magic carburetors said to get more than a hundred
miles per gallon of gas. (Unfortunately neither article is dated.) All three
inventions, Valentine claims, were suppressed by car manufacturers and
oil companies who feared the carburetors would damage their profits.
One of these marvelous carburetors was patented in 1936 by a
Toronto mechanic named Charles Nelson Pogue. The famous radio com-
mentator Frank Edwards created flurries of excitement in 1953 by claim-
ing that the device gave two hundred miles to a gallon. The patent expired
in 1953, but no car company picked it up. Another magic carburetor by
an unnamed inventor is said to be locked away by General Motors to keep
it off the market. The third carburetor had been invented four decades ear-
lier by John Robert Fish. He set up his own firm in Agawam, Massachu-
setts, to peddle his device by mail. The Post Office eventually charged
him with fraud and closed down his business. He died in 1958, Valentine
writes, convinced that the Post Office had been pressured by big oil com-
panies to destroy him.
82 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
A more successful swindler was Louis Enricht, a German immigrant
who settled in Farmingdale, New York. In 1916 he succeeded in bamboo-
zling both Henry Ford and Hiram Percy Maxim, inventor of the Maxim
Silencer, and head of Maxim Munitions. According to Alan Hynd, in a
chapter about Enricht in The Confidence Game (1970), Enricht�s substitute
for gasoline was water into which he poured a small amount of a green liq-
uid. (Why so many gas-substitution mountebanks preferred green beats
me.) Hundreds of persons wanted to invest in the liquid, but as usual,
Enricht refused to disclose his formula until he was paid a vast sum.
The green liquid smelled like almonds. Enricht admitted it contained
prussic acid, but insisted he put it there only to hide the smell of two other
chemicals. An investigation by the New York Herald Tribune revealed that
Enricht had been arrested in the past over other shady deals. Henry Ford
believed his excuses that these were merely careless mistakes, and report-
edly gave him a ten-thousand-dollar advance. Mention of this in the press
prompted Hiram Maxim to approach Enricht with a contract offering $1
million for his secret, and a $100,000 advance to build a laboratory. Enricht
returned Ford�s check. Maxim lost $100,000 without learning the formula.
Enter the next pigeon, a wealthy financier named Benjamin Franklin
Yoakum. In 1916 he gave Enricht $100,000 for the formula. Enricht
wrote it down, stuck it in an envelope, and placed it in his Farmingdale
safety deposit box to be opened only after his death. The box was said to
require two keys, one kept by Enricht, the other by Yoakum. Yoakum
became suspicious that Enricht was a German spy. (The United States
was then at war with Germany.) Yoakum forced an opening of the safety
deposit box. It held nothing but some government bonds.
After Yoakum died a few years later, Enricht began looking for fresh
suckers. After milking thousands of dollars from stupid investors, he was
finally arrested in 1921, tried for fraud, and sentenced to seven years in
prison. Then in his late seventies, he obtained parole a year later. If we
can trust Hynd�s account, Thomas Edison and others later concluded that
the green liquid was a mixture containing acetylene. It would run motors
all right, but not only did it cost more than gasoline, it would quickly wear
out a motor. Hynd�s main sources were some twenty reports than ran in
the New York Times from 1915 through 1917.
An account of mysterious additives said to greatly increase gasoline
mileage is also a long story. I will cite only the much publicized case of
AD-X2, an additive that caused great excitement when Jess M. Ritchie
introduced it in 1953. It was said to consist mainly of sodium and mag-
nesium sulphates. An investigation by the National Academy of Sciences
proved it worthless. Ritchie�s education turned out to be a degree from the
College of Universal Truth, located in a three-room Chicago office.
CHAPTER EIGHT
PEALEISM AND THE PARANORMAL
Pray Big! Believe Big! Act Big!
� Norman Vincent Peale
N orman Vincent Peale, the �minister to millions� who burst into
prominence in 1952 with his block-busting best-seller The Power of
Positive Thinking, is the subject of an excellent unauthorized biography
by Carol V. R. George, professor of history at Hobart and William Smith
Colleges. Titled God�s Salesman, and published in 1993 by Oxford Uni-
versity Press, it is the first detailed, objective account of Peale �s life and
his influence on American Protestantism.
Throughout her book George refers to her subject�s views as
�Pealeism,� a term he intensely dislikes. Actually, his central themes are
not a new ism. They repeat over and over again, with endless anecdotes,
in sermon after sermon and book after book, the basic ideas of New
Thought. This was a religious movement that flourished in the decades
before and after 1900 and is still being preached in some hundred off-beat
churches around the nation. With roots in the transcendentalism of Emer-
son, and sparked by the teachings of a Maine faith-healer named Phineas
Quimby, New Thought generated an enormous number of books and peri-
odicals, of which the most influential was Ralph Waldo Trine�s In Tune
with the Infinite. You�ll find a history of New Thought, with emphasis on
its promotion by the poet Ella Wheeler Wilcox, in the last chapter of my
biography of Mary Baker Eddy, The Healing Revelations of Mary Baker
Eddy (Prometheus Books, 1994).
Christian Science and Unity were the two most successful spin-offs
from New Thought, both with elements that are major aspects of
Pealeism. �I think Christianity is truly a science,� Peale said in a 1971
sermon, �and I believe the church is a laboratory in which the science is
demonstrated.� Mrs. Eddy couldn�t have said it better.
The essence of Pealeism is this: If you accentuate the positive, elim-
�Notes of a Fringe Watcher,� Skeptical Inquirer (Winter 1994).
83
84 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
inate the negative, pray fervently to a personal God, and �picturize� in
your mind your goals (one of Peale�s books is titled Imaging ), miracles
will occur in your life. You will be healthier, happier, and make lots more
money. Indeed, The Power of Positive Thinking made Peale an instant
millionaire. It is easy to understand its appeal to businessmen and sales
personnel. George quotes Peale as saying that if he hadn�t become a
preacher, he would have been a salesman.
George skillfully explains why Peale�s �feel good� Christianity aroused
so much ire among both conservative and liberal Christians. Liberals were
especially annoyed by Peale�s far-right political opinions, and especially by
his energetic efforts to block John Kennedy�s nomination. Peale actually
thought that Kennedy�s election would mean Vatican control of our politics.
He later apologized for this. �I�ve never been too bright, anyhow,� he told
his congregation when he offered to resign as pastor.
Liberals were also annoyed by Peale�s lifelong friendship and admi-
ration for Richard Nixon. The Nixons attended Peale�s church whenever
they were in New York, and it was Peale who married Julie Nixon to
Eisenhower�s grandson. �I think Kennedy is a jerk,� Peale wrote in a let-
ter that George cites. In 1984 President Reagan pinned on Peale the Pres-
idential Medal of Freedom. �Dr. Peale and I disagree on everything, reli-
giously and politically,� Reinhold Niebuhr told Time (September 19,
1960). During Peale�s campaigning for Eisenhower�s election, Adlai
Stevenson, speaking in St. Paul, said he found Paul appealing and Peale
appalling.
Born-again Christians were equally appalled by Peale�s refusal ever
to mention such doctrines as the Virgin Birth, the bodily Resurrection of
Jesus, the Incarnation, and the blood atonement. As to what Peale actu-
ally believes about such dogmas it is impossible to tell. It is this theolog-
ical fogginess that so infuriates both liberal and conservative Christians,
even though the fogginess has enabled Peale to keep one foot in and one
foot out of both camps. George quotes a marvelous answer that Peale
gave to an inquiry about his theological beliefs:
�I�m a conservative, and I will tell you exactly what I mean by that. I
mean that I have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal Savior.
I mean that I believe my sins are forgiven by the atoning work of grace
on the cross.� Then he added, �Now I�ll tell you something else I
personally love and understand this way of stating the Christian gospel.
But 1 am absolutely and thoroughly convinced that it is my mission
never to use this language in trying to communicate with the audience
that has been given me.�
Pealeism and the Paranormal 85
Here is how Peale answered a similar question about his debt to New
Thought: �They think I am one of them, but I am not. Actually, I am not
opposed to it.�
This is not the place to discuss Peale�s vague theology. Instead I shall
focus on a little-known aspect of his beliefs that receives only the fol-
lowing paragraph in God�s Salesman-.
To those who claimed that the power of unconscious mind was a form
of �clairvoyance,� he explained it as �spiritual telepathy� accomplished
by �the passage of God�s thoughts through the mind.� It was rather like
Emerson�s transparent eyeball. Peale studied the literature of psychic
research and was familiar with J. B. Rhine�s experiments at Duke Uni-
versity. With neither embarrassment nor hesitation, he revealed in ser-
mons and speeches his personal experiences with psychic phenomena.
Most of his references were to encounters with intimates who had died,
such as the time he felt the touch of his mother�s hand on his head after
her death, or when he saw his father�s vigorous image approaching him
on the platform at Marble Church, or when he recognized his deceased
brother Bob smiling at him and greeting him through a brick wall at the
Foundation for Christian Living. And there were many others to which
he bore witness, at least one of which was picked up and headlined by
the sensational National Enquirer. Within his Easter sermons orthodox
and alternate perceptions of death often competed, with a traditional
view of the resurrection sharing place with a metaphysical understand-
ing of death as movement to another level of existence.
Peale�s book The Amazing Results of Positive Thinking has a chapter
on extrasensory perception titled �How to Live with the Spiritual Forces
Around You.�
In �Why I Believe in Life After Death,� an article in Peale�s monthly
magazine Guideposts (April 1977), he described the visitation by his dead
father:
And just last year, when I was preaching at a Methodist gathering in
Georgia, I had the most startling experience of all. At the end of the final
session, the presiding bishop asked all the ministers in the audience to
come forward, form a choir and sing an old, familiar hymn.
I was sitting on the speakers� platform, watching them come down
the aisles. And suddenly, among them I saw my father. I saw him as
plainly as I ever saw him when he was alive. He seemed about 40, vital
and handsome. He was singing with the others. When he smiled at me
and put up his hand in an old familiar gesture, for several unforgettable
seconds it was as if my father and I were alone in that big auditorium.
Then he was gone, but in my heart the certainty of his presence was
86 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
indisputable. He was there, and I know that some day, somewhere. I�ll
meet him again.
We don�t try to prove immortality so that we can believe in it; we
try to prove it because we cannot help believing in it. Instinct whispers
to us that death is not the end; reason supports it; psychic phenomena
uphold it.
Interviewed by the National Enquirer (July 5, 1983), Peale described
another ghostly visitation in 1970. He was addressing a group in Pawling,
New York, where he lives, when he distinctly saw his dead brother Bob
walking outside the building. The apparition appeared behind �two solid
walls. ... I had seen him right through those walls.�
In a 1957 interview with the American Weekly, reprinted in Martin
Ebon�s anthology The Psychic Reader (1969), Peale recalled a visitation
by the spirit of his departed mother. The day after she died a badly shaken
Peale put his hands on his Bible, hoping to gain strength. �Suddenly I felt
two cupped hands laid on the top and back of my head.� He did not turn
to look, but he knew telepathically that his mother was saying, �Every-
thing is all right, Norman. I am happy. This is a wonderful place. Do not
grieve for me.�
Recalling this incident in his Guideposts article cited above, Peale
wrote: �An illusion? A hallucination caused by grief? I don�t think so. I
think my mother was permitted to reach across the gulf of death to touch
and reassure me.�
Peale told the American Weekly about a later visitation by his mother
that took place outside a New Jersey restaurant. He was feeling guilty
about having paid $400 for two hurricane lamps to give his wife as a sur-
prise. Peale had left the restaurant ahead of Ruth when he heard in his
mind his mother say: �Norman, don�t worry about the lamps. They will
please Ruth. She deserves them, she is so wonderful.�
Peale began sobbing uncontrollably. He and Ruth drove several miles
on their way to New York before he could tell her what had happened:
Why did my mother come through to me at such a time and place, about
so relatively trivial a matter? I don�t know. I do not think I am unstable
or neurotic. I believe I have my feet on earth. It wasn�t grief that sent
me out of control, it was an amazed feeling of being in the presence of
an overwhelming force.
My feelings of the reality and importance of these experiences have
grown ever since my mother�s death. Just now I am waiting, with a
sense of expectancy, for a communication from a friend of mine, a very
tough-minded, skeptical nurse, who had often told me of extrasensory
demonstrations she had witnessed in line of duty and with whom I had
Pealeism and the Paranormal 87
an agreement that the first of us to die would try to communicate with
the other. She died last Saturday. So, I am waiting � not too confidently.
But still I wouldn�t be surprised.
Peale has always been a firm believer in the reality of near-death experi-
ences, or what are now called NDEs. As he wrote in Guideposts :
Time and again it has been reported of people on the brink of death that
they seem to become aware of a great radiance or hear beautiful music
or see the faces of departed loved ones who are apparently waiting for
them across the line. Are these just hallucinations? I don�t think so. Sev-
eral such episodes have happened within my own family.
Asked by American Weekly if he believed science would someday
prove there is life after death, Peale answered, �Let us hope so. When it
comes it will be the greatest scientific discovery ever made. But I don�t
have to wait. Mother told me all I need to know.�
I am in debt to reader Chris Niemeyer for calling my attention to con-
stant proclamations of paranormal events in the pages of Guideposts.
They strongly resemble the testimonies at the back of Mrs. Eddy�s Sci-
ence and Health, but go even deeper into the miraculous.
Niemeyer began his letter by recalling testimonies he had read in
Guideposts at a time when he believed them. One told of a woman who
experienced the stigmata � one of her hands miraculously began oozing
blood. ... In another testimony, a woman described her visit with a friend
to a beautiful garden at a religious retreat, tended by a nun. Later she
learned that the retreat had no such garden, and no nun in residence. Her
friend confirmed their visit to the garden.
Has Guideposts stopped publishing such incredible tales? To find out,
Niemeyer went to the public library to check 1993 issues. In the January
issue a man wrote about praying on a ship for guidance about tithing. He
felt strangely impelled to send his pastor a check to give to one of his old,
bedridden Sunday school teachers. The pastor wrote back that the money
was the exact amount needed for a new hearing aid. �She had ordered it
C.O.D.,� said the pastor, �but now couldn�t afford it. Without your gift the
post office would have had to return it.� The sender of the check told Guide-
posts: �Suddenly I knew what � or rather Who � made me do what I did.�
The February issue ran a testimony from a woman whose son Mark had
been murdered. After the murderer�s trial, she visited the local newspaper
office to pick up back issues with editorials about the trial that she wanted
to send to relatives. She was astounded to see that one paper contained a
crossword puzzle that had been completely solved in Mark�s handwriting!
88 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
After putting away some groceries, she returned to the paper only to find
that the puzzle�s solution had vanished. She took this as a sign from God
that her son�s life, unfinished on earth, had been completed in heaven.
The April issue printed a letter from a man whose car had stalled on
a two-lane highway. He got out and tried to start the car by pushing it
while his wife sat in the driver�s seat. As he stepped behind the car his
wife called out �Jake!�
He leaped out of the way just before a car crashed into the back of the
stalled Chevy. Both cars were totaled. The husband, who had been
knocked unconscious, awoke in a hospital with his slightly injured wife
beside him. If she had not called out his name, he would have been killed.
The wife was puzzled. �I didn�t say anything,� she told Jake. �I was so
frightened, my lips were clamped shut.�
Thousands of such testimonies in Guideposts have implied similar
paranormal events, usually in response to prayers. Could it be that this
mystical, paranormal aspect of the magazine accounts for its circulation
of about four million, exceeding that of Newsweek ?
Readers of Guideposts apparently take all such anecdotes seriously.
Today millions still take them seriously in the preaching and writing of
Peak�s most famous protege, the Reverend Robert Schuller, whose Crys-
tal Cathedral far outglitters Peak�s drab Marble Collegiate Church on
Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. As far as I can tell, Schuller�s theology dif-
fers from Peak�s in only one respect. What Peak calls �positive thinking�
Schuller calls �possibility thinking.�
�No book on the life of Norman Vincent Peak could be less than
motivating, inspiring, life-changing,� reads Schuller�s blurb on the jacket
of God�s Salesman. �Dr. Peak is one of the 20th century�s most remark-
able and influential persons. As an author, motivator, minister, and posi-
tive persuader, he changed my life and my ministry.�
ADDENDUM
�His Mysterious Ways� is the name of a monthly column in Guideposts
that publishes miracle tales sent in by readers. Out of curiosity I checked
the January 1994 issue. Dorothy Howard, of Amherst, Massachusetts,
tells of blacking out after her car skidded on ice and crashed into a
guardrail. The impact tossed her into the back seat. When she came to she
found her car safely parked on a grassy shoulder. �What happened to your
companion?� a policeman asked her. He had seen a man drive her car off
the highway. �There had been no man in my car,� Ms. Howard writes,
�but Someone had been with me.�
Pealeism and the Paranormal 89
�His Mysterious Ways� is the most popular feature of Guideposts. In
1988 more than a hundred of these melodramatic columns were published
by Guideposts Associates in a book titled His Mysterious Ways. They are
grouped under seven headings: God speaks, God Rescues, God Reas-
sures, God Provides, God Protects, God Heals, and God Uses Human
Love.
The anecdotes are out of this world. Thomas Coverdale tells how a
grenade nearly killed him in Vietnam. After recovering in the hospital his
platoon sergeant asked how he managed to let the medics know he had
been hit. Coverdale said he had radioed for help. But the radio he carried
was totally demolished by the grenade. �How did the medics get my
SOS?� Coverdale asks. �I don�t know. But God does.�
Chloe Waldrop devotes six pages to how she and her husband had
parked their motor-home on a large roadside parking area on the Texas
side of the Rio Grande. A young man held them up with a pistol, forced
them to walk into the desert, strip to their underwear, crawl under a
barbed wire fence, then shot them both in the head.
Mrs. Waldrop prayed to Jesus. A misty white cloud enveloped her,
spoke to her audibly, guided her to the fence, and then vanished. The next
thing she knew she was on the other side of the fence. �I could not com-
prehend how I got there.� She stumbled her way to the parking area
where she found her husband bleeding but still alive. They recovered
from head wounds after seventeen days in an El Paso hospital. There was
no way she could have made it through � or over � the barbed wire, she
writes, without getting scratched, yet there were no scratches on her body.
She believes the cloud was none other than �the Holy Spirit of Jesus.�
And so on, for more than two hundred pages of sensational letters,
carefully edited and rewritten for dramatic effect, with no real effort on
the part of editors to verify their accuracy. In his introduction, editor Van
Vemer speaks of a letter about a man dying of thirst on a broiling hot
desert �when suddenly, out from a sunny, cloudless sky fell a deluge of
life-giving hail Who could explain those stories of strange signs
appearing unsolicited from nowhere, the screams for help that were heard
yet never uttered. . . . Why bother to explain those odd stories? If they
happened, if they�re true, why not just believe them? After all, isn�t that
the essence of faith?�
Yes, but not the essence of rational faith.
Peale died on Christmas Eve, 1994, at age ninety-five. There used to
be a stripper who called herself Norma V. Peel. It occurs to me that she
was not a bad symbol of Dr. Peale. He managed to strip Christianity of all
its ancient doctrines, but instead of his followers shouting �he has no
clothes,� they were enchanted by his gyrations in the buff.
THE CULT OF THE GOLDEN RATIO
Geometry has two great treasures: one is the Theorem of Pythagoras;
the other, the division of a line into extreme and mean ratio. The first we
may compare to a measure of gold, the second we may name a precious
jewel.
� Johannes Kepler
W ebster �s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary has several definitions of
�cult�. One is: �great devotion to a person, idea, or thing; esp : such
devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad.� For more than a cen-
tury a cult, in the sense just defined, has flourished with respect to an
arithmetic ratio known variously as the �divine proportion,� the �extreme
and mean ratio,� and the �golden ratio.�
Place a point on a line so that it cuts the line into two segments, A and
B, such that the length of the line is to A as A is to B. A and B are then in
golden ratio to each other.
A B
I 1 1
It is easy to show that this ratio is the positive root of the equation x 2 -
x = 1. Applying the quadratic formula gives x a value of 1.61803398+, an
irrational number that is half the sum of 1 and the square root of 5. In the
U.S. this number is customarily designated by (J>, the Greek symbol for phi.
Phi is almost as ubiquitous in mathematical structures as pi or e. The
reason, of course, is the simplicity of the equation that produces it. As
might be expected, it is also the sum of the simplest possible continued
fraction:
1 + 1
1 + 1
1 + 1
1 + . . . .
�Notes of a Fringe Watcher,� Skeptical Inquirer (Spring 1994).
90
The Cult of the Golden Ratio 91
Phi is the only positive number that becomes its own reciprocal by sub-
tracting 1. Because l/4� is .61803398+, the same infinite sequence of deci-
mal digits, some mathematicians have preferred to call .618 ... the golden
ratio. It doesn�t matter because you get the same sequence of decimal dig-
its regardless of whether you divide line segment A by B or vice versa.
Phi is related to a generalized Fibonacci sequence in a startling way.
Begin with any two numbers, rational or irrational, add them to get a third
number, then add the second and third to get the fourth, and so on, always
recursively generating the next number as the sum of the two previous
ones. As the sequence goes to infinity, the ratio of two adjacent numbers
approaches phi as the limit.
Consider the simplest Fibonacci sequence: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34,
55, 89, . . . Divide 89 by 55 and you get 1.618+, or phi correct to three
decimals. Continue five more steps to 987/610 and you produce the
golden ratio to five decimal places.
Since the Renaissance, an enormous literature has accumulated, most
of it nonsense, about the application of the golden ratio to architecture,
painting, sculpture, nature, and even to poetry and music. The first great
work defending this inflated worship of phi was a 457-page German trea-
tise, Der Goldene Schnitt (The Golden Cut), published in 1884 by Adolf
Zeising. Early works in English, following Zeising�s lead, were Nature�s
Harmonic Unity by Samuel Coleman (1913), and The Curves of Life by
Theodore Cook (1914). Similar books have been published since, and
others are still being written.
My discussion here of what can be called pseudomathematics is
based mainly on George Markowsky�s sensible paper, �Misconceptions
About the Golden Ratio,� in the College Mathematics Journal 23 (Janu-
ary 1992): 2-19. Markowsky is a computer scientist at the University of
Maine. His paper can be consulted for more details and for its valuable
list of fifty-nine references. See also the chapter on phi in my Second Sci-
entific American Book of Mathematical Puzzles and Diversions, where I
myself fell for some misconceptions.
The most persistent misconception is the belief that the �golden rec-
tangle,� a rectangle with sides in golden ratio, is the most aesthetically
pleasing of all rectangles. The first effort to prove this was undertaken by
Gustav Fechner (1801-1887), an eccentric German physicist and psy-
chologist who held bizarre opinions. He believed, for example, that the
sun, the moon, and all the planets are living organisms and that even a
pebble has a �soul.� In one experiment he exhibited ten rectangles of
varying shapes and asked subjects to select the one they considered most
attractive. About three-fourths of their choices were rectangles with side
ratios of .57, .62, and .67.
92 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
As Markowsky writes, far from establishing the golden rectangle as
the most beautiful, Fechner showed that people prefer a rectangle within
a fairly large range; not too close and not too far from a square. Fechner
made other experiments to prove that phi was the most pleasing of all
ratios, but they were crude by today�s standards.
Recent research has shown that the golden rectangle does not score
any better than rectangles similar to it, such as a 3 x 5, the shape of a file
card. To demonstrate how vague such preferences are, Markowsky drew
the chart shown in figure 1, containing 48 rectangles, and asked students
to identify the two golden forms. Most of them could not. He then
arranged the same rectangles in linear order (figure 2), their ratios rang-
ing from .4 to 2.5. He found wide variations in choices. Moreover, when
asked to pick the most pleasing shape in each chart, subjects rarely chose
the same one. The rectangle most often selected was the one in row 3 in
column 4 of figure 1 � a rectangle with sides in a 1.83 ratio.
The efforts of phi cultists to find golden rectangles in architecture,
painting, and sculpture reached absurd heights. It is easy to see how this
happened. Measurements of parts of a building, or work of art, have such
fuzzy boundaries that it is easy to find phi when ratios close to phi fit just
as well. Markowsky demolishes the notion that phi is involved in the pro-
portions of the Great Pyramid of Egypt or in those of the Greek
Parthenon. There is not the slightest evidence that the Egyptians, Greeks,
or any other ancient people used phi in any of their buildings or art. As
Markowsky says: �The dimensions of the Parthenon vary from source to
source probably because different authors are measuring between differ-
ent points. With so many numbers available a golden ratio enthusiast
could choose whatever numbers gave the best result.�
Because Leonardo da Vinci illustrated one of the earliest books on
phi, De Divina Proportione, by Luca Pacioli, phi cultists have imagined
that the ratio was intentionally used by Leonardo in many of his paint-
ings. In every case the application of golden ratios to a Leonardo paint-
ing is extremely arbitrary and obtained only by fudging. Parts of a figure
will extend beyond the borders of the imagined rectangle, and other parts
will fail to touch the borders. There is no evidence that Leonardo da
Vinci, or any other Renaissance artist or sculptor, used phi in his work.
This does not apply to the twentieth century. A few modern architects,
painters, and even music composers, fascinated by the golden ratio, have
made deliberate use of it.
Phi buffs are also fond of asserting that on most men and women the
navel divides their height in a golden ratio. Indeed, this was one of Paci-
oli �s claims. Why nature would arrange this is never made clear. In any
case, it isn�t true. Navel height, in relation to body height, varies consid-
The Cult of the Golden Ratio 93
1
?
?
(ZZIIZZI
?
CZJ
?
?
1 1
?
?
CZJ
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
1 1
?
?
?
?
n
?
?
n
?
?
?
?
CZZ1
?
?
?
ZZ1
?
?
?
?
0
CD
?
Figure 1 . Forty-eight rectangles with ratios from .4 to 2.5 in random order.
? ???????
? ???????
? ???????
? ???????
4
Figure 2. The same rectangles in linear order.
94 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
erably with race and locale, covering a range that of course includes
1.618. Moreover, as Markowsky points out, such measurements are not
precise because navels are not points, but areas of nontrivial diameter.
Four persons at Middlebury College, in Vermont, measured the navel
heights of 319 college men and women, reporting their results in �The
Golden Midd,� Journal of Recreational Mathematics 24 (1992): 26-29.
They summarize their findings as follows: �For the students who endured
a bellyful of statistics, the Golden Midd is no Golden Mean. Admittedly,
measurement error in this study was a ticklish problem. But, assuming no
systematic bias to these errors, we conclude that a practitioner of navel art
who wishes to capture divine proportions would have to place the belly-
button of a typical Middlebury College coed about 0.7 inches higher than
it really is.�
Phi enthusiasts have also found the golden ratio in the forms of birds,
insects, fish, and other animals. �Of course, wings, legs and fins can be
moved over a wide range of positions,� Markowsky writes, �and it is not
surprising that the golden rectangle can often be produced.� In spite of
such arbitrariness, some writers on phi have found the golden ratio in ani-
mal forms to a precision of five decimal places!
A fascinating property of the golden rectangle is shown in figure 3.
By snipping off squares, it can be divided into an infinite sequence of
whirling squares and golden rectangles. The vertices trace a precise log-
arithmic spiral. It is true that spirals closely resembling logarithmic ones
abound in nature � the chambers of a chambered nautilus is the most cited
instance � but again the spirals vary within a considerable range even in
the case of the nautilus.
It is hard to believe, but phi mania has even invaded literary criticism.
George E. Duckworth, in Structural Patterns and Proportions in Virgil�s
Aeneid (University of Michigan Press, 1962), provides the major
instance. By measuring the number of lines in various parts of Virgil�s
epic, Duckworth (who died in 1972) claims that Virgil made frequent and
conscious use of the golden ratio. Markowsky summarizes objections to
Duckworth�s claims, and they can be found at greater length in �How to
Find the �Golden Number� Without Really Trying� by Roger Fischler in
the Fibonacci Quarterly 19 (1981): 406-10, in �Aeneid I and .618?� by
Jane Bews in the Phoenix 24 (1970): 130-33, and in �Extreme and Mean
Ratio in Virgil?� by William Waterhouse in the Phoenix 26 (1972):
369-76. In spite of such vigorous criticism, praise of Duckworth�s re-
search turns up in several reputable books of literary criticism.
Although finding phi in nature and art has all the earmarks of pseudo-
math, no one can deny that the golden ratio is encountered with surpris-
ing frequency in geometry and algebra. One of the oldest, most striking
The Cult of the Golden Ratio 95
Figure 3. A logarithmic spiral generated by whirling squares and golden
rectangles. The spiral �strangles� the intersection point of the two dotted
diagonals. The diagonals are in golden ratio.
Figure 4. The pentagram, mystic symbol of the Pythagorean Brother-
hood, and the pattern Goethe�s Faust used for trapping Mephistopheles.
Inverted, it is a satanic symbol.
96 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Figure 5. On the left, the radius of a large circle divided by the diameter
of one of the small circles is phi. On the right, the side of one of the four
larger equilateral triangles divided by the side of one of the three smaller
ones is phi. Readers skilled in plane geometry may enjoy proving both
assertions.
examples is the pentagram shown in figure 4, the magic symbol of the
ancient Pythagorean Brotherhood. Every line segment in the pentagram is
in golden ratio to the segment of next smaller length.
Two other delightful constructions in which phi unexpectedly turns
up are shown in figure 5.
Of course there is a raft of ratios close to phi that arise from equally
simple constructions. The simplest is 3/5 = .6 (or 1 .666 . . . , if the frac-
tion is inverted). It would be amusing, if one had the time and inclination,
to see how easily 3/5 can be found in the architectural structures of the
ancients, in great works of art and literature, and in the forms of animals
and humans.
ADDENDUM
The following interesting letter came to the Skeptical Inquirer from Dr.
Stephen T. Abedon, of Philadelphia:
To the Editor:
Reading Martin Gardner�s �The Cult of the Golden Ratio� I
sneaked ahead of the text to look at figure 1 and decide which rectangle
The Cult of the Golden Ratio 97
I found most pleasing. Not surprisingly, as I found reading a bit further,
I picked the rectangle in row 3 and column 4 (the rectangle apparently
most selected). Now why should this particular rectangle be the most
selected? To me it just seems to pop out of the page, it is so obvious.
Here is my simple hypothesis as to why, all based on position in the fig-
ure rather than any factor inherent in this particular rectangle: (1) The
rectangle is as close to being at the center of the figure as is possible,
being one of the four most central rectangles. (2) Of these four most
central rectangles, this particular one is in the upper left hand corner,
just where we Americans tend to start our reading. (3) Of all the rectan-
gles shown in figure 1, this is the only one that borders on all four edges
rectangles most nearly squarelike. (4) For the life of me I have no clue
as to which rectangle this particular rectangle is in figure 2, though I
suspect it can be found on the right hand side of row 3. (5) None of the
rectangles in figure 2 look nearly as good to me as this particular rec-
tangle in figure 1. It would be interesting to see if this same rectangle
would be similarly chosen were the rectangles in figure 1 shuffled dif-
ferently for each observer, or if a single observer were to look for their
favorite rectangle in a series of differently shuffled figures. What all this
has to do with the Golden Ratio I don�t know, but this may be an exam-
ple of rectangle �forcing� no doubt holding some insight into human
visual processing.
George Markowsky commented:
Stephen Abedon presents some interesting speculations in his letter to
the editor about why people chose a particular rectangle as most pleas-
ing when shown in figure 1 as presented in Martin Gardner�s �The Cult
of the Golden Ratio.� I don�t really know why people made the selec-
tions that they did and I find it plausible that the location of the rectan-
gle affected its selection. My point in carrying out the experiment was
exactly to demonstrate that the claim for a particular rectangle to be the
�most pleasing� is on very shaky ground. The very limited nature of my
experiment suffices only to cast doubt on the claim that the golden rec-
tangle is the �most pleasing rectangle,� but is insufficient to explain
why people make the choices that they made.
Abedon �s letter and Markowsky �s comment are published here for the
first time.
CHAPTER TEN
EYELESS VISION AND GOD
F or four decades Ronald Coyne (pronounced �coin�), a Pentecostal
preacher who lives in my hometown of Tulsa, Oklahoma, has been
wowing church groups with what magicians call an �eyeless vision� act.
But first a little background.
For centuries conjurors have known how difficult it is to blindfold a
person so effectively that he or she cannot obtain a peek down the side of
the nose. Noses project so far from the cheekbones that an opaque blind-
fold, covering nose and eyes, invariably leaves two tiny loopholes. This
is not the only method of obtaining vision while seemingly securely
blindfolded � magic shops sell a variety of blindfold tricks � but it is the
simplest, and one still unknown to the public.
Magicians using the nose peek usually add other dodges to strengthen
an audience�s belief that they cannot possibly see. Powder puffs or silver
dollars may be placed over the closed eyes and fastened down with tape.
Eyelids may also be taped shut.
Kuda Bux, a magician from India, was famous for his eyeless-vision
act. Because he is no longer living, and no performer now uses his
method, I will explain here, perhaps for the first time, exactly how he
managed to see.
After large globs of soft dough were pushed over Kuda�s eyes, a
black blindfold was tied over the dough. Assistants then wrapped his
entire head with a long strip of cloth of the sort used to make turbans. The
cloth swathed his entire face from chin to forehead, giving him the
appearance of a mummy.
After his face was swathed, Kuda would raise his hands to adjust the
portion of the cloth that crossed his nose. Beneath his fingers, his thumbs,
unseen by the audience, would push up through the dough, along the sides
of his nose, to form two tunnels that reached to the inside corners of his
eyes. In a few more minutes the dough would harden, leaving permanent
passages through which both eyes could peek.
�Notes of a Fringe Watcher,� Skeptical Inquirer (Summer 1994).
98
Eyeless Vision and God 99
Now back to the Reverend Coyne. In 1950 in Sapulpa, a town close
to Tulsa, young Ron (then seven) accidentally slashed his right eye with
baling wire. His parents rushed him to Tulsa�s St. John�s Hospital where
an ophthalmologist tried to save the eye by surgery. This proved impos-
sible. The eye was removed and a plastic eye substituted. Three months
later Ron was �saved� in a rousing conversion experience during the altar
call at a local Baptist vacation Bible school.
For ten months Ronald was totally blind in his right eye. Daisy
Gillock, wife of an Assembly of God pastor in Odessa, Texas, and sister
of the well-known Pentecostal faith healer, L. L. Osborn, came to Sapulpa
to conduct a revival. During the faith healing part of the service, young
Coyne followed others to the platform. Not knowing Ron�s right eye was
false, Daisy Gillock prayed that sight in the eye be restored. As Coyne
tells us in his literature, he at once began to see with the plastic eye � first
the altar steps, then the microphone and his fingers.
This miracle, reported by Tulsa�s two newspapers, caused a sensation
in the area. Coyne claims that his mother, a devout Christian, accepted the
miracle at once; but his father, a professed atheist, refused to believe until
one day when Ron asked his dad to blindfold his good eye. After seeing
and hearing Ron read print with the other eye, the father was so stunned
that he was instantly saved.
Soon young Coyne was appearing in nearby Pentecostal churches to
demonstrate how well he could see when his good eye was �securely� cov-
ered. From that day to this, more than forty years, Coyne has been present-
ing his sensational act to believers all over America, and even abroad.
If you send a dollar to Ronald Coyne Revivals, 3702 E. 51st Street,
Tulsa, OK 74135 (phone: 918-744-0309), you can obtain Coyne�s life
story in a 77-page booklet, When God Smiled on Ronald Coyne. It was
written by his mother in 1952. For four dollars you can buy a long-play-
ing album with the same title. Recorded in the mid sixties by Loyal
Records, a Birmingham, Alabama company, its two sides present one of
Coyne�s entire acts, complete with background organ music and shouts of
�Glory to God,� �That�s Right, Praise the Lord,� and �Thank You, Jesus.�
You can even hear Coyne belt out the lyrics of �Only Believe.�
The front cover of this album shows a photograph of a handsome
Ronald clutching a Bible. On the back cover are these stirring words by
Walter Bailes, president of the recording company:
Can you imagine the shock it must have given a seven-year-old boy to
be told that he must have an eye removed from the socket forever
because of an injury to that eye and that it would be replaced by a plas-
tic eye. Can you imagine the hurt that a praying, God-fearing, trusting
100
Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
unit* ului.
THE PLASTIC EYE MIRACLE
�WHEN
GOD
SMILED
ON,
RONALD COYNE�
This long-playing album, recorded in the mid-sixties, presents one of
Ronald Coyne�s entire acts.
mother must have felt at the news. Think of how this must have added
even more doubt to an already atheist father. But wait a minute! the
story doesn�t end here. In fact this is only the beginning. But Ronald
tells it so much better himself on this album. I would like to say though
that I have personally witnessed this miracle of his seeing through this
plastic eye and know that it is a work of the One who created all things.
Now in his fifties and grossly overweight, Coyne is still allegedly
flimflamming the faithful. In 1989 the tabloid Weekly World News
(August 15) featured him on its front page. The inside interview, by Ross
Johnson, quoted Coyne as follows:
The Lord is a mystery. Men cannot understand Him. I often wonder why
He gave this miracle to me instead of all the other people who need to
be healed.
In fact, the first thing I�m going to ask when I get to heaven is:
�Why me, Lord? Why me?�
It�s an abnormal thing that goes against everything that is taught by
medical science. If a doctor who�s a Christian sees me with the glass
eye, he�ll say, �It�s a miracle of God.� If a doctor who isn�t a Christian
sees me read he�ll say, �The man really is reading � just don�t give me
any of that God stuff.�
Eyeless Vision and God 101
TIME WARP IN THE DEVIL'S TRIANGLE!
1 I960
rjpmgF m ,
* and watch Amos W Andy on LtVf TV?
j Kiddie tycoon, 1, I
; yonks 5 teetk to get I
j$$ from tooth fa*ry!|
It�s a miracle and a mystery, say doctors
BUND MAN READS
A GLASS EYE!
HOW 10 LOOK !0 YIAIS YOUHfiK IN JUST 10 DAYS!
Front page of Weekly World News, August 15, 1989.
Nobody can understand it. Some people try to fight it. But every-
body agrees that they�ve never seen anything like it. I�d say 99 percent
of them accept it as the divine miracle that it really is.
Louisiana skeptic Henry Murry attended one of Coyne�s perfor-
mances on April 28, 1989, in a tent on Highway 10 near Jackson,
Louisiana. His account of the show appeared in the May-June 1989 issue
of La Raison, a publication of Baton Rouge skeptics. Murry says at 6:45
p.m., before Coyne arrived, he was subjected to �an hour of electronic
noise, accompanied by foot-stomping, hand-clapping, and a wide range
of vocal sounds.�
Reverend Coyne began his act at eight. Money collections were made
before and after the performance while he sat on two chairs because his
weight seemed more than four hundred pounds. �As he began to preach,�
Murry writes, �his thunderous voice hinted that he may have learned to
whisper in a sawmill.�
Coyne began by recalling sinners who had been saved by Jesus from
the eternal flames of hell. His numerous Bible quotes were met with loud
amens, hallelujahs, and praise-the-Lords. An elderly woman was called to
the platform. After holding her hands and jabbering in the Unknown
Tongue, Coyne suddenly yelled �Now!� The poor woman fell backward,
102 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
�slain by the Lord,� into the arms of two women behind her. For five min-
utes she lay on the floor, arms upraised, lips trembling. A dozen others
were similarly �slain.�
The show�s second half was Coyne�s long-practiced act. A borrowed
handkerchief was folded and taped over his good eye. �I was seated about
twenty feet in front,� Murray writes, �and even with my poor eyesight I
thought I could see the tape come loose under the eye.� With his artificial
eye, apparently now made of glass, Coyne read aloud Kipling�s �Gunga
Din,� as well as social security numbers, driver�s licenses, and other
items handed to him. One woman fell into a trance after he correctly read
her driver�s license.
Coyne then proceeded to �heal� anyone who came forward with an
ailment. A skeptic who had accompanied Murry to the show raised his
hands to declare himself an atheist who did r at believe Coyne was actu-
ally seeing with his glass eye. Unflappable, Coyne calmly said, �The
Lord will destroy you, probably on your way home this evening.� I
should add that Coyne likes to pop out his artificial eye and continue
reading with the empty socket.
To make sure Coyne was still performing, I wrote to ask. �Yes,�
Coyne replied in a handwritten note, �we are still working and traveling
for Jesus. I will look to hear from you.� Signed �In Him, Ronald Coyne.�
When I accuse Coyne of using a nose peek, I am unworried about
libel action. Truth is not libelous. Coyne would have to prove in court that
he can see through his eyeless socket after an expert covers his good eye
so thoroughly that no nose peek is possible. This, of course, Coyne can-
not do.
One of the saddest aspects of Protestant fundamentalism is that so
many evangelists who are nothing more than greedy con artists are able
to take millions from the generous contributions of gullible believers.
Steve Martin�s marvelous film Leap of Faith (1993) is about just such a
hustler.
The film is based mainly on the shattered career of faith-healer Peter
Popoff. Popoff pretended to have supernatural powers, given to him by
the Holy Spirit, to know details about the lives and ills of persons called
up to be healed. In reality, as discovered and exposed by James Randi, the
Reverend Popoff was receiving this information through a hidden ear-
piece. His wife and assistants would go through the audience, prior to the
show, and converse with spectators. Later, from a trailer outside the audi-
torium or tent, Elizabeth Popoff, seated in front of a television screen
showing the platform, would relay this information to her husband.
Combine the hypocrisies of Popoff and Coyne with the tears and
swaggers of Jimmy Swaggart, and you have Steve Martin�s phony evan-
Eyeless Vision and God 103
gelist. Not until a crippled boy is genuinely made to walk is the healer
stricken with remorse � remorse intensified by the desertion of his girl-
friend, subtly acted by Debra Winger.
One of his clever �miracles� is secretly painting open eyes on the
closed eyelids of a giant wooden Jesus, nailed to a cross behind the tent�s
platform. This was an invention of the script writers, but such a miracle
is not far from those perpetrated by actual faith-healers. Maijoe Gortner,
who began his Pentecostal career as a child evangelist at the age of four,
made an appalling documentary in 1972 in which he freely confessed his
many deceptions. One was to paint a cross on his forehead with a chem-
ical that turned red from perspiration while he preached! �You don�t get
booked back unless you have a gimmick,� Maijoe told Newsweek (July
31, 1972). He estimated that he had earned $3 million for his parents, who
were part of the scam.
Coyne�s gimmick is the nose peek. Now that he is nearing the end of
his long and, in my opinion, shabby career, and few congregations today
accept him as genuine, he would do well to imitate Maijoe. A documen-
tary explaining his method of seeing, and telling how he has homswog-
gled good believers for four decades, ought to bring in much needed loot.
My guess is he lacks the guts to make such a film, even though it would
be a fine way to atone for his sins.
Coyne�s act is an exception among eyeless-vision performers. Most
of them are self-styled psychics who pretend they can read print with their
fingers or toes, or see through their foreheads. In China in 1980 a group
of �psychic� children read printed material after it was shoved into their
ears or put under their armpits. For details on the history of eyeless vision
by psychic charlatans, see my paper �Dermo-Optical Perception� (Sci-
ence, February 11, 1966). It is reprinted with additions in Science: Good,
Bad and Bogus (Prometheus Books, 1981).
THE TRAGEDIES OF FALSE MEMORIES
T he greatest scandal of the century in American psychiatry � the topic
of chapter 6 � is the growing mania among thousands of inept thera-
pists, family counselors, and social workers for arousing false memories
of childhood sexual abuse.
No one denies that children are molested, but memories of events that
never happened are easily fabricated in the minds of suggestible patients
by techniques that include hypnotism, regression therapy, drugs, dream
interpretation, and guided imagery. These fake memories become so vivid
that patients who acquire them make enormously convincing court wit-
nesses. Jurors tend to believe them rather than the expected denials of
those accused. The result: an epidemic of wrong convictions and a mass
hysteria that is now far more extensive than the old Salem witch-hunts.
Perhaps the tide is starting to turn. More and more judges, attorneys,
police officers, media personnel, and ordinary citizens are becoming
aware of the terrible injustices being done. Reputations are ruined, inno-
cent adults are sent to prison for life, and some ten thousand once-happy
families are ripped apart by the testimony of patients, mainly children and
middle-aged women, who firmly believe their ersatz memories. On the
bright side are recent court cases suggesting that innocent victims are
finally starting to hit back. Higher courts are beginning to overturn con-
victions, an increasing number of victims are winning malpractice suits,
and many children and adults are recanting their charges.
In Chicago last year, Steven Cook, in hypnotic trances induced by
Michele Moul, a Philadelphia therapist, began recalling sexual attacks by
Chicago�s highly respected Cardinal Joseph Bernardin � memories Cook
thought he had repressed for seventeen years. It turned out that Moul�s
degree in psychology was from a school run by New Age guru John-
Roger, who, according to Time (March 14, 1994), �claims to be the
embodiment of a divine spirit.�
On the sole basis of cooked-up memories. Cook sued the cardinal for
�Notes of a Fringe Watcher,� Skeptical Inquirer (Fall 1994).
104
The Tragedies of False Memories 105
$10 million. Fortunately, after a competent clinician convinced Cook his
memories were confabulations, he recanted and dropped his civil suit.
The vindicated cardinal was too kind to sue Moul for quackery.
All over the United States and Canada Protestant fundamentalists are
convinced that Satan is on a final rampage preceding the Second Coming
of Christ. Dozens of shabby books have been published about satanic rit-
uals, in spite of a careful study by Kenneth Lanning, of the FBI�s Behav-
ioral Science Unit, that found no evidence that such ritual crimes take
place. Stimulated by books on Satanism, and by talk shows on the topic,
about 30 percent of false memories involved bizarre satanic rituals, and it
is claimed that in some of these the babies are killed and cannibalized.
If such cults existed there would be tens of thousands of bodies of
mutilated babies buried around the land. Not one has been found. The Salt
Lake Tribune (September 19, 1993) reported that a Utah task force spent
$250,000 trying to find evidence of satanic ritual abuse. It found nothing.
How do fundamentalists explain this? Satan is so powerful, they argue,
that he obliterates all evidence!
In June 1992, in Martensville, Canada, nine persons associated with
a baby-sitting service were charged with ritual abuse on the basis of tes-
timony by thirty young children. The accused included Ronald Sterling
and his wife, Linda, their son Travis, an unnamed woman of twenty, and
five members of the local police department. The accusations began when
a fundamentalist mother decided her two-year-old son had been ritually
abused because he had a diaper rash. Constable Claudia Bryden,
described by the press as �terribly paranoid� in her fear of Satanism, was
chiefly responsible for the arrest of the �Martensville Nine.�
The children first denied anything improper had happened, but, after
scores of relentless grillings and coaxing by police and counseling by
therapists, their �memories� slowly emerged. They spoke of being forced
to drink blood and urine and to eat feces. A seven-year-old boy said one
of the accused women cut off a child�s nipple and swallowed it. Two boys
each said that an axe handle had been shoved up his anus, and a vibrator
up his penis. No medical evidence for such acts was found.
A child testified he had seen people killed and acid poured on their
faces. Another boy claimed he had been put nude in a cage suspended by
a rope. He accused Linda Sterling of threatening him with a knife until he
sucked her breasts. On another occasion he recalled her saying, �If you
don�t pee in my mouth I�ll kill you.� Both Ron Sterling and his son were
accused of sodomy.
Seven of the nine were eventually acquitted, their reputations forever
scarred. Travis Sterling was sentenced to five years, and the young woman
to two years. Some of the acquitted are considering lawsuits of up to $200
106 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
million. Mothers of the children remain firmly convinced that the town is
infested with secret satanist cults. (Source: �The Martensville Horror,� by
David Roberts, in Toronto�s Globe and Mail, February 19, 1994.)
Harold Joseph Levy, 52, a respected attorney and editorial writer on
the Toronto Star, was arrested in May 1993. A woman undergoing therapy
had long-repressed memories aroused of being sexually molested by
Levy. A year later, persuaded that her memories were false, she recanted.
As the Toronto Globe and Mail put it (April 30, 1994), this ended a year
of �professional humiliation, social repudiation, and searing gossip.�
Incredibly, the Crown�s attorney, Christine McGoey, said she withdrew
her charges �reluctantly.� Said Levy�s lawyer, �I am completely flabber-
gasted at the use of the word �reluctantly.� There was never a shred of evi-
dence. The Crown should be ashamed� (Toronto Sun, April 30, 1994).
In 1989, Holly Ramona was suffering from bulimia. Marche Isabella,
a family counselor, told her that 80 percent of bulimia cases arise from
repressed memories of child abuse � a preposterous claim. There is no
such connection. After months of therapy with Isabella, Holly began hav-
ing flashbacks of repeated rapes by her father, Gary, when she was a small
child. After Richard Rose, a psychiatrist, gave her sodium amytal, lurid
details of these molestations began to take shape in her mind. Because of
her daughter�s charges, Gary�s wife divorced him and he was fired from
his $400,000-a-year job as vice president of a California winery.
Among the signs advanced by Holly�s therapists that she had been
sexually abused as a child were that she did not like mayonnaise, cream
soups, or melted cheese, and that she could not eat a banana until it was
sliced. As naive devotees of Freudian symbols, the therapists argued that
these foods unconsciously suggested semen and a penis, and were related
to Holly�s repressed memories of being forced to perform oral sex on her
father!
Infuriated by what he called therapeutic quackery, Gary Ramona sued
the two therapists for $8 million in damages. In May 1994 a trial jury in
Napa County, California, issued a ground-breaking verdict. Ramona was
awarded half a million dollars.
Lenore Terr, a San Francisco child psychiatrist, was a chief witness
for the defense of the two therapists. A tireless defender of repressed
memory therapy, Terr has this year published a book titled Unchained
Memories: True Stories of Traumatic Memories, Lost and Found (Basic
Books). Terr told the jury that Holly�s memories were corroborated by her
dislike of teeth that resembled her father�s and by her aversion to pickles
and bananas because they reminded her of oral sex. However, under ques-
tioning, Terr admitted that Holly�s �memory� of being forced by her
father to perform oral sex on the family dog was �dubious.� (Sources:
The Tragedies of False Memories 107
Case Study of Implanted Memory
The following dialogue is from Daniel Goleman�s article �Studies Reflect
Suggestibility of Very Young as Witnesses,� in the New York Times (June
11, 1993). It is an excerpt from eleven interviews of a four-year-old boy,
who each week was told falsely: �You went to the hospital because your
finger got caught in a mousetrap. Did this ever happen to you?�
First Interview: �No. I�ve never been to the hospital.�
Second Interview: �Yes. I cried.�
Third Interview: �Yes. My mom went to the hospital with me.�
Fourth Interview: �Yes. I remember. It felt like a cut.�
Fifth Interview: �Yes.� [Pointing to index finger.]
Eleventh Interview: �Uh huh. My daddy, mommy, and my brother [took
me to the hospital] in our van The hospital gave me ... a little ban-
dage, and it was right here.� [Pointing to index finger.]
The interviewer then asked: �How did it happen?�
�I was looking and then I didn�t see what I was doing and it [finger]
got in there somehow. . . . The mousetrap was in our house because there�s
a mouse in our house The mousetrap is down in the basement next to
the firewood I was playing a game called �Operation� and then I went
downstairs and said to Dad, �I want to eat lunch� and then it got stuck in
the mousetrap My daddy was down in the basement collecting fire-
wood [My brother] pushed me into the mousetrap It happened
yesterday. The mouse was in my house yesterday. I caught my finger in it
yesterday. 1 went to the hospital yesterday.�
�Dubious Memories,� by Jill Smolowe, Time, May 23, 1994, and Jane
Gross�s article in the New York Times, April 8, 1994.)
Terr was also an expert witness for the prosecution of George Thomas
Franklin, a former California firefighter now in prison for life on the sole
testimony of his daughter Eileen. She said she �adored� her father until
1989, when therapy revived a twenty-year-old memory of having seen
him murder her best friend, eight-year-old Susan Nason. It had been an
unsolved crime, and the details were long familiar to Eileen.
In 1989, Eileen �remembered� her father hitting Susan on the head
with a rock after raping her. She also had revived memories of herself
being sexually molested by her father, and on one occasion being held
down by her father while one of his friends raped her. In 1990 the Cali-
108
Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
fomia Court of Appeals upheld Franklin�s life sentence. Terr firmly
believes Eileen�s long-repressed memories. On CNN�s �Sonya Live�
(March 13, 1994), I heard Terr say that one-sixth of all women have been
sexually abused as children and that the cases of revived memories prov-
ing false are only a �drop in the bucket� compared with revived memo-
ries that are true.
Dale Anthony Akiki, thirty-five, mentally retarded and physically
deformed (he is a hydrocephalic), spent two and a half years in jail after
ten children (ages three and four) in San Diego accused him of sexually
abusing them in satanic rituals at Faith Chapel, where he taught Sunday
school. The children had been pressured to fantasize by parents and ther-
apists. Akiki was accused of hanging them upside down from a chande-
lier, sodomizing them with a curling iron, dunking them in toilets, forc-
ing them to drink blood and urine and ingest feces, mutilating animals
and a human baby, and bringing an elephant and a giraffe to Sunday
school class, where he killed them.
Akiki was acquitted in November 1993 by a San Diego jury. Terr tes-
tified for the prosecution, insisting that only clinicians, not research psy-
chologists and psychiatrists, are capable of judging the validity of repressed
memory theory. In June 1994 the jury lambasted the therapists for their
techniques. Akiki�s attorneys are bringing a civil suit of $110 million
against the San Diego county. (Source: New York Times, June 3, 1994.)
In Hendersonville, North Carolina, where I live, a gullible jury con-
victed Michael Parker in 1993 of ritually abusing his three young chil-
dren. Their memories had been revived by therapists at the insistence of
their mother, who had been impressed by a book about Satanism. As
usual, the children�s memories were as bizarre as they were unsubstanti-
ated. Not only Parker, but his mother and seven others were accused of
satanic cult abuse. The children testified to being surrounded by the
accused, who were wearing Ku Klux Klan-type robes with emblems on
the sleeves, holding burning candles, and chanting. One little girl recalled
her father raping her with a big spoon. It became filled with blood, which
he poured into a cup and drank.
Divorced and living alone in a trailer camp in the nearby town of
Saluda, Parker was too poor to hire a lawyer. �Sodom and Saluda� was
what Mike Edwards, the prosecuting attorney, called the town. (Saludians
were of course furious.) He quoted frequently from the Bible while jurors
smiled and one man murmured �Amen.� It took them only fifty-five min-
utes to find Parker guilty. He is now in prison, eligible for parole in 160
years. Michael Edney, his court-appointed attorney, plans to appeal.
One of Parker�s daughters, who had been in a mental hospital, said
Parker had forced her to lie on the ground, her arms and legs pinned down
The Tragedies of False Memories 109
by horseshoes, while he molested her. She told the jury of a time when a
poster on her bedroom wall, advertising the �I Love Lucy� show, talked
to her and said she deserved all her suffering. None of the children had
told anyone about their abuse until undergoing therapy.
In spite of the FBI�s report that satanic cults are a myth fabricated by
fundamentalists and Pentecostals, the prosecuting attorney says they are
widespread in North Carolina. �My experience is when you uncover the
evidence of Satanism you get dribs and drabs,� he said. �It�s a fraternity that
has a code of silence like no other. We�ve got a peek at what it looks like.�
To escape prison, Parker�s mother accepted a plea bargain and pleaded �no
contest.� Trials of the other seven are coming up soon. (Source: Hender-
sonville�s Times-News from February 13, 1993, through February 5, 1994.)
A few earlier cases, out of thousands, deserve mention. The McMar-
tin Preschool case in Manhattan Beach, California, ended in 1990 with-
out convictions of the school�s director and her son. They had been
accused of hundreds of episodes of rape, oral and anal intercourse, and
unspeakable acts involving satanic mutilations of animals� all solely on
the basis of memories planted in the minds of suggestible children by
honest but quack psychologists. It was the longest (six and a half years)
and costliest criminal trial in U.S. history. The accusations had been trig-
gered by a mother who was later hospitalized for acute paranoid schizo-
phrenia. For details see The Abuse of Innocence: The McMartin
Preschool Trial, by Paul and Shirley Eberle (Prometheus Books, 1993).
In 1993 a New Jersey Court of Appeals overturned the forty-seven-year
sentence of Margaret Kelly Michaels for abusing nineteen children at the
Wee Care preschool, in Maplewood, New Jersey. An Essex County prose-
cutor spent almost $3 million of taxpayer money in his zeal to convict
Michaels solely on the basis of testimony by children who had been under-
going dubious therapy. They testified that Michaels could toss cars into trees
and that she liked to cover her nude body with peanut butter and make them
lick it off. They added the charge, so often repeated in books on satanic
cults, that they were forced to ingest feces and urine. They said Michaels
had pushed Lego toys into their vaginas and rectums. Michaels spent five
years in jail before her acquittal. Incredibly, the state is appealing.
Laura Pasley, thirty-nine, a secretary in the Dallas Police Department,
sought therapy for her bulimia and was told that all eating disorders
spring from repressed memories of child sex abuse. Using hypnosis and
dream analysis, her therapist soon persuaded her that she had been abused
by her mother, father, and grandfather, and a neighbor, and that her
brother once tried to kill her. She �remembered� sex abuse by animals. In
1992 she decided that all these aroused memories were false, and sued
both her counselor and therapist. The case was settled out of court.
110 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
�These therapists are doing something as evil as evil can be,� Pasley
told a reporter. She said that when she tried to tell her therapist that cer-
tain horrible events had not happened, he shook his head, insisting she
was �in denial� and only trying to protect her family. (Source: Pasley�s
article, �Misplaced Trust,� in True Stories of False Memories, edited by
Eleanor Goldstein and Kevin Farmer.)
The most tragic and still ongoing case of fabricated memories
involves the Little Rascals day-care center in Edenton, North Carolina, a
town torn apart by the case. On no basis except preposterous claims by
children, egged on by angry, mind-closed mothers, and memories evoked
by therapists, Robert Kelly, owner of the school, was convicted on ninety-
nine counts of first-degree sex offenses. He is currently serving a sen-
tence of twelve consecutive life terms, the longest sentence in North Car-
olina history. He can apply for parole in 240 years. Early this year his
wife, Betsey, pleaded �no contest,� which allowed her a reduced sentence
on forty-eight counts. She is serving seven years in prison.
Willard Scott Privott, a video-store owner associated with the Little
Rascals case, spent almost four years in jail awaiting trial because he
could not raise a $l-million bond. At his May 1994 trial, he escaped a
possible 363 years in prison by accepting a plea bargain, and was released
on a suspended ten-year sentence. He had been accused of sex acts with
Betsey in front of the children, as well as sex acts with the children, while
photos were taken. No such photos were found. Three other defendants
still await trials, and have been offered plea bargains.
�Innocence Lost,� a two-part television documentary on the Edenton
case, shown in 1993, was a vigorous attack on RMT. It left no doubt that
the youngsters confabulated and that those accused were innocent. The
town�s Christian parents were accurately depicted as hysterical in their
blind rage against the day-care workers and their associates. The Associ-
ated Press (June 17, 1994) quoted a typical statement by Susan Small, one
of the angriest of the mothers:
One day you [Willard Scott Privott] will stand before Almighty God and
be accountable for that which you have done here on earth and no
amount of lies and manipulation, no �Frontline� presentation, will be
able to hide the truth from Him. He knows every sorted detail and I pity
you for that.
There is not the slightest evidence, aside from the wild, garbled testi-
monies of the disturbed children, that Privott, who ran an audio store and
a shoe repair shop in Edenton, ever did anything wrong.
All those charged maintain total innocence. When the children were
The Tragedies of False Memories 111
first interviewed by therapists, they had no memories of sex abuse, but
after prolonged therapy, and hundreds of leading questions, memories of
abuse began to emerge. Some notion of the accuracy of these �memories�
can be gained by one child�s recalling that �Mr. Bob� had taken a group
of children aboard a ship surrounded by sharks. He threw one of the girls
in the ocean. Was she eaten by sharks? No, the boy replied. He had
jumped into the water and rescued her!
Children recalled seeing Mr. Bob kill babies with a pistol and take
photos of employees engaging in sex. They testified to sodomy by Mr.
Bob, and said he routinely shot children into outer space on rocket ships.
To this day the children, now young adults, swear their revived memories
are genuine. �We know. We were there,� they have said many times on
TV talk shows. One can only marvel at the intensity with which the pros-
ecuting attorneys continue to pursue the case. Could it be that winning a
court victory overrides their consciences?
The cases described only scratch the surface of nightmares that are
splintering families all over the United States and Canada and sending
innocent adults to prison for life. During the past dozen years, hundreds
of preschool teachers have been arrested on the basis of repressed-mem-
ory therapy. Leading psychiatrists seem powerless to combat the epi-
demic. The same techniques used to awaken long-repressed memories of
sex abuse are also being used by scores of therapists to revive memories
of abductions by aliens in UFOs, as well as memories of traumas experi-
enced in previous incarnations!
John Mack, a Harvard psychiatrist, has just published Abductions:
Human Encounters with Aliens (Scribner�s), a book about his successes
in using hypnosis to uncover memories of sex abuse on flying saucers.
Mack believes the aliens live in dimensions invisible to us. See his 1994
interviews in the New York Times Magazine (March 20), Time (April 25),
and Psychology Today (March/April).
Readers interested in up-to-date information about this mania can
contact the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, 3401 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19104, which publishes a newsletter. Books on both
sides of the bitter controversy are proliferating. Of special interest is
Lawrence Wright�s Remembering Satan: A Case of Recovered Memory
and the Shattering of an American Family (Knopf), The book reprints his
explosive two-part New Yorker article (May 17 and 24, 1993) about the
conviction of a pious policeman in Olympia, Washington, on the basis of
recovered memories of his two daughters. Because I discussed this
tragic case, which involved an alleged satanic cult, in my previous chap-
ter on false memories, I won�t repeat its crazy details here. It is a book
every American should read. Someday you may be called for jury duty on
112 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
a repressed-memory case that can result in terrible injustice unless you
and your fellow jurors are adequately informed.
By far the best, most detailed, most accurate, most compassionate
history of this tragic witch-hunt is Victims of Memory, by Mark Pender-
grast, published in 1996 by Upper Access Inc.
ADDENDUM
The tide against the RMT epidemic is finally starting to turn. Three recent
developments are responsible:
1. More and more patients and parents are suing therapists for mal-
practice and winning large settlements. (A �therapist,� by the way, can be
a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, family counselor, New Age
guru, or any untrained person who calls himself or herself a therapist.)
2. The overturning of past convictions by higher courts.
3. The rapid spread of accurate information about RMT to police,
attorneys, judges, and ordinary people who serve on juries.
In 1994, Vynnette Hamanne, of White Bear Lake, Minnesota, sued
her St. Paul psychiatrist, Dr. Diane Bay Humenansky, fifty-nine, for using
hypnosis and sodium amytal to convince her falsely that she had been
abused by a Satanic cult and was suffering from multiple personalities.
She persuaded Hamanne that she had been repeatedly sexually abused by
her father, mother, uncle, grandfather, grandmother, and maybe other
family members. One of Vynnette �s �memories� was of her grandmother
stirring a large cauldron containing dead babies! Another aroused mem-
ory was of having a child at age eight, then giving the child to a cult to be
sacrificed.
On July 31, 1995, a jury ordered Humenansky to pay $2.6 million,
the largest such settlement ever imposed on a psychiatrist. Six other
recanted patients are also suing Humenansky for arousing false memories
of child abuse and convincing them of nonexistent multiple personality
disorders. Their attorney is seeking a settlement of $6.9 million. The doc-
tor�s beliefs are so weird that the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice
has ordered her to undergo a physical and mental examination. In court
testimony she said she based her techniques on The Courage to Heal and
Sybil, two �bibles� of RMT believers. She contends that 90 percent of her
patients have been sexually abused as children, and that twenty have told
her about involvement in cults where babies were killed and eaten. (Ref-
erences: The Minneapolis/St. Paul Star Tribune, July 19, 23, 24, and
August 1, and an Associated Press release of August 1, all of 1995.)
In Pittsburgh Nicole Althaus recanted after fourteen months of RMT.
The Tragedies of False Memories 113
She and her parents, Richard and Cheryl, sued therapist Judith Cohen,
and were awarded $272,000 by a jury in 1994. Nicole had �remembered�
being tortured with a thumbscrew and giving birth to three babies who
were brutally murdered. She �recalled� a grandmother who rode on a
broom, and a time when she was raped in a crowded restaurant. Her poor
father had been taken from his home in handcuffs.
In Mount Holly, New Jersey, Joan and Kenneth Tuman sued a psy-
chiatric group called Genesis Associates, in Exton, for arousing false
memories of horrible satanic rituals in the mind of their twenty-year-old
daughter Diane. Diane had gone to Genesis to be treated for bulimia. She
soon developed memories of being raped by her father, and became con-
vinced that they had murdered a twin brother and other children in satanic
cult rituals. Her treatment involved �rage therapy� in which she was
urged to beat a pillow with a bat, scream the name of a hated parent, pre-
tending that the pillow was the person she was killing.
Genesis advised Diane to leave her parents and assume a new iden-
tity to �hide from the cult.� In 1995 a federal judge refused to dismiss the
lawsuit as urged by Genesis attorneys. According to a riveting two-part
�Frontline� TV documentary, �Divided Memory� (1995), eight other for-
mer patients are now suing Genesis for damaging their lives by creating
false memories. The documentary showed patients at Genesis sobbing
and writhing on the floor. (See the Legal Intelligencer 213, no. 17 [1995],
for the judge�s ruling.)
In Bangor, Maine, after a bitter divorce settlement, Peter Maury�s ex-
wife Barbara took their two young daughters to therapist Judith Osting.
Osting convinced the girls that their behavior problems arose from sexual
abuse by their father. In 1995 a federal jury awarded Maury $850,000 in
damages for the false accusations. (Source: Bangor Daily News, July 10,
11, 12, and 22, 1985.)
In 1985 Donna Sue Hubbard was given a hundred-year prison sen-
tence for alleged child molestations. Her conviction was overturned in
1995 by California�s Fifth District Court of Appeals. �There is substantial
likelihood that the children�s resulting testimony was false,� said Appel-
late Justice Thomas Harris.
These are only a small fraction of hundreds of recent cases in which
recanters and/or their parents are suing RM therapists for untold damage
to their lives, and cases in which earlier sentences have been overturned
by higher courts.
Children sometimes invent stories of sexual abuse without being
brainwashed by therapists. Bill Forester, of Greensboro, North Carolina,
spent two years of a life sentence in prison before Mindy Coppinger, who
had accused him of molesting her when she was six, admitted she made
114 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
up the story. �I�m very sorry,� she said. �I know I shouldn�t have told a
story because it was wrong.� (Source: Associated Press release of Decem-
ber 27, 1993.)
Michael Duane Boykin spent five years of two life terms in prison after
his twelve-year-old daughter Tanya accused him in 1989 of rape. He was
released in 1994 after Tanya confessed she had concocted the charge
because her father had threatened to punish her for skipping school. Boykin
had turned down a chance for plea bargaining to get a lessor sentence if he
pleaded guilty. (Source: Associated Press release of May 30, 1994.)
The latest, most sensational instances of overturned convictions
involve the Franklin case and the Little Rascals case, both covered in
chapter 6. In April 1995 a state court in Washington ordered a new trial for
George Franklin because of contradictions in his daughter�s testimony.
Another ground for overturning the verdict was that the jury had not been
told that details the daughter �remembered� about the murder of her friend
had all been widely published by the print and electronic media before her
�memories� were �revived.�
In May 1995, a North Carolina court of appeals ordered a new trial for
Robert Kelly, Jr., co-owner of the Little Rascals day-care center, and
Kathryn Dawn Wilson, the center�s cook. Both are serving life sentences
and will remain jailed until they are retried. It turned out that three of the
jurors never doubted the innocence of Kelly and Wilson, but were under
such pressure by the other jurors that they finally went along with a guilty
verdict only to avoid a hung jury. Three other former workers at the day-
care center still await trial. Attorney General Mike Easley vows to prosecute
them as long as the brainwashed children are able and willing to testify.
After six years in prison Kelly was finally released in 1995 on a
$200,000 bond after the state supreme court refused to reverse the court
of appeals ruling. Incredibly and sadly, he may be retried by a district
attorney more concerned about his reputation among hysterical Edenton
mothers than in justice to a falsely accused man.
Although Michael Parker is still serving a life sentence, all charges
were dropped in July 1995 against seven of his codefendants � innocent
bystanders living in Saluda, near Hendersonville where Parker�s trial took
place. Flagrant contradictions had been found in the testimonies of
Parker�s disturbed children. Parker�s mother had escaped her son�s fate by
pleading no contest without admitting guilt. Here is how I put it in a let-
ter that our local paper refused to print:
It is heartening news (July 27) that charges of child abuse have been
dropped against Cheyenne Hill and six codefendants living near Saluda.
The charges rested mainly on the conflicting testimonies of three men-
The Tragedies of False Memories 115
tally disturbed children brainwashed by an angry divorced mother and
by incompetent therapists.
If the district attorney is genuinely concerned about justice he
should drop charges against Michael Parker, now in prison for life, for
alleged crimes based on the same confabulations of his three children.
Charges also should be rescinded against Parker�s distraught mother
who pleaded no contest solely to escape her son�s fate.
The children testified to repeated abuses while surrounded by
satanic cult members holding candles, wearing robes with mysterious
emblems on the sleeves, and chanting. The nine-year-old girl said her
father had pinned her arms and legs to the ground with horseshoes while
he sexually assaulted her. The twelve-year-old daughter claimed her
father raped her with a big spoon that became filled with blood which
he drank. The twelve-year-old son said his grandmother took off all her
clothes and �jumped up and down� on him while his hands were tied to
bedposts. (See Times-News, January 21 to February 5, 1994.)
These and even wilder scenes related by the children are straight out
of books on nonexistent satanic cults written by paranoid fundamental-
ists. Officers, attorneys, judges, and juries, unaware of how easily false
memories can be fabricated, have sent hundreds of innocent parents to
prison for abuses that never occurred. Of many recent books about this
greatest scandal in modern psychiatry, I recommend Mark Pendergrast�s
Victims of Memory: Incest Accusations and Shattered Lives.
There are no satanic cults in Saluda. There never have been. It
would be a gracious gesture if the district attorney who spoke of
�Sodom and Saluda� in his zeal to sway a jury with biblical citations
would apologize for this crude canard.
John Mack has become such an embarrassment to Harvard that its
medical school conducted a year-long secret investigation to determine
whether Mack should be publicly censored. In August 1995 the investi-
gators announced that no adverse action would be taken. The investigat-
ing committee�s preliminary report found Mack �in violation of the stan-
dards of conduct expected of a member of the faculty,� and said he
deserved rebuke for �affirming the delusions� of his patients. Arnold Rei-
man, chairman of the committee, was quoted by the Boston Globe as say-
ing, �John Mack may win the Nobel Prize and go down in history as the
modem Galileo.�
* * *
It goes without saying that adults do rape and molest children. Where
there is solid evidence, such criminals should of course be punished. The
point is that equally terrible tragedies occur when judges and juries refuse
116 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
to believe that children can lie convincingly for a variety of reasons, and
can develop totally false memories under treatment by well-meaning but
self-deluded therapists. The same techniques can arouse false memories
of past sexual abuse in the minds of vulnerable adults. It is sad that so
many leading feminists have defended RMT without taking the trouble to
learn much about it. It would be to their interests not to support a mania
which has the effect of turning women into powerless victims of abuse
that never took place.
* * *
A selected bibliography of articles on RMT in academic journals, popu-
lar magazines, and leading newspapers would require dozens of pages.
Among the many recent books on RMT, I recommend the following:
Campbell, Terrence. Beware the Talking Cure.
Crews, Frederick. The Memory Wars: Freud�s Legacy in Dispute.
Eberle, Paul, and Shirley Eberle. The Abuse of Innocence: The McMartin
Preschool Trial.
Goldstein, Eleanor. Confabulations: Creating False Memories, Destroy-
ing Families.
Goldstein, Eleanor, and Kevin Farmer. True Stories of False Memories.
Loftus, Elizabeth, and Katherine Ketcham. The Myth of Repressed Mem-
ory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse.
Nathan, Debbie, and Michael Snedeker. Satan�s Silence: Ritual Abuse
and the Making of a Modern American Witch Hunt.
Ofshe, Richard, and Ethan Watters. Making Monsters: False Memory,
Psychotherapy, and Sexual Hysteria.
Pendergrast, Mark. Victims of Memory: Incest Accusations and Shattered
Lives.
Smith, Susan. Survivor Psychology: The Dark Side of a Mental Health
Mission.
Wakefield, Hollida, and Ralph Underwager. Return of the Furies: An
Investigation of Recovered Memory Therapy.
Wright, Lawrence. Remembering Satan: A Case of Recovered Memory
and the Shattering of an American Family.
CHAPTER TWELVE
LITERARY SCIENCE BLUNDERS
Unfortunately, there are people in the arts and humanities � conceiv-
ably, even some in the social sciences � who are proud of knowing very
little about science and technology, or about mathematics. The opposite
phenomenon is very rare. You may occasionally find a scientist who is
ignorant of Shakespeare, but you will never find a scientist who is proud
of being ignorant of Shakespeare.
� Murray Gell-Mann, as quoted in John Brockman,
The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution (1995)
C . P. Snow, in his famous little book The Two Cultures, maintained that
scientists usually know more about the arts than leaders of the
humanities know about science. One could fill this page with the names
of great scientists and mathematicians � Einstein is a notable example �
who loved classical music, many of whom were even skilled in playing
it. Other scientists, eminent and not so eminent, have been unusually
knowledgeable about poetry, literature, painting, and philosophy.
Contrariwise, it is not easy to find musicians, painters, novelists,
poets, and especially actors who have a knowledge of science beyond
what they learned in grade school. There are, of course, exceptions. Snow
himself was a physicist-turned-novelist who bridged the two cultures.
H. G. Wells was an earlier example. Milton and Dante were well ac-
quainted with the science of their time. So was Shelley. The same can be
said of such modern writers as Nabokov, Borges, Auden, Pynchon, Von-
negut, and Updike. By and large, however, persons trained in the arts tend
to be appallingly ignorant of the most elementary science. I recall a con-
fusing conversation I once had with a graduate student in English litera-
ture before I realized he did not know, as Shakespeare did, that what the
bard called the moon�s �pale fire� was �snatched� from the sun.
Over the decades I have gathered a list of amusing howlers involving
science that occur in literary works. Because it is far from exhaustive I
would welcome hearing of any blunders I have missed. It goes without
�Notes of a Fringe Watcher,� Skeptical Inquirer (January /February 1995).
117
118 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
saying that a science mistake in a work of fiction is only a minor blemish
that in no way mars the literary value of the work.
Let�s start with a little-noticed mistake by F. Scott Fitzgerald in his
masterpiece, The Great Gatsby. In chapter 2, Fitzgerald describes a huge
sign in front of an oculist�s shop in Queens, New York: �The eyes of Doc-
tor T. J. Eckleburg are blue and gigantic � their retinas are one yard high.
They look out of no face but, instead, from a pair of enormous yellow
spectacles which pass over a nonexistent nose.� Throughout the novel the
giant eyes symbolize the eyes of God. Did you get the mistake? One can-
not see retinas. Fitzgerald meant pupils or irises.
The first edition of Willa Cather�s best-known novel, Death Comes
for the Archbishop, had the following incredible passage:
_... A chasm in the earth over two hundred feet deep . . . through the
sunken fields and pastures, flowed a rushing stream which came from
the high mountains. Its original source was so high, indeed, that by
merely laying an open wooden trough up the opposite side of the
arroyo, the Mexicans conveyed the water to the plateau at the top. This
sluice was laid in sections that zigzagged up the face of the cliff.
Water can flow upward only when confined within siphons and other
structures, but not in open troughs. The error was corrected in later edi-
tions. In the same edition Cather speaks of mesas in the region of Acoma,
New Mexico, as �great tables of granite.� Actually they are made of sand-
stone. Another passage refers to a man�s right eye as �overgrown by a
cataract.� Cataracts are not growths on the outside of an eye lens or
cornea, as many believe. They are a clouding of the lens itself.
William Golding�s novel Lord of the Flies contains two outstanding
howlers. Flere is how Ralph, in the second chapter, starts a fire by using
the spectacles of the myopic Piggy:
There was pushing and pulling and officious cries. Ralph moved the
lenses back and forth, this way and that, till a glossy white image of the
declining sun lay on a piece of rotten wood. Almost at once a thin trickle
of smoke rose up and made him cough. Jack knelt too and blew gently,
so that the smoke drifted away, thickening, and a tiny flame appeared.
The flame, nearly invisible at first in that bright sunlight, enveloped a
small twig, grew, was enriched with color and reached up to a branch
which exploded with a sharp crack. The flame flapped higher and the
boys broke into a cheer.
Nearsighted (myopic) persons wear lenses that are concave. Only
convex lenses can focus sunlight on a small spot.
Literary Science Blunders 119
James Hugh, in �You Can Be Myopic and Still Survive on a Desert
Island,� in the Physics Teacher (December 1991), pointed out that a lens
for correcting nearsightedness is actually convex on the outward side, but
strongly concave on the side facing the eye. If such a lens is held hori-
zontally, the concavity can be filled with water to make it a convex lens
capable of starting a fire.
Golding makes an even worse mistake in chapter 5. The sun has just
set, stars have appeared, and a �sliver of moon� is rising above the hori-
zon. Golding, who majored in science at Oxford before he switched to lit-
erature, should have known that a moon rising after sunset has to be full,
not crescent-shaped.
Mistakes about the moon are common in both fiction and poetry. Evi-
dently most people are not aware that the moon, like the sun and the stars,
rises in the east and sets in the west. They seem to think the moon floats
about the sky randomly until it is dark enough for it to become visible.
Coleridge makes the same mistake in The Ancient Mariner. In part 3
�The Sun�s rim dips, the stars rush out: At one stride comes the dark.�
This is followed by a �homed moon� climbing in the east. Not only is this
moon a crescent, but it has �one bright star within its nether tip.� The line
originally read �almost atween the tips,� so Coleridge may have known
that a star inside the moon�s crescent is impossible, and intended this to
be a supernatural omen.
In George Eliot�s Mill on the Floss, Maggie Tulliver and her brother
are drowned on the river Floss when their frail boat is overturned by a
mass of debris floating toward them at a faster rate than the boat is drift-
ing. Actually, both boat and debris, unless there were strong eddies or
countercurrents, would move through the flowing river at the same rate.
In spite of lurid books and articles to the contrary, by poorly informed
journalists of pseudoscience, chemists agree that no human being ever
caught fire by spontaneous combustion. Such events occur only in fiction,
the most notorious instance being the sudden combustion of a drunken
Mr. Krock in Dickens�s Bleak House. Other instances of such deaths can
be found in Charles Brockton Brown�s Wieland, Nicolai Gogol�s Dead
Souls, Frederick Marry at �s Jacob Faithful, Herman Melville�s Redburn,
and Emile Zola�s Le Docteur Pascal.
The first edition (1885) of H. Rider Haggard�s best-selling novel
King Solomon�s Mines, in chapter 11, �We Give a Sign,� has a total
eclipse of the sun taking place during a full moon, and producing total
darkness for an hour and a half. A total eclipse of the sun can occur only
when the moon is between the earth and the sun and thus invisible, and
totality lasts only a few minutes. Not until the edition of 1886 did Hag-
gard change the event to a lunar eclipse.
120 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
It is easy to forget that the moon, like stars, can be overhead in the
daytime but nearly invisible. If the moon is full or gibbous, it often shines
in the dim light of sunrise or sunset. Apparently T. S. Eliot forgot this
when he complained about the seeming obscurity of the fifth stanza of
Shelley�s �To a Skylark�:
Keen as are the arrows
Of that silver sphere,
Whose intense lamp narrows
In the white dawn clear
Until we hardly see � we feel that it is there.
Is not the meaning obvious? Shelley is describing a silvery full moon
at daybreak. As the sky gets brighter, the image slowly fades until it
reaches a point when you hardly see it but �feel� it is still there. The van-
ishing is especially rapid in the foggy, air-polluted skies of London. In a
similar way, the song of a retreating skylark trails off into silence.
It is hard to believe, but here is what Eliot had to say about this stanza
in �A Note on Richard Crashaw� in his book For Lancelot Andrews:
For the first time perhaps in a verse of such eminence, sound exists
without sense I should be grateful for any explanation of this stanza;
until now I am still ignorant to what sphere Shelley refers, or why it
should have silver arrows, or what the devil he means by an intense
lamp narrowing in the white dawn; though I can understand that we
could hardly see the lamp of a silver sphere narrowing in white dawn
(why dawn? as he has just referred to the pale purple even). There may
be some clue for persons more learned than I; but Shelley should have
provided notes.
Someone must have explained the stanza to Eliot because he removed
his objection when the essay was reprinted in a later book.
Thomas Cook, in his crime novel Flesh and Blood (1989), has on page
44 an autopsy report saying, �At the moment of her death, her heart had
weighed four grams, her brain seven.� He must have meant kilograms.
Edgar Rice Burroughs, who never set foot in Africa, made so many
boo-boos about Africa�s flora and fauna in his Tarzan series that I under-
stand residents of the dark continent read the Tarzan books partly for
laughs.
Science-fiction writers are, of course, free to indulge in wild fantasy
about traveling faster than light, taking shortcuts through space warps, or
going back in time in spite of the logical paradoxes that arise, such as how
you could exist if you murdered your father when he was a child. The
Literary Science Blunders 121
whole range of psi phenomena (ESP, PK, precognition, and so on) per-
vades much of science fiction, as do aliens in UFOs visiting earth, the
transmission of human bodies by dissolving and reconstituting their mol-
ecules (�Beam me up, Scotty�), and a thousand other improbable things.
Of course we can forgive science-fiction writers for introducing Mar-
tian canals before it was clear they did not exist, or describing the �twi-
light zone� on Mercury. H. G. Wells correctly anticipated the dropping of
�atom bombs� in World War II, in his most prophetic novel The World Set
Free, but his airplanes were so primitive that the bombs were released by
hand through a hole in the bottom of the plane. Although electrical com-
puters appear in early science fiction, almost no author anticipated the
computer revolution. There are stories taking place far in the future with
scientists still making calculations on slide rules! Arthur Clarke, in his
novel Master of Space, was the only writer to anticipate the televising on
earth of the first moon landing.
Now and then, however, even the best science-fiction writers nod and
make unintended blunders. Jules Verne�s From the Earth to the Moon is
a classic instance. Inertial forces produced by the cannon used to shoot a
spaceship to the moon would have killed the astronauts. Verne assumes
that on the trip earth�s gravity would slowly diminish while the moon�s
gravity would slowly increase until the ship reached a balance point
where the two gravity pulls would be equal. Only then would the astro-
nauts float freely about inside their ship. Verne should have known that
his ship would be in free-fall all the way to the moon, with weightless-
ness experienced inside at all times. Another blunder occurs when the
travelers fling out a dead dog and the carcass floats alongside the ship
instead of speeding off horizontally.
H. G. Wells trounced Verne for such blunders, but in his First Men in
the Moon he makes a mistake equally absurd. We cannot fault him for his
Cavorite, a substance that insulates the ship from gravity, because Einstein
had not yet shown that any sort of gravity shield would be impossible.
Wells describes all the unattached objects in his spaceship as cluster-
ing toward the sphere�s center by the attraction of their masses. Of course
their gravitational pulls would be far too minute to have such an effect.
It is well known that inside a spherical shell, no matter how large,
gravitational attraction due to the sphere itself is zero at all points. Ross
Rocklynne, in his story �At the Center of Gravity,� has men trapped by
gravity at the center of a hollow sphere the size of the earth.
Just as many mistakes about space travel turn up in science-fiction
films. One of the most common errors is showing a ship moving relative
to the stars. Stars are much too far away and too far apart to display such
motion.
122 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Electronic conversations back and forth over vast distances, with no
recognition of time delays, frequently take place in science-fiction stories
and movies. Laser beams often glow as they move through space when in
fact they would be invisible in the absence of molecules.
Another frequent blunder of early science fiction was assuming that
meteor or meteoroid collisions with spaceships would be a constant haz-
ard. Actually, encounters with meteors, even with asteroids while moving
through the asteroid belt, would be rare because of the vast distances
between them. Hollow earths play a role in fiction by Verne, Burroughs,
Poe, and others. Inertial drives for spaceships violate Newton�s third law
of motion (conservation of momentum) yet they are featured in many sci-
ence-fiction yams. Even Arthur Clarke, who knows better, uses an iner-
tial drive in Rendezvous with Rama. For several years John Campbell, the
editor of Analog Science Fiction, who tumbled for a variety of pseudo-
sciences (including Scientology), trumpeted a worthless space drive in his
magazine.
Charles Eric Maine, in High Vacuum, speaks of astronauts in space
suits on an airless planet as being unable to hear their own footsteps. He
should have realized that footstep sounds would be transmitted by shoes,
feet, legs, and air inside the suits. In The Tomorrow People, Judith Meril
has a helicopter whirling about the moon, where the absence of atmos-
phere, as even Kant observed, would prevent birds from flying. In Hot-
house, Brian Aldiss has giant spiders spinning webs that join the earth and
the moon, forgetting that the earth�s rotation relative to the moon would
rip such webs apart.
It is conceivable that humanoids from other planets might find
humans sexually attractive, but early science fiction often had bug-eyed
monster males making passes at female earthlings, something akin to an
earthling being sexually aroused by an octopus.
Lord Byron�s Prisoner of Chillon says:
My hair is grey, but not with years,
Nor grew it white in a single night
As men�s have grown from sudden fears.
Hair cannot suddenly turn white, although it does so in many nine-
teenth-century novels.
How often have you encountered in fiction and films persons who
disguised their voices on the telephone by stretching a handkerchief over
the mouthpiece, or who listen to conversation in another room by putting
an ear to the bottom of a drinking glass, its rim pressing against the wall?
Cloth has no effect on the quality of a voice. When eavesdropping on
Literary Science Blunders 123
sounds in another room, you do even better by flattening an ear to the
wall. As a child, I recall being puzzled by one of Harold Lloyd�s come-
dies in which someone chalked �KICK� on a wall. When Harold leaned
against the wall the words, unreversed, were imprinted on the back of his
jacket.
I myself once wrote a story called �The Island of Five Colors,� based
on my confusing the famous four-color-map theorem (unproved at the
time) with a completely different theorem, easily verified by graph the-
ory, that five regions cannot be drawn on the plane so each borders the
other four. The two theorems are often thought to be the same, as I
learned to my embarrassment after the story appeared in an anthology.
I find in my files the following charming poem by Mary Winter,
clipped from the New York Times (December 4, 1957):
THE STRANGER TRUTH
Forming a bivalve, as before,
The shell close-cupped upon my ear
Gives back the waves� diminished roar.
A child�s faith once implicitly
Accepted this fine fantasy.
As clear, oh clear, the surge and whirr
Of surf and wind came back to her.
And magic still returns, though sense
Instructs my muted turbulence;
Rhythm of blood�s salt tide in me
Murmurs the cadence of the sea.
Wonder revives, though knowing well,
My ear, it is, informs the shell.
The poem�s theme is that the roaring you hear in shells is not an echo
of ocean waves but something even stranger � the echo of blood coursing
through the veins of your head. The truth is less strange. It is merely the
echo of sounds in the air around you as their waves resonate inside the
shell�s chamber.
ADDENDUM
My roundup of literary science blunders produced a large number of let-
ters. Only the following eight were published (May/June 1995):
124 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
I very much enjoyed reading Martin Gardner�s �Literary Science Blun-
ders.� I marveled at how astute Gardner was at detecting �howlers� in lit-
erature, errors that I might not always have detected on cursory reading.
One error I did catch appeared in Ernst J Unger�s famous novel
Heliopolis, lunger�s hero travels to the moon and describes in poetic
terms how the landscape colors itself in successive shades of yellow,
then orange, then red as the sun sets over the moon�s horizon. In reality,
of course, the moon�s mountains, craters, and plains must remain color-
less due to the absence of any atmosphere on the moon.
I was about seventeen when one of my uncles, a poet who wanted
to educate me in the literary masterpieces of the world, recommended
that I read Heliopolis. In fact, so impressed was he by this work that he
proclaimed �the world is divided into two classes of people: those who
have read Heliopolis, and those who have not.� Well, read the book I
did, then pointed out the error to my uncle, who angrily chided me for
calling attention to such trivial matters that in no way detract from the
beauty of this work of genius. We had quite an argument about this,
which I think I lost.
Didier de Fontaine, Professor of Materials Science,
University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Permit me to add to Martin Gardner�s delightful list of �Literary Sci-
ence Blunders.�
Nikos Kazantzakis, in his controversial novel The Last Temptation
of Christ, constructed a scene where the disciples of Jesus are fearfully
discussing the potential ramifications of the recent beheading of John
the Baptist by King Herod. Jacob speaks to his compatriots: �Wait a
minute, lads,� he said, �don�t explode like gunpowder.� Of course gun-
powder would not be known in the Middle East for another 1,300
years . . . !
Robert R. Weilacher, Palestine, Texas
I was delighted with the premise of Martin Gardner�s �Literary Science
Blunders.� However, I became disappointed, as he seemed to defeat his
premise by showing ignorance of literary conventions and of the
processes by which books and films reach the public.
While I�m sure it is true that artists and authors are as ignorant
about science as the general public, it would have been nice if Gardner
had chosen more convincing examples of blunders; this would have
shown how such �howlers� detract from otherwise noteworthy works,
therefore justifying the posit that artists should be better informed than
the general public, as I think they should.
Gardner seems not to know a true conceptual error on the part of
the author (the eyeglass scene in Lord of the Flies) from an editor�s
omission. Fitzgerald knew damn well what he was describing, and so
Literary Science Blunders
125
does anyone who reads the passage, but his editor should have noticed
that he used the wrong word to describe the visible part of the eye, and
corrected the manuscript.
Authors may describe things counter to nature for a variety of rea-
sons. In The Mill on the Floss, the log that overtakes Maggie Tulliver�s
boat is a metaphor for the way life has overtaken her; it is a literary
device. Yes, physically, it should not have happened; that�s the whole
point. Cather, in turn, describes the appearance of the man�s eye, not the
scientific reality of his condition. Often a severe cataract is visible
through the pupil, and does appear to grow over the eye. Krock is des-
tined to have drink destroy him, so Dickens decides to use high drama
to make a point. Krock is an alcohol-soaked raisin (a Victorian dessert,
served flaming) lit by the hand of an exasperated God. . . .
I sincerely hope Gardner has more examples of literary blunders �
ones that can stand scrutiny, because it is certainly true that art suffers
when artists are ignorant. Would a gifted wordsmith with a small scope
have been more prolific and insightful if better informed? Probably. Gard-
ner is the first person that I know of to take a �hard science� tack with this
subject, but social scientists have been picking at historical and cultural
inaccuracies in literature for generations. I hope they all will continue.
Rebekah Hammer, Bloomington, Ind.
In �Literary Science Blunders,� no effort appears to have been made to
distinguish mistakes that might be worthy of such characterization from
misstatements of scientific truths that more properly should be charac-
terized as lit rary/poetic license. If an author perceives a need for an
occurrence that requires some departure from �truth,� it would seem to
fall within the millennia-old tradition of deus ex machina. If, quite prop-
erly, an �exception� is recognized for science fiction, why are �main-
stream� authors not to be afforded the same luxury? Indeed, is Gardner
also guilty of a �blunder� when he states that on a trip to the moon the
ship �would be in free-fall all the way to the moon.� What ever hap-
pened to the need to achieve and maintain escape velocity from the
earth? Is that an oversimplification, a blunder, or to be overlooked? (Or
am I wrong in believing that that is a scientific fact that comes into play
on any attempt to leave the earth�s gravitational pull, before one can
achieve free-fall to the moon?)
Kenneth B. Povodator, Fairfield, Conn.
Gardner�s �Literary Science Blunders� serves only to ridicule artists,
particularly literary artists, for not being scientists. He mocks writers for
not knowing what we know. Such derision requires the assumptions that
it is better to know what we know than what they know and that we are
superior to them for knowing it. The polite term for Gardner�s attitude
is �arrogant.� The precise term is �bigoted.�
126 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Ironically, Carl Sagan�s �Wonder and Skepticism� in the same issue
warns us that �the least effective way for skeptics to get the attention of
_. . . people is to belittle or condescend, or show arrogance.�
Sagan again: �The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement
is polarization: Us vs. Them � the sense that we have a monopoly on the
truth; that those other people . . . are morons; that if you�re sensible,
you�ll listen to us.�
Russell King, Madison, Wise.
Gardner�s essay on writers ignorant of scientific fact was amusing; but
perhaps he might also collect lists of science writers who make glaring
literary blunders. An off-the-cuff example: a recent overview of dinosaur
paleontology (Kings of Creation, Lessem, 1992) illustrates the geologi-
cal time-scale by quoting Mark Twain � that human life on this planet is
like the paint atop the Empire State Building. Twain died in 1910, long
before the Empire State building existed. This is a minor error of fact
comparable to F. Scott Fitzgerald�s using �retinas� for pupils.
Unlike Gardner, I am skeptical as to whether scientists are any
more knowledgeable about the arts and humanities than painters and
poets and musicians are knowledgeable about science. In regard to
major errors of understanding, for every blockheaded artist ignorant of
the orbits of the moon there are also blockheaded scientists ignorant of
their own lunatic fringe. An off-the-cuff example: the �great� biologist
Haeckel, who in Riddle of the Universe and other popular works re-
corded dangerous distortions of history, philosophy, and religion, as
well as bad science. Fortunately, different human beings have different
talents that add checks and balances to the hubris of any expertise. Ulti-
mately, we are all amateurs at living; and while Einstein did play clas-
sical music, the joke was that he couldn�t keep �time.�
James Alan Brown, Willoughby, Ohio
If Gardner wants to ferret out literary science blunders, he should get his
literature correct first. In no place in Nikolai Gogol�s Dead Souls does
any character physically �spontaneously combust.� Gogol does make
references, in his last chapter, to the protagonist Chichikov symbolically
being consumed by fire in an expensive suit of �smoke and flame.�
Later, Chichikov �was shaken to the core of his being and melted too.
_. . . The strongest of men also yield in the furnace of misfortune. . . .�
(Dead Souls, the Reavey translation, part 2, chapter 5). This is, again,
only a symbolic reference. Chichikov, in the last mention Gogol makes
of him, is still alive, hardly a pile of cinders. Writers certainly make sci-
ence blunders, but the converse, scientists making �literature blunders,�
is equally amusing.
Walter W. Reisner, Durham, N.C.
Literary Science Blunders 127
Gardner writes: �Thomas Cook, in his crime novel Flesh and Blood
(1989), has on page 44 an autopsy report saying: �At the moment of her
death, her heart had weighed 4 grams, her brain seven.� He must have
meant kilograms.�
The average human brain is about 3 pounds, or 1.3 kilograms.
Unless the brain had swelled up and cracked open the skull, it�s unlikely
the brain was 7 kilograms.
Mark Gilkey, Palo Alto, Calif.
It is perhaps unfortunate that Gardner�s notes on literary science blun-
ders was in the same issue with C. Eugene Emery, Jr.�s �Media Watch�
column, because this contained a blunder almost as delicious as the ones
that Gardner commented on. Specifically, Emery noted that people were
not masked against alien viruses or bacteria in the Roswell TV movie.
Infectious agents, at least on our planet, tend to be highly species spe-
cific. Infection across species boundaries is unusual. Transmission by
species with completely different evolutionary histories is almost incon-
ceivable and certainly far less likely than that a forester would contract
dutch elm disease. Emery may have also missed the most entertaining
biologic error in the Roswell incident, the assumption that an intelli-
gent, tool-using being would have to be patterned after mankind, obvi-
ously the highest point on the evolutionary tree. My parrot, Ralph, sug-
gests that this is the height of speciesism and extraordinarily unlikely
from an evolutionary standpoint.
Mark Hauswald, M.D., Associate Professor,
Dept, of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, N.M.
Now for some comments on unpublished correspondence.
James M. Rowley reminded me that John Livingston Lowes, in his
classic The Road to Xanadu, devotes many pages to Coleridge�s horned
moon. There is no question that Coleridge was fully aware that no star
could be between the tips of the moon�s crescent. He introduced this
image to strengthen his ballad�s fantasy. Lowes also argues that the seem-
ing error about the rising full moon at sunset is not a mistake because the
stanza implies a passage of time between sunset and moonrise. Actually,
I covered this at some length in the notes to my Annotated Ancient
Mariner, but had forgotten about it.
Bernard David defended George Eliot by arguing that a frail craft on
a river can drift much more slowly than a mass of debris.
David J. Simmons sent me pages from Isaac Asimov�s chapter in Of
Matters Great and Small where he apologizes for thinking the North Star
was fixed in the sky at the time of the Phoenicians when actually it was
then almost 17 degrees away from where the north pole pointed. Subse-
128 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
quent precession of the earth�s axis brought the star to its present fixed
spot. Asimov quotes Shakespeare making the same mistake when his
Julius Caesar says just before being stabbed:
But I am constant as the northern star,
Of whose true fix�d and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament.
The skies are painted with unnumber�d sparks;
They are all fire and every one doth shine;
But there�s but one in all doth hold his place.
David Todd cited a passage in Virginia Woolf�s Orlando which de-
scribed children�s balloons floating above a pavilion at Henry VIII�s
court. There were no rubber balloons then, let alone a way of inflating
them with hydrogen. Todd also copied the following lines from Thomas
Hood�s poem �Forsaken�:
Last night unbound my raven locks,
The morning saw them turn to gray.
Vincent Ambro quoted the following lines from Roald Dahl�s novel
Danny, The Champion of the World. �He turned his head, fixing me with
his pale eyes. The eyes were large and ox-like, and they were so near to
me that I could see my own face reflected upside down in the center of
each.� Seeing one�s face reflected in another�s eyes is possible, but it is
right side up. Only on the invisible retina is it inverted.
D. F. Gibbs pointed out numerous scientific impossibilities in H. G.
Wells�s two stories �The New Accelerator� and �The Invisible Man,� and
in Wells�s novel The First Men in the Moon. I found him right on all
counts, but have little doubt that Wells was aware of these contradictions,
sacrificing them for the sake of his plots.
William Harmon reminded me of Matthew Arnold�s poem �Dover
Beach,� which speaks of Sophocles long ago hearing tides on the Aegean.
The Aegean Sea does not have tides. Harmon also referred to Tennyson�s
�The Lotus Eaters� where it tells of mariners arriving at a spot where
�full-faced above the valley stood the moon.�
H. W. Lewis recalled an old science-fiction film titled Rocketship XM
in which a spaceship suddenly ran out of fuel. This caused the ship to
come to a crashing stop that threw the astronauts around the cabin. He
also wrote about a Jules Verne novel that featured a large helicopter with
an open deck on which passengers could sun themselves if the helicopter
was flying downwind. They had to retire to the cabin when flying
Literary Science Blunders 129
upwind. �That was of course derived from Verne�s seagoing experience.
_... To this day some flight instructors tell their students it is important to
maintain airspeed when flying downwind. It is for psychological reasons
if you can see the ground, but the airplane doesn�t know the difference.�
In another letter from David Todd I learned for the first time that the
poet Muriel Rukeyser had written in her twenties a biography of the sci-
entist Wilfred Gibbs. On page 156 she quotes the line �Beer not recom-
mended� from one of Gibbs�s notes on a speech he had heard. Rukeyser
took this to mean that drinking beer was not recommended. Actually,
Gibbs was referring to a physicist named Beer.
Ralph D. Copeland found a line in William Diehl�s mystery novel
Primal Fear where he refers to steers used for breeding cattle. Steers are
castrated males.
Physicist Allen Janis wrote to tell me about physics blunders in three
science-fiction yarns: Jerome Bixby�s �The Holes Around Mars�
(reprinted in Asimov�s collection Where Do We Go From Here?), Ross
Rocklynne�s �Center of Gravity,� and Larry Niven�s �Neutron Star.�
Gwydion M. Williams sent seventeen errors he had spotted in science-fic-
tion novels, stories, and films.
Dana Richards, L. Sprague de Camp, and John Geohegan wrote
about the many science blunders in Conan Doyle�s Sherlock Holmes
tales. In �The Speckled Band,� wrote de Camp, �Doyle has a captive
snake fed on milk and trained by the sound of a whistle though snakes
don�t drink milk and have no ears.�
Geohegan and Richards discussed the curious mistake in �The
Adventure of the Priory School.� Holmes deduces from mud tracks which
way a bicycle was going by the fact that the deeper impression made by
the rear wheel (owing to greater weight on it) crossed over the shallower
track of the front wheel. If you think carefully, you will realize that this
would be the case regardless of the direction traveled by the bicycle.
When the error was pointed out to Doyle, after the story appeared in The
Strand, he couldn�t believe it until he tried it out by rolling a friend�s bicy-
cle through mud.
Asimov, in a chapter on �Sherlock Holmes as Chemist� (in his an-
thology The Roving Mind), cites numerous chemical howlers in the
Holmes canon. To list only a few: Holmes refers to an �amalgam� when
he means an �alloy.� He calls a carbuncle blue, whereas all carbuncles are
red. He thinks the carbuncle is crystallized charcoal, confusing it with a
diamond. Holmes assures Watson that he can �distinguish at a glance the
ash of any known brand either of cigar or of tobacco.� Asimov comments:
�If he can, he is the only human being of Earth or in history who can or
could.�
130 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Mario Milosevec sent me pages from the first edition of Larry
Niven�s science-fiction novel Ringworld. In the first chapter his hero,
Louis Wu, follows the sun by transporting himself instantly from city to
city in an easterly direction. The error was corrected, Milosevec thinks,
in a later edition.
Milosevec also copied a letter from Scott Jarrett to Isaac Asimov�s
Science Fiction Magazine (April 1987) listing seven instances earlier
than the Clarke novel I mentioned, in which television broadcasts were
made or planned to be made from the moon. His earliest instance was J.
Schlossel�s 1928 short story, �To the Moon by Proxy,� in which a robot
goes to the moon while monitored on earth by television. Asimov won-
ders if any readers can go further back than 1928.
Incredibly, such an example was reported by Dennis Lien in a letter
to Asimov�s magazine in November 1988. Homer Eon Flint, in �The
Planeteer� (All-Story Weekly, March 9, 1918), has people on earth watch
the activities of a crew on the moon by a television device that also allows
them to talk to the astronauts!
After my column appeared I came across this blunder in Kahlil
Gibran�s The Prophet. Gibran writes: �The owl whose night-bound eyes
are blind unto the day.� That owls cannot see in daylight is a common
myth. Like cats, owls see well at night, but also see equally well by day.
Doyle�s bicycle mistake and some others cited above were not, of
course, science blunders. I also collect nonscientific blunders in poetry,
plays, and fiction. Others include the time Robinson Crusoe stripped him-
self of clothing, then swam to the wreckage of a ship where he filled his
pockets with biscuits. While Don Quixote was being serialized, Cer-
vantes has Sancho Panza sell his donkey. Later in the story he forgot
about it and has Sancho riding the donkey again. Shakespeare�s historical
and geographical errors are abundant. He speaks of cannon during the
reign of King John, of striking clocks in the days of Julius Caesar. Hec-
tor quotes Aristotle, Coriolanus refers to Cato, Cleopatra�s palace has a
billiard table, and Bohemia has a seacoast.
It is well known that Keats, in his sonnet �On First Looking into Chap-
man�s Homer,� has �stout Cortez� staring at the Pacific when he should
have been Balboa. Kipling made a geographical error in the first line of
�Mandalay.� Moulmein is on the west coast of Burma. Instead of looking
eastward to the sea, it looks westward toward the Bay of Bengal. The dawn
may come up like thunder out of China, but not across from any water.
Errors such as those have suggested to critics that the great creative
writers are far more careless about such things than lesser writers. Their
genius just doesn�t bother with such trivia. Mistakes of this sort, however,
are a topic for another essay.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
SCIENCE VS. BEAUTY?
M y previous chapter was about the gulf that too often divides the cul-
ture of science from the culture of the liberal arts. Nowhere is this
chasm more noticeable than in the lines of certain poets who believe that
a knowledge of science somehow destroys one�s awareness of the won-
ders and beauty of nature.
Over the decades I�ve collected some examples:
The moon shines down with borrowed light,
So savants say � I do not doubt it.
Suffice its silver trance my sight,
That�s all I want to know about it.
A fig for science. . . .
� Robert Service
The goose that laid the golden egg
Died looking up its crotch
To find out how its sphincter worked.
Would you lay well? Don�t watch.
� X. J. Kennedy, �Ars Poetica�
I�d rather learn from one bird how to sing
Than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance.
� e e cummings
While you and i have lips and voice which
are for kissing and to sing with
who cares if some one-eyed son of a bitch
invents an instrument to measure Spring with?
� e e cummings
�Notes of a Fringe Watcher,� Skeptical Inquirer (March/ April 1995).
131
132 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
T
_... Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold philosophy?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
We know her woof, her texture; she is given
In the dull catalogue of common things.
Philosophy will clip an Angel�s wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air and gnomed mine �
Unweave a rainbow. . . .
� John Keats, �Lamia�
�Arcturus� is his other name �
I�d rather call him �Star.�
It�s very mean of Science
To go and interfere!
I pull a flower from the woods �
A monster with a glass
Computes the stamens in a breath
And has her in a �class�!
� Emily Dickinson
A Color stands abroad
On Solitary Fields
That Science cannot overtake
But Human Nature feels.
It waits upon the Lawn,
It shows the furthest Tree
Upon the furthest Slope you know
It almost speaks to you.
Then as Horizons step
Or Noons report away
Without the Formula of sound
It passes and we stay �
A quality of loss
Affecting our Content
As Trade had suddenly encroached
Upon a Sacrament.
� Emily Dickinson
Science vs. Beauty? 133
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings;
Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things: �
We murder to dissect.
Enough of Science and of Art;
Close up those barren leaves;
Come forth, and bring with you a heart
That watches and receives.
� Wordsworth, �The Tables Turned�
Today we breathe a commonplace,
Polemic, scientific air;
We strip illusion of her veil;
We vivisect the nightingale
To probe the secret of his note
The Muse in alien ways remote
Goes wandering.
� Thomas Bailey Aldrich
Science! true daughter of Old Time thou art!
Who alterest all things with thy peering eyes.
Why preyest thou thus upon the poet�s heart,
Vulture, whose wings are dull realities?
� Edgar Allan Poe
There�s machinery in the butterfly,
There�s a mainspring to the bee.
There�s hydraulics to a daisy
And contraptions to a tree.
If we could see the birdie
That makes the chirping sound
With psycho-analytic eyes,
With X-ray, scientific eyes,
We could see the wheels go round.
And I hope all men
Who think like this
Will soon lie underground.
� Vachel Lindsay
Similar sentiments have been expressed in prose. Here are a few:
Coleridge: �The real antithesis of poetry is not prose but science.� Billy
Rose: �I wish the engineers would keep their slide rules out of the bits of
134 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
fairyland left in this bollixed up world.� Nietzsche: �They [scientists]
have cold, withered eyes before which all birds are unplumed.�
There is something to be said for such sentiment, though not much. It
is possible for scientists to become so wrapped up in their work that they
lose all sense of nature�s beauty and mystery. �When you understand all
about the sun and all about the atmosphere and all about the rotation of
the earth,� wrote Alfred North Whitehead, a philosopher who stood
astride the two cultures, �you may still miss the radiance of the sunset.�
G. K. Chesterton made the same point in his amusing story �The
Unthinkable Theory of Professor Green,� in Tales of the Long Bow. Green
is an astronomer who forgot about the world around him until one day
when he fell in love with a farmer�s daughter. He announces a lecture on
his discovery of a new planet. The auditorium is packed with colleagues
while he describes one of the planet�s strange creatures. Slowly it dawns
on Green�s listeners that he is describing a cow.
I suppose that scientists like Professor Green, before he discovered
the earth, exist, but if so, I have yet to encounter one. On the contrary,
almost all scientists believe that as their knowledge increases, their sense
of wonder also grows. The scientist sees a flower, said physicist John
Tyndall, �with a wonder superadded.�
Professor Green�s unthinkable theory reminds me of stanza xcii from
the first canto of Byron�s Don Juan:
He thought about himself, and the whole earth,
Of man the wonderful, and of the stars,
And how the deuce they ever could have birth;
And then he thought of earthquakes, and of wars,
How many miles the moon might have in girth.
Of air-balloons, and of the many bars
To perfect knowledge of the boundless skies; �
And then he thought of Donna Julia�s eyes.
The Laputans, in Gulliver�s Travels, describe a woman�s beauty by
�rhombs, circles, parallelograms, ellipses, and other geometrical terms.�
Arthur S. Eddington, writing on �Science and Mysticism� in The Nature
of the Physical World, quotes from a page on winds and waves in a text-
book on hydrodynamics. He then compares this with the aesthetic expe-
rience of watching actual sea waves �dancing in the sunshine.�
That knowledge of science adds to one�s appreciation of the mystery
and splendor of the cosmos has nowhere been more vigorously expressed
than by the late physicist Richard Feynman in Christopher Syke�s No
Ordinary Genius (W. W. Norton, 1994). He described an artist friend who
Science vs. Beauty? 135
would hold up a flower and say: �I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a
flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull.�
�I think he�s kind of nutty,� says Feynman, and he adds:
First of all, the beauty he sees is available to other people � and to me
too. Although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is, I can
appreciate the beauty of a flower.
At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I
could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which
also have a beauty. I mean, it�s not just beauty at this dimension of one
centimeter: there is also beauty at a smaller dimension � the inner struc-
ture. The fact that the colors in the flower are evolved in order to attract
insects to pollinate it is interesting � it means that the insects can see the
color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower
forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which a
science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the
awe of a flower. It only adds. I don�t understand how it subtracts.
Does it make any less of a beautiful smell of violets to know that
it�s molecules? To find out, for example, that the smell of violets is very
similar to the chemical that�s used by a certain butterfly (I don�t know
whether it�s true, like my father�s stories!), a butterfly that lets out this
chemical to attract all its mates? It turns out that this chemical is exactly
the smell of violets with a small change of a few molecules. The differ-
ent kinds of smells and the different kinds of chemicals, the great vari-
ety of chemicals and colors and dyes and so on in the plants and every-
where else, are all very closely related, with very small changes, and the
efficiency of life is not always to make a new thing, but to modify only
slightly something that�s already there, and make its function entirely
different, so that the smell of violets is related to the smell of earth
These are all additional facts, additional discoveries. It doesn�t take
away that it can�t answer questions of what, ultimately, does the smell
of violets really feel like when you smell it. That�s only if you expected
science to give the answers to every possible question. But the idea that
science takes away is something I don�t understand.
It�s true that technology can have an effect on art that might be a
kind of subtraction. For example, in the early days painting was to make
pictures when pictures were unavailable, that was one reason: it was
very useful to give people pictures to look at, to help them think about
God, or the Annunciation, or whatever. When photography came as a
result of technology, which itself was the result of scientific knowledge,
then that made pictures very much more available. The care and effort
needed to make something by hand which looked exactly like nature
and which was once such a delight to see now became mundane in a
way (although of course there�s a new art � the art of taking good pic-
tures). So yes, technology can have an effect on art, but the idea that it
136 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
takes away mystery or awe or wonder in nature is wrong. It�s quite the
opposite. It�s much more wonderful to know what something�s really
like than to sit there and just simply, in ignorance, say, �Oooh, isn�t it
wonderful!�
A famous poem by Walt Whitman tells how he listened to a �learn �d
astronomer� lecture about the heavens until he (Walt) became �unac-
countably tired and sick.� He walks out of the lecture room into the �mys-
tical moist night air� so he can look up �in perfect silence at the stars.�
Here is how Feynman, in his Lectures on Physics, reacted to the
notion that astronomical knowledge dulls one�s sense of awe toward the
cosmos:
�The stars are made of the same atoms as the earth.� I usually pick one
small topic like this to give a lecture on. Poets say science takes away
from the beauty of the stars � mere gobs of gas atoms. Nothing is
�mere.� I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do
I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagina-
tion � stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-
old light. A vast pattern � of which I am a part � perhaps my stuff was
belched from some forgotten star, as one is belching there. Or see them
with the greater eye of Palomar, rushing all apart from some common
starting point when they were perhaps all together. What is the pattern,
or the meaning, or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know
a little about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of
the past imagined! Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What
men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he
is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?
Isaac Asimov, writing on �Science and Beauty� in The Roving Mind,
quotes Whitman�s poem. �The trouble is that Whitman is talking through
his hat,� says Asimov. Of course the night sky is beautiful, but is there not
a deeper, added beauty provided by astronomy? Asimov continues with
lyrical paragraphs about the �weird and unearthly beauty� of our sister
planets, as recently disclosed by space probes, about the awesome won-
ders of the stars, of the billions of galaxies each containing billions of
suns, of clusters of galaxies, and superclusters fleeing from each other as
the universe expands from its incredible origin in the explosion of a tiny
point some 15 billion years ago.
And all of this vision � far beyond the scale of human imaginings � was
made possible by the works of hundreds of learn �d astronomers. All of
it; all of it was discovered after the death of Whitman in 1892, and most
Science vs. Beauty?
137
of it in the past twenty-five years, so that the poor poet never knew what
a stultified and limited beauty he observed when he look�d up in perfect
silence at the stars.
Nor can we know or imagine now the limitless beauty yet to be
revealed in the future � by science.
ADDENDUM
The following three letters appeared in the Skeptical Inquirer (July/
August 1995):
As always, Martin Gardner makes an excellent point in his piece �Sci-
ence and Beauty.� Knowledge of how the universe works certainly can
and should deeply increase one�s sense of its loveliness and, yes, mys-
teriousness.
However, perhaps Gardner overlooks an important source of much
emotional reaction against the scientific worldview. Increasingly, scien-
tific findings and theories extend the domain of physical causality into
humankind itself. The more thoroughly our thoughts, feelings, and
actions are shown to be matters of chemistry and structure, the less
room is left for traditional free will, not to mention an immortal soul or
a God.
It doesn�t really do much good to to say that these questions are not
subject to empirical test and therefore lie beyond the purview of sci-
ence. At best, this simply sweeps them under the rug. At worst, it is dis-
honest. The fact is, most of them are integrally involved with material
reality. For example, St. Paul pointed out quite some time ago that
Christianity stands or falls by whether or not the resurrection of Christ
is a historical fact, i.e., a testable proposition. Moral and ethical stan-
dards depend largely on what the nature of the human organism is. And
so on. Whether or not they articulate this to themselves, most people are
quite able to perceive it, and to many it is a bitter pill to swallow.
Poul Anderson, Orinda, Calif.
In asserting a conflict between �the culture of science� and �the culture
of liberal arts,� all Martin Gardner accomplishes is to reinforce the
fortress mentality I perceive in the pages of SI.
The liberal arts are not competitors with science, but rather serve us
all as observers of and commentators on the human zoo. Both areas are
complementary in creating and maintaining the well-functioning human
being, and neither stands independent of the society in which it is found.
Jack Miller, Port Clements, B.C., Canada
138 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Disparaging Emily Dickinson, Wordsworth, Poe, et al. in the name of
scientific skepticism? I can�t think of a more foolproof way to alienate
the romantics among us.
Surely we can allow the poet enchanted by nature to shun the skep-
tical lens for a few moments of reverie. I�m a nature poet myself, and I
shudder to think that some of my lyrical lines could be skewered by the
hardened skeptic as antiscientific.
Please, have some room in your scientific universe for the value of
nonscientific experiences � unless you really want the world so entirely
intellectually oriented that in your most intimate personal moments you
hear the �voice of reason� declaring �I�m so chemically receptive to
your pheromones� instead of your heart whispering �I love you�!
Gloria J. Leitner, Boulder, Colo.
David Todd sent me Eden Phillpotts�s lyric �Miniature,� from The
Oxford Book of Short Poems :
The grey beards wag, the bald heads nod,
And gather thick as bees,
To talk electrons, gases, God,
Old nebulae, new fleas.
Each specialist, each dry-as-dust
And professorial oaf,
Holds up his little crumb of crust
And cries, �Behold the loaf!�
I came across Christopher Morley�s �Autumn Colors� in his collec-
tion Hide and Seek :
How tedious it seems, and strange,
That poets should be raving still
Of autumn tints: it�s just the change
From chlorophyll to xanthophyll.
I was somewhat appalled by angry letters from readers who seemed
to think I had a chip on my shoulder against the arts. The point I wanted
to make was the same as in the previous chapter. Most artists, poets,
musicians, actors, and professors of liberal arts (especially in England)
know less about science than scientists know about the arts.
It would not be easy to locate a physicist who didn�t know the differ-
ence between a sonnet and an ode. How many Hollywood actors know
the difference between a proton and a neutron? The percentage of actors
who believe in astrology is huge compared to the percent of scientists.
Science vs. Beauty? 139
Indeed, among scientists the percentage is very close to zero. Remember,
two astrology buffs, actors Ronald and Nancy Reagan, actually occupied
the White House!
Obviously science and the arts complement each other, and no per-
sons today should call themselves educated who are ignorant of either the
yin or the yang. I fear that America is a long way from the time when edu-
cation will give the two sides of our culture equal time.
DOUG HENNING
AND THE GIGGLING GURU
B ecause magic is my main hobby I feel a keener regret than most peo-
ple over the way in which the Hindu cult of Transcendental Meditation
(TM) has taken over the life of one of the best of modem magicians. In the
1970s, Doug James Henning�s Magic Show ran on Broadway for more than
four years. Henning followed with marvelous NBC-television spectaculars,
Las Vegas and Lake Tahoe bookings, and numerous talk-show appearances.
Then something happened to Doug on his way to a magic shop. He
discovered TM and became a pal of its founder, His Holiness Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi. �The moment I saw him,� Doug has often said, �I knew
that he knew the truth of life.� In a few years Henning became TM�s most
famous convert since Mia Farrow and the Beatles.
First, some words about TM. Based on ancient Vedic teachings that
Maharishi learned from a Himalayan holy man, it stresses a form of med-
itation linked to the repetition of a Sanskrit word called a mantra. The
technique is said to relieve stress, slow aging, and promote what TMers
call �pure bliss.� Moreover, TM instructors promise to teach you, after
you fork over thousands of dollars for advanced courses, a variety of awe-
some supernormal powers known as sidhis. They include the ability to
become invisible, to see hidden things, to walk through walls, and to fly
through the air like Peter Pan and Wendy. Doug�s conjuring was fake
magic. TM teaches real magic.
Yogic flying has been the most publicized of the sidhis. Photographs
distributed by TM officials show devotees in a lotus position and seem-
ingly floating in midair. The photos are misleading. No TMer has yet
demonstrated levitation to an outsider. The best they can show is the abil-
ity to flex one�s legs while in a lotus position on a springy mattress and
hop upward a short distance. The phony photos were snapped when the
supposed floater was at the top of a bounce. One cynic said he never
believed the woman in a picture was actually levitating, that instead she
was being held up by an invisible TMer!
�Notes of a Fringe Watcher,� Skeptical Inquirer (May /June 1995).
140
Doug Henning and the Giggling Guru 141
The flying sidhi has four stages. First, a twitching of limbs. Second,
the hop. Third, hovering. Fourth, actual flying. Only the first and second
stages have been shown to skeptics, although devout TMers firmly be-
lieve that there are Yogic flyers in India and that Maharishi can take off
whenever he likes even though no one has ever seen or videotaped him in
flight.
�When you reach your full potential,� Henning told a reporter, �and
you think �I want to levitate,� you can levitate.� And in a lecture: �You can
disappear at a high state of consciousness because your body just stops
reflecting light.�
Amazingly, TMers are greatly entranced by lotus hopping. Last Octo-
ber a demonstration was held at the University of Toronto. Three Vedic
�flyers� giggled while they bounced on their bums for five minutes, look-
ing (said one observer) like legless frogs. I was told by Charles Reynolds,
who for many years designed Doug�s stage illusions, that during one of
Henning�s TV rehearsals he periodically halted all activity so those pre-
sent could meditate and send him powerful vibes while he tried vainly to
float. He actually believed he might be able to demonstrate levitation on
his forthcoming show!
Several disenchanted TMers have sued the organization for failing to
teach them powers that were promised. In 1987, for instance, Robert
Kropinski, a former TM instructor, asked for $9 million because he was
never able to fly. He also charged that TM had caused him �headaches,
anxiety, impulses toward violence, hallucinations, confusion, loss of
memory, screaming fits, lack of focus, paranoia, and social withdrawal.�
A Philadelphia jury awarded him $138,000.
Giggling seems endemic among TMers � something similar to the
�holy laughter� currently popular in Pentecostal churches. The tiny,
white-bearded, beflowered Maharishi giggled constantly during two
appearances on the Merv Griffin show. Physicists tend to break into
unholy laughter when they hear about Vedic flying.
Since he started TM, the giggling guru has raked in an estimated $3
billion from his millions of gullible followers. He now controls a vast
empire that includes a conglomeration of Heaven on Earth Hotels around
the world, a consulting corporation, numerous trading companies, med-
ical clinics, and a swarm of other firms here and there.
Maharishi Ayur-Veda Products International (MAPI) sells a raft of
herbs, teas, oils, and natural food substances said to cure diseases and
reverse growing old. Admirers of the best-selling books on �quantum
healing� by Boston�s Deepak Chopra may be surprised to know that he is
a TM booster with close ties to MAPI, president of a Maharishi Vedic
University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and owner of an Ay ur- Vedic
142 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
clinic in Boston. In 1989 His Holiness awarded Chopra the title of �Lord
of Immortality of Heaven and Earth.�
Maharishi Research universities are all over the globe. There is one
in Lake Lucerne, Switzerland, others in Fairfield, Iowa (the movement�s
U.S. headquarters), in Buckinghamshire, England, in Asbury Park, New
Jersey, and in Vlodrop, Netherlands. Vlodrop is the movement�s world
headquarters, where Maharishi now lives. The colleges seem to spring up
and die like mushrooms.
The word �research� in the names of these universities refers to
investigations of what is called Vedic science. It is said to combine the
subjective approach of the East with the objective approach of Western
science and to usher in what the Maharishi calls the �full sunshine of the
dawning of the age of Enlightenment.� According to His Holiness, the
universe is permeated by a �field of consciousness� underlying the laws
of quantum mechanics. The Maharishi, who once studied physics, is keen
on the latest results in particle theory.
Expensive double-spread ads in the New York Times, the Washington
Post, the Toronto Globe and Mail, Time, Newsweek, and who knows where
else, periodically promote the Maharishi�s unified field theory. Physicist
John S. Hagelin is the movement�s top quantum-mechanics maven. He has
predicted that Maharishi�s influence on history �will be far greater than
that of Einstein or Gandhi.� Hagelin and other scientists at TM universi-
ties have written hundreds of technical papers, most of them published by
TM university presses, although a few have sneaked into mainstream sci-
ence and medical journals unaware of the authors� TM affiliation.
In his paper �Is Consciousness the Unified Field?� Hagelin (who has
a Harvard doctorate in physics) conjectures that the sidhis operate by
upsetting �the balance of statistical averaging� in quantum-mechanical
laws.
Indeed, the phenomenon of levitation, with its implied control over the
local curvature of space-time geometry, would appear to require the
ability to function coherently at the scale of quantum gravity, which is
the assumed scale of super-unification and the proposed domain of pure
consciousness. In this way some of the sidhis, if demonstrated under
laboratory conditions, would provide striking evidence for the proposed
identity between pure consciousness and the unified field.
TMers have no doubts about the �Maharishi effect.� This refers to
incredible changes produced by mass meditations. The movement claims
that their efforts helped bring down the Berlin wall, resolve the Gulf War,
cause stock-market rises, collapse the Soviet Union, decrease traffic acci-
Doug Henning and the Giggling Guru 143
dents, and cut the crime rate in Washington, D.C., and other cities. Such
wonders are supported, of course, by highly dubious statistics.
In 1992, longing for political influence. His Holiness founded the Nat-
ural Law Party (NLP) in countries that include England and Canada. Hen-
ning is senior vice president of the Canadian party. In 1992 he was the
NLP candidate in England�s general election, representing a residential
section of Lancashire. He finished last among four candidates. In a 1994
Canadian election he was the party�s candidate from Rosedale, where he
and Debbie, his second wife, live. Of 55,928 votes cast, he received 839.
Physicist Hagelin was a candidate of the NLP for U.S. president in 1992.
The party claimed it had forty candidates running for Congress. The Cana-
dian NLP platform maintains that once the party takes over the govern-
ment, Canada�s crime, unemployment, and deficit will disappear like the
elephant that Doug vanished so many times on stage.
I found the elephant simile in Don Gillmor�s �Like Magic,� a lively
article in Toronto Life (April 1994), to which this column is heavily
indebted. Gillmor quotes Henning as saying, in reference to his party�s
promises: �We never see the stars going into debt and having to borrow
light from the sun. We don�t see robins having criminal tendencies and
stealing from each other.�
Although pushing fifty, Henning still looks like a youth, small, slim,
with long dark hair, droopy mustache, a mild, soft-spoken manner, and
bucktooth grin. Born in Winnipeg, and a graduate of McMaster Univer-
sity, he began his magic career working parties and nightclubs around
Canada. Such skilled magicians as Dai Vernon and Tony Slydini gave him
lessons. Henning met the Maharishi in 1975, and for the next ten years he
studied TM while still performing on stage. By 1986, convinced that his
life mission was to promote TM, he gave up show business and sold his
illusions to David Copperfield and other top stage performers.
For the past decade Henning�s obsession has been to build a mam-
moth theme park he calls Veda Land. Plans to locate the park in India,
then in Orlando, Florida, adjacent to Disney World, went down the tube.
In 1987, with funds from Maharishi, Doug now intends to build Veda
Land in Niagara Falls, Ontario. Why there? Because, Henning told Gill-
mor, the falls are �the greatest natural wonder on Earth. . . . Our purpose
is to create wonder for nature.�
Unusual rides and exhibits will dramatize Veda Land�s central
theme � the mystery and beauty of nature. There will be a convention
center, a university, and a Tower of Peace, where world leaders can meet
to settle disputes. A Magic Flying Carpet will carry 120 passengers onto
a rose petal, plunge into its molecular and atomic structure, then finally
come to rest in the flower�s �pure consciousness.� A Corridor of Time
144 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
will display the history of the universe from the Big Bang to the far dis-
tant day when Shiva will dance the universe into oblivion. A preventive-
medicine center will sell herbal remedies. Hotels will serve vegetarian
and health meals, and there will be a Heaven on Earth housing project.
�Heaven on Earth� is Maharishi�s favorite phrase for the world utopia
that TM will eventually bring about. As he stirringly put it in the Mahar-
ishi International University News (Winter 1988), there will be �all good
everywhere and nongood nowhere.�
In keeping with the Hindu belief that all is maya, or illusion, Veda
Land will abound with magical special effects designed by Roy Field,
who once worked on the Superman movies. A large building will appear
to float fifteen feet above an artificial pond. Doug won�t reveal how this
great illusion will be accomplished, although presumably not by real
magic. On the opening day a helicopter is expected to move a gigantic
hoop over the levitated building the way Doug used to pass a hoop over
floating ladies.
Asked if Veda Land will resemble Jim Bakker�s fallen Christian
theme park. Heritage USA, Doug replied: �It�s more like, Wow! Isn�t
enlightenment great!�
TM recruits are given a mantra so secret that they are forbidden to
disclose it to anyone, not even a spouse. The mantra is to be repeated
silently while they meditate for twenty minutes each morning and late
afternoon or evening. In the 1970s they were assured that their mantra
was carefully selected from thousands to fit their personality. A skeptical
investigator was puzzled when he joined the movement in three cities
under three different names and was always given the same mantra. It
turned out that there were just sixteen mantras. The one given was deter-
mined solely by a person�s age. Today�s mantras may be different, but in
1977 if you were twenty-six to twenty-nine your mantra was shivim. If
over sixty it was shama, and so on.
Magicians who perform what the trade calls mental acts were quick
to take advantage of the secret list of Sanskrit words before their linkage
with ages became widely known. They would ask TMers in the audience
to state their birthdate, then pretend to divine their secret mantra by ESP!
In 1994 the cost of a basic TM course jumped from $400 to $1,000.
Officials insist that for decades the price has been too low to meet
expenses. Besides, they argue, the new price will winnow out dabblers.
Does mantra meditation relieve stress more effectively than praying
or just sitting quietly with closed eyes? In 1976, a study of this was made
at the University of Michigan and reported in Science News (June 19). A
group of trained TMers were compared with a control group of subjects
unfamiliar with TM. The TM group meditated for a half-hour while the
Doug Henning and the Giggling Guru 145
control group merely closed their eyes and relaxed. Blood samples were
taken and measurements made of chemicals indicating stress. The
researchers concluded that TM meditation failed to induce a metabolic
state distinguishable from one achieved by just sitting quietly and possi-
bly dozing.
Similar studies have shown that focusing on a Hindu mantra is no
more effective in calming the mind than focusing on any other word, such
as peace, one, or banana. Psychologist David Holmes, at the University
of Kansas, could find no physiological difference between meditation and
relaxing for twenty minutes in a reclining chair.
For a while, Henning threatened to take Veda Land away from Nia-
gara Falls unless the city fathers refused to allow a gambling casino to
open in town. Gambling, said Doug, always brings a plague of hookers.
When the town refused to bar gambling, Doug changed his mind. After
all, could not Veda Land�s Yogic flyers counter the evils of betting and
prostitution by their sidhi powers? �Darkness,� declared Doug, �cannot
show itself in the face of light.�
Will Veda Land and its floating building ever get off the ground? It�s
possible, but my crystal ball tells me it is no more than a fantasy in Doug
Henning�s field of consciousness.
Return of the Rishi: A Doctor�s Search for the Ultimate Healer (1988).
Quantum Healing: Exploring the Frontier of Mind, Body, Medicine
(1989).
Perfect Health: Maharishi Ayurveda, The Mind-Body Program for Total
Well Being (1990).
Perfect Health: The Complete Mind-Body Guide (1991).
Creating Health: How to Wake Up the Body�s Intelligence (1991).
Return of the Rishi: A Doctor�s Story of Spiritual Transformation and
Ayurvedic Healing (1991).
Mastering Forces that Shape Personal Reality (1991).
Ageless Body, Timeless Mind: The Quantum Alternative to Growing Old
(1994).
Body, Mind, and Soul (1995).
The Return of Merlin (1995). A novel.
146 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
In the early 1990s Chopra made a clean break with TM and Mahar-
ishi. As one TM official put it, �There was no room on the mountain for
two gurus.� Deepak�s books no longer mention the giggling guru, and the
TM movement has deleted all references to Chopra in its literature. One
of Chopra�s disciples defended Deepak�s rival system as superior to TM
because TM has only eleven or twelve mantras whereas Chopra has 108.
Although some of Chopra�s health recommendations are sound, such
as don�t overeat, most of his medical views are beyond the pale. He
believes that illnesses can be reliably diagnosed simply by feeling the
pulse. The pulse beat detects imbalances among three doshas � veta, pitta,
and kapha. The imbalances are then treated by rituals of various sorts.
One of them called the Pizzichilli treatment involves smearing the nude
body with warm sesame oil. Patients are advised to leave the oil in the
hair because of its great benefit to the brain.
Chopra believes that cataracts can be prevented and even reversed by
bathing the eyes in a mixture of water and spit provided the spit is cleaned
by thorough tooth brushing and tongue scraping. As any ophthalmologist
will tell you, a cataract (a clouding of the lens) can no more be reversed
than one can unfry an egg. There is no known way to prevent cataracts
from forming as one ages.
�For every thought there is a corresponding molecule,� Chopra
writes. �If you have happy thoughts, then you have happy molecules.�
The mind, he claims, is not just inside your head. It is inside every cell of
your body. Almost every form of mainstream medicine and treatments are
useless. Only natural herbs, minerals, crystals, and metals are of value,
aided of course by intense meditation and other Eastern practices.
Chopra�s clients include such entertainment celebrities as Michael
Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, Demi Moore, George Harrison, Elizabeth Taylor,
Naomi Judd, and dozens of others. See Elise Pettus�s article on Chopra,
�The Mind-Body Problem,� in New York Magazine (August 14, 1995),
and David Van Biema�s �Emperor of the Soul,� in Time (June 24, 1996).
KLINGON AND OTHER
ARTIFICIAL LANGUAGES
Do you speak Esperanto?
Like a native!
A ccording to Genesis there originally was only one human language,
the tongue spoken by Adam and Eve. Why did Adam name the ele-
phant an elephant ? Because, goes an old joke, it looked like an elephant.
Then a terrible tragedy occurred. The Hebrews tried to scale the heavens
by building the Tower of Babel. God was so offended by this hubris that
he said:
Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language . . . and now
nothing shall be restrained from them. ... Go to, let us go down, and
there confound their language, that they may not understand one
another�s speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon
the face of all the earth. (Gen. 11:6-8)
In Paradise Lost (Book 12) Milton described it this way:
To sow a jangling noise of words unknown:
Forthwith a hideous gabble rises loud
Among the Builders; each to other calls
Not understood, till hoarse, and all in rage,
As mockt they storm; great laughter was in Heav�n
And looking down, to see the hubbub strange
And hear the din.
Why God and the angels would find this curse amusing is hard to
fathom. At any rate, who can doubt that the multiplicity of world lan-
guages is an enormous barrier to world peace. Clearly world unity would
be greatly augmented if somehow the babble of tongues could be replaced
by a single language.
�Notes of a Fringe Watcher,� Skeptical Inquirer (July/August 1995).
147
148 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
In ancient times Greek, Latin, and Arabic served as universal lan-
guages for large clusters of nations. French was once Europe�s interna-
tional diplomatic language, and for centuries Latin was the favored lan-
guage of scientists and scholars. Around Mediterranean ports lingua
franca, Italian mixed with other tongues, became a common form of com-
munication. Swahili, a Bantu speech mixed with Arabic, has long been
the lingua franca of East Africa. Today, for better or worse, the new
international language is English. In a few years there will be more non-
native speakers of English than native ones! Only France is trying des-
perately to keep its fingers in the dike.
In the seventeenth century, among such philosophers as Descartes
and Leibniz, and the Scotsman George Delgarno, the notion arose that
perhaps a completely artificial language, based on logic, with simplified
grammar and spelling, might serve to unify nations. This grandiose dream
quickly gripped the minds of hundreds of linguistic cranks, who during
the next three centuries proposed more than three hundred artificial or
semi-artificial tongues.
The first major effort was the 600-page Essay Towards a Real Char-
acter and Philosophic Language (London, 1688), by John Wilkins,
Bishop of Chester. His book was greatly admired by Leibniz. All of
Wilkins�s words are self-defining in the sense that they convey their triple
classification as to genus, species, and subspecies. For example, his word
for salmon is zana�za for fish, n for scaly, and a for red. The language
was spoken and also written with symbols resembling modern shorthand.
The Bishop wrote other eccentric works, including one arguing that the
moon was inhabited by intelligent creatures. His philosophic language
was caricatured by the French writer Gabriel de Foigny as an Australian
tongue in his novel The Adventures of Jacques Saleur (1676).
The Encyclopaedia Britannica (14th edition) lists the following other
totally synthetic languages: Solresol (1817), Lingualumina (1875), Blaia
Zimondal (1884), Cabe aban (1887), and Zahlensprache (1901). Ro,
invented in 1904 by Edward R Foster, an American clergyman, had a
monthly periodical called Roia. Solresol, created by musician Jean Fran-
cois Sudre, combined the syllables of the music scale (do, re, mi, .. .) to
produce some twelve thousand words. The plan was to send messages by
playing a tune.
The Britannica does not mention Spokil, perpetrated in France by A.
Nicolas in 1887, or Alwato, the creation of Stephen Pearl Andrews, a
nineteenth-century American attorney and abolitionist. Alwato was part
of Andrews�s 761 -page crank work The Basic Outline of Universology
(1872), and he elaborated on it in other books. All his nouns ended in o.
A human is ho, the body is hobo, the head is hobado, and society is
Klingon and Other Artificial Languages 149
homabo. A vegetable is zho, an animal is zo, a dead animal is zobo, and a
live one is zovo.
Because no completely synthetic language has yet obtained much of a
following, one might suppose that efforts of this sort have ceased. Not so!
The TV series �Star Trek� has spawned a guttural extraterrestrial language
spoken by the warriors of Klingon. It was invented in 1984 for the film Star
Trek III: The Search for Spock, by Marc Okrand. (He has a doctorate in lin-
guistics.) Poetry has been written and weddings performed in Klingon.
�Star Trek� fans are rapidly mastering the language, much to Okrand �s
amazement, because he does not speak it. He designed the language as a
joke � its word for �love� is �bang� � but now his peculiar language has
developed a life of its own. There are newsletters in Klingon and an audio-
tape on conversational Klingon spoken by Michael Dom, who plays Klin-
gon Lieutenant Worf in the current �Star Trek� television series.
The Klingon Language Institute, headed by Lawrence Schoen, a psy-
chologist at Chestnut Hill College, Philadelphia, is said to be working on
a translation into Klingon of Shakespeare and the Bible.* The Bible will
not be easy, because Klingons have no words for such concepts as God,
holy, atonement, forgiveness, compassion, or mercy. Is all this a put-on?
The answer (in Klingon) is HISlaH (yes).
On a more useful level than totally contrived languages are the semi-
artificial ones based on a blend of natural tongues. Of these, by far the
most successful has been Esperanto, the brainchild of Lazarus Ludwig
Zamenhof, a Warsaw eye doctor. His first book about it, Lingvo Interna-
cia (1887), bore the pseudonym of Dr. Esperanto. The word means �one
who hopes.� It expressed Zamenhof�s quixotic desire that Esperanto
would become the world�s second language.
Based on Europe�s major tongues, Esperanto�s sixteen simple gram-
matical rules have no exceptions. Spelling, using twenty-eight letters, is
uniform and phonetic. As in Alwato, all nouns end in o. Adjectives end in
a , verbs in s, and adverbs in e. A j at the end of a word indicates a plural.
For example, grandaj hundoj means �big dogs.�
Over thirty thousand books, including Shakespeare, Dante, the Bible,
and the Koran have been translated into Esperanto. A recent translation of
Lewis Carroll�s Alice books calls Humpty Dumpty Hometo Omleto,
meaning Little-Man Egg. Some hundred periodicals around the world
have been written in Esperanto. The Vatican broadcasts in Esperanto, and
*The Institute publishes a quarterly journal called HolQeD (from �Hoi,� meaning
language, and �QeD� meaning science). It recently sponsored a contest for palindromes
written in Klingon. For information, send an SASE to KLI, Box 634, Flourtown, PA
19031-0634.
150 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Espero Kajolika (Catholic Hope) is a magazine published by a Catholic
Esperanto group independent of the Vatican.
Here is the Lord�s Prayer in Esperanto:
Patro nia kiu estas en la cielo, sankta estu via nomo; venu regeco via;
estu volo via, kiel en la cielo, tiel ankau sur la tero. Panon nian ciuta-
gan donu al ni hodiau; kaj pardonu al ni suldojn niajn, kiel ni ankau par-
donas al niaj suldantoj; kaj ne konduku nin en tenton, sed liberigu nin
de la malbono.
The movement peaked in the 1920s, especially among one-worlders,
but even today about two million people read and speak Esperanto.
Enthusiasts hold conventions here and there, and when traveling identify
themselves to one another by green lapel pins shaped like stars. The
movement continues to be popular in Europe, but in the United States it
is now at a low ebb. In 1991 the Modern Language Association sponsored
a seminar on Esperanto at its annual convention. No one showed up. Per-
haps the main reason for its decline here is the inexorable rise of English
as an international second language. In The Shape of Things to Come
(Book 5, section 7), H. G. Wells predicts that Basic English (the 850
words selected by C. K. Ogden) will �spread like wildfire� and that by the
year 2020 �hardly anyone� in the world will not speak and understand it.
The philosopher Rudolf Carnap learned to speak Esperanto fluently.
In his autobiography ( The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap ) he says that
Esperanto became for him a �living language.� He cannot take seriously
�the arguments of those who assert that an international auxiliary lan-
guage might be suitable for business affairs and perhaps for natural sci-
ence, but could not possibly serve as an adequate means of communica-
tion in personal affairs, for discussions in the social sciences and the
humanities, let alone for fiction and drama. I have found that most of
those who make these assertions have no practical experience with such
a language.�
To his surprise and dismay Carnap found that Ludwig Wittgenstein
was violently opposed to any form of language that had not �grown
organically.�
The most popular semiartificial language preceding Esperanto was
Volapiik � the word means �world speech� � invented in 1879 by Johann
Martin Schley er, a German Catholic priest.* It uses twenty-seven letters,
accents all words on the last syllable, and adds �ik� to all adjectives. The
*Volapuk turns up in James Joyce�s Finnegans Wake as Vollapluck (p. 34, line 5 from
bottom), Volapuke (p. 40, line 4), and Volapucky (p. 116, line 6 from bottom).
Klingon and Other Artificial Languages 151
iks give it a strong icky sound. Some notion of its ugliness can be
gained from Volapiik�s wording of the Lord�s Prayer:
0 fat obas, kel binol in sills, paisaludomoz nem ola! Komomod
monargan ola! Jenomoz vil olik, as in sul, i su tal! Bodo obsik, vadeliki
givolos obes adelo! E pardolos obes debis obsik as id obs aipardobs
debeles obas. E no obis nindukolos in tentadi; sod aidalivolos obis de
bad. Jenosod!
In France and Germany the Volapuk cult gained a following of more
than a million, with some two hundred Volapuk societies meeting around
the globe. After its third congress, in Paris in 1899, its leaders began quar-
reling over how to improve the language. This bickering created rival ver-
sions with such names as Balta, Spelin, Dil, Veltpail, Dilpok, Ilingua
European, and others. The movement finally evaporated to be replaced by
Esperanto.
1 found the following anonymous doggerel in an old scrapbook:
Take a teaspoonful of English,
A modicum of Dutch,
Of Italian just a trifle,
And of Gaelic not too much;
Some of Russian and Egyptian
Add them unto the whole,
With just enough to flavor,
Of the lingo of the Pole.
Some Singhalese and Hottentot,
A soupgon, too, of French,
Of native Scandinavian
A pretty thorough drench;
Hungarian and Syrian,
A pinch of Japanese,
With just as much Ojibway
And Turkish as you please.
Now stir it gently, boil it well,
And if you�ve decent luck,
The ultimate residuum
You�ll find is Volapuk!
Many short-lived attempts from 1900 to the late fifties were made to
improve Esperanto. They have such names as Perio, Ulla, Mondlingvo,
Romanizat, Europeo, Nepo, Neo, Ro, Espido, Esperantuisho, Globaqo,
152 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Novial, and a raft of others. The most successful of these reform efforts
was Ido � in Esperanto it means �offspring� � invented in 1907 by the
French philosopher Louis Couterat. A monthly titled Progreso was writ-
ten in Ido. Couterat regarded all Esperantists as depraved. In the first vol-
ume of his autobiography Bertrand Russell recalls Couterat complaining
that Ido had no word similar to �Esperantist.� �I suggested �Idiot, Rus-
sell adds, �but he was not quite pleased.�
Tinkerers with Ido, like the Esperanto tinkerers, soon splintered the
movement into variant languages. These included Dutalingue, Italico,
Adjuvilo, Etem, Unesal, Esperido, Cosman, Novam, Mundial, Sinestal,
Intal, Kosmolinguo, and more.
Here are a few other semiartificial languages developed from the
1880s to the early decades of this century: Weltsprache, Spelin, Blue,
Anglo-franca, Mundolingue, Lingua komun. Idiom neutral, Reform neu-
tral, Latinesce, Nov-Latin, Monario, Occidental, Europan, Optez, and
Romanal.
Interlingua is of special interest because it was the creation of the
great Italian mathematician Giuseppe Peano. It, too, gave rise to dozens
of rival variants, such as Simplo, Latinulus, Interlatino, Panlingua, and
others. In the mid- 1920s Wilfred Stevens developed Euphony, a language
that combined words from thirty natural languages. For example, ole for
eye, zu for blue, and fra for human combine to produce frazolca, mean-
ing a blue-eyed woman. Lancelot Hogben explained his semiartificial
language in a Penguin book titled Interglossa (1943).
Many of these rival tongues are discussed in Marina Yaguello�s fas-
cinating Lunatic Lovers of Language (1991) translated into English from
the original French by Catherine Slater. Yaguello is a teacher of linguis-
tics at the University of Dakar, in Senegal. I have not seen Mary Slaugh-
ter�s Universal Languages (1982).
Yaguello also covers synthetic languages in works of fiction, such as
Newspeak in George Orwell�s 1984 and the slang language invented by
Anthony Burgess for A Clockwork Orange. She also discusses the Mart-
ian language created by the French medium Helene Smith, and neolo-
gisms in the works of Swift and Rabelais. To the latter we can add the
hundreds of coined words in the fantasies of Lord Dunsany, James
Branch Cabell, L. Frank Baum, and in books said to be channeled by
supermortals, such as Oahspe and The Urantia Book.
Edward Kelly, a sixteenth-century crystal-gazer, scoundrel, and
friend of the British astrologer John Dee, devised a language called
Enochian. He claimed it was spoken by angels and by Adam before it
degenerated into Hebrew after the Fall.
For completeness I should also mention artificial languages that arise
Klingon and Other Artificial Languages 153
in subcultures, such as Shelta Thari, spoken by tinkers in England, and
Camy, spoken by American carnival workers. A peculiar language called
Bootling flourishes only in the small town of Boonville, California. We
all know pig latin, and there are other, less familiar ways of distorting a
natural language. There are the �unknown tongues� spoken by the early
Christians, and by Mormons, Pentecostals, and other recent sects when
the Holy Spirit seizes them. Nor should we ignore the sign language used
by the hearing impaired, the talking drums of Africa, the smoke signals of
American Indians, communication by whistling in the Canary Islands,
and the languages used by artificial-intelligence researchers for convers-
ing with computers.
In crude science fiction, extraterrestrials inexplicably speak English,
but in more sophisticated science fantasy they speak alien tongues often
described with detailed linguistic rules and words. Every conceivable
way of communicating without speech has also been exploited: telepathy
(as in H. G. Wells�s Men Like Gods), dancing, whistling, smelling, using
musical tones, and so on. In James Blish�s VOR an alien �speaks� by
altering the color of a patch on his forehead. For information about sci-
ence-fiction artificial languages, see the entry �Linguistics� in Peter
Nichols�s Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, and �Language� in the index
of Everett Bleiler�s monumental Science-Fiction: The Early Years.
ADDENDUM
Novial (New International Auxiliary Language) was invented in 1923 by
Otto Jesperson, a Danish professor of linguistics. Itala (International Aux-
iliary Language Association) was headquartered in New York City during
the mid-1920s, and in the Hague, but interest in Novial was short lived.
Loglan, an artificial language invented by James Cooke Brown, has
a grammar based on formal logic, and words taken from eight natural lan-
guages. Designed mainly to simplify computer communication, Brown
described his language in Scientific American (vol. 202, June 1960, pp.
53-63). A Loglan dictionary was published.
Loglan spawned a similar language called Lojban, constructed by
Robert LeChavlier, a systems engineer. Both languages have a small
group of devotees. On Lojban, see Don Oldenburg�s �Lojban, a Real
Conversation Stopper,� in the Washington Post (November 10, 1989,
p. D5).
Mangani is the language spoken by the great apes who raised Tarzan.
Several hundred of its words are scattered through Edgar Rice Bur-
roughs�s Tarzan novels. I first learned about this from Joel Carlinsky, who
154 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
wrote that as a boy he and his brother actually learned to speak Mangani,
and that a full vocabulary is in one of the biographies of Burroughs. A
related language spoken by the tailed men in Tarzan the Terrible is given
in that book�s six-page glossary.
In his brief tongue-in-cheek introduction to the glossary. Burroughs
had this to say:
A point of particular interest hinges upon the fact that the names of all
male hairless pithecanthropi begin with a consonant, have an even num-
ber of syllables, and end with a consonant, while the names of the
females of the same species begin with a vowel, have an odd number of
syllables, and end with a vowel. On the contrary, the names of the male
hairy black pithecanthropi while having an even number of syllables
begin with a vowel and end with a consonant; while the females of this
species have an odd number of syllables in their names which begin
always with a consonant and end with a vowel.
Anthony Garrett wrote from England to tell me about Elvish, a com-
plex language invented by J. R. R. Tolkien as the tongue spoken in his
imaginary Middle Earth.
Peter C. Speers called my attention to Confluence, the language of
the planet Myrin. It was created by the prolific British science-fiction
author Brian Wilson Aldiss. Speers sent me a four-page dictionary of
principal words, from Ab We tel Min to Zo Zo Con, that appeared in
Punch in 1967. The first phrase is defined as �The sensation that one nei-
ther agrees nor disagrees with what is being said to one, but that one sim-
ply wishes to depart from the presence of the speaker.� The second phrase
means �a woman of another field.� The dictionary is reprinted in Aldiss�s
collection of short stories Man and His Time (1988).
Aldiss explains that the meanings are modified by one�s posture.
There are nearly nine thousand stances, each with its own name. Aldiss
recommends that all statesmen study Confluence before any negotiations
break out with Myrin.
On Stephen Pearl Andrews and Alwato, see Madeline Bettina Stem�s
biography of him, The Pentarch (University of Texas Press 1968).
FUZZY LOGIC
When the prophet, a complacent fat man,
Arrived at the mountain-top
He cried: �Woe to my knowledge!
I intended to see good white lands
And bad black lands,
But the scene is grey.�
� Stephen Crane
W hy does traditional logic have so little relevance to how we think?
One reason is that, aside from terms in pure mathematics, formal
logic, and some words in mathematical physics, almost all words have
blurry boundaries. In set theory an element is either in or outside a set. In
propositional calculus an assertion is either true or false. No in-betweens.
Unfortunately, in the real world, as philosopher Charles Peirce observed,
�All things swim in continua.�
No sharp line divides day from night. Children grow imperceptibly
into adults. Beasts evolved gradually into humans. Red fades into orange
and into purple. When is a glass full? A banana ripe? A person rich? Is
half an apple an apple? Is Japan a capitalist or socialist state? When is a
novel obscene? Exactly what is a novel? Is a bar stool with a small back
a chair? How can we measure the beauty of a poem, painting, melody, or
person?
Such vagueness must not be confused with ambiguity. �There is a bat
in the attic� and Groucho Marx�s �I shot an elephant in my pajamas� are
ambiguous statements. Arguments over whether the moon rotates arise
from the ambiguity of rotate. The moon rotates relative to the fixed stars,
but not relative to Earth. By contrast, �Is there life on Mars?� is vague
because �life� is vague. Are viruses alive? �Go wash your face� is vague.
Does �wash� require soap? Are ears part of the face?
Problems in logic textbooks often involve such statements as, �If Bill
is home, Mary is out.� Is Mary home if she is in the garage or on a porch?
�Notes of a Fringe Watcher,� Skeptical Inquirer (September/October 1995).
155
156 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
You might think that letters of the alphabet can be defined precisely.
Far from it. Every letter can be gradually altered on a computer screen
until it is any other letter, with unclassifiable intermediates. A well-known
example:
TAE CAT
Is the middle symbol of each word an �A� or an �H�? Like so many
words, the answer depends on the context. What is warm for an Eskimo
may be cool to someone in the tropics. A small hippo is larger than a big
ant. Jewelry expensive to a poor person is cheap to, say, Elizabeth Taylor
or Donald Trump.
The ancient Greeks dramatized vagueness by the paradox of the heap.
From a large heap of sand you remove one grain at a time. When does the
heap cease to be a heap and become a few grains? How many are a
�few�? How many hairs have to missing from a man�s head before he is
bald?
From Aristotle on, logicians have, of course, been aware of vague-
ness and have proposed ways to overcome it. One way is to be more spe-
cific. Instead of vaguely declaring, �As someone once said, history is
bunk,� we specify it by saying, �As Henry Ford said in 1919 . . .� This
helps, but still leaves �history� and �bunk� hopelessly vague.
Another way to avoid vagueness is to quantify. Vague words like fast
and slow can be sharpened by saying that a car is going �too fast� on a
thruway if its speed is over 65 miles per hour, and going �too slow� if
under 40. Hot and cold can be made as crisp as you like by invoking
degrees of temperature. Tall and short can be quantified with centimeters.
In recent decades logicians have tried to handle reasoning with vague
terms by what are called �multivalued logics.� Instead of true and false,
a three-value logic may introduce a third term such as indeterminate. Pro-
posals have been made to apply three-value logics to quantum mechanics
where certain properties are unknowable. Modal logics distinguish
between true, false, and possible. Hans Reichenbach and others have pro-
posed multivalued logics based on probabilities. True has a probability of
1, false a probability of 0. In between can be any number of truth values.
Instead of saying vaguely that he or she thinks the big bang theory is true,
a cosmologist would more accurately give the conjecture a subjective
probability of, say, .9 of being true.
The latest, most ambitious, most radical effort to formalize reasoning
with vague terms was named fuzzy logic by its inventor Lotfi Asker
Fuzzy Logic 157
Zadeh, now a professor emeritus at the University of California, Berke-
ley. His new logic dates from 1965, when he published a little-noticed
paper on fuzzy sets. (Zadeh was born Lotfi Aliaskerzadeh in Baku, Azer-
baijan, in 1921, of a Russian mother and a Turkish-Iranian father. After
graduating from the University of Teheran, he came to America and
earned a doctorate in electrical engineering at Columbia University.)
Zadeh passionately believes that Aristotelian black-and-white logic is
useless for reasoning about the real world. This view is shared by Alfred
Korzybski, founder of general semantics, although this earlier movement
by Korzybski had no influence on Zadeh. Just as firmly, Zadeh is con-
vinced that fuzzy logic, with its tolerance of imprecision, will soon
replace Aristotelian logic in a massive paradigm shift. �Nature,� Zadeh is
often quoted as saying, �writes with a spray can, not a ballpoint pen.�
There is remarkable anticipation of fuzzy logic in H. G. Wells�s philo-
sophical work First and Last Things (1908). After describing a variety of
objects called �chairs,� he wrote: �In cooperation with an intelligent
joiner I would undertake to defeat any definition of chair or chairishness
that you gave me.�
Every species is vague, every term goes cloudy at its edges, and so in
my way of thinking, relentless logic is only another name for stupid-
ity � for a sort of intellectual pigheadedness. If you push a philosophi-
cal or metaphysical enquiry through a series of valid syllogisms � never
committing any generally recognized fallacy � you nevertheless leave
behind you at each step a certain rubbing and marginal loss of objective
truth and you get deflections that are difficult to trace, at each phase in
the process. Every species waggles about in its definition, every tool is
a little loose in its handle, every scale has its individual.
Interest in fuzzy logic and fuzzy mathematics is now worldwide, but
especially intense in China, Korea, and Japan. Fuzzy conferences are held
regularly in the United States, China, and Japan, where hundreds of fuzzy
experts are publishing technical papers. Zadeh has become famous in
Japan. More than a half-dozen introductory books on fuzzy logic are in
Japanese. Technical books in English are finally being published, and
several journals are devoted to this mushrooming field, the oldest being
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, published in Amsterdam. The word fuzzy is on its
cover in fuzzy red letters.
Every branch of applied mathematics has been fuzzified. Fuzzy arith-
metic handles such fuzzy numbers as �almost 10� and �more than 50.�
Fuzzy geometry deals with almost straight lines, not quite round circles,
and even vaguer concepts, such as ovals. Fuzzy graph theory draws
158 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
graphs based on fuzzy points. There are fuzzy algebras, fuzzy topology,
and fuzzy calculus. Work is being done on fuzzy artificial intelligence
(AI), pattern recognition, and neural networks.
Fuzzy computer chips for handling fuzzy algorithms are rapidly
being used in hundreds of control systems. In Japan, fuzzy silicon chips
provide smooth stops and starts on Hitachi�s subway in Sendai, Japan.
The Japanese are fuzzifying elevators, cranes, washing machines, carbu-
retors, showers, hair dryers, camcorders, electric razors, air conditioners,
TV sets, ovens, vacuum cleaners, even entire chemical plants. �Expert
systems,� such as those used for medical diagnosis, mineral prospecting,
and stock market analysis, are being fuzzified.
In 1989, the Japanese government funded the Laboratory for Inter-
national Fuzzy Engineering Research with an advance of some $35 mil-
lion and more than forty member firms. Japanese cars are starting to use
fuzzy transmissions. In 1989 Honda awarded its prestigious Honda prize
to Zadeh for his contributions to Japanese technology. U.S. companies
have been extremely reluctant to jump on the fuzzy bandwagon. Excep-
tions are Rockwell, which markets several fuzzy devices; Otis Elevator;
and General Motors, which uses fuzzy logic in the transmission of its Sat-
urn car.
Details of Zadeh �s logic are technical, but let me convey some gen-
eral features. A fuzzy set is one with fuzzy boundaries. Members are
graded by a finite number of degrees, with incremental transitions be-
tween them. For example, heights of persons can be broken down into
such fuzzy adjectives as very tall, tall, medium, short, and very short,
each category defined by numerical intervals. A room�s temperature is
graded by numbers between hot and cold. True and false are replaced by
degrees of truth and falseness. Although reasoning with fuzzy is precise,
all its conclusions are fuzzy.
Many theorems in traditional logic carry over into fuzzy in modified
ways. For example, on a scale of 0 to 1, assume that �Joe is short� has a
fuzzy truth value of .2. Its complement, �Joe is not short,� has a fuzzy
value of 1 - .2 = .8. An �and� conjunction of �Joe is short� (value .2) with
�Joe is handsome� (value .5), has a value of .5. �Joe is either short� or (in
the exclusive sense) �Joe is handsome� has a value of .2. Implication: �If
Joe is short then Joe is handsome� has a value equal to 1 - (.2 + .8),
which is zero. Being short does not imply that one is handsome.
Instead of precise fuzzy values one might use what is called a �fuzzy
fuzzy� value of, say, �almost .2.� Zadeh calls such values a �second order
of fuzziness.�
�Fuzziness� is distinguished from �vagueness� in terms of (what
else?) degree. �Jesus will return in a few years� is fuzzy. �Jesus will
Fuzzy Logic 159
return eventually� is so extremely fuzzy that Zadeh calls it vague. He also
distinguishes fuzzy from �probability� statements. �The chance it will
rain tomorrow is .5� is a probability forecast. The fuzzy equivalent is,
�The degree of truth that it will rain tomorrow is .5.� The distinctions are
subtle. Thus even the term fuzzy is �fuzzy.�
Fuzzy logic, especially among artificial intelligence specialists in the
United States, has persistent detractors. They claim that fuzzy logic is
overhyped, seeing it as a momentary fad similar to the �catastrophe the-
ory� craze that befuddled mathematicians in the late 1970s. It has been
called a �cult� with Zadeh as its founder and guru. Some have even called
it �content free� and �the cocaine of science.� Douglas Hofstadter thinks
the idea of reasoning precisely about blurry concepts is �rather comical.�
Michael Arbib suggests that the cult would never have arisen if Zadeh had
named his logic �set theory with degrees of membership.�
Arguments between promoters and opponents of fuzzy have become
acrimonious. In a 1994 conference on fuzzy in San Diego sponsored by
Computer Design magazine, the main event was supposed to be a debate
between fuzzian Earl Cox and antifuzzian Bob Pease. An announcement
said the debate would be carefully monitored by the magazine�s editor �to
keep the contenders from doing each other actual harm.� I am told the
debate did not take place.
Opponents maintain that algorithms and chips based on probability
theory and familiar multivalued logics can do just as well as fuzzy in con-
trolling machinery. After all, probability controls put astronauts on the
moon, and guide intercontinental missiles and solar-system probes. The
line between fuzzy logic and probability logics is blurry. To assign �very
tall� a fuzzy value of n is the same as saying that, in a given culture, a per-
son over six feet will be called tall with a probability of n. Is fuzzy,
detractors ask, merely probability theory in disguise?
To a large extent disagreements may be verbal. A computer program
based on an analog algorithm with digital components would be called
fuzzy by fuzzians, but not by others. Fuzzy chips, using sieves instead of
on-off switches, would be called an analog program by the antifuzzians.
Zadeh likes to point out that chess players have fuzzy intermediate goals,
and when you park a car you maneuver it into fuzzy positions. Detractors
would say that chess players and car parkers are simply making proba-
bility estimates.
In many cases, say the probabilists, a simple feedback mechanism
such as a flywheel or a thermostat can serve adequately as a control
mechanism. Fuzzy experts are proud of the fact that the Japanese have a
fuzzy stability program that balances a pole on one end. Detractors say
the same thing can be done with nonfuzzy programs. Fuzzians insist that
w 1
160 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
fuzzy chips balance the pole, as well as handle other control systems,
more efficiently, with simpler rules and lower costs.
In 1993 two popular books on fuzzy logic were published in the
United States: Fuzzy Logic (Simon and Schuster) by Daniel McNeil and
Paul Freiberger, and Fuzzy Thinking (Hyperion) by Bart Kosko. Both
books are breathless paeans to fuzzy, hailing it as a revolution of monu-
mental proportions in computer technology � a revolution destined to
transform the world.
Fuzzy Logic is the more restrained of the two. The authors give space
to detractors, but argue that their opposition springs from a failure to
understand fuzzy logic and from the slowness of a stubborn establishment
to recognize a new paradigm shift. They agree with Zadeh that it will be
many years until the United States catches up with Japanese technology
in fuzzifying control systems. Although they are convinced that fuzziness
will soon invade world technology, they grant the possibility that this pre-
diction may �harden into garish embarrassments like the predictions of AI
(artificial intelligence) and neural networks.�
Bart Kosko, author of Fuzzy Thinking, is the movement�s most con-
troversial and combative promoter. He is the hero of the McNeil/Frei-
berger book, which devotes an entire chapter to him. Bom in 1960 in
Kansas City, Kansas, Kosko obtained his Ph.D. in 1987 from the Univer-
sity of California, San Diego, with a thesis on fuzzy systems. He now
teaches electrical engineering at the University of Southern California,
Los Angeles.
Kosko is also a karate expert, body builder, music composer, and fic-
tion writer. Politically he is a libertarian. A believer in the future of cry-
onics � freezing human bodies to resuscitate them later when medical sci-
ence is more advanced � he made this the basis of his science-fiction
novella Wake Me When I Die. He was an ardent logical positivist, steeped
in the binary thinking of Carnap and Quine, before Zadeh �s work over-
whelmed him and Kosko moved from black and white to gray. Since then
his contributions to fuzzy have been immense, notably his recent work on
�fuzzy entropy� and �fuzzy systems.�
Kosko is also into Zen meditation. He believes U.S. logicians and
manufacturers are still mired in the binary either/or thinking of Western
philosophy. By contrast, Southeast Asia, with its Buddhist background, is
more tolerant of continuity and vagueness. True, the yin/yang symbol is
binary, but each half contains a spot of the other suggesting the fuzziness
of both sides. Perhaps Japanese fuzzians will fuzzify the symbol by fad-
ing the white and black sides through a continuum of grays.
Kosko is good at inventing fuzzy phrases, such as �fuzz-up� and
�fits� (fuzzy units to replace fuzzy bits, or binary units). Rubik�s cube
Fuzzy Logic 161
suggested to him a clever way to model fuzzy values as fuzzy points
within cubes and hypercubes. He likes to speak of the day he learned that
�science is not true� � that is, all its laws are fuzzy.
Fuzzy Thinking is an entertaining tour de force that ranges widely and
smoothly over such topics as relativity theory, quantum mechanics, psy-
chology, ethics, philosophy, and even theology. Everything is, of course,
fuzzified. �God,� Kosko writes in his last chapter, �is He who wrote the
math. Or She who wrote the math. Or It that wrote the math. Or the Noth-
ingness that wrote the math.The Mathmaker.�
Is fuzzy logic as revolutionary as Kosko and his mentor Zadeh
believe? Maybe.
ADDENDUM
Two letters about my column on fuzzy logic ran in the Skeptical Inquirer
(January/February 1996). The following letter was written by William
Dress, of Knoxville, Tennessee:
As usual, Martin Gardner has an unerring instinct � or a highly trained
mind � to identify amphigory even in the hallowed halls of science.
I have used Bart Kosko�s technical book Neural Networks and
Fuzzy Systems as the text for a graduate course on �advanced methods�
for signal processing and found it clear, concise, and quite useful, as it
contains a valuable summary of the various �neural network� models
and a good exposition of fuzzy sets, including Kosko�s own contribu-
tions to the field.
However, as I was careful to warn my students, there are places in
the book where Kosko leaves the realm of science and reason to con-
duct a personal vendetta against benighted practitioners of �Western
logic� and, in particular, the Aristotelian principles of reason. Kosko
forgets that fuzzy logic was created to allow a consistent mathematical
treatment of fuzzy and ambiguous linguistic terms, not objective behav-
iors of physical reality. Indeed, quantum electrodynamics has shown us
that the physical reality is crisp at least to a part in 10 16 � not even
remotely fuzzy on a human scale. So much for the fuzziness (impre-
ciseness) of quantum phenomena.
Chapter 7 (Fuzziness versus Probability) is the key chapter in
Kosko�s book as it serves both as a misguided polemic against reason
and logic in science and provides a reasonably clear discussion of
Kosko�s two main contributions mentioned by Martin Gardner (the
geometry of fuzzy sets and the fuzzy entropy theorem). A careful read-
ing of this chapter, keeping in mind that fuzzy logic is a description of
linguistic behavior, quickly reveals numerous inconsistencies and non-
162 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
sensical statements. The latter are easy to rectify by applying a little
common sense. For example, his Figure 7.1 shows a crude sketch of
what might be an oval or an ellipse. Kosko wants us to accept that either
�It is probably an ellipse� or �It is a fuzzy ellipse.� This false
dichotomy, directed against probability theory, which he rightly con-
trasts to fuzzy logic, is easily resolved by allowing more linguistically
diverse statements, such as, �It is a poor representation of a circle,� or
�it is my shaky sketch of an egg,� or any of a number of other state-
ments that attempt to convey, in linguistic terms, the possible interpre-
tations of a picture to a human mind. His wavering circle does not com-
pel us to adopt the fuzzy metaphor.
The telling point against Kosko�s anti-Western and antirational
polemic against �crisp� logic is very simple and quite devastating: Each
theorem proven in his book, including the fuzzy set theorems, makes a
fundamental appeal to the Aristotelian laws of logic � those of identity,
noncontradiction, and the excluded middle that he so despises! In
essence, in denying that A = A, he no longer has the right to use the
word �is�; and the famous �Q.E.D.� following his proofs of theorems
can have no meaning. Likewise, the very structure of a mathematical
proof is grounded in the law of noncontradiction, and the essence of
mathematical consistency is tightly bound with the law of the excluded
middle. Thus Kosko has himself denied the validity of his own work.
Concisely stated, fuzzy logic does not and cannot violate the laws
of ordinary logic! It merely allows a consistent way to express linguis-
tic concepts in a �machine� or computer environment. As such, it is a
wonderfully useful tool that can enlighten our understanding of linguis-
tics and make computers much more useful to humans, but it has noth-
ing to say about objective reality apart from the human mind and its cul-
tural concepts.
Anytime someone starts talking about �Western science� in con-
trast to �Eastern science� or some other putative science, the alarm bells
start to ring. There is only science. There may be personal approaches,
or flavors, to doing, thinking about, expressing, and reporting science,
but there can be only science. It is not Western, not Eastern, not African,
not northern European, neither male nor female, not socialist, nor com-
munist, nor bourgeois, nor proletarian; science transcends all ethnic,
racial, religious, economic, and philosophical strife that so divides our
modern world. As such, science becomes an archetype that has the
potential to heal our painful rifts of diversity. Fuzzy logic and fuzzy sets
do us poor service when used to widen these rifts.
Bruce I. Kodish, of Baltimore, a great admirer of Alfred Korzybski,
wrote as follows:
In his column �Fuzzy Logic,� Martin Gardner demonstrates his finely
Fuzzy Logic
163
honed talent for overgeneralizing when he states: �Zadeh passionately
believes that Aristotelian black-and-white logic is useless for reasoning
about the real world. This view is shared by Alfred Korzybski, founder
of general semantics, although this earlier movement by Korzybski had
no influence on Zadeh.�
Throughout his career Gardner has misrepresented Korzybski �s
work. Korzybski did not consider Aristotelian black-and-white logic
useless, only limited. Discussing an either-or orientation, Korzybski
wrote, �In living, many issues are not so sharp, and therefore a system
which posits the general sharpness of � either-or, � and so objectifies
�kind, � is unduly limited; it must be revised and made more flexible in
terms of �degree�� ( Science and Sanity, fifth edition). Zadeh, I believe,
shares this viewpoint.
Gardner does accurately note that Korzybski�s work had no direct
influence on Zadeh when he started his work. However, I happily report
that connections between general semantics and fuzzy logic have begun
to be made. Zadeh presented the 1994 Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lec-
ture and participated in the colloquium on �Exploring Life Applications
of Fuzzy Logic.� Some material from these events were to be published
in late 1995 in the Institute�s General Semantics Bulletin, Number 62.
I conclude by noting Gardner�s careless disregard for the difference
between label and actuality. He first writes that �it [fuzzy logic] has
been called a �cult,� with Zadeh as founder and guru.� Later in that para-
graph Gardner writes that �Michael Arbib suggests that the cult [my
emphasis] would never have arisen. . . .� From being called a cult, fuzzy
logic becomes a �cult.� I find this curiously irresponsible formulating
from someone touted as a premier �skeptic.�
BOOK
REVIEWS
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
FROM HERE TO INFINITY
O utside a church in Rome is a large stone face with a gaping mouth.
Legend has it that if you put your hand in the mouth and make a false
statement, you�ll never get it out. �May God forgive me,� writes Rudy
Rucker. �But I have been there, and I stuck my hand in the mouth and
said, �I will not be able to pull my hand back out.� �
The anecdote conveys the flavor of Infinity and the Mind (Birkhauser,
1981), an informal, witty, brilliant, and profound book. For the first time a
mathematician has surveyed, from a modern point of view, every aspect of
infinity � that blinding spot at which the mystery of transcendence shatters
the clarity of logic, mathematics, and science. You will learn about Georg
Cantor�s paradise of transfinite numbers, and (in the opposite direction)
the infinitesimal numbers of nonstandard calculus. You will be introduced
to the paradoxes of logic and set theory, with their infinite regresses and
infinite levels of metalanguages. You will learn about Kurt Godel�s stag-
gering discovery that there are mathematical truths that can never be
proved true by mind or computer.
Is there an infinity of universes? An infinity of spacetime dimen-
sions? Will our own cozy little cosmos expand forever or �bounce� for-
ever? Do you know about Godel�s rotating universe in which travel into
the past is theoretically possible? Or the �many worlds� interpretation of
quantum mechanics in which every microsecond the universe splits into
billions of parallel worlds? You will also learn of Rucker�s own cyclical
model, made half in jest, that starts with universes, then continues down
a ladder of suns, planets, rocks, molecules, atoms, particles, quarks, . . .
until it becomes an infinite set of the same universes it started with!
A great-great-great-grandson of Hegel, with a doctorate in set theory,
Rucker now teaches mathematics at Randolph-Macon, and writes science
fiction on the side. His first fantasy, White Light (Ace, 1980) is based on
the work of Cantor and Godel. (Ace will soon publish two more: Space-
time Donuts and Software.) Rucker got to know Godel, and his book on
This review first appeared in Isaac Asimov�s Science Fiction Magazine (February 1982).
167
168 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
infinity records several delightful conversations with this great man. Like
Godel, Rucker is a Platonic realist, for whom infinite sets are no less
�real� than the number 8 (infinity rotated). All mathematical concepts
�exist� in what Rucker calls the Mindscape. Beyond the Mindscape,
beyond all the transfinite sets, lies the transcendent infinity that Hegel and
Cantor called the Absolute. It is the Unknowable of Herbert Spencer, and
it goes by many other names such as Brahmin, the Tao, and God.
Last March Analog published a story called �Schrodinger�s Cat,�
based on the most notorious paradox of quantum mechanics. Who could
have written it except Rucker? Read his marvelous book and your mind
will flood with strange waters � waters that you can be sure will seep
more and more into serious science fiction, written for those who are
bored with Hollywood�s crude mix of sex, violence, galactic wars, and
paranormal powers.
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
HOW SCIENCE WORKS AND FAILS
W hy do scientists treat with respect such wild concepts as quarks and
black holes but dismiss as nonsense extraterrestrial UFOs and the
cosmology of Velikovsky? This is one of the central questions raised by
Richard Morris, a physicist turned science writer, in Dismantling the Uni-
verse: The Nature of Scientific Discovery (Simon and Schuster, 1983). It
is an admirable popular account of how science operates by dismantling
faulty theories and replacing them with better ones. The process may
never end, and final truth may be unreachable, yet who can deny the fan-
tastic success of the enterprise?
Morris begins with an excellent nontechnical summary of how rela-
tivity theory, in spite of its wrench to common sense, improved on New-
ton�s physics. Compared with the slow swing in earlier centuries, from
Earth-centered cosmologies to heliocentric models, the relativity revolu-
tion was amazingly rapid and painless. Quantum mechanics, the next
great revolution, was even swifter.
Morris has little enthusiasm for Fritjof Capra and other physicists
who contend that quantum mechanics supports Eastern mysticism. He
knows that Erwin Schrodinger, one of quantum mechanics� architects,
was profoundly interested in Eastern philosophy and that Niels Bohr saw
the yin-yang design as a symbol for complementarity � the view that
seemingly contradictory aspects of quanta are opposite sides of an incom-
prehensible truth. But it takes a lot of distortion, Morris believes, to find
quantum mechanics closer to Eastern than to Western thinking. Eastern
sages have no monopoly on interconnectedness. Western mystics had
similar visions of a supernal Oneness, not to mention the long lines of
European pantheists from Plotinus to Alfred North Whitehead. It was not
a Taoist but nineteenth-century English poet Francis Thompson who
wrote: �Thou canst not stir a flower/Without troubling of a star.�
A chapter on the pitfalls of intuition tells how Copernicus, having no
way to know that planetary orbits are elliptical, was forced to use epicy-
This review first appeared in Science 84 (March 1984).
169
170 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
cles as ugly and complicated as those of the Ptolemaic models. So
entrenched was the belief that orbits must be circular that even Galileo
refused to accept Kepler�s ellipses. Kepler�s intuition led him far astray
when, in a burst of bogus illumination, he related the orbits of the known
planets to the five Platonic solids. Einstein�s remarkable intuition failed
him utterly when he introduced a �cosmological constant� � a repulsive
force between particles � to prevent gravity from collapsing his elegant
steady-state model of the universe.
Of course none of these mistakes detracts from the monumental
achievements of the three men. For Morris, they highlight the fumbling
way that guesses in science are made. When it became apparent that the
universe is expanding, Einstein lost no time in calling his constant �the
chief blunder of my life.� Morris is surely right in seeing this corrective
process as operating with increasing efficiency as science more and more
becomes a vast cooperative enterprise with rapid exchanges of informa-
tion between its various research centers.
A hard-hitting chapter on crackpottery should be read by anyone who
thinks the term useless. Velikovsky in Worlds in Collision, for example �
in which he theorized that Venus was originally a comet expelled from the
planet Jupiter that eventually collided with Mars and Earth � did not
really challenge anything. �On the contrary,� Morris says, �he behaved as
though modem science did not exist.� In Morris�s opinion, now shared by
everybody except a few tiresome diehards, Velikovsky �s fantasies were so
far outside the bounds that he became the very model of a crackpot.
The term should not, however, Morris cautions, be indiscriminately
applied to research programs merely because they prove to be mistaken.
Consider polywater, a strange jellylike water that excited chemists in the
mid-1960s; Vulcan, a tiny planet once thought to be inside Mercury�s
orbit; and the fictitious N-rays that some French physicists at Nancy
believed they had observed. Were the defenders of these notions crack-
pots? Morris thinks not. The science community became skeptical, he
points out, �when these theories became so convoluted that they began to
take on crackpot proportions.� Unnecessary insults may have been tossed
back and forth, but the speed with which these three controversies van-
ished is a striking tribute, Morris contends, to science�s constantly im-
proving skill in self-correction.
Is it possible for a theory to be reputable, yet so bizarre that no one
can believe it? Morris introduces two recent instances: the many-worlds
interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which the cosmos fractures every
microsecond into billions of parallel worlds, and a speculation of physi-
cists Robert Dicke and P. J. E. Peebles that there are countless universes
within universes, each of them expanding from an exploding black hole.
How Science Works and Fails 171
That establishment journals regularly publish such outlandish but possi-
bly useful ideas surely belies the view that mainstream science is a rigid
orthodoxy, contemptuous of off-trail thinking.
Morris ends his book by wondering just what is meant by real. The
question is unusually troublesome on the subatomic level where particles
seem not to exist until they are measured. Are the particles no more than
figments of human imagination? In an obvious sense they are mental con-
structs, yet in another sense, Morris wisely insists, they model something
out there, independent of human life, that is sufficiently structured to
impose severe restraints on the modeling.
What roles do simplicity and beauty play in the invention of a good
hypothesis? Here I think Morris is right in general, but in spite of Keats�s
famous line about truth and beauty, I must question the book�s final sen-
tence: �Science seeks to create pictures of the order in nature which are
so logically elegant that we cannot doubt that they are true.� No one
knows how to measure a theory�s elegance � that mysterious mix of sim-
plicity and beauty. It is a theory�s success in passing new empirical tests
that must always be the final arbiter. Particle physicists now like to say
that the recent theory of supersymmetry is much too beautiful to be false.
Alas, this has been said many times before about theories that bit the dust
because, though very beautiful, they were also very wrong.
a
CHAPTER NINETEEN
THE FAITH OF THREE SCIENTISTS
T he Southern Baptist faith of science journalist Robert Wright did not
survive his youthful discovery of evolution, but it left an aching void.
Does the universe have a purpose? Mr. Wright�s search for the meaning
of life brought him into contact with three controversial, out-of-the-main-
stream scientists. Three Scientists and Their Gods (Times Books, 1988)
is his valiant effort to extract from their thinking as much light as he can
to illuminate his central question.
Alas, the light on Wright is mainly not so bright. Although he sees the
computer concept of �information� as a common thread in the specula-
tions of his three sages, only Edward Fredkin makes much of it, and as
for the gods in his book�s title, only Kenneth Boulding seems to have
one. Indeed, just about the only thing these three wise men have in com-
mon is Robert Wright, now an editor at the New Republic, who decided
to write about them.
Edward Fredkin is a computer scientist, formerly with MIT, who sees
the universe as a gigantic digital computer. In his wild vision, called �dig-
ital physics,� space and time are not continuous, but made of discrete bits
of pure information. There are no energy transfers or particle movements,
only shifting patterns as these bits of information alter their states, like the
illusory motions on a computer screen produced by the changing states of
pixels.
He isn�t kidding. �I feel like I�m the only person with eyes in a world
that�s blind,� he told Mr. Wright when he was interviewed at his enormous
villa on Moskito Island, in the Caribbean. (Fredkin bought the island with
the millions earned from his computer hardware company.) Few physicists
buy his vision. �If Fredkin were a cheese merchant,� physicist Philip Mor-
rison says, �he�d be telling you that everything in the universe is made of
cheese.�
Was our universe programmed by a �great hacker in the skies�? Mr.
Fredkin does not believe there is a God, but he does suspect that something
This review first appeared in the Raleigh, N.C., News and Observer, October 30, 1988.
172
The Faith of Three Scientists 173
akin to our intelligence is using the universe �to reach some final state, the
solution to some problem, but we can�t know what the problem is.�
As for the future, although totally determined, the program is so com-
plex that the only way to know what will happen is to let the show go on.
Even God, says Mr. Fredkin, if there is one, can�t know the outcome �any
faster than doing it.�
Edward O. Wilson, Mr. Wright�s second scientist, is the well-known
promoter of sociobiology. Like Mr. Wright, Edward Wilson abandoned
his bom-again beliefs when he encountered science. His career began
with research on the social insects (bees, ants, wasps, termites) whose
behavior is totally determined by genes. Although Mr. Wilson recognizes
that human behavior is a mix of genetic programming and environmental
influences, he has become the world�s most passionate champion of the
view that genes play a far greater role in human culture than social sci-
entists want to admit.
As Mr. Wilson, now a Harvard biologist, has grown older and written
more books, he has become increasingly persuaded that aesthetics, altru-
ism, and even religious beliefs are strongly conditioned by genes, which
are in turn products of random mutation and natural selection. Many of
his colleagues think he has carried genetic determinism too far. Some
have even called him a racist.
He is not a racist, but as an honest atheist, what is he doing in a book
about scientists and their gods? Mr. Wright tells of an occasion when
Edward Wilson found himself at a memorial service listening to an old
gospel hymn. He began to cry. �It was tribal,� he explained. �It was the
feeling that I had been a long way from the tribe.�
Kenneth Boulding, Mr. Wright�s third expert, grew up in Liverpool as
a Methodist, later becoming a Quaker and a follower of Teilhard de
Chardin, the heretical Roman Catholic paleontologist. Mr. Boulding�s first
book, Economic Analysis, was once a popular college text. His later books
(there are dozens) tend to be rambling with endless quips and asides. They
focus on Spaceship Earth (he coined the phrase) as a �total system� that is
evolving into a unified superstate of love, peace, and justice.
Now in his late seventies, with unkempt snow-white hair, Kenneth
Boulding impresses Mr. Wright as a gentle, lovable Wizard of Oz, so
agreeable that �he uses the word yes the way children use ketchup.� Is he
a charlatan � �a mush-minded do-gooder who finessed his way into the
academic limelight with his wit and British charm�?
Mr. Wright isn�t sure, and I cannot say; but as for Teilhard de
Chardin, I agree with the late Sir Peter Medawar, whom Mr. Wright
quotes � that Teilhard�s speculations are �nonsense tricked out with a
variety of tedious metaphysical conceits.� Apparently, Mr. Boulding
174 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
believes in a Christian God, but his musings tend to be so vague and plat-
itudinous that it is hard to know. I keep expecting him to reveal that the
past is behind us and the future lies ahead.
Mr. Wright finishes this fascinating book without having learned
whether the universe has a purpose or not. �Personally,� he writes, �I
don�t know what to think. But I do think about it often.� I enjoyed his
skillfully etched portraits and his commentary, and learned a lot from
them, but the book�s Casey-strikes-out finish reminded me of another
man who went searching for the meaning of life. After many years of
searching the world he came upon an aged Tibetan monk who was said to
know the answer.
�The universe,� the monk told him, �is like a flower.�
�Do you mean,� the irate man responded, �that after my twenty years
of pilgrimage, and weeks of climbing this miserable mountain, all you
can tell me is that the universe is like a flower?�
The old monk shrugged and spread his hands, �Perhaps it�s not like a
flower.�
CHAPTER TWENTY
SPECULATIONS OF FREEMAN DYSON
P hysicists divide today over an awesome question. Are all the funda-
mental laws of nature about to be discovered? Stephen Hawking, for
one, answers yes. Freeman Dyson�s new book is an impassioned defense
of the contrary � that the universe is infinitely mysterious in all direc-
tions. �If it should turn out,� he writes, �that the whole of physical real-
ity can be described by a finite set of equations, I would be disappointed.
1 would feel that the Creator had been uncharacteristically lacking in
imagination.�
British-born, trained in mathematics at Cambridge University, in
physics at Cornell, Dyson is the most esteemed resident of Princeton�s
famed Institute for Advanced Study. His contributions to physics, tech-
nology, and cosmology have been enormous. But there is another side to
this remarkable man, a side that relishes fiction and poetry, that likes to
dream. His technical papers bristle with equations, but few scientists can
write for laymen with more elegance, clarity, humor, and enthusiasm.
Dyson�s earlier book. Disturbing the Universe, was mostly about his
opinions and speculations, although it was disguised as autobiography. Infi-
nite in All Directions (Harper and Row, 1988) ranges even more widely.
When asked to give the prestigious Gifford Lectures in Aberdeen, Scotland
(on which the book is based) he decided not to focus on a single topic, but
simply to talk about all the things that interested him. These are some:
� Superstrings � inconceivably tiny pulsating loops that may explain
all the weird properties of matter.
� The Oort Cloud of millions of comets, orbiting the sun in spaces
beyond Pluto.
� Nemesis, a star not yet identified but which may be a companion to
our sun.
� The Monarch butterfly � �The world of biology is full of miracles,
but nothing I have seen is as miraculous as this metamorphosis of the
Monarch caterpillar.�
This review first appeared in the Raleigh, N.C., News and Observer, April 10, 1988.
175
176 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
� The benefits and perils of nuclear energy, genetic engineering, and
Star Wars.
� The need for world government, and the hope for increasing
democratization of the USSR and the real possibility of nuclear disarma-
ment. And with these, doubts about Carl Sagan�s nuclear winter.
� The possibility that life on Earth had not a single biochemical
source but a double origin. A molecule of nucleic acid, capable of crude
replication, latched onto a molecule of protein, he suggests, to become
�the oldest and most incurable of our parasitic diseases� � life.
Dyson remarks that while a hundred years ago the intelligent layman
had no difficulty understanding the language of Darwin, today science
moves ever further beyond the ken of all the but the specialists:
The chemistry of living cells is the essence of life. The beauty of their
variegated architecture is inescapably tied to the ugliness of chemical
terminology. The further we penetrate into the mysteries of their behav-
ior, the longer and the uglier our words become.
Dyson likes to entertain science-fiction schemes, one of the wildest
being his �astro-chicken.� By combining future techniques of genetic
manipulation and artificial intelligence, Dyson thinks we may be able to
grow an organic robot capable of walking around the moons of Uranus,
sending back information from its sensors, and supplying its own energy
by eating the ice and carbon of Uranus�s rings. �If one ring tastes bad it
will try another. . . .�
For me the most fascinating portions of Dyson�s book are its theo-
logical musings. Dyson�s God is the finite, pantheistic god elaborated by
the Australian philosopher Samuel Alexander, a world-soul �inherent in
the universe and growing in power and knowledge as the universe
unfolds.�
Dyson first learned he was not alone in this �process theology� from
the philosopher Charles Hartshorne, whose �panpsychic� views he
shares. Mind permeates the universe, and �is to some extent inherent in
every electron.� Although Dyson doesn�t mention it, his mentor H. G.
Wells actually wrote an entire book about this theology, God the Invisible
King, before he decided he was an atheist.
In Dyson�s dream scenario the universe will not vanish in a Big
Crunch, but will expand forever. As it approaches death from the cold, he
thinks, intelligence will by then have invented ways to continue existing
in forms now utterly beyond our comprehension.
What is the purpose of it all? Dyson disagrees with physicist Steven
Weinberg that the universe is pointless. The point is to maximize diver-
Speculations of Freeman Dyson 177
sity. Leibniz thought ours was the best of possible worlds. Hawking
thinks it the most probable of possible worlds, while other cosmologists
think it the most improbable. For Dyson it is merely �the most interesting
of all possible universes, and our fate as human beings is to make it so.�
Aptly, Dyson closes by returning to the mystery of metamorphosis.
He recalls the passage from �Purgatorio� where Dante likens the soul to
a worm born to become an angelic butterfly. For Dante the metamorpho-
sis refers to you and me. For Dyson the wings belong not to individuals
who are destined to perish, but to a �million intelligent species exploring
diverse ways of living in a million different places across the galaxy.�
I thought of the lines he quoted, in Disturbing the Universe, from
Wells: �Beings who are now latent in our thoughts and hidden in our
loins, shall stand upon this earth as one stands upon a footstool, and shall
laugh and reach out their hands amid the stars.�
CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE
SHELDON GLASHOW ON
SCIENCE AND SUPERSTRINGS
S heldon Glashow, the Harvard physicist who shared a Nobel Prize in
1979 with his old high school buddy Steven Weinberg and the Pak-
istani physicist Abdus Salam, is the latest in a line of distinguished scien-
tists to favor us with their memoirs. Written with Ben Bova, former edi-
tor of Omni and Analog Science Fiction Magazine, Interactions (Warner
books, 1988) is a marvelous, witty double introduction: to the basic ideas
of relativity, quantum mechanics, and particle theory, and to the life and
mind of one of the world�s most creative explorers of the universe�s wild
and wonderful underworld.
Shelly, as his friends call him, grew up in Manhattan, the son of Lev
Glukhovsky, a Russian Jewish immigrant. Neither his �father the
plumber� nor his mother went to college, but somehow they managed to
rear three children (Shelly has two sisters) who became Ph.D.s. Shelly�s
first words almost were �What�s that?� As with all great physicists, his
childhood curiosity was insatiable. He recalls wondering what a rainbow
is, and why an uncooked egg won�t spin. He collected comic books. He
tinkered with chemistry in his basement lab, and won a ribbon at the Bronx
High School of Science for building a stroboscope. He and classmate
Weinberg put out a science-fiction �fanzine� called ETAOIN SHRDLU, in
which appeared his first published article, �On the Nature of Nothing.�
�Our trajectories through the world of physics,� Glashow writes of
himself and Weinberg, �are hopelessly intertwined.� They both went to
Cornell, where Weinberg�s roommate was Daniel Kleitman, now an MIT
mathematician who became Glashow�s brother-in-law. Their wives are
sisters. A third sister was married for a time to Carl Sagan, who persuaded
her to become a biologist. In Glashow�s barbed opinion, she was �Carl�s
greatest contribution to science.�
Friends and collaborators, Glashow and Weinberg taught at the Uni-
versity of California at Berkeley during the 1960s, and moved to Harvard
in 1967.
This review first appeared in the Raleigh, N.C., News and Observer, June 19, 1988.
178
Sheldon Glashow on Science and Superstrings 179
Then, in 1968, there occurred one of the saddest, most spectacular
ruptures of friendship in modern science. Glashow, curiously, provides
scant details, but says that for an entire year he and Weinberg did not
speak to each other even though both were at Harvard and had been
friends for thirty years. A partial reconciliation took place when they won
the Nobel Prize (for unifying electromagnetism and the �weak force,�
which plays a part in radioactive decay). Weinberg would later leave Har-
vard for a post in Texas.
Glashow�s title has two meanings: the interaction of particles, and the
author�s interactions with friends and colleagues. He tells how at Harvard
he �painfully� shed two girl friends. One ran off with a student, the other
married a mathematician. �I tried to convince her to wed me,� he says,
�but she told me it was too late; they had already bought the furniture.�
Weinberg advised Glashow to get married so he could concentrate on
physics.
Like many physicists, Glashow enjoys combinatorial play with words
and letters. After referring to the �tedium of Ithaca (New York),� he won-
ders if it isn�t better called the �tedia of Ithacans.� His father�s �sole per-
version� was his love of a certain fish. A theory of Jogesh Pati and Abdus
Salam is called �pate and salami.� Sam Ting makes an observation, and
later another physicist sees the Sam Ting. His friend Murray Gell-Mann,
who discovered and named the quarks, is dubbed Murray the Omniscient
to introduce into the adjective the Hindu prayer word �Om� that signifies
the unity of everything. CCNY � City College of New York � stands for
the �circumcised citizens of New York.� Writing about the physicist
Eugene Wigner brings to Glashow�s mind a riddle: �What is the question
whose answer is 9W?� The answer: �Professor Wigner, do you spell your
name with a V?�
In his final chapter Glashow introduces a riddle of his own. �Name
two grand designs that are incredibly complex, require decades of re-
search to develop, and may never work. . . . Star Wars and string theory.�
String theory is the latest craze among particle physicists. Gell-Mann and
Weinberg are gung ho for it, but Glashow is skeptical. He calls it a �new
toy� that is perverting �impressionable students� who are likely to
become unemployable after the �string snaps.� String theory replaces the
pointlike elements (leptons and quarks) of particle physics with incon-
ceivable tiny loops whose vibrations generate the properties of all the par-
ticles. Glashow likens it to medieval theology. Because no great break-
throughs in particle physics have taken place in the last ten years, he
thinks, physicists are playing �Let�s Pretend� so they will have something
to talk about.
Physicists have always spent vast amounts of mental energy on crazy
180 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
ideas, most of which turn out to be wrong. �I do it all the time,� Glashow
writes. �Having a lot of crazy ideas is the secret to my success. Some of
them turned out to be right!�
String theorists hope and believe that strings will tie up all the loose
ends of physics, leaving no basic laws to be discovered, but Glashow is
betting against it. �Can anyone really believe,� he asks on his last page,
�that nature�s bag of tricks has run out? Have we finally reached the point
where there is no longer a new particle, a �fifth� force, or a bewildering
new phenomenon to observe? Of course not. Let the show go on!�
ADDENDUM
Because of space limitations, I did not discuss in my short review where
Glashow stands on the conflict between mathematical realists and those
who see all of mathematics as a human construction. I am happy to say
that Glashow, like almost all mathematicians and physicists, is a realist in
the sense that both the laws of nature and the theorems of mathematics
are discovered, not invented.
�Are the Simple Lie groups merely an invention of human thought,
like the Polish language?� Glashow asks on page 156. They are so essen-
tial to physics, he writes elsewhere, that to talk about physics to an audi-
ence not knowing group theory is like trying to eat spaghetti with a spoon.
Surely, intelligent aliens in other galaxies could hardly be expected to
speak Polish, but I bet my boots they know about Lie groups. Mathe-
matical entities, like integers, complex numbers, calculus, and Lie
groups, are real things, even if we cannot touch or smell them or build
rabbit hutches out of them. But it seems to be a reality quite apart from
physical reality. Electrons exist in a very different sense than Lie groups.
Eugene Wigner titled a famous paper �The Unreasonable Effective-
ness of Mathematics.� Glashow shares Wigner �s puzzlement. �It is a mys-
tery to me that the concepts of mathematics . . . which are purely inven-
tions of the human imagination, turn out to be essential for the descrip-
tion of the real world of natural phenomena. But so it is.�
Purely inventions? If the objects of mathematics are in some sense
�out there,� waiting to be discovered by human minds, permanently
embedded in the structure of the cosmos in the way the �form� of a vase
is essential to the material vase, then what is surprising about the fact that
having extracted mathematics from the universe, of which our brains are
a part, we are able to put it back in?
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
HEINZ PAGELS ON
MINDS AND COMPUTERS
M any a beautiful theorem has been discovered in the past by math-
ematicians playing with numbers and diagrams, but the computer
has raised the level of such experimenting to new highs. Because most
natural laws are modeled on what mathematicians call the nonlinear dif-
ferential equations of the calculus, much too complex to be explored on
paper, the computer has become a research instrument comparable in
power to the telescope and microscope. Where all this will lead, nobody
knows, but that it will alter our lives in radical ways is the theme of this
admirable third book by Heinz Rudolph Pagels, The Dreams of Reason
(Simon and Schuster, 1988).
Pagels, a physicist at Rockefeller University and executive director of
the New York Academy of Sciences, is one of those rare scientists able to
communicate with nonscientists in clear, delightful prose. His first book,
The Cosmic Code, was about the weird world of quantum mechanics. His
second, Perfect Symmetry, explored cosmology and the struggle to unify
all of nature�s laws. His wife, Elaine Pagels, is a distinguished historian
of religion, best known for her book The Gnostic Gospels.
The two areas in which computers are making the most dramatic
breakthroughs are �complexity theory� and �chaos.� Complexity theory
is concerned with the time it takes a computer to solve a problem. Some
tasks that, in earlier centuries, would have required a mathematician years
to complete are now finished in seconds. Other problems take hours or
weeks, and still others are so complex that no computer could solve them
in �reasonable� time. There are problems no computer can solve even if
it runs forever, and there are problems that we don�t know could be ever
solved, no matter the time.
Chaos theory (recently popularized by James Gleick�s best-selling
book Chaos ) studies dynamic structures that change in strictly determin-
istic ways � ways precisely defined by equations � but which quickly
plunge into unpredictable behavior indistinguishable from pure random-
This review first appeared in the Raleigh, N.C., News and Observer, July 11, 1988.
181
182 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
ness. Although mathematicians are having a field day exploring com-
plexity and chaos, the work has endless practical applications in areas as
diverse as weather control and economics, all of which Pagels skillfully
surveys.
Pagels shares the scorn of most physicists for the philosophers of sci-
ence, though he has read their books and his pages are peppered, or per-
haps I should say �poppered,� with their names. Karl Popper gets the
most attention. �I am convinced,� Pagels writes, �from reading Popper�s
recent books on quantum theory that he does not understand the theory.�
Thinkers who stress the influence of social forces on the history of sci-
ence � Thomas Kuhn, for example, and Paul Feyerabend, who carries the
cultural approach to such extremes that Pagels calls him a �punk philoso-
pher� � come in for special drubbing.
Like almost all physicists, Pagels is a thoroughgoing realist who sees
our minds as part of a material world �out there,� independent of the exis-
tence of you and me, though of course what we observe is conditioned by
our culture. Scientists do not manufacture laws the way firms manufac-
ture clothes. Scientific revolutions, from Pagels�s perspective, are not like
changes in fashion. They are linked to a real world, and although science
meanders, in the long run it gets closer and closer to the secrets of what
Pagels calls the Demiurge. It is his term for a pantheistic deity � not a per-
sonal God, but a Mind behind cosmic order. His model of the history of
science is evolution, a selective process moving haphazardly into an
uncertain future, but always shaped and constrained by a structure that is
more than simply a projection of our feeble little brains:
The �revolutionary� metaphor has been given such currency that many
people, who ought to know better, develop and popularize the view that
science is simply another social enterprise. This misconception, like
occultism, deserves rebuke. I insist that scientific ideas, because of their
special vulnerability to failure imposed by the actual order of nature, are
subject to a unique, self-imposed selective pressure, a criterion for sur-
vival that is transcendent to the particular culture in which these scien-
tific ideas originate.
From antiquity to our own century, philosophers have distinguished
between �mind� and �body.� Pagels is convinced that the computer rev-
olution, with its spinoffs of artificial intelligence and the cognitive sci-
ence of mind, its �dreams of reason,� is rapidly blurring this ancient dual-
ity. �The dualism of mind and nature,� he writes, �will not so much be
solved as it will disappear.�
And as it vanishes, so also will vanish the mystery of how it is that
Heinz Pagels on Minds and Computers 183
mathematics, a construction of human minds, is so unreasonably effective
in explaining and predicting how nature operates. Behind the universe is
the Demiurge, a cosmic code of pure mathematics. Is it so surprising that
our minds, a part of the universe, can write equations that fit the math-
ematical structure from which they emerged?
ADDENDUM
Heinz Pagels, less than two weeks after my review was published, died
tragically in Colorado of a fall while mountain climbing. He was forty-
nine. �I have never known anyone quite like Heinz,� his good friend
Jeremy Bernstein concluded his moving tribute to Pagels in the Sciences
(September/October 1988), �and I shall think of him every day for the
rest of my life.�
CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE
SYMMETRY FROM A TO ZEE
T here seems no end these days to books intended to give laymen in-
sight into what particle physicists are up to, and this is one of the best.
Anthony Zee, a Chinese-born physicist at the University of Califor-
nia in Santa Barbara, is the author of The Unity of Forces in the Universe,
a two-volume, densely technical work. Fearful Symmetry (Macmillan,
1989) was written for nonscientists, and is happily available now in both
hardback and paperback.
The book�s title is taken from William Blake�s famous poem about the
burning tiger in which �symmetry� is a synonym for awesome beauty, not
just the bilateral symmetry of the tiger�s body. Mathematicians define
symmetry by operations on an object that leave something unchanged,
such as rotating it, reflecting it in a mirror, or shuffling parts about like per-
muting a string of symbols. A circle has strong symmetry because you can
rotate it to any degree and reflect it without altering its shape. But a circle
is as boring as a one-note melody or an all-pink painting. Zee writes:
For the Ultimate Designer, herein lies the rub. Symmetry is beauty, and
beauty is desirable. But if the design is perfectly symmetrical, then there
would be only one interaction. The fundamental particles would all be
identical and hence indistinguishable from one another. Such a world is
possible, but it would be very dull: there would be no atom, no star, no
planet, no flower, and no physicist.
How could the Ultimate Designer, Zee�s euphemism for God, start
the universe off with �icy perfection,� the mother field that preceded the
big bang, then manage to frame the strangely beautiful world that permits
the existence of forests, tigers, and you and me? The answer lies in bro-
ken symmetry. As the expanding fireball cooled, its former supersymme-
try, with its single quantized particle, broke into fields and particles of
lower symmetry. Water has high symmetry because it looks the same no
matter how you turn it. Cool it sufficiently and you get the lower but more
This review first appeared in the Raleigh, N.C., News and Observer, February 26, 1989.
184
Symmetry from A to Zee 185
interesting symmetry of snow crystals. Beauty is a mysterious mix of
unity and diversity, or order and disorder.
The book�s title page lists the author simply as A. Zee, and his book
does indeed cover symmetry from A to Z. There are splendidly clear
chapters on the symmetries of relativity theory, of quantum mechanics, of
the GUTs (Grand Unification Theories), and the TOEs (Theories of
Everything). Modem physicists, in Zee�s vision, �have entered the forest
of the night in search of the fundamental design of Nature and, in their
limitless hubris, have claimed to have glimpsed it.�
I know of no book of this sort written more informally and with such
humor. There are quotes from Lewis Carroll, clever cartoons, and amus-
ing anecdotes about great scientists. Opponents of GUTs are gutless.
Expressions such as Whew! What in blazes? Look, wait a minute; Yeah,
sure; Poof! Whoosh! and blah, blah pepper its pages. Physicists who sus-
pect there is no top quark are topless. What would the strong force be like
were it weak? It is like asking what your mother would be like if she were
your father. A deep unanswered question known as the �triplication prob-
lem� is likened to Goldilocks finding bowls and beds of three different
sizes. �Quark� is a word taken from James Joyce�s Finnegans Wake. Zee,
actually locates a passage in Joyce�s Ulysses where Bloom speaks to a
prostitute about �gauge symmetry.�
When God said �Let there be light,� Zee thinks He really meant:
Let there be an SU(5) Yang-Mills Theory with all its gauge bosons, let
the symmetry be broken down spontaneously, and let all but open of the
remaining massless gauge bosons be sold into infrared slavery. That one
last gauge boson is my favorite. Let him rush forth to illuminate all of
my creations!
It doesn�t sound as dramatic. Zee writes, �but it is probably closer to
the truth.�
The rules of the universe, he says, are more like the simple rules of
go than the complicated rules of football. God is playing the great game
of Guess the Rules with us. And what is the best guessing strategy? It is
to pick the right groups. (Groups, it will help to know, are abstract alge-
bras that define symmetries.)
Oops, I chose the wrong group and ended up without any massless
gauge boson. Well, my universe would not have any light in it. No good.
Try again. I choose another group, but now I end up with two massless
gauge bosons. This universe would have two different kinds of photons.
Well, another possible universe hits the wastebasket. Want to play?
MATHEMATICAL BREAKTHROUGHS
T he front cover of Keith Devlin�s Penguin paperback, Mathematics:
The New Golden Age (1989), is a dazzling computer image repro-
duced from a Springer Verlag book, The Beauty of Fractals. If it looks
familiar it�s because you�ve seen it on the front cover of James Gleick�s
recent best-seller, Chaos, published by Viking. Two books with identical
covers are rare enough, but to make things worse, Viking is now owned
by Penguin. I take this blunder to reflect the chaos that develops when big
publishing houses merge.
A research mathematician at the University of Lancaster, Devlin is
best known in England for his column on mathematics in the Guardian,
and for his television appearances. This new book (his ninth) is an effort
to introduce general readers to some of the more exciting recent break-
throughs in what he calls �mankind�s most impenetrable subject.�
Devlin�s choice of material is excellent, and he is to be praised for the
clarity and accuracy with which he presents it.
The book�s first topic is prime numbers: integers greater than 1 that
have no divisors except themselves and 1. The largest known prime � it
has 65,050 digits � is obtained by raising 2 to the power of 216,091, then
subtracting 1. Primes of this form are called Mersenne primes. Only
thirty-one are known, and no one has yet proved whether there are infi-
nitely many, or only a finite number, maybe no more at all.
For the past decade there has been an intensive search for faster ways
to factor composites � numbers that are not prime. One reason, Devlin
tells us, is that improved computer methods of factoring could destroy a
widely used cipher known as the RNA system after the initials of its three
MIT inventors. It is called a public-key cryptosystem because the method
of encoding secret messages can be published and used by anyone. Decod-
ing is something else. It is possible only if one knows the two factors of a
gigantic composite, obtained by multiplying two primes, which serves as
the cipher�s secret key. When the RNA system was first proposed in 1977
This review first appeared in the New York Review of Books, March 16, 1989. Reprinted
with permission from the New York Review of Books. Copyright � 1989 Nyrev, Inc.
186
Mathematical Breakthroughs 187
prime numbers of eighty digits were recommended because there were
then no known ways to factor the product of two such primes in �reason-
able� computer time � say, ten years. The RNA system is still secure, but
because of recent improvements in factoring speed, primes of one hundred
digits are now used to make two-hundred-digit keys.
Here are quick rundowns on Devlin�s other topics. A chapter on infi-
nite sets includes Kurt Godel�s famous proof that even in systems as sim-
ple as arithmetic there are statements impossible to prove true or false. A
discussion of different kinds of numbers centers around an amazing prop-
erty of 163. A chapter on fractals � structures that always look the same,
either exactly or in a statistical sense, as you endlessly enlarge portions of
them � introduces the famous Mandelbrot set. It is named after IBM�s
Benoit Mandelbrot, who invented the term fractal and pioneered the
study of these marvelous patterns.
In his book on chaos theory Gleick calls the Mandelbrot set the most
mysterious object in geometry. When a computer zooms in on its infinite
structure, progressively magnifying regions, there is an endless sequence
of surprises. A periodical devoted entirely to investigations of the M-set,
as it is called, even runs occasional science fiction based on the set�s
unfathomable depths. How mathematicians who pretend that mathemati-
cal structure is not �out there,� independent of human minds, can view
successive enlargements of the M-Set and preserve their cultural solip-
sism is hard to comprehend.
A chapter on simple groups (abstract algebraic structures based on
such symmetry operations as ways of rotating a cube so that it returns to
its original state) introduces the concept of symmetry. The concept is fun-
damental in modem physics, especially in particle theory and the new
TOEs (Theories of Everything). Not until 1980 were all the finite simple
groups (finite here means that a group has a finite number of symmetry
operations) identified. Proof that they are now all classified followed the
discovery of the Monster, a group whose number of symmetry operations
is 8 followed by fifty-three digits. The proof runs to about 15,000 pages
in some five hundred papers by more than one hundred mathematicians.
Devlin calls it the longest proof in mathematical history.
A discussion of a famous algebraic problem posed by David Hilbert
in 1900, and solved in 1970, leads into Diophantine analysis � finding
integral solutions to equations. Devlin gives an up-to-date account of
efforts to crack the greatest of all unsolved Diophantine problems � prov-
ing Fermat�s conjecture that a" + b n = c n has no solutions when n is higher
than 2. (If n is 2 there is an infinity of solutions starting with 3 2 + 4 2 = 5 2 .)
Lest you be tempted to search for a counterexample, know that if one
exists n must be greater than 125,000. The media gave widespread cov-
188 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
erage early in 1988 to a supposed proof by a Japanese mathematician, but
like hundreds of earlier claims it turned out to be flawed. The most recent
development on Fermat�s conjecture is a proof that for every n greater
than 2 there are at most a finite number of solutions.
�Hard Problems About Complex Numbers,� the book�s toughest
chapter, discusses three more conjectures: the Riemann hypothesis (un-
solved), the Mertens conjecture (proved false in 1983), and the Bieber-
bach conjecture (proved true in 1984). The solving in 1976 of the notori-
ous four-color theorem � the conjecture that all maps can be colored with
four colors � is the topic of another chapter. The proof hides in a com-
puter printout so massive that only computers can check it, and to this day
some mathematicians are not convinced it is flawless.
The latest proof of this sort was announced last December by
Clement Lam and his associates at Concordia University, Montreal. Does
a finite projective plane of order-10 exist? This longstanding combinato-
rial question would take too much space to explain, but the point is that a
Cray supercomputer, after running for several thousand hours, answered
no. Can we be sure this answer is correct? Some philosophers contend
that proofs so lengthy and complex that no human mind can �see� their
validity are turning mathematics more and more into an empirical science
where results are only probable to varying degrees.
Knot theory, a whimsical branch of topology (the study of properties
that are unchanged when an object is continuously deformed), is currently
enjoying a revival. It even has applications in organic chemistry, where
protein molecules can take knotted forms. Devlin�s chapter on knot the-
ory is the most entertaining in his book.
A final chapter on computer algorithms (procedures) discusses a class
of closely related problems known as NP-complete, for which no reason-
able-time algorithms have been found, or probably exist. The best-known
example is the task of finding the shortest route for a salesman who must
visit each of n cities just once and return to where he started. Karmaker�s
algorithm, a recent breakthrough in speeding computer solving of such
problems, is explained. Because the algorithm is based on the structures
of solids in higher dimensions, Devlin sees it as �an exemplary blend of
the pure and abstract with the world we live in and an excellent place to
bring to an end a survey of mathematics� New Golden Age.� Modem
computers have given mathematicians a tool of incredible power. It is the
book�s recurrent theme that these mindless machines are not only solving
old problems that could never be solved without them; they are also open-
ing up vast new regions, of great beauty and utility, that mathematicians
are just starting to explore.
William Poundstone�s first book, Big Secrets, annoyed professional
Mathematical Breakthroughs 189
magicians because it exposed the workings of some of their most cher-
ished stage illusions. He followed it with Bigger Secrets and The Recur-
sive Universe, a book centered on the philosophical implications of a
computer game called Life. Labyrinths of Reason (Doubleday/Anchor,
1989), his fourth and best book, is a lively, freewheeling discussion of the
most bewildering and most profound of many paradoxes still hotly
debated in philosophical journals.
�Paradox� has a broader meaning than �fallacy.� You can seemingly
prove, as Poundstone does, that 1 = 2, but not without making a subtle
mathematical error. A paradox is any line of reasoning that strongly con-
tradicts common sense. Fallacies are trivial. Paradoxes can be far from
trivial.
Poundstone�s first example is a paradox put forth by Carl Hempel, a
distinguished philosopher of science, to show how little we understand
what is meant by �confirming evidence.� Everyone agrees that each time
we observe a black crow it confirms the conjecture �All crows are black.�
A logically equivalent way to say the same thing is �No nonblack object
is a crow.� We see a red apple. Surely it confirms �No nonblack object is
a crow.� If so, it must also confirm the equivalent �All crows are black.�
Something clearly is wrong, but just what? Poundstone skillfully capsules
the various positions philosophers have taken in recent years on this mys-
tifying question.
Sometimes what seems to be a confirming instance turns out to be the
opposite. Poundstone cites Paul Berent�s amusing paradox of the 99-foot
man. Consider the hypothesis �All men are less than 100 feet tall.� Each
observation of a man less than 100 feet surely confirms the conjecture.
Suppose you encounter a man 99 feet tall. Strictly speaking, he confirms
the conjecture, but in a stronger way he disconfirms it because you now
have good reason to believe that men can grow close to 100 feet. To get
around the paradox one must consider Rudolf Carnap�s important pro-
viso. Degrees of confirmation must rest on all the evidence that bears on
a conjecture, not on the conjecture alone.
Other chapters in Poundstone�s racy volume cover such mindbenders
as Nelson Goodman�s �grue-bleen� paradox of induction; Henri Poin-
care�s claim that if everything instantly doubled in size overnight we
would be unable to detect the change (or would we?); infinity machines,
such as a lamp that turns on and off in time intervals expressed by the
halving series of one minute, one half minute, one quarter minute, and so
on � at the end of two minutes, the sum of the series, is the lamp on or
off?; John Searle�s much discussed �Chinese Room,� designed to attack
the notion that computers �understand� their instructions; and Hilary Put-
nam�s �Twin Earth,� intended to show that the meanings of words are
190 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
linked to the external world. �Cut the pie any way you like,� Putnam is
quoted as saying, � �meanings� just ain�t in the head!� If not, Poundstone
asks, where are they?
The paradox of the unexpected hanging, the topic of another chapter,
continues to generate bizarre debates. A judge tells a prisoner, �You will
be hanged at noon on a day next week, but there is no way you can know
in advance what day it will be.� The prisoner reasons: �They can�t hang
me Saturday, the last day of the week, because on Friday afternoon I�ll be
able to deduce that my hanging will be Saturday. So Saturday cannot be
the day. Nor can Friday. On Thursday afternoon, knowing that Saturday
has been eliminated, I will know Friday is my day of doom. This again
contradicts what the judge told me, so Friday has to be eliminated also.�
Of course such reasoning will extend backward through the week to
Sunday. Does this prove that, assuming the judge spoke truly, the prisoner
cannot be hanged? No, because on, say, Tuesday morning the judge
orders the hanging at noon. This comes as a total surprise to the prisoner.
What was wrong with his logic?
Newcomb�s paradox, the topic of the book�s last chapter, has pro-
duced more confusing argument among philosophers than any other para-
dox since physicist William Newcomb thought of it in 1960. Ten years
later Harvard�s philosopher Robert Nozick introduced it to his colleagues
in a book of essays honoring Hempel. When I gave it still wider currency
in my Scientific American column it brought more than a thousand letters.
I passed them over to Nozick, who, after summarizing them in a guest
column, regretfully concluded that the paradox remains inscrutable.
(Both columns are reprinted in my Knotted Doughnuts and Other Math-
ematical Entertainments.)
Imagine, said Newcomb, that in front of you are two closed boxes, A
and B.A is transparent. Inside you see a thousand-dollar bill. B is opaque.
Either it is empty or it holds a million dollars. You must make an irrevo-
cable choice between taking both boxes or taking only B. In both cases
you keep what is inside.
On the day before the test, a Superbeing from another planet (God if
you like) has scanned your brain to determine how you will decide. If he
thinks you will take only B he puts a million in the box. If he thinks you
will greedily take both boxes, he puts nothing in B. He then leaves the
scene. You know exactly what the conditions are. Moreover, you have
seen this test performed a hundred times before with others, and in every
case the Superbeing predicted accurately. The greedy who took both
boxes got only the visible thousand dollars. Those who took just the
opaque box got a million.
What is your best decision? From a pragmatic point of view you are
Mathematical Breakthroughs 191
impressed by the Superbeing�s past accuracy. (Incidentally, the paradox
holds even if the accuracy is only slightly better than 50 percent.)
Because all of science, as well as your daily behavior, rests on induction
from past experience, should you not take just B and be almost certain of
joining the millionaire�s club? About half the philosophers who have
written about the paradox see this as �obviously� the best way to maxi-
mize your take.
Unfortunately, an equal number find it just as obvious that you should
make a �logical� decision and take both boxes. Assume B is empty. If you
take only B you get nothing, but if you take both boxes you get at least a
thousand. Assume B is not empty. If you take it alone you get a million,
but if you take both boxes you get a million plus a thousand. In each case,
taking both boxes will increase your gain by a thousand. Because nothing
can change the fixed state of the boxes, why not take everything there?
The paradox leads into deep questions about decision theory � ques-
tions that bear on decisions in economics and politics, perhaps even on
metaphysical questions about free will and determinism. As Nozick
insists, the paradox is not resolved by giving a vigorous defense of either
strategy. You must show why the other strategy is inferior.
Scattered throughout Poundstone�s book are many lesser paradoxes
and puzzles. Here is the most amusing:
A man gets an unsigned letter telling him to go to the local graveyard at
midnight. He does not generally pay attention to such things, but com-
plies out of curiosity. It is a deathly still night, lighted by a thin crescent
moon. The man stations himself in front of his family�s ancestral crypt.
The man is about to leave when he hears scraping footsteps. He yells
out, but no one answers. The next morning, the caretaker finds the man
dead in front of the crypt, a hideous grin on his face.
�Did the man vote for Teddy Roosevelt in the 1904 U.S. presiden-
tial election?�
Answer: A crescent moon is visible at midnight only in regions near
the poles. The man, therefore, must have lived in northern Alaska.
Because Alaska was not part of the United States in 1904, he could not
have voted for Teddy Roosevelt.
ADDENDUM
Since I wrote the foregoing review, three more Mersenne primes have
been found: The thirty-second such prime is 2 raised to the power of
192 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
756839, minus 1. A thirty-third Mersenne prime, found in 1994, is 2 to
the power of 858433, minus 1. I say �a� thirty-third Mersenne prime
rather than �the� thirty-third because a Mersenne prime between the last
two has not yet been ruled out. Still another Mersenne prime was discov-
ered in 1996: 2 raised to the power of 1257787, minus 1. It has 378,632
digits and is the largest prime now known.
Fermat�s last theorem has almost certainly been proved by Andrew
Wiles, though at the time I write (August 1995) a final verdict is not yet in.
Logicians disagree on how best to resolve the unexpected hanging
paradox. I side with W. V. Quine and others who find the prisoner�s first
step of reasoning invalid. The prisoner is saying: �If the judge spoke truly,
and I am not hanged by Friday noon, I will know that I will be hanged
Saturday. But I will also know that I will not be hanged Saturday.�
Because the two conclusions are contradictory, nothing can be deduced
on Friday or any other day. It follows that the judge can select any day he
wishes, including Saturday, and the day will be unexpected.
For a discussion of the paradox, and a lengthy bibliography, see the
first chapter of my Unexpected Hanging and Other Mathematical Diver-
sions. Quine�s analysis, �On a So-called Paradox,� appeared in Mind 62
(January 1953): 65-67.
CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE
TECHNOLOGY�S AWESOME MARCH
N o one can dispute the central theme of this handsomely produced
book by Thomas Hughes, a University of Pennsylvania historian and
sociologist. For more than a century the United States led the world in
inventing technologies and developing massive systems of production
that altered the face of the earth and the course of history.
But I put down American Genesis: A Century of Invention and Tech-
nological Enthusiasm, 1870-1970 (Viking, 1989) with mixed feelings of
admiration and puzzlement � admiration for the rich details, colorful
writing, and striking photographs; puzzlement over what was left out.
Hughes is at his best covering the lives and personalities of the great
independent inventors responsible for America�s electrification: Thomas
Edison, Nikola Tesla, Reginald Fessenden, Lee de Forest, Edwin Arm-
strong, William Stanley, Elihu Thomson, and many others. There are
vivid accounts of other solo inventors such as Alexander Bell, Hiram
Maxim (the machine gun), Elmer Sperry (the gyrocompass), and the
Wright brothers. Among the system builders the emphasis is on Henry
Ford and Frederick Taylor, the efficiency expert whose �Taylorism� was
copied so enthusiastically by Lenin and the German industrialists.
Hughes traces the rise of giant corporations, builders of huge research
laboratories where the lonely inventor has been replaced by teams of
experts. He is quite good in describing mammoth government-funded
projects: TVA, the Manhattan Project, the NASA space program, and the
military-industrial complex now hard at work on Star Wars.
Nor does he fail to look beyond the obvious. In one chapter he deals
with the influence of modern technology on architecture and painting.
Others cover recent rebellions against unbridled technology � the �small
is beautiful� trend, the antinukers, the whole earthers, the third wavers.
Hughes reminds us that this revolt has been intensified by such disasters
as Three Mile Island, the Challenger explosion, and Chernobyl. (Exxon
spilled its oil too late for the book.)
This review first appeared in the Raleigh, N.C., News and Observer, April 16, 1989.
193
194 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Now for some puzzles. Rarely does Hughes refer to the creative
mathematicians and physicists, most of them unknown to the public,
whose work lies behind technological change. Industrial inventors, engi-
neers, and scientists are, of course, also creative: but they build on what
they have learned from obscure theoreticians. And those who found and
run corporations are usually mathematical and scientific illiterates. (This
was true even of Edison, who puttered around trying this and that while
a large staff of assistants did most of the work.) Mathematicians and
physicists scribble equations in their university labs or private studies,
then years or even decades later up go the factories. Splitting the atom
was implicit in relativity theory, yet Einstein is mentioned only as a signer
of a famous letter urging research on the atom bomb.
There are other blanks. The latest technological sea change, compa-
rable to the introductions of steam, electrical, and gasoline power, is the
computer revolution. Although it began well before 1970 � the last year
mentioned in the book�s subtitle � computers are glossed over in one sen-
tence: �Recently, the general all-purpose digital electronic computer and
the laser have been added to the list [of inventions].� The book skillfully
portrays the rise of AT&T, DuPont, RCA, General Electric, and General
Motors. Nothing is said about Big Blue (IBM).
There is similar silence about America�s greatest contribution to the
arts, the motion picture. After learning how to talk it moved into every-
body�s home to become an incredibly potent force in shaping political
and social behavior.
Xerography gets just one word in a list of inventions, yet surely dry
photocopying sparked a revolution in communication.
At the book�s close, Mr. Hughes wonders if our lead in technology
will continue. But he says nothing of the decay in our teaching of science
and mathematics. There is nothing about Japan�s pioneering in robotics;
nothing about our decline in research and development while the techno-
logical lead shifts to nations where long-term gains take precedence over
short-term greed.
In sum, the book does a splendid job encompassing most of the high
spots in U.S. technology from 1870 to World War II. A thorough history
to 1970 it is not. Perhaps it was a Viking editor and not the author who
wrote the book�s subtitle.
CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX
TO PLUTO AND BEYOND
T hirty years ago, introducing an essay on the moon in my anthology
Great Essays in Science, I cautiously wrote: �Our children may well
live to see a rocketship circle or land on the moon.� I never dreamed I
would live to see it.
The rapidity with which space technology has developed in the last
three decades is awesome. More has been learned about the sun and her
offspring during this period than in all earlier centuries together, and no
one has surveyed this fantastic history more skillfully and entertainingly
than Bruce Murray. The prospect of studying extraterrestrial geology
hooked the interest of this MIT geologist when he was young, and for
thirty years he has been at the center of the nation�s space programs. For
six years he was director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena,
where he now teaches at Cal Tech. Journey into Space: The First Thirty
Years of Space Exploration (Norton, 1989) is his fifth book about explor-
ing space.
And what a story it tells! I still find it hard to believe, when I look up
at a full moon, that two earthlings actually walked upon it. Remember
how closely the televised pictures resembled science fiction about trips to
the moon?
Space probes of more distant heavenly bodies have produced and are
still producing endless surprises. Mercury�s surface, like the moon�s, is
pockmarked by the same bombardment of meteors or comets, some 4 bil-
lion years ago, that blasted craters on the moon and Mars. For more than
a century astronomers believed that Mercury always kept its same face to
the sun, creating a circular �twilight zone� that divided a hemisphere of
intense heat from a hemisphere of intense cold. Not so. Mercury rotates
slowly with respect to the sun. Unlike Venus and Mars, and to the aston-
ishment of astronomers, Mercury has a weak magnetic field. No one
knows why.
This review first appeared in the Raleigh, N.C., News and Observer, July 23, 1989.
195
196 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Chopin, Homer, even Mark Twain. After bitter wrangling over what to
name them, the humanities won out.
Probes below the thick carbon-dioxide atmosphere of Venus have dis-
closed a rocky, cratered surface much too hot to support life. Jupiter
turned out to have a ring around it, and close-up photos of the giant
planet�s four largest moons (each bigger than our own) showed that no
two are alike. Europa, the strangest, resembles a spherical white egg
splattered with black paint by Jackson Pollock. Its icy crust may cover an
ocean that Murray calls the largest body of water outside the earth.
Saturn�s lovely rings proved to consist of hundreds of thin bands of
light separated by dark gaps. Its largest moon. Titan, has a methane
atmosphere that could support unearthly forms of life. Uranus has rings
like Saturn, and more moons than anyone had guessed, though only
Miranda has been seen close up. Neptune has three moons and probably
a ring, though not much is yet known about it. Even less is known about
Pluto, the smallest, most distant planet.
The old sci-fi dream of life on Mars, as well as public enthusiasm for
space travel, took a nosedive when photographs of Mars disclosed a des-
olate surface devoid of any hint of life. As Murray puts it: �no Martians,
no canals, no water, no plants.� This absence of life was soon underscored
by the analysis of Martian sand scooped up by a robot. Murray and Carl
Sagan are friends � together they founded the Planetary Society to pro-
mote interest in space exploration � but over results of the Mars probes
they sharply disagree. Murray estimates the odds against any form of life
on Mars as overwhelming. But Sagan still thinks microorganisms may
lurk beneath the sand. There are features on Mars looking exactly like dry
river beds. Did water flow on the red planet billions of years ago? If so,
microorganisms could have evolved, and later adapted to the arid surface
and to the deadly ultraviolet radiation from the sun.
Most of Murray�s history is devoted to the anonymous and brilliant
technicians behind our space programs, and to their triumphs and failures.
Although a harsh critic of NASA, he believes that its programs are slowly
recovering from the Challenger disaster and will soon be on track again.
Former President Ronald Reagan is praised for accepting the vision of
exploring and eventually colonizing alien worlds, but Murray faults him
for total ignorance of science � an ignorance shared by every one of his
close associates. In contrast, former President Carter understood the tech-
nology, but subordinated space funding to what he believed were more
pressing human needs.
At the close of The Great Gatsby its narrator reflects on the emotions
of the first sailors to land on the American continent, coming �face to face
for the last time in history with something commensurate to [humanity�s]
To Pluto and Beyond 197
capacity for wonder.� F. Scott Fitzgerald couldn�t have been more wrong.
Our new frontier of wonder is the solar system, and the next giant step for
mankind will be a walk on Mars. Perhaps, as Carl Sagan and Bruce Mur-
ray passionately hope, it will be a cooperative effort of the United States
and the Soviet Union. �To Mars � together!� is the rallying cry that runs
through Murray�s final pages.
We now know there have been no Martians in the past, but, as Ray
Bradbury likes to remind us, there are sure to be Martians in the future.
They are us. And even colonizing Mars will not be the last frontier.
Beyond little Pluto are the stars.
CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN
ASTRONOMERS AND GOD
N ASA�s careless failure to test the Hubble telescope�s mirrors may
seem a minor disaster to many, but to astronomers it was a crushing
blow. Revolutionary observations in the past fifteen years have thrown
cosmologists onto a battlefield where rival theories clash as vigorously as
when proponents of the big-bang and steady-state models of the universe
were ridiculing one another. The Hubble telescope could have settled
many of the new controversies. Astronomers will now have to wait years
before the Hubble can be repaired or a new one launched.
Starting in 1987, MIT physicist Alan Lightman interviewed twenty-
seven of the world�s top cosmologists about their family background,
their early history, their work, and their beliefs. Stephen Hawking, Roger
Penrose, Fred Hoyle, Steven Weinberg, Dennis Sciama, and Robert Dicke
are perhaps the best known, but all twenty-seven have made enormous
contributions to astronomy. There is no better way to understand their
current confusions than by reading this timely and admirable anthology,
edited by Lightman and Roberta Brawer, a graduate student in cosmology
at MIT. Titled Origins: The Lives and Worlds of Modern Cosmologists,
the book was published by Harvard University Press in 1990.
At the heart of the debates are the �horizon problem� and the �flat-
ness problem.� The horizon question is: Why is the universe so homoge-
nized? The microwave background, left over from the big bang, implies
a universe with the same overall structure in all directions. The best
explanation is an inflationary model which has the universe popping into
existence from almost nothing, expanding at an exponential rate before
the bang, then settling down to a slow linear growth.
But is the universe really homogeneous? A few years ago Margaret
Geller and others, studying red-shift maps, found that the universe is
lumpier than anyone suspected. Galaxies lie on the surfaces of monstrous
�bubbles� that surround huge voids. Other galaxies form long filaments
and flat �walls.� To make things worse, some galaxies are streaming the
This review first appeared in Book World (September 2, 1990). � 1996, Washington Post
Book World Service/Washington Post Writers Group. Reprinted with permission.
198
Astronomers and God 199
wrong way, against what is called the �Hubble flow� � the universe�s
steady expansion. Most of the interviewed cosmologists hope that on
vaster scales the universe will be smoothed out. All agree that if peculiar
structures and motions persist on still larger scales, the big bang model
will be in deep trouble.
The flatness question is: Why is the curvature of space so close to
zero? This is the same as asking why the Hubble flow is so nearly bal-
anced by the pull of gravity that only a tiny increase in the amount of
mass in the universe would eventually halt the expansion. Lightman
likens it to tossing a rock in the air with a velocity exactly enough to let
the rock escape earth�s gravity. Inflation models solve this problem also,
but unfortunately require far more matter in the cosmos than can be
observed. Indeed, to make space so nearly flat, there must be ten times as
much matter as can be seen.
There are solid grounds for thinking that the universe contains the
required amount of dark (unseen) matter. Vera Rubin and others have
shown that galactic motions cannot be explained without assuming this
dark matter, but there is no agreement on how much, or what and where
it is.
Most cosmologists accept the flatness, and believe that the dark mat-
ter will soon be found. A few, notably John Wheeler and Robert Dicke,
lean toward enough matter to �close� spacetime, halt the expansion, and
send the universe the other way toward a Big Crunch. The notion that
after the crunch it will bounce back again � the so-called oscillating uni-
verse � is almost ruled out by the lack of known laws to explain it.
Lightman�s interviews follow a fairly fixed set of questions about the
above problems, and end metaphysically by asking for a reaction to a
famous statement by Steven Weinberg in his popular book The First
Three Minutes. The more the universe is understood, he wrote, the more
pointless it seems.
To me, this is asking whether there is a transcendent Mind behind the
universe that gives it a purpose we cannot fathom. I was struck by the fact
that a majority of those interviewed were unwilling to make such a leap
of faith, and in that sense agreed with Weinberg. Indeed, only four believe
the universe has a purpose: Charles Misner, a Catholic; Don Page, an
evangelical Protestant; Andrei Linde, a devotee of Hindu theology; and
Allan Sandage, who became some sort of Christian convert about 1980.
(For a full account of Sandage �s distinguished career and evolving be-
liefs, see Dennis Overbye�s Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos, HarperCollins,
1991).
Fred Hoyle may also belong to this group even though he did not say
so. He is alone in the book in clinging to a steady-state model, rejecting
200 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
the big bang mainly because he thinks it does not allow enough time for
life to evolve. I found it surprising that so many astronomers spoke with
regret of having been forced by the microwave radiation to accept a begin-
ning for the universe. Like Aristotle�s earth-centered cosmology and Ein-
stein�s static first model, a steady state avoids the messy task of explaining
how a universe can explode from a quantum vacuum. Several of those
interviewed stressed how emotionally satisfying it once was to believe that
the universe has always been and always will be just what it is.
Sandage, more than anyone else, spoke of being overwhelmed by the
dark riddle of why a universe exists at all, and why it is so beautifully and
intricately structured. Let him have the final word:
The greatest mystery is why there is something instead of nothing, and
the greatest something is this thing we call life. 1 am entirely baffled by
you and me. We were both there near the beginning. The atoms in our
bodies were made then, yet their sum now, in a living thing, is greater
than the whole . . . perhaps the universe is the only way it can be for us
to exist.
CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT
READING THE MIND OF NOBODY
J ames Trefil, a physicist at George Mason University, has risen to the
highest ranks of science popularizers with a series of excellent books
of which Reading the Mind of God: In Search of the Principles of Uni-
versality (Scribner�s, 1989) is the latest. It is a nontechnical account of
post-Newtonian science woven around a central theme: the gradual
recognition that laws of nature are everywhere and at all times the same.
True, speculations are occasionally made about the slow altering of cer-
tain constants, such as gravity, but these do not violate what Mr. Trefil
calls the �principle of universality.� They just �push the parameters,� as
he phrases it, to deeper levels.
There is no logical foundation for the principle. It rests solely, Mr.
Trefil makes clear, on empirical evidence, but evidence so overwhelming
that physicists now take it for granted. Many have even forgotten how
astonishing the principle seemed in past centuries while it was becoming
firmly entrenched.
Greek, Roman, and medieval thinkers had no inkling of the principle.
They knew, of course, about natural laws on earth, but it did not seem
possible that those laws would also govern the heavenly bodies. It took
the genius of Newton to demonstrate that the moon, planets, and comets
move under the influence of the very same laws of gravity and inertia that
make apples fall.
From Newton on, science slowly, inexorably extended the domain of
natural laws outward in space and backward in time. William Herschel
mapped the universe � in Mr. Trefil �s words, enlarging Newton�s orchard
to include the stars. In the nineteenth century Auguste Comte so underes-
timated the growing powers of science that he insisted humanity would
never understand the chemical composition of stars. Mr. Trefil skillfully
traces the work of scientists who developed techniques for doing pre-
cisely what Comte thought impossible.
Relativity theory and quantum mechanics apply everywhere in space,
This review first appeared in the Raleigh, N.C., News and Observer, September 3, 1989.
201
202 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
and at all times past and future. If Alan Guth�s inflationary model is right,
the universe began with a quantum fluctuation in a �false vacuum.� In a
microsecond it jumped from a size smaller than an atom to that of a
grapefruit, then the big bang occurred and the universe began a slow
expansion to its present size. �The universe,� Mr. Trefil quotes a physi-
cist, �is simply one of those things that happen from time to time.�
Michelangelo�s Jehovah, whose grim visage glares from the book�s
jacket, seems to have played no role in the event. So much for science
reading the mind of God.
Not everyone accepts the principle of universality. There are those
who argue that science does not discover laws that are independent of
human cultures. Instead of getting closer to the mind of God, it is more
like the shifting fashions of art. If there are intelligent creatures in other
galaxies, presumably their technology rests on an entirely different peri-
odic table of elements, perhaps even on a mathematics in which 17 is not
a prime. No one denies that culture influences the motivation of scientists,
what they study, how they are funded, how their results are received and
used, and so on. But it does not follow, Mr. Trefil argues, that �everything
is English Lit�:
In other words, do Newton�s ideas express a truth about the external
world that is independent of the Age of Reason, or are they nothing more
than an expression of that age, equivalent in some sense to a symphony
or poem? Obviously, if the latter statement is true, then a scientific the-
ory cannot be objectively true, any more than a symphony can be.
You may think that I am overstating things here, setting up a straw
man. It may seem incredible that anyone could seriously propose such
an argument, but I have been involved in enough faculty club arguments
to know that many academics � particularly philosophers and sociolo-
gists of science � do indeed hold these sorts of views. I have yet to meet
a serious natural scientist who does, but as one progresses away from
the hard sciences into the social sciences and the humanities, this sort of
scientific relativism becomes more common, although I am happy to
say that its proponents are far from being a majority.
Mr. Trefil closes with some of Mr. Guth�s recent wild speculations. If
we could compress a mere twenty-two pounds of matter to the size of a
proton, it might explode into another universe that would pinch off from
our spacetime and balloon into a parallel world. Could our universe be the
outcome of such an experiment by a physics student in some alien space-
time? Aside from these forays into fantasy, Mr. Trefil�s book is a sober,
easy reading, entertaining tribute to the glorious efforts of scientists to
read the mind of nobody.
CHAPTER TWENTY-NINE
IS WESTERN CULTURE VANISHING?
I t has been a long time since I have had so much fun reading a book
while also disagreeing so strongly with its central theme. Advancing
along the path of his previous book, Ending the Maze, O. B. Hardison, Jr.,
an English professor at Georgetown University, has constructed his new
book on one overriding point: Science and technology have so radically
altered our culture that all sorts of old values and ideas are rapidly van-
ishing through the skylight of modernity.
Disappearing Through the Skylight (Viking, 1989), a series of essays
about disappearances, opens with a sequence of pictures by Picasso
showing the gradual vanishing of the human form. You will not find
human faces in the works of abstract expressionists, either, or in the
swirling patterns of computer art. An entire chapter is devoted to �Man-
delbrot�s Monstrosities,� those startling forms generated on computer
screens by simple algebraic formulas.
Buildings once mirrored human history. Now they are huge glass
boxes or cylinders �as free of history as a Mondrian abstraction.� Old-
fashioned symphonies and popular melodies are giving way to mediocre
computer music, and the experimental compositions of John Cage and
others. Musical structure has all but vanished from poetry. One chapter
deals with �concrete verse� (poems printed in representational shapes),
other chapters with computer doggerel, and the puzzle poems of the
Oulipo, a bizarre French group of writers who apply combinatorial math-
ematics to verse and fiction. Mr. Hardison sees these trends as the disap-
pearance of art and language.
Although books will continue to be printed, he assures us, they will
no longer hold center stage. �We are coming,� he says, �to the end of the
culture of the book.� What is displacing them? Television, for one thing,
but also computer novels. One punches keys to explore portions of a
hypertext in which characters and plots �disappear like water in a
sponge.�
This review first appeared in the Raleigh, N.C., News and Observer, December 2, 1989.
203
204 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Science likewise is making things vanish. Evolution erased the line
between humans and beasts. Run the big-bang scenario backward and the
entire universe fades into nothing. Matter long ago dissolved into math-
ematics. Even the external world, quantum mechanics seems to say, has
become a projection of our minds onto whatever mysterious fog is �out
there.�
The book closes with the wild speculation that humanity itself may
be on the way out as silicon robots acquire intelligence superior to ours.
They will be immortal, flourishing in outer space, as unable to talk to us
as we are to the ants. �Man,� he writes, �is in the process of disappearing
into the machines he has created.� The book�s last page is a photograph
of the fading earth as seen from the moon. It is captioned, �Earth disap-
pearing into space.�
This is nonsense. Science and technology have altered human life in
obvious ways, but human nature � a different matter � has not fundamen-
tally changed since the time of the Greeks. Indeed, I suspect only our sci-
ence and technology would be incomprehensible to Aristotle. Every-
where I look I am struck, not by the vanishing of old ideas, but by their
renewal.
A few decades ago God was supposed to have died in mainline
churches. Today we are in the midst of a religious revival, albeit taking
such strange forms (none mentioned by Mr. Hardison) as fundamentalism
and the New Age obsession with reincarnation. Even Norman Mailer,
writing in the December 1989 Esquire, has rediscovered process theol-
ogy, seemingly unaware of his distinguished predecessors.
In the art world, realism is all over the lot. Nobody pays much atten-
tion these days to abstract expressionism or minimalist sculpture outside
a tiny subculture of artists, New York Times critics, museum and studio
directors, and other aesthetic flimflammers. Who sits at home listening to
computer music or the noises of Cage? Computer buffs play with hyper-
text fiction the way children play with new toys, but this has had little
effect on the novel or motion pictures. Only the poets are still allergic to
formal structure, churning out unmusical prose broken into vapid lines
that look like poetry.
Not many physicists think quantum mechanics allows the moon to
disappear when no one looks at it. If you run the Genesis account of cre-
ation backward, the universe vanishes as completely as it does in the
backward scenarios of modern cosmology.
The most incredible example of the revival of old ideals is the dis-
covery in Marxist nations of democracy and human rights. History van-
ishing? On the contrary, what George Will has aptly called a great Refor-
mation without Luther is taking place even as you read these lines.
Is Western Culture Vanishing? 205
As for humanity giving way to silicon intelligence, this is a whimsi-
cal hoax perpetrated by workers in artificial intelligence who devoured
too much science fiction in their youth. A healthy antidote is Roger Pen-
rose�s just-published The Emperor�s New Mind. Supercomputers, let�s
face it, no more know they are playing chess than dishwashing machines
know they are washing dishes.
The earth is not vanishing. It is being rediscovered for what it is, the
miraculous spherical home for a family of creatures ruled by a sentient
species struggling painfully to become worldwide siblings.
PENCILS
I was afraid Dr. Henry Petroski was going to tell me more about pencils
than I cared to know. To my happy surprise I found The Pencil (Knopf,
1990) so engrossing that I read it through at one sitting. Petroski, a pro-
fessor of engineering at Duke University and the author of several books
on engineering, has written an utterly absorbing history of the most com-
monplace instrument around � the simple lead pencil. Moreover, he has
woven around this history a rich commentary on the role of research and
development, industrial design, free-market competition, and everything
else related to it.
There is a famous section in Adam Smith�s The Wealth of Nations,
Petroski reminds us, in which a pin factory is featured as a paradigm of
modern industry. His latter-day disciple Milton Friedman, in Free to
Choose, does the same thing with pencils. The cover of its paperback edi-
tion shows him conspicuously holding a classic yellow pencil. Now Pet-
roski has expanded the paradigm into a book, lavishly illustrated, and
almost impossible to put down.
The word pencil, from the Latin, means �little tail,� referring to the
tiny brushes used by Renaissance artists. The first known picture of what
is now called a pencil is in a book about fossils published in Zurich in
1565. The nature of �lead� in this wooden pencil is not known, but it
probably was graphite, which had just been discovered in a British mine
in Cumberland. The world�s first pencils were made in England, with
square rods of graphite, although the substance was then called black
lead, English antimony, plumbago, and many other strange names. In
Paris, Nicolas-Jacques Conte invented the modem process of pulverizing
graphite and mixing it with clay, the proportions determining the hardness
of the so-called lead. Worldwide competition quickly grew fierce, with
the rise of the Faber pencil company in Germany, Dixon pencils in the
United States, and the first Russian pencil factory, founded in Moscow by
the American industrialist Armand Hammer.
This review first appeared in the Raleigh, N.C., News and Observer , January 7, 1990.
206
Pencils 207
How on earth does the graphite get into the pencil? Simple. The wood
�infrastructure,� as Petroski calls it, is two identical halves, each with a
groove down the middle. The graphite-clay mixture is pressed into one
groove, the halves glued together, and the outside painted. (Look at a pen-
cil�s point and you will see the line between the two halves.) The book
will tell you how dyes are added to clay to make colored leads, about the
amusing controversy in schools over the addition of erasers, the rise of
mechanical pencils and ballpoint pens, the making of mechanical sharp-
eners, and even the best technique for sharpening a pencil with a knife.
You will learn the pros and cons of pencil shapes: round, hexagonal, tri-
angular, or square. The triangular form won�t roll off a desk, and is the
most comfortable to fingers, but then you can�t twirl it easily to keep the
point sharp.
I was amused to learn of the facility Henry David Thoreau had in
counting pencils quickly. Before he became a writer, he called himself a
�civil engineer� and worked in his father�s pencil factory, where he was
responsible for research and development. Like the hundreds of women
who worked for his father, young Thoreau developed a curious skill for
picking up exactly the right number of pencils to be packaged in sets of
twelve. Here is how his friend Emerson described it: �From a box contain-
ing a bushel or more of loose pencils, he could take up with his hand fast
enough just a dozen pencils in every grasp.� A dozen � no more, no less.
Then there was Harold Ross, the driven and eccentric editor of the
New Yorker, who seemingly chewed on his pencils to the point where he
had all but eaten them. Truman Capote, Jane Austen, Conan Doyle, Elbert
Hubbard, John Steinbeck, Carl Sandburg, Ernest Hemingway, John
Updike, Douglas Hofstadter � all figure in entertaining and informative
stories about the leaded subject. Petroski does not miss cartoonist Saul
Steinberg�s infatuation with pencils, Johnny Carson�s habit of tossing
them away, or �Aristotle�s illusion� in which a single pencil, touched by
two crossed fingers, feels like two.
Given its long history, it�s surprising that antique dealers have habit-
ually thrown away early pencils that turn up in boxes of carpentry tools.
That�s apparently changing. In spite of their increasing rarity, old pencils
are now collectibles. There is an American Collectors Society of several
hundred pencil lovers that issues a monthly newsletter. Petroski�s own
collection includes such novelties as the pencil with a loop of string that
can be fastened to a buttonhole in such a puzzling way that it is difficult
to remove, joke pencils with rubber points or with erasers at both ends,
pencils a yard long, and pencils that produce lines of swirling colors.
The only kinds that Petroski misses � understandable since conjuring
is a semisecret art � are those sold in magic shops, such as pencils that
208 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
rise mysteriously on one�s palm. Magicians also know ways to break a
pencil in half with a dollar bill, push a pencil through a handkerchief, pro-
duce spirit raps when pressed against a wall, and guess a pencil�s color
when it is handed to you behind your back.
For Petroski, the history of the pencil has been dominated by its
�invisibility.� It is so common, so taken for granted, that until now its his-
tory has been virtually overlooked � one reason it was never of much
interest to antique dealers. If in a few years an old Dixon Ticonderoga or
Eberhard Faber No. 2 is worth many times more than the few cents it cost,
perhaps Petroski�s charming book will have added to its value. But the
pencil�s value in larger respects � as the means by which we recorded
(and sometimes erased) our innermost thoughts and tallied up bills and
designed buildings � will be harder to calculate.
Even Thoreau, that close observer of the quotidian, did not always
notice the pencil. When he listed every item he took to Walden Pond, the
one thing he failed to record was the instrument that may have been in his
very hand.
CHAPTER THIRTY-ONE
ALLAN SANDAGE�S COSMOLOGY
M odem cosmology is seething with controversy. New observations
keep demolishing old theories, while fantastic new theories sprout like
mushrooms. Books, too, are proliferating to meet public curiosity about
what is going on. To Dennis Overbye, a science writer who calls himself a
�cosmological camp follower,� astronomers are a lonely breed. They are lost
in the immensity of the universe, battered by the the unexpected data pour-
ing out of giant telescopes, and in perpetual conflict with one another.
Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos: The Scientific Quest for the Secret of
the Universe (HarperCollins, 1991) differs from similar popular books by
going into more technical details, and by stressing the appearances and
personalities of the leading combatants now struggling to read, as
Stephen Hawking has put it, the Mind of God. Swarming with anecdotes,
Overbye�s book � it is his first � is written with such wit and verve that it
is hard not to zip through it at one sitting.
Although most of today�s cosmologists are covered, the book�s cen-
tral figure is Iowa-born Allan Sandage, who began his legendary career
as a disciple of the great Edwin Hubble. It was Hubble who first con-
firmed Kant�s bold conjecture that nebulae are vast islands of stars, and
who found that these billions of galaxies are rushing away from one
another. Einstein�s first model of the cosmos was a static one, prevented
from collapsing by what he imagined to be a repulsive force. After the
�Hubble flow� became obvious, Einstein called his conjecture the great-
est blunder of his life. His model remained closed, like a sphere�s surface,
but enlarging like an inflating balloon. This expansion clearly implied a
moment of creation, or what Fred Hoyle derisively called the big bang.
Hoyle�s rival theory, the steady state, had hydrogen atoms constantly
entering space from somewhere to preserve an expanding universe that has
always been and always will be overall the same. His theory exploded with a
bang after the microwave radiation from the primeval fireball was detected.
This review first appeared in Book World (January 21, 1991). � 1996, Washington Post
Book World Service/Washington Post Writers Group. Reprinted with permission.
209
210 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
In Overbye�s racy account of this, and of the battles that followed, we
are told that Sandage �haunts� the narrative �simply because he has been
doing cosmology, trying to solve the universe, so much longer and more
intensely than anyone else.� I do not know how accurate Overbye�s pic-
ture of Sandage is, but no one emerges from the book in more incisive
detail � a person Overbye sums up as �a cosmic quipster, edgy as a razor,
scat quick, and humorously dry as a lemon.�
Sandage�s great contributions are set forth in detail for the first time,
alongside his many bitter conflicts with colleagues. �You weren�t any-
body in astronomy,� Overbye writes, �if Sandage hadn�t stopped speak-
ing to you at one time or another.� For years he and Halton (�Chip�) Arp
were irreconcilable enemies. Arp continues to be a pebble in the shoes of
cosmologists because he keeps finding evidence that quasars may not be
far distant objects of enormous energy, but nearby objects of low energy.
If he is right, the red shift is an unreliable measure of distance and all
modem cosmology is wrong.
Hawking, John Wheeler, Roger Penrose, Dennis Sciama, Robert
Dicke, Allan Guth, Margaret Geller� these are just a few of the top cos-
mologists who weave in and out of Overbye�s colorful history. Most of
them believe in black holes, but are these invisible monsters really
crouching out there, or are they just dubious extrapolations from relativ-
ity theory as Philip Morrison suspects? �Black holes are out of sight,�
reads a sign on Hawking�s door. You will learn why Hawking thinks they
are not totally black, but radiating energy, and why he thinks the universe
may be peppered with tiny black holes that eventually will explode.
You will learn about Vera Rubin�s shrewd deduction from the way
galaxies rotate that the universe must be saturated with invisible �dark
matter.� The nature of this matter, and whether it is massive enough to halt
the universe�s growth and start it shrinking, are unsolved mysteries. If
there is a Big Cmnch, will the universe bounce back or will it �drag itself
into oblivion� to become, in another Overbye metaphor, eaten by God?
You will learn about recent evidence that the galaxies are not ran-
domly distributed, but form a soapsudsy structure. Cosmologists are work-
ing hard on far-out theories to explain this lumpiness, and why so many
local galaxies are streaming the wrong way, against the Hubble flow.
The most bizarre of recent speculations is that the universe sponta-
neously emerged from nothing. But of course it isn�t really nothing
because there must have been laws of physics to give the almost nothing
what Overbye calls the �twitch� that exploded some 15 billion years ago
into our time and space, and a universe capable of producing such pecu-
liar life forms as you and me.
Only a few cosmologists, Sandage among them, have the courage to
Allan Sandage�s Cosmology 211
go against the scientific community�s Zeitgeist by entertaining the wild
notion that basic laws are in God�s Mind. Although impressed by the awe-
some mystery of existence, most cosmologists seem to agree with such
atheists as Bertrand Russell that nothing is gained by positing an eternal
Creator when eternal laws will do the job just as well.
�Astronomy is an impossible science,� Sandage said to Overbye. �It�s
a wonder we know anything at all.�
CHAPTER THIRTY-TWO
THE MYSTERY OF CONSCIOUSNESS
T ime�s arrow points only one way. Events leave traces of an unalter-
able past, not just in the outside world, but also stamped like moon
craters on the gray terrain inside our skulls. Without memories we would
be more like pebbles than potatoes. How does the brain do it? By what
magic does it store memories that can be called up at will? This is the dark
question that George Johnson bravely tackles in In the Palaces of Mem-
ory: How We Build the Worlds Inside Our Heads (Knopf, 1990).
An editor of the New York Times�s �Week in Review,� Johnson rightly
sees this as the most profound of all science questions. His previous book,
Machinery of the Mind , surveyed the efforts of artificial intelligence (AI)
workers to imitate thinking with digital computers. His new book cuts a
wider swath. It concerns not just AI, but decades of research on actual brains.
Although many neuroscientists play colorful roles in Johnson�s open-
ing section, it centers on the controversial conjectures of Gary Lynch,
now at the University of California, Irvine. There are many conflicting
theories, but most of Lynch�s colleagues agree with him that memory is
stored by chemical changes in neurons. Neurons are the little gray cells
of the brain. Billions of them, each containing thousands of different pro-
teins and enzymes, are linked together by their nerve fibers called axons
(that transmit signals) and dendrites (that receive) in an inconceivably
complex network. A given neuron may be connected to a thousand oth-
ers. Electrical pulses from sensory organs constantly invade this network,
zipping silently through its fibers to be ferried by neurotransmitters
across tiny gaps called synapses.
Neuroscientists divide into two rival schools. The presynaptics think
memories are stored mainly in those neurons that send signals across the
synapses. Postsynaptics think they are stored mainly in the neurons that
receive signals. We see the face of a friend. Electrical pulses from our reti-
nas travel to the brain, where they reactivate circuits in a cluster of neurons
that may spread throughout the entire brain. The cluster lights up, so to
This review first appeared in Book World (February 17, 1991). � 1996, Washington Post
Book World Service/Washington Post Writers Group. Reprinted with permission.
212
The Mystery of Consciousness 213
speak, and we recognize the face. Ideas are similarly stored. A universal such
as cowness is simply a circuit that holds thousands of overlapping memories
of cows, a kind of average picture of all the cows we have known.
About thirty-five years ago there was a flurry of interest in trying to
simulate thinking with intricate networks of neuronlike wires and
switches called neural nets. By a massive use of parallel processing, these
nets could learn from experience. Marvin Minsky, MIT�s famous AI pio-
neer, collaborated with an associate on a notorious book, Perceptrons,
that almost killed neural-net research by contending it was a blind alley.
Thanks to improved technology, neural nets are now the most fashionable
AI field of study. This is the topic of Johnson�s second section, which
focuses on the work of physicist Leon Cooper, at Brown University.
Neural nets have learned how to recognize signatures and objects on
assembly lines, and even how to balance a broom on its handle. Minsky
now regards his attack on them as �overkill,� and is pleading for a merger
of neural-net theory with his own approach, which relies on conventional
computers that twiddle symbols.
Johnson�s third section stars the Canadian philosopher Patricia Smith
Churchland, now at the University of California, La Jolla, and author of
Neurophilosophy, a recent MIT textbook. For decades she has been try-
ing to make sense of both AI and neurobiology. Essentially a pragmatist,
she sees the universe as a vast mindless tinkerer which, by the bumbling
process of evolution, has created brains that resemble Rube Goldberg
contraptions. She has the curious notion, common to most pragmatists,
that truth is less a correspondence of ideas with structures �out there�
independent of minds, than the brain�s efforts to order its experience in
useful ways. Sentient beings on other planets, she believes, may have
minds so different from ours, with such exotic physics and mathematics,
that we would find their science unintelligible. If an alien in another
galaxy counted stars, could it find that two stars plus two stars did not
make four stars? Could an alien particle physicist conclude that a hydro-
gen atom has more than one electron � maybe none at all? Are atoms
really out there, or are they just figments of our minds?
Johnson�s philosophical musings have little to say about any of the
deepest problems. In particular he never comes to grips with self-aware-
ness and free will, actually two names for the same mystery. Try to imag-
ine being aware of your existence without free will, or to imagine your-
self with free will but no consciousness. You�ll find both impossible. How
is it that an infinitesimal portion of the universe, a tiny pattern of mole-
cules, is capable of wondering why the universe exists, and of planning
ways to alter its future? A year spent in AI research, so goes an old apho-
rism, is enough to make one believe in God.
214 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
John Searle, a shrewd opponent of AI metaphysics, is dismissed in two
lines. Unfortunately, Johnson wrote before the appearance of Roger Pen-
rose�s The Emperor�s New Mind, which argues that we will never under-
stand the brain until we know more about physics, and especially know
more about laws below quantum theory.
Aside from six poetic pages of memories about two of Johnson�s trips
to New Mexico, his book closes with an admission by Churchland that
her subjective view of truth � that rain in Spain falls mainly in the brain �
is one that �usually sends people absolutely crawling up the walls. But I
really don�t see why. If the only alternative is that there are truths in
Plato�s heaven, then it seems to me that the basic story has to be told in
terms of the brain.�
I am among those Platonists who are indeed driven up a wall by this
view. Some readers will close Johnson�s book by marveling at how much
about the brain has been discovered in recent years. I close the book over-
whelmed by how little has been learned. It will be centuries, I am per-
suaded, before science fully understands the mind of a mouse.
ADDENDUM
George Johnson, understandably, did not care for my review. His letter to
Book World and my reply ran in the April 14, 1991, issue.
As a long-time admirer of Book World, 1 was delighted that the editors
decided to feature my new book, In the Palaces of Memory, so promi-
nently on the cover. I�d like to suggest, however, that assigning a book
about the frontiers of brain research to Martin Gardner is a little like
assigning a book on genetic engineering to someone who still believes
in the ancient doctrine of vitalism. It seems ironic that Gardner, who has
spent so much of his life debunking pseudoscience, has come to
embrace the mystical notions of mind and consciousness that neurosci-
entists are trying so hard to expel.
George Johnson, New York, N.Y.
Martin Gardner Replies
My view of the brain is no more mystical than Richard Feynman�s view
of quantum mechanics, which he repeatedly called �crazy� and said that
no one knows why it works. I believe with Aristotle and almost all mod-
ern psychologists and philosophers of science that the mind is a func-
tion of a material brain that evolved slowly from lifeless matter. I have
no interest in Bergson or any other vitalist.
The Mystery of Consciousness 215
The trouble is, no one fully understands matter. The particles and
their fields are crazy. I agree with Roger Penrose (see my foreword to
his book The Emperor�s New Mind ) that free will and consciousness
cannot be explained by known laws of physics or simulated by any
known type of computer. Johnson is oversensitive. It is not denigrating
of neuroscience to call it a science in its infancy.
CHAPTER THIRTY-THREE
IS THERE A GOD?
I f God is the name for everything there is, then, of course, everyone is a
theist. Between this meaningless pantheism and the traditional creator-
gods of the major religions stretches a continuum of shades. Here we will
assume, with Michael Martin, that God is an invisible transcendent super-
being somehow analogous to the human mind, who created our universe
and provides a purpose for its history.
Thousands of philosophers � from the ancient Greeks to modern
thinkers � have defended atheism, but none more comprehensively than
Martin, a professor of philosophy at Boston University. His lengthy argu-
ments, detailed and incisive, are sharpened by modern developments in
logic and inductive reasoning and by special attention to contemporary
thinkers whose subtle writings are unknown to the general public. In the
first half of Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (Temple University
Press, 1990), Martin argues for �negative atheism� � the view that there
are no reliable reasons for believing in God. In the second half, he
defends �positive atheism� � the view that there are strong grounds for
believing that God does not exist.
The book�s first half contains vigorous critiques of the great tradi-
tional �proofs� of God. Anselm�s ontological argument � especially as
revived by Charles Hartshome, Norman Malcolm, Alvin Plantinga, and
Carl Kordig � is so flawed that Martin is amazed it still fascinates certain
types of minds. He agrees with Schopenhauer that it is no more than a
�charming joke.� The cosmological argument and its close cousin, the
proof from design, are ripped to shreds. Martin�s objections are essen-
tially the same as Kant�s but have the added interest of examining closely
the sophisticated views of such modern philosophers as William Craig,
Bruce Reichenbach, Richard Swinburne, George Schlesinger, and
Richard Taylor.
Although I agree with Martin�s criticisms, it seems to me he under-
plays the enormous emotional appeal of the design argument. In the light
This review first appeared in the Humanist (March/ April 1991).
216
Is There a God? 217
of today�s cosmology, we must assume that you and I were embedded in
the quantum laws that generated and controlled the big bang. Particles
produced in the first few minutes had the incredible potential of forming,
billions of years later, organisms capable of reflecting on the meaning of
their lives. Wondering why we exist, or why anything at all exists, can
arouse in some persons such an overwhelming sense of awe that William
James once called it a �metaphysical sickness.� Although logically
flawed, the design argument can have a powerful emotional impact that
Martin seems never to have experienced.
Pragmatic arguments for God based upon feelings and experience
come next under Martin�s sharp hatchet. Kant�s moral argument, espe-
cially as given by W. R. Sorely, John Henry Newman, and A. E. Taylor�
that belief in God follows from the assumption that the universe is just �
is found seriously defective. After all, Martin reminds us, the law of
Karma allows for the righting of wrongs in future lives without requiring
a deity to enforce it.
William James defended the right to make a leap of faith under cer-
tain circumstances, which Martin expertly summarizes. He rightly per-
ceives that James�s fideism is a broad form of �Pascal�s wager,� in which
the benefits of faith are said to outweigh its disadvantages. Kierkegaard�s
version of the leap, tied as it is to Christian orthodoxy, can only lead to
fanaticism, in Martin�s view; indeed, Kierkegaard wrote an entire book
justifying Abraham�s willingness to murder his son because his faith
assured him that God had commanded it. I was disappointed that Martin
had nothing to say about the greatest of all recent fideists, Miguel de Una-
muno. Kierkegaard thought the leap justified even though unsupported by
evidence. Unamuno went further: he maintained that the leap is justified
in spite of better evidence against it!
Wittgensteinian fideism, which treats religions as �language games�
that are neither true nor false, is demolished next, along with the even
more bizarre view of Louis Pojman � that atheists are justified in hoping
God exists and living �as if� he or she does.
The second half of Martin�s book banishes agnostic fence-sitting by
reasoning intended to show that God�s existence is extremely improbable.
Here the most persuasive arguments spring from the ancient recognition
that irrational evil is difficult to square with the existence of an all-pow-
erful, all-good deity. Augustine reasoned that evil behavior is an in-
evitable consequence of free will � of our not being automatons. Natural
evils (diseases, earthquakes, and the like) have been rationalized on the
similar ground that we could not exist except in a universe of unalterable
laws; given such laws, natural disasters are as inevitable as human sin.
Individuals advance by overcoming sin, and humanity advances by the
218 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
steady conquest of natural evils. No one in recent times has defended
these views more skillfully than John Hick, and for this reason it is on
Hick that Martin concentrates his fire. He grants that such arguments
have some merit but insists that the evils are far too excessive to permit
harmonizing them with a beneficent deity.
Only a few pages are devoted to the �finite god� of the process the-
ologians. I was sorry to see Martin limit his attention to a recent best-
seller, Rabbi Harold Kushner�s Why Bad Things Happen to Good People.
John Stuart Mill and Edgar Brightman, both finite theists, are cited in a
footnote, but it would have been appropriate to recognize also the similar
views of Alfred North Whitehead, Hartshorne, Samuel Alexander, and
Charles Peirce. There is no reference in the book to Peirce, although he
was one of our nation�s most interesting theists.
The final chapter speculates tentatively on what Martin thinks would
be the long-run social benefits if atheism became the dominant belief. He
foresees no falling off of �moral� behavior. There would be a decline in
church attendance. Theistic folkways such as the phrase �In God We
Trust� on our currency, holidays like Easter and Christmas, prayers in
public schools and at inaugurals, and blue laws would all fade. Televan-
gelism, religious bookstores, and Gideon Bibles would disappear. People
would stop saying �God bless you.� There would be more liberal laws
concerning birth control, abortion, divorce, and homosexuality. Birth
rates would decline. There would be fewer wars.
Because Martin supports a clear separation of church and state and
tolerance for all religious opinions, he has no sympathy for the police-
state atheism that prevailed in the Soviet Union. Writing before glasnost,
he buys the surely low estimate that only 10 percent of Soviet citizens
believe in God. We now know that the Soviet people all along had little
use for communism but were afraid to say so. I suspect they kept their
religious convictions concealed for similar reasons.
Martin�s book contains a few factual mistakes. On page 3, he includes
Voltaire, a deist, and Upton Sinclair, a spiritualist, among nonbelievers in
God. On page 178, where he describes Hinduism as a pantheism, he
misses the belief that Brahman is as �wholly other� as the God of Karl
Barth. But these are trivial blemishes on an admirable work. Atheists
should read it to bolster their creed, and theists should read it to test their
faith against the deadly force of Martin�s attack.
CHAPTER THIRTY-FOUR
THE WORLD OF
STEPHEN JAY GOULD
S tephen Jay Gould may be a paleontologist by trade, on Harvard�s fac-
ulty since 1967, but his knowledge of the liberal arts, especially liter-
ature and music, not to mention his familiarity with that elegantly chore-
ographed dance called baseball, far exceeds the knowledge of science on
the part of most experts in the humanities. No living scientist who writes
for the public has a better claim to the mantle of Thomas Huxley in range
of interests and felicity of style.
Bully for Brontosaurus (Norton, 1991) is the fifth and finest selection
from the columns that Gould has contributed to Natural History maga-
zine since 1973. There is not a lame essay in the lot. Obviously no short
review can do justice to all thirty-five.
The title essay is about the unsuccessful efforts of paleontologists to
change the name of Brontosaurus (which means thunder lizard) to
Apatosaurus (deceptive lizard). Gould sides with the Brontosaurians. In
other chapters you will learn about a frog whose tadpoles grow in the
mother�s belly to be disgorged later through her mouth; the gigantic kiwi
egg; the beheading of the great French chemist Antoine Lavoisier; racism
in the textbook from which John Scopes, of Tennessee�s famous �Mon-
key Trial,� taught evolution; little-known facts behind Huxley�s debate
with Bishop Samuel Wilberforce; and Freud�s crazy effort to persuade
women to shift from clitoral to vaginal orgasms.
Other essays concern the typewriter�s inefficient QUERTY-keyboard,
with an aside on pangrams, short sentences containing all twenty-six letters;
the probability that Joe DiMaggio would make a hit in fifty-six consecutive
games; Huxley�s bitter clash with Gladstone over how to interpret Genesis;
the anatomy and behavior of that most bizarre of all mammals, the duck-
billed platypus; Prince Kropotkin as a pioneer stressing the survival value
of animal altruism; why the family tree of the horse is a bush, not a ladder;
and how lazy textbook authors keep copying from one another in describ-
ing eohippus, the earliest horse ancestor, as the size of a fox terrier.
This review first appeared in Book World (May 19, 1991). � 1996, Washington Post Book
World ServiceAVashington Post Writers Group. Reprinted with permission.
219
220 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Gould does not consider debunking a pejorative term for a scientist�s
obligation to enlighten the public about extreme pseudoscience. An enter-
taining chapter on Mesmer tells how Lavoisier devised foxy �sting� oper-
ations, conducted in Benjamin Franklin�s French home, that thoroughly
debunked Mesmer�s claim that a magnetic fluid went from a mesmerist�s
fingers into the bodies of persons mesmerized.
A chapter on the Baseball Museum at Cooperstown debunks the
absurd myth that baseball was invented there by Abner Doubleday who,
as someone said, didn�t know a baseball from a kumquat. The game actu-
ally evolved from British ball-and-stick games. In a barn behind Cooper-
stown�s Farmer�s Museum you can see P. T. Bamum�s great fossil hoax,
the Cardiff Giant. Gould gives an amusing account of its history.
A fascinating essay opens with Gould visiting Mount Rushmore and
wondering why Teddy Roosevelt is up there with the others. Gould
changed his mind when he discovered that Teddy had written a witty
book to debunk the views of Abbot Thayer, an artist-naturalist who tire-
lessly promoted his theory that all animal coloring is an adaptation to ren-
der animals less visible to predators. Thayer actually painted pictures
(some are reproduced in the book, alas only in black and white) to prove
that flamingos are red because it makes them almost invisible against
pink sunsets! Another painting shows how hard it is to see a peacock
against a backdrop of flowers!
A chapter that should be read by all creationists deals with one of
their perennial arguments against evolution. How can a structure such as
a wing, which supposedly evolved by small increments, have survival
value until it is fully formed and flapping? Gould focuses on the evolu-
tion of insect wings, describing ingenious experiments that suggest the
wings started out as tiny temperature regulators, then slowly enlarged
until they became useful for gliding and flying.
The �incipient stages� argument was first advanced, Gould informs
us, by George Mivart, a student of Huxley who was excommunicated by
the Roman Catholic church for trying to convince it that if it failed to
accept evolution it would be repeating the mistake it made with Galileo.
A devout theist, Mivart contended that new species, especially homo
sapiens with immortal souls, could not arise unless evolution was some-
how orchestrated from above.
Although most theists today, who see evolution as God�s method of
creation, no longer invoke the incipient stages argument, they like to
dwell on the improbabilities that seem to dog the history of life, and to
see those improbabilities as evidence for divine direction. Gould strongly
rejects this view. He quotes a long-forgotten letter of William James to a
geologist in which James crisply rebuts such reasoning even though
The World of Stephen Jay Gould 221
James was himself a theist. In another chapter, Gould tells of a surprise
phone call from President Jimmy Carter to express sympathy when he
learned of Gould�s abdominal cancer. Gould prints a portion of a letter in
which Carter contends that the improbabilities of evolution are too
immense to be accounted for apart from a divine plan.
Gould devotes one chapter to his cancer, the statistics surrounding it,
and its happy remission. He is amused when his death is announced at a
meeting in Scotland, not so amused when two European periodicals do
the same thing. Lacking Mark Twain�s willingness to shrug off such mis-
takes, Gould admits that he �squawked very loudly.�
One of Gould�s persistent themes is that we can learn from nature
absolutely nothing about morals, that we are but a �tiny and accidental
evolutionary twig,� a mere �mammalian afterthought,� in a universe that
gives not a damn about the fate of individuals or even the human race.
�When my skein runs out,� he writes, �I hope to face the end calmly. . . .
For most situations, however, I prefer the more martial view that death is
the ultimate enemy � and I find nothing reproachable in those who rage
against the dying of the light.�
CHAPTER THIRTY-FIVE
INCREDIBLE RAMANUJAN
O n the eve of World War I, Srinivas Ramanujan appeared like a sor-
cerer who had stepped out of a mist. In 1913, G. H. Hardy, the
renowned Cambridge University mathematician, received a humble ten-
page letter that began, �I beg to introduce myself.� It was from a twenty-
three-year-old clerk in India who said he was poor and uneducated, but
nonetheless had made some amazing discoveries in number theory. He
enclosed a small sample of his work.
Ramanujan�s theorems were unlike any Hardy had seen before. At
first he dismissed the writer as a crank. Later when he and his colleague
J. E. Littlewood examined the bizarre equations more carefully, he real-
ized they could have been found only by a mathematician of the highest
rank. An exchange of letters began and more theorems followed. Work-
ing alone, with no knowledge of recent mathematics, Ramanujan had
rediscovered some old but deep theorems, had made a few mistakes in
others, but for the most part had presented something that was profoundly
original and strange. Ramanujan tossed them off by the thousands, jotting
them down in notebooks without ever troubling to prove them because
somehow he knew they were true. It was decades before Western math-
ematicians realized how sound his intuitions were.
Hardy brought Ramanujan to Cambridge in 1914. Ramanujan�s
teenage wife, Srimathi Janaki � the marriage had been family arranged
when she was nine� stayed behind in India. For five years Hardy and
Ramanujan enthusiastically collaborated in proving and elaborating the
theorems that kept floating into Ramanujan�s head by some magic
process no one yet fully understands. For mathematically literate readers
Robert Kanigel, in The Man Who Knew Infinity (Scribner�s, 1991), gives
a lucid account of the most famous of these equations, a formula that
expresses the precise number of partitions of a given integer. It has turned
out to have many practical applications, including a surprising one in the
currently fashionable particle theory called superstrings. Another beauti-
This review first appeared in the Raleigh, N.C., News and Observer , June 2, 1991.
222
Incredible Ramanujan 223
ful formula is now the basis for the fastest known computer algorithm for
calculating the number pi.
Mr. Kanigel, a science writer who teaches journalism at Johns Hop-
kins University, has written one of the finest, best-documented biogra-
phies ever published about a modern mathematician. Even if you hate
mathematics you will find yourself captivated by this brilliant study of
one of the most remarkable and enigmatic minds of the century.
Ramanujan was brought up in an orthodox Hindu family of Brahmin
caste, and Mr. Kanigel argues that Hardy failed to appreciate his friend�s
religious beliefs. Ramanujan never abandoned his strict vegetarianism or
his devout faith in the gods. Throughout his life he prayed to Namagiri,
his family�s favorite goddess, and believed that it was she who inspired
his work. Namagiri, Mr. Kanigel tells us, is the consort of the lion-god
Narasimha. Ramanujan never forgot that his grandmother, who conversed
with Namagiri during trances, told him that the goddess said she would
someday speak through him to the world. Ramanujan practiced astrology,
believed in palmistry, and was intrigued by the spiritualist views of the
British physicist Oliver Lodge.
Robert Kanigel is convinced that Ramanujan, out of deference to the
atheism of his benefactor, played down his mystical side, misleading
Hardy into supposing he practiced his religion only mechanically. Indeed,
Hardy once called him �as sound an infidel as Bertrand Russell or Little-
wood.�
So fervent was Hardy�s atheism that once on a whimsical list of New
Year�s resolutions he included, �Find an argument for the nonexistence of
God which shall convince the general public.� Mr. Kanigel makes clear
that in spite of this gulf between Eastern faith and Western nonfaith, the
two friends shared a profound Platonism � a belief in a transcendent
realm of mathematical truth independent of human minds.
For many modem Platonists, mathematics is the �only� reality. New-
ton�s hard little pebbles of matter long ago dissolved into fields and par-
ticles that are pure mathematical constructs, not made of anything. �I
believe that mathematical reality lies outside us,� was how Hardy put it.
�Our function is to discover or observe it.� Mr. Kanigel quotes Ramanu-
jan: �An equation has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God.�
Every positive integer, said Littlewood, was �one of Ramanujan�s
personal friends.� Hardy told a now famous story of visiting Ramanujan
in the hospital. He happened to take a cab whose number was 1729, and
he remarked to Ramanujan that it seemed to him a dull number. The ail-
ing Ramanujan shot to life. �No!� he said, �It is a very interesting num-
ber. It is the smallest number expressible as a sum of two cubes in two
different ways� (1,729 = l 3 + 12 3 = 9 3 +10 3 ).
224 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
The portrait Mr. Kanigel draws is of two quite different but very close
friends. Ramanujan was of medium height, plump, with a pock-marked
face and dark luminous eyes. Hardy was small, wiry, handsome, athletic,
and passionately devoted to cricket. Among many eccentricities, Hardy
never shook hands, and was so averse to seeing his face in mirrors that he
covered them with cloth even while shaving. I did not know until I read
this book that Hardy was gay. �A nonpracticing homosexual� was how
Littlewood described him.
Nor did I know that both Ramanujan and Hardy had attempted sui-
cide. In 1917 Ramanujan developed a mysterious illness, perhaps tuber-
culosis. It contributed to a deep depression during which he impulsively
jumped in front of a London subway train. The engineer braked just in
time. Ramanujan died three years later in India at age thirty-two.
Hardy, depressed early in 1947 after a heart attack, overdosed on bar-
biturates, but took so many that he vomited, fell, and merely banged his
head on the sink. He died of heart failure in December of the same year.
In 1976 George Andrews, a mathematician at Pennsylvania State
University, found in the library of Cambridge�s Trinity College a batch of
130 scrap papers on which the ill Ramanujan had scribbled some six hun-
dred new equations. Mathematicians are still plucking exotic flowers
from what the physicist Freeman Dyson calls Ramanujan�s Garden. In
1988, Robert Kanigel tells us, a computer search found three hundred
technical papers with Ramanujan�s name on their titles.
And his wife, Janaki, now ninety-one, is still living and, though they
spent little time together, proud simply of having been married to a man
whose mind was like no other in our century. She has been a widow for
more than seventy years, which must be a record even in India.
CHAPTER THIRTY-SIX
HOW TO MAKE A PPO
T he January 1990 issue of the Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research (JSPR) published an English translation of an article by
Bernhard Walti that had earlier appeared in a German periodical devoted
to parapsychology. It described an alleged PPO (Permanent Paranormal
Object) that had been produced by Silvio Meyer, a Swiss self-styled psy-
chic. The object consists of two square frames, each about an inch on the
sides, one made of paper, the other of aluminum foil. The two tiny frames
are linked, with no sign that either had been tampered with in any way.
Silvio claimed that he cut a side of the paper frame, slid the foil frame
through the slot, then held the cut between his thumb and finger for ten
minutes. The cut paranormal ly healed. As John Beloff correctly perceived,
if this had indeed occurred, and no way could be found for making such a
PPO, it would be a stupendous milestone in the history of parapsychology.
In my regular column, �Notes of a Fringe Watcher� {Skeptical In-
quirer 15 [Spring 1991]), I described this seemingly miraculous artifact
and asked my readers if they could think of any easy way Silvio could
have produced it without access to machinery for making paper or foil.
Two readers, first John Geohegan, of Albuquerque, New Mexico, soon
followed by a letter from P. M. deLaubenfels, of Corvallis, Oregon,
described the same simple method.
It turns out that paper is extremely easy to make from paper, as many
hobbyists know. I will describe the procedure for producing the PPO in
words used by Geohegan.
First, obtain a piece of window screen, the finer the mesh the better.
Cut a slot in one side. Into this slot push a frame of metal foil as shown
in figure 1. The next step is to make a mixture of paper fibers and water.
Cut a piece of writing paper into half-inch squares, boil them in 1 1/2 cups
of water for half an hour, then beat the mixture with a blender or hand
mixer until the squares disappear and you are left with a cloudy liquid.
This article first appeared in the British Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
(July 1991).
225
226 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Figure 1
Put the piece of screen, with its inserted foil frame, on a dish towel,
then spoon the pulpy mixture onto the screen to form a puddle that sur-
rounds one side of the frame as shown in figure 2. With a spatula, press
the mixture flat to force out the water. The purpose of the screen is to let
the mixture dry quickly. A sheet of metal or heavy cardboard would do
just as well, but the drying time would be much longer. After a few min-
utes, gently peel the wet paper from the screen and let it dry completely.
All that remains is to cut the square frame from the paper. Any irregulari-
ties can be smoothed out by pressing and rubbing with the back of a spoon.
Linking a foil frame with one cut from a dollar bill or a printed page
of the JSPR would be a much more effective PPO. Geohegan suggests
that two such frames be sent to Silvio with a request that he link them.
You can be sure he will refuse.
ADDENDUM
John Beloff, England�s most gullible parapsychologist and editor of the
JSPR, has been hoping for decades that a psychic would create a PPO that
would convince all skeptics of the reality of PK. He was sorely disap-
pointed to learn how easily Silvio�s PPO could be fabricated.
How to Make a PPO 227
Figure 2
Parapsychologists seldom give up and admit error. Bernhard Walti, in
a �Comment on Silvio�s PPO,� published in a German periodical in
November 1991, cites my article as a reference. He concludes: �So far,
however, no conventional solution of the Silvio PPO is at hand, despite
some efforts by skeptics.� Apparently he will doubt the technique I
explained until he watches someone actually make such a PPO.
Duane Hill wrote to say that my suggestion about linking a foil frame
with a frame cut from a dollar bill is not hard to do by a plating process
called �electroforming.� I doubt, though, if Silvio can obtain the neces-
sary equipment.
CHAPTER THIRTY-SEVEN
ARCHEOLOGICAL CRANKERY
W e live at a time when science education in English-speaking coun-
tries is sinking, and interest in New Age, pseudoscience, and oc-
cultism is rapidly rising. Archeology has not been immune to these
trends. Worthless books on cult archeology now sell almost as well as
books on astrology, harmful diets, and the sex lives of the famous.
�Fantastic� is Stephen Williams�s less pejorative synonym for crank.
A distinguished anthropologist long associated with Harvard�s Peabody
Museum, Williams has written an entertaining history of fantastic arche-
ology, richly illustrated, scrupulously documented, and a delight to read.
Titled Fantastic Archeology: The Wild Side of North American History ,
the book was published in 1991 by the University of Pennsylvania Press.
Myths about advanced cultures on now submerged continents have
fascinated the public ever since Plato wrote about Atlantis. Ignatius Don-
nelly�s book Atlantis (1881) aroused widespread interest among gullible
Americans. It far outsold his two other crank works, Ragnarok, which
anticipated Immanuel Velikovsky�s crazy cosmology, and a massive work
purporting to translate ciphers hidden by Bacon in plays falsely credited
to Shakespeare.
The Pacific also had its vanished continent, Lemuria or Mu, as pop-
ularized in absurd books by James Churchward. Williams debunks both
myths, and traces their persistence in theosophical literature, in the dream
delusions of Edgar Cayce, and in such recent potboilers as Atlantis, the
Eighth Continent, by Charles Berlitz of Bermuda Triangle fame.
The Cardiff Giant was America�s most bizarre hoax. George Hull had
it fabricated out of gypsum and buried in New York, to be unearthed in
1869. P. T. Barnum tried to lease it. Turned down, Barnum had a copy
made, a fake of a fake, which he exhibited as the original. Oliver Wendell
Holmes, Sr., we learn, drilled a hole near its ear and marvelled at its inte-
rior anatomy. Emerson was enthralled. (�So much,� writes Williams, �for
Bostonian wisdom.�) The original giant wandered here and there, finally
This review first appeared in London�s Times Literary Supplement (October 18, 1991).
228
Archeological Crankery 229
coming to rest in the Farmer�s Museum, at Cooperstown, New York. Why
did the fake generate so much public excitement? I have two conjectures:
it supported the Bible�s claim that there were giants in the old days, and
viewers were titillated by its enormous petrified penis.
Constantin Rafinesque (1782-1840) is Williams�s funniest charlatan.
He was enormously prolific, writing books and papers on half a dozen
sciences, a 300-page work on Ohio River fish, an autobiography, and a
248-page poem, �Instability.� His most outlandish claim was that the
Lenape Indians had migrated all the way from the Bering Straits to
Delaware � a claim supported by hundreds of pictographs which he drew
himself.
The Book of Mormon, with its pseudohistory about how the Ten Lost
Tribes of Israel settled in America, does not escape Williams�s attention.
Joseph Smith claimed that angels wrote the sacred book in hieroglyphics
on gold tablets, which Smith translated with the aid of two magic stones
called the Urim and Thummim. Mormon archeologists later supported the
Lost Tribes fantasy with a profusion of phony artifacts, some showing
pictures of Noah�s flood and the Tower of Babel.
Another popular myth that won�t go away is that eastern America was
first explored by Vikings. As Williams discloses, recent excavations in
Newfoundland show that Vikings did indeed land on the continent about
1000 c.e., but never got farther south. In 1942, Philip Means�s book New-
port Tower argued that a stone tower in Newport, Rhode Island, had been
built by Vikings in the twelfth century. Alas, excavations soon proved the
tower to be a seventeenth-century structure.
Other preposterous myths about pre-Columbus settlers in America
are defended in dozens of crank books, notably those by a retired Harvard
biologist, Barry Fell. Fell is a superdiffusionist who actually believes that
hundreds of thousands of years ago America was colonized by all sorts of
Europeans, Asians, and Africans, including pygmies who settled in Ten-
nessee. His best-seller, America, B.C. (1976), considered a joke by arche-
ologists, was published, incredibly, by the New York Times. However, a
Times reviewer called the book �ignorant nonsense.� Williams devotes
many pages to Fell�s whopping errors. Saga America (1980), Fell�s sec-
ond book, was also published by the New York Times.
Fantastic Archeology swarms with pictures of bogus artifacts made to
support myths of pre-Columbian settlements. Particularly amusing is the
story of gravel found near a wharf in Boston. Pseudoarcheologists were
agog when it was found that the gravel came from the River Thames. It
turned out that it was ballast from ships which sailed empty to Boston,
dumped the pebbles, then went back to England with timber.
It is not easy to believe, but two American archeologists, Stephen
230 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
Schwartz and Jeffrey Goodman, are now using ESP and pendulum dows-
ing over maps to locate sites for digs. Schwartz�s major work, The
Alexandria Project (1983), is about his efforts to locate the bones of
Alexander the Great. ESP was provided by Hella Hammid, a psychic who
earlier worked at Stanford Research International on the notorious
�remote viewing� experiments of Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ.
Goodman�s claims are even more preposterous. Ancestors of the
American Indians, he maintains, did not come east across the Bering
land-bridge. They went the other way, en route to France, where they van-
quished the Neanderthals. The Garden of Eden was in California, where
half a million years ago the first humans appeared. Their minds did not
evolve, but arrived suddenly from �outside intervention� by a higher
intelligence. From California they spread over the entire world.
�ESP,� Goodman declares, �is replacing the spade as archeology�s
prime tool.� He also believes in Atlantis, Lemuria, and crystal power. His
first book. Psychic Archeology, was published by Putnams in 1976. His
latest. Genesis Mystery (1983) was published � yes, once again � by the
New York Times.
One of the most colorful myths about American Indians is that they
were preceded by a wholly distinct race called the Mound Builders. Indi-
ans were considered too shiftless and ignorant to produce the elaborate
artifacts found in the mounds. As usual, the myth was supported by end-
less streams of false artifacts, some so cleverly made that it took modem
technology to prove them fakes. Williams skillfully summarizes the sad
history of this myth, and the careers of its now forgotten mountebanks.
What is the true early history of North America? The first docu-
mented arrivals, we learn, were the Clovis Hunters, who came over the
Bering land-bridge no later than 10,000 b.c.e. Their culture is found
throughout the hemisphere. They are often called the Big Game Hunters,
because they hunted mammoths and the now extinct bison.
A high mark in later Indian history (about the time of Christ) was the
Hopewell culture of Ohio and Illinois. Williams has pictures of their highly
developed arts and crafts, including panpipes with silver-plated mouth-
pieces, objects of copper, silver, and gold, and figures of persons and ani-
mals that look as if they were made yesterday. �Forget fantastic archeol-
ogy,� Williams concludes his admirable book, �this is the real fantasy.�
CHAPTER THIRTY-EIGHT
JOSEPH CAMPBELL, �RACIST�
A lthough New Agers embraced Joseph John Campbell decades ago, it
was not until after his death in 1987 that Bill Moyers�s six television
interviews turned him into a public superstar. His books on comparative
mythology weigh down the New Age shelves at Walden and B. Dalton. Crit-
ical studies of his work are burgeoning, and now two ardent acolytes have
produced a massive hagiography titled A Fire in the Mind (Doubleday, 1991).
The authors, Stephen and Robin Larsen, operate a growth potential
institute on their farm near New Paltz, New York. Stephen, who teaches
psychology at nearby Ulster County Community College, has written two
previous books about myths, and Robin has edited a biography and
anthology of the Swedish spiritualist and trance channeler Emmanuel
Swedenborg. Stephen is also a student of Zen, Yoga, and karate, and has
a private practice as a psychotherapist. Drawing heavily on Campbell�s
voluminous diaries and journals, and interviews with his wife and friends,
the Larsens have written a comprehensive life of their mentor that will tell
you almost everything you want to know,
Six feet tall, handsome, blue-eyed, Campbell played guard on the
Dartmouth football team and captained the track team at Columbia,
where he obtained his master�s degree. A jazz buff, he played the piano
and ukulele, and blew saxophone in dance bands. After several passion-
ate romances, failed efforts to sell fiction (his early stories and one novel
have not survived), and much wandering about the globe, Campbell set-
tled down at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, New York, where he
taught literature for thirty-eight years. Most of his students idolized him.
When he married one � Jean Erdman, who became a professional
dancer � the women lowered the campus flag to half-mast.
Campbell burst onto the literary scene in 1944 with his Skeleton Key
to Finnegans Wake, written with his friend Henry Morton Robinson.
While working on the key, he and Robinson became inexplicably infuri-
This review first appeared in Book World (November 24, 1991). � 1996, Washington Post
Book World Service/Washington Post Writers Group. Reprinted with permission.
231
232 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
ated by the extent to which Thornton Wilder had borrowed from Finne-
gans Wake in his play �The Skin of Our Teeth.� In two Saturday Review
articles they lashed Wilder for shameless plagiarism.
The Larsens give the impression that this vicious attack was justified,
without mentioning that Joyce himself, in Ulysses, borrowed shamelessly
from Homer. Like so many other authors, Wilder had playfully taken
characters and episodes from an admired writer, as any student of
Finnegans Wake would recognize, but Wilder�s discreet silence only
fanned the flames. Because of the plagiarism charge his play was passed
over for the annual New York Critics� award, but it won Wilder his third
Pulitzer Prize.
Campbell�s most popular book, The Hero With a Thousand Faces,
came out five years later. His magnum opus, the four-volume Masks of
God, followed between 1959 and 1968. These and his other books, with
their wide-ranging erudition and striking art, put Campbell alongside
Mircea Eliade as the most admired experts on myth since Sir James
Frazer, author of The Golden Bough.
Although their book is crammed with facts and quotations, the
Larsens offer little insight into what Campbell privately believed. That he
totally rejected the Roman Catholicism of his youth there is no doubt, but
did he substitute any religious faith in its place? His favorite definition of
mythology was �other people�s religion,� and his favorite definition of
religion was �misunderstood mythology.� He saw the great myths as Jun-
gian archetypes, welling up from humanity�s collective unconscious �
lies on the outside, truth inside. What sort of truth? Myths obviously have
poetic meaning, but do they suggest any truths beyond poetry?
It is said that Campbell made no value judgments about the superior-
ity of one religion�s myths over those of another. Not so. The Larsens
quote a journal entry when Campbell was fifty-one: �Krishna is a much
better teacher and model than Christ.� In a lecture he poked fun at Mary�s
assumption into heaven by pointing out that had she traveled at the speed
of light she would still be inside our galaxy.
Campbell�s long flirtation with Hinduism is amply documented by the
Larsens. He was a good friend and admirer of the theosophist Jeddu Krish-
namurti. He was as fascinated as Shirley MacLaine by kundalani, the
energy that slithers up and down the spine like a snake and concentrates
inside the body�s chakras. He walked on fire without damaging his feet. He
was what the Larsens call �shell shocked� by the accuracy of a horoscope
cast for him by the famous Evangeline Adams. He was a popular lecturer
at Esalen, the pioneer New Age growth center where everybody believes
almost anything on the paranormal scene. He taught New Age seminars,
sharing platforms with such spiritualists as Elisabeth Kiibler-Ross.
Joseph Campbell, �Racist� 233
Campbell�s often-repeated advice, �follow your bliss,� is equivalent
to the New Age �do your own thing,� or �create your own reality.� (How
about a person, critics asked, whose bliss is to rape little children?) Yet in
spite of his close associations with theosophists and New Agers, Camp-
bell�s basic metaphysical convictions remain hidden. When Bill Moyers
asked if he believed in reincarnation, Campbell sidestepped by saying he
believed in the metaphor of reincarnation. It is this mushiness that turns
so many people off. We don�t need myths to remind us that life is a quest,
or that we battle dragons.
There is nothing �spiritual� about mythology unless it points toward
transcendence. As far as we can learn from A Fire in the Mind, Camp-
bell�s mythic fires point to nothing beyond experience. It is surprising that
he seems not to have admired George Santayana, the ex-Catholic myth-
admiring atheist of whom it was said that he didn�t believe in God, but he
did believe that Mary was God�s mother.
Campbell�s darkest side was his anti-Semitism, forcefully detailed by
Brendan Gill in the New York Review of Books (September 28, 1989). The
Larsens dismiss it with a brief reference to �so-called bigotry.� Campbell
once said he moved to Bronxville to escape from Jews, and that the moon
would be a good place to send them. He also objected to blacks entering
Sarah Lawrence. He threatened to flunk, and once did, any student who
engaged in leftist political action.
Similarly, Campbell�s hatred of President Roosevelt prompted him to
say there were three living Caesars: Hitler, Mussolini, and FDR. A great
admirer of Thomas Mann, Campbell foolishly sent him a copy of a
speech in which he urged artists and writers not to take sides in the unfor-
tunate conflict between Hitler and Churchill. It drew a barbed response
from Mann. Campbell�s political opinions, wrote Gill, were to the right of
William Buckley. �His glibness and his charisma,� one of his students
said in a letter to the New York Review of Books, �were a mask that con-
cealed a narrow mind.�
The Larsens have done a commendable job of assembling a thousand
facts about the life of their hero with many faces. A balanced portrait of
Campbell, covering his prejudices and inner beliefs, is still to come.
ADDENDUM
Book World published the following two letters, with my reply, in its
December 29, 1991, issue:
234 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
While we appreciate your review of our book, A Fire in the Mind: The
Life of Joseph Campbell, we feel there are certain factual inaccuracies
and adverse assumptions in Martin Gardner�s review. It is not difficult
to discern that Gardner began � and concluded � his article with an ani-
mus that is not only anti-Campbell, but everything �New Age.� But
Campbell himself was hardly a �New-Age person.� He was a scholar
whose sources were primarily drawn from archaeology, psychology,
philosophy, comparative religion, literature, and the arts.
Gardner attempts to document his belief that there must have been
a sinister side to Campbell, taking as his own dark gospel the New York
Review of Books article by Brendan Gill attacking Campbell and accus-
ing him of anti-Semitism. We feel that Gill�s article was constructed on
willful misunderstanding, innuendo, and hearsay, and could easily have
triggered a libel suit had Campbell been alive to defend himself.
There are inherent dangers in such journalistic gossip. For example,
Gardner quotes Campbell as saying that he �moved to Bronxville to
escape from Jews.� But Campbell never moved to Bronxville because he
never lived there (but he did teach at Sarah Lawrence in Bronxville for
thirty-eight years, commuting from his Greenwich Village apartment).
The sad fact that Gardner could not have read our biography
closely is illustrated by his accusation that �although the book is
crammed with facts and quotations, the Larsens offer little insight into
what Campbell privately believed.� We were worried that our book was
too full of verbatim citations from Campbell�s private journals and cor-
respondence.
We owe thanks to Gardner for the kind things he said about the
research that underlies our work. We ourselves will be as pleased as
Gardner to see that �balanced portrait of Campbell covering his preju-
dices and inner beliefs, still to come,� because we firmly believe that if
the biographer is fair-minded, he or she, too, will find under this man�s
personal rug not dirt, but gold.
Stephen and Robin Larsen, New Paltz, N.Y.
Martin Gardner�s review of A Fire in the Mind: The Life of Joseph
Campbell, by Stephen and Robin Larsen, was nothing short of a
McCarthyistic attack on one of the greatest men of our time. Gardner
begins by accusing Joseph Campbell of �inexplicably� attacking Thorn-
ton Wilder (fifty years ago) for outrageous plagiarism discovered in
Wilder�s play �The Skin of Our Teeth.� While Gardner admits the truth
of Campbell�s claim that Wilder indeed plagiarized Joyce, his insinua-
tion that Campbell was morally obligated to disclose other instances of
purported plagiarism by other authors is utterly absurd.
Gardner also brings into question Campbell�s religious life by fault-
ing him for abandoning the �church� practices of Roman Catholicism.
But Campbell�s departure from the Catholic church was not an aban-
Joseph Campbell, �Racist� 235
donment of the essential principles of Christianity, but a departure from
the dogmatic doctrines that trouble many Catholics.
Lastly, Gardner�s desire for sensationalism should earn him a job at
the National Enquirer � for to insinuate that Campbell was a racist and
anti-Semite is preposterous. A single thread does not make a suit and a
statement or a line taken out of context does not validate a claim. Nei-
ther Campbell himself, nor his family and friends, ever claimed he was
a saint � as he might have said, not to have sinned is not to have lived.
And live he did � with an integrity achieved by few men of this century.
Terry Peay, Rockville
Martin Gardner Replies
Stephen and Robin Larsen accuse me of animus toward the New Age.
They are right. �New Age� is a fuzzy catch-all term for a cluster of
diverse ideas. The reason Campbell�s books are so enthusiastically
embraced by New Agers is mainly because of his lifelong friendship with
Krishnamurti, his preference for Hinduism over Christianity, and his
emphasis on creating your own reality.
There can be no doubt about Campbell�s racism. A more detailed ref-
erence on this than Brendan Gill�s attack is �Moyers�s Myth-Deeds,� by
Sharon Churcher, in Penthouse magazine (April 1990). Gill�s article pro-
voked a controversy that impelled Roy Finch, for two decades a philoso-
pher at Sarah Lawrence, to tell the New York Times that Campbell was
convinced Western civilization was threatened by the decadence of
"Christians, Communists, liberals, and Jews.� When Campbell said in a
lecture that it was natural for people to prey on �lower species of
humans,� a woman recalled: �I rose shaking from my chair and shouted,
'What about the six million who were gassed during World War II? . . .
Mr. Campbell simply shrugged and said, �That�s your problem.��
Churcher quotes a Sarah Lawrence alumna who told the Village Voice
that when she informed Campbell she was Jewish and wanted to analyze
the Old Testament, �he began to spew out this garbage about how the col-
lege was going Jewish and how he had moved to Bronxville to get away
from the Jews.� Perhaps he meant he had moved the locale of his teach-
ing to Bronxville.
Of course I never said Campbell had no beliefs. Obviously he had
thousands, including his beliefs in the inferiority of blacks, Jews, Chris-
tians, and liberal Democrats. The question I raised was about his deepest
private beliefs. Did he share Krishnamurti�s faith in reincarnation? Was
he a theist, atheist, pantheist, or agnostic? You won�t find the answers in
the Larsens� hagiography.
236 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
As for Terry Peay, I urge him to calm down and read some of my sup-
porting sources: Brendan Gill, in the New York Review of Books (Sep-
tember 28, 1989), and the letters it generated (November 9); Mary
Lefkowitz in American Scholar (Summer 1990); John Wauck in the
National Review (March 18, 1990); Sharon Churcher in Penthouse (April
1990) and the articles in the New York Times and the Village Voice to
which she refers; and Mortimer Adler�s strong attack on Campbell in
Truth in Religion (1990) and in his review of Fire in the Mind in the
National Review (February 17, 1992).
For Campbell�s mean-spirited attack on Wilder, see Edmund Wilson�s
defense of Wilder in the Nation (January 30, 1943), and the discussion of
this ridiculous charge in Malcolm Goldstein�s The Art of Thornton Wilder
(1965). Goldstein put it crisply when he wrote that Campbell was �unable
to discriminate between the assimilation of a source and downright theft.�
POSTSCRIPT
In addition to the references cited above, readers interested in Campbell�s
dark side should check Wendy Doniger�s hatchet review of A Fire in the
Mind ( New York Times Book Review, February 2, 1992). Doniger is the
Marcea Eliade professor in the University of Chicago Divinity School.
She likens the book to the �authorized biography of a member of the royal
family or a Hollywood star,� with �banal and trivial events described in a
bogus and quasi-spiritual diction.� By avoiding any deep analysis of
myths, Campbell �cooked up the TV dinner of mythology so that every-
thing tastes the same� when obviously myths are not all the same in their
meanings. Although Campbell was much admired and loved as the �hip-
pie hero� of a New Age cult, �he was neither a scholar nor a gentleman.�
Amy Taubin�s article �Hit or Myth� in the Village Voice (December
12, 1989) is another valuable source. When Campbell�s student Eva Feld-
man told Campbell she was Jewish, he became extremely agitated. Here
is the full account of what Feldman said to Taubin: �He was sweating and
pacing and running his fingers through his hair. He began to spew out this
garbage, about how the college was going Jewish and how he had moved
to Bronxville to get away from the Jews and here they were taking over.
Every few sentences he�d break off and repeat �I know I shouldn�t be say-
ing this, I know I shouldn�t �He went down his class roster identify-
ing the students who were Jewish. He said that the Jews had ruined twen-
tieth-century culture and went through a list of Jewish artists.� Feldman
said that �it was horrifying. It was like watching someone have a fit or
having them vomit uncontrollably all over you.�
CHAPTER THIRTY-NINE
INFORMATION THEORY
AND THE UNIVERSE
T imothy Ferris�s good, clean, poetic prose has raised him to the ranks of
our nation�s top science writers. The title of this, his seventh book, The
Mind's Sky (Bantam, 1992), is a play on The Mind�s I, edited by Douglas
Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett, in turn a play on �the mind�s eye.� The title
reflects Ferris�s central theme, the interplay of mind and cosmos, or what
John Dewey liked to call the interaction of an organism with its environment.
Philosophers from the Greeks on have wrestled with this theme, but in recent
years, because of the subjective aspect of QM (quantum mechanics), new
books on the theme are being written by both philosophers and scientists.
�Each of us inhabits two equally mysterious universes,� Ferris�s book
opens, �one outside the mind and the other within it.� His symbol for this
is an hourglass. The two bulbs are the two worlds. The flow of sand is the
passage of information in both directions through the point where the two
realms meet.
As one would expect from such a tall order, a wealth of relevant top-
ics is considered. Ferris accepts the view that mind is a function of a
material brain which harbors a variety of different kinds of intelligence.
(A chapter is devoted to the intelligence of such great athletes as quarter-
back Joe Montana.) The author strongly supports the search for ETI
(Extraterrestrial Intelligence). A chapter describes the latest work on VR
(Virtual Reality), a new computer technique that puts you inside a three-
dimensional world where you can walk about and move objects. Ferris
gives a dramatic account of how he once tramped around a sim (simula-
tion) of the surface of Mars.
Adopting a now fashionable point of view, Ferris sees information as
a fundamental category. (Earlier philosophers called it knowledge.) Any-
thing that can be quantified can be digitalized (as Leibniz recognized) by
the �bits� of a binary code. Ferris repeats physicist John Wheeler�s latest
aphorism, �It from bit,� in which �It� does double duty as IT, the acronym
This review first appeared in Book World (March 22, 1992). � 1996, Washington Post
Book World Service/Washington Post Writers Group. Reprinted with permission.
237
238 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
for Information Theory, and �it� for any particular thing. Ferris is worried
about how the growing information of science can be preserved in case
humanity vanishes. Fie envisions a vast interstellar network of records,
perhaps stored as VR programs, that the ETI can retrieve. We must, his
book concludes, �grow a forest of knowing among the stars.�
A chapter is devoted to �enlightenment,� the mood in which a person
is overwhelmed by a feeling of oneness with the cosmos or with God, and
to NDEs (Near-Death Experiences). The late British philosopher A. J.
Ayer is quoted on his bizarre NDE, even though afterward he remained
an atheist.
Why do we laugh? Ferris rightly calls this �a mystery within the
human brain as deep as anything we�ve found among the stars.� As with
most writers who struggle with this riddle, the author�s jokes are funny
but the mystery remains.
Ferris is good on the growing realization that catastrophes are essen-
tial to the process of evolution � the comet that may have felled the
dinosaurs, for example, and Stephen Gould�s �jump theory� of evolution.
Such catastrophes suggest to Ferris a Manicheism in which evil is as
essential as good, perhaps even destined to triumph. The destruction of
the Amazon�s rainforests gets another chapter, with excellent advice on
what can be done to prevent this catastrophe.
Ferris grows more metaphysical near the end, when he takes up the
bewildering paradoxes of QM. He approves of Wheeler�s dictum: �No
phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.� Of
course, the observer can be an instrument, such as a bubble chamber or a
recording device that �amplifies� quantum phenomena to the
macroworld. The catch is that such records are larger quantum systems.
According to QM, their wave functions do not �collapse� (do not become
�real�) until observed by a person. Alas, a person is also a quantum sys-
tem, not really real until observed by another person, and so on into an
awful infinite regress. Can the regress be stopped, as Bishop Berkeley
argued, by a God who is not a quantum system and thus can make the
entire universe real by observing it?
Ferris�s marvelous history of cosmology, Coming of Age in the Milky
Way, left no doubt that the Milky Way is �out there,� not something con-
jured up by our minds. Nevertheless, he keeps reminding us, there is a
sense in which the cosmos, as we know it, is a mental fabrication. �I don�t
mean that the universe doesn�t exist,� he hastens to add, �but merely that
the concept of a �universe� . . . must necessarily reside in the mind.�
True, but isn�t this a vacuous tautology? All ideas are in the mind, so
this adds up to the great assertion that what is inside a mind is inside a
mind. Obviously the universe in anyone�s brain is a poor, flawed model
Information Theory and the Universe 239
of the universe outside � a universe which science only dimly compre-
hends, and with levels it will never comprehend. The deeper secrets of
what Einstein called the Old One remain. In what sense is the mathemat-
ical structure of the universe mind independent? Does the moon exist
when no one observes it? If not, will a mouse looking at the moon, as Ein-
stein liked to ask, make the moon real?
Why does science, obviously a human endeavor, work so well? Why
are simpler hypotheses the best bets? Can a digital computer become so
complex that consciousness emerges? Are there moral laws binding on all
sentient creatures? Is free will an illusion? Is there a God, and if so, what
sort?
It is hard to see how information theory could ever shine a single
beam of light into these dark corners.
CHAPTER FORTY
MATHEMATICAL BEAUTY
AND CERTAINTY
C reative mathematicians seldom write for outsiders, but when they do
they usually do it well. Jerry King, a professor at Lehigh University,
Pennsylvania, is no exception. His informal, nontechnical book The Art of
Mathematics (Plenum, 1992), as the title implies, is organized around what
Bertrand Russell called the �supreme beauty� of mathematics � a beauty
�capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show.�
King sharpens C. P. Snow�s famous distinction between the two cul-
tures by making it a distinction between an M-culture (those who know
mathematics) and an N-culture (those who don�t). Widespread ignorance
of mathematics, he is convinced, springs mainly from incompetent
instructors of the young, often people who actively dislike what they
teach. King recalls amusing ways in which he was damaged by such
teachers until one fine day, almost by accident, he took a course in which
the beauty of calculus struck him like the light that felled Saul on his way
to Damascus.
King�s tour of his topic begins with the counting numbers, then takes
the reader painlessly through their generalizations to the rationals, the
reals, through imaginary and complex numbers, and into the wonders of
elementary geometry. He is good at conveying the supreme importance of
the concept of limit, and how it underlies both branches of calculus. A
drawing depicts the differential and integral calculus as two sides of a
great arch, each a mirror image of the other, held together by a capstone
that is the fundamental theorem of calculus. There is a long chapter on the
philosophy of aesthetics, and another on the reluctance of a mathematical
aristocracy to reform mathematical teaching.
King has nothing to say about recent developments such as computer
science, fractals, chaos theory, or topology with its spinoffs of graph and
knot theory. To go into these trends, however, would have defeated his
main purpose � to introduce low-level mathematics to readers who have
learned to hate the subject.
This review first appeared in Nature (July 2, 1992). Reprinted by permission from Nature
358, p. 28. Copyright � 1992 Macmillan Magazines Ltd.
240
Mathematical Beauty and Certainty 241
King avoids the trap of thinking that the discipline is infected by the
uncertainty of science. Pure mathematics, he makes clear, �lives� inside
formal systems. Given a system�s assumptions, theorems are not only
unassailable, they are the only kind of certainty we mortals have. King�s
answer to Pilate�s question is: �Truth is what you find at the end of a cor-
rect chain of arguments.�
The author quotes Einstein: �The reason why mathematics enjoys
special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely cer-
tain and indisputable, while those of all other sciences are to some extent
debatable.� Two plus two cannot be anything but four, but when one
applies this tautology to the world one has to invoke what the philosopher
Rudolf Carnap called �correspondence rules.� These are assumptions
such as that a pebble, a cow, or a star is taken as 1. If such equivalence is
not assumed, then 2 + 2 = 4 is violated by, for example, the fact that two
drops of water added to two drops makes one big drop. Nothing could be
simpler than this obvious distinction between pure and applied, yet some
philosophers and mathematicians, frightened by the word �truth,� seem
unable to grasp it.
King shares physicist Eugene Wigner�s puzzlement over the �unrea-
sonable effectiveness� of mathematics. This puzzlement puzzles me. Not
only is the Universe mathematically structured, it is made entirely of
mathematics. Matter consists of fields and their particles, which are not
made of anything except equations. What is so mysterious about the
application of these equations to a Universe from which our minds, in
turn made of mathematics, originally extracted them? If mathematical
patterns are not discovered, but are entirely human creations like poetry
and music, then their powerful effectiveness in science and technology is
indeed what Wigner called an undeserved miracle.
King is particularly fond of the poetry of Robert Frost. His poems
"stay with you because of their simplicity: you come back to them for
their depth Frost brought poetry to the multitudes; let�s now bring
them mathematics.� The Frosts of mathematics have yet to appear, but
King is �certain as sunrise� that they will some day revolutionize math-
ematical teaching.
The author has a romantic vision of himself as �an aging gunfighter,
walking alone the mean streets of academe.� His fire is aimed at a conser-
vative elite too self-absorbed in their specialized research to be much con-
cerned about the public�s growing mathematical illiteracy. The dull �cin-
der-block textbooks� get �clunkier.� Although their diagrams are splat-
tered with color, somehow the splendor of ideas behind the diagrams
remains as invisible as the textbook authors. Meanwhile the M- and N-cul-
tures �fly apart like galaxies on opposite sides of an expanding universe.�
CHAPTER FORTY-ONE
MORE SPECULATIONS
OF FREEMAN DYSON
F reeman Dyson, leading wise man at Princeton�s Institute for
Advanced Study, is always worth listening to, whether you are a
physicist reading one of his technical papers or a layman reading one of
his popular books. From Eros to Gaia (Pantheon, 1992), a selection of his
writings, opens with a fragment from an unfinished science-fiction novel
about a collision between the Moon and the asteroid Eros. Dyson wrote
it when he was nine. It is here to prove that he wanted to be a writer long
before he decided to become a physicist.
The book ends with a plea to preserve Gaia, James Lovelock�s poetic
name for Mother Earth, or run the risk of ending the human adventure.
Between Eros and Gaia we have the pleasure of learning Dyson�s opinions
about a wide diversity of topics: ecology, government funding of science,
�White Oliphants� (disastrous accelerator projects built by Mark
Oliphant), the vicissitudes of space flight, new methods of craft propul-
sion, strategic bombing, cosmic rays, quantum fields, and much more.
There are entertaining sketches of persons Dyson admires: Michael Pupin,
Robert Oppenheimer, Richard Feynman, Paul Dirac, Philip Morrison,
George Kennan, and Helen Dukas, the faithful keeper of Einstein�s papers.
Unlike most of his colleagues, Dyson is a pantheist convinced that the
human adventure has a transcendent purpose, albeit one totally beyond
our grasp. It is this strong sense of mystery about existence that makes it
impossible for Dyson to share the dreary opinion of Stephen Hawking
and others that physics is about to discover everything. We see only the
shadows in Plato�s cave. The more powerful coming telescopes and par-
ticle accelerators, Dyson believes, are sure to reveal unexpected horizons.
�There is no illusion more dangerous,� he writes, �than the belief that the
progress of science is predictable.�
One of the most surprising aspects of science is the eerie way math-
ematical structures, discovered with no thought of how they might apply
to nature or technology, will suddenly turn out to be enormously useful.
This review first appeared in Book World (July 5, 1992). � 1996, Washington Post Book
World Service/Washington Post Writers Group. Reprinted with permission.
242
More Speculations of Freeman Dyson 243
In a chapter defending unfashionable research by mavericks, Dyson
speaks of the recent discovery of a bizarre structure in the class of �spo-
radic groups.� It has been dubbed �the Monster� because it requires fifty-
four digits to express its number of elements, and because it describes the
symmetry of how hyperspheres can be close-packed in a space of 196,883
dimensions. Smaller sporadic groups have already found applications in
designing error-correcting codes, but is there anything in the universe that
the Monster models?
�We should always be prepared for surprises,� Dyson writes. �I have
a sneaking hope, a hope unsupported by any facts or any evidence, that
sometime in the twenty-first century physicists will stumble upon the
Monster group, built in some unsuspected way into the structure of the
universe. This is only a wild speculation. The only argument I can pro-
duce in its favor is a theological one. We have strong evidence that the
creator of the universe loves symmetry, and if he loves symmetry, what
lovelier symmetry could he find than the symmetry of the Monster?�
To me the book�s most interesting chapter is about Paul Dirac, Eng-
land�s great architect of quantum mechanics. There are, Dyson tells us,
two ways to do physics. The bottom-up style starts with empirical results,
then invents laws and theories to explain them. The top-down style pays
little attention to experiments. Instead of deducing laws and theories from
facts, one starts with a gut feeling about nature, akin to religious faith,
then constructs a broad, elegant theory from which laws of nature can be
deduced. Like Newton and Einstein, Dirac was a superb top-downer.
Dyson quotes from one of Dirac�s marvelous lectures:
�We don�t really know what the basic equations of physics are, but
they have to have great mathematical beauty Mathematical beauty
transcends . . . personal factors. It is the same in all countries and at all
periods of time. ... In fact one can feel so strongly about these things that
when an experimental result turns up which is not in agreement with
one�s beliefs, one may perhaps make the prediction that the experimental
result is wrong. . . .�
Exactly this happened to Einstein�s relativity, and to several of
Dirac�s major conjectures. For a while, a flurry of experiments seemed to
contradict both scientists, but it soon turned out that the experiments were
flawed. Someone once asked Einstein how he would feel if relativity
were ever refuted. He replied, only half in jest, that he would feel sorry
for the Lord.
One of the great achievements of modem quantum theory has been
quantum electrodynamics, developed by Feynman and Julian Schwinger
from earlier work by Dirac. Its ability to predict quantum effects is spec-
tacular, but essential to the theory is a sneaky trick called renormalization
244 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
that gets rid of unwanted infinites. Dyson once asked Dirac for his opin-
ion of this development. �I might have thought that the new ideas were
correct,� Dirac replied, �if they had not been so ugly.� At present, nature
seems to prefer ugly renormalization methods, but Dyson wisely adds
that quantum electrodynamics is not a closed system. New perspectives
may make the ugly tricks superfluous.
The latest example of top-down physics is the theory of superstrings,
in which pointlike particles such as electrons and quarks are actually
inconceivably tiny closed loops whose vibrations generate the particle�s
properties. So far, not only does superstring theory lack an empirical
basis, defenders cannot even imagine how it could be confirmed. An
extreme example of Diracian top-down Platonism, it is supported solely
by what Dyson calls its �incomparable beauty.�
�We must admire the courage and skill of the superstring fraternity,�
Dyson comments, �even if we do not share their faith. Perhaps Nature will
in the end smile upon their efforts, as she smiled upon Dirac�s electron.�
RICHARD FEYNMAN, MAGICIAN
T here have been two earlier books about the remarkable life of Richard
Feynman, but they were little more than anecdotes based on conver-
sations with Feynman and his friends. The stories were amusing because
Feynman was, in words that James Gleick takes from physicist Freeman
Dyson, �half genius and half buffoon.� Not until now have we been given
a full account of Feynman�s extraordinary career and no less extraordi-
nary personality.
Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (Pantheon, 1992)
is a splendidly written, scrupulously documented biography of one of the
most creative and influential of modern physicists. James Gleick, a for-
mer New York Times reporter still in his thirties, never met Feynman, but
he seems to have read every relevant book, every paper and personal let-
ter and to have talked to everyone who ever knew Feynman. It was Gle-
ick �s previous book, Chaos: The Making of a New Science, that estab-
lished his reputation as a science writer. Although not a scientist himself,
he somehow managed to acquire enough knowledge of modem math-
ematics and physics to explain chaos theory, and now he provides a read-
able, accurate account of Feynman�s great contributions to quantum
mechanics.
Gleick cites the mathematician Mark Kac�s useful distinction
between two kinds of genius: the ordinary and the magicians. �An ordi-
nary genius is a fellow that you and I would be just as good as, if we were
only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works.
_... It is different with the magicians . . . the working of their minds is for
all intents and purposes incomprehensible. Even after we understand
what they have done, the process by which they have done it is com-
pletely dark.�
Edison was an ordinary genius. Newton, Einstein, and Feynman were
magicians. As a boy, Richard loved to solve mathematical puzzles. As an
adult, he saw the universe as a monstrous conglomeration of difficult puz-
This review first appeared in the Raleigh, N.C., News and Observer, October 25, 1992.
245
246 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
zles � perhaps unified by a single Theory of Everything, perhaps not � to
be tackled for the sheer fun of solving. His greatest achievements were
cracking problems in quantum electrodynamics, the study of how relativ-
ity applies to electromagnetism. For this work he shared the 1965 Nobel
prize with Julian Schwinger and Shin�ichiro Tomonaga.
To calculate a particle�s path, Feynman devised a bizarre technique
called �sum over histories.� It assumes that a particle can take any possi-
ble path. As he explained it to Freeman Dyson, �The electron does any-
thing it likes. It just goes in any direction at any speed, forward or back-
ward in time, however it likes, and then you add up the amplitudes and it
gives you the wave function.� In other words, it gives the particle�s most
probable path.
In this view a photon of light can bounce off a mirror at any possible
angle. Because there are billions of photons in a light beam, almost all of
them take the most probable path, one that minimizes their time to go
from here to there. Billions of electrons are in the beam that scans a tele-
vision screen. They can hit the screen anywhere, but their most probable
paths are toward the pixel (point on the screen) at which the beam is
aimed.
Physicists at first thought Feynman�s idea of sum over histories crazy,
a view Feynman himself never abandoned. In his book Q.E.D. (the
acronym for Quantum Electrodynamics), you will find him calling it
crazy, peculiar, absurd, strange, magical, absolutely ridiculous, and wild
and wonderful. �I don�t understand it,� he confessed. �Nobody does.�
Indeed, Feynman looked upon all of quantum mechanics as crazy magic.
Another of Feynman�s contributions to quantum mechanics was what
are now called Feynman graphs � ways of diagramming particle interac-
tions with little zigzag arrows. The graphs are equivalent to algebraic
methods, but more efficient to use. In a Feynman graph a positron is an
electron moving backward in time. The graphs were not based on a new
theory so much as on what Gleick calls a shift in vision, a novel but use-
ful way to describe quantum events.
Feynman�s longtime rival, Julian Schwinger, refused to use Feynman
graphs. He thought them too ugly. Gleick quotes Murray Gell-Mann, the
discoverer of quarks, as saying that he once spent a semester in
Schwinger�s house. He searched it carefully for traces of Feynman graphs
without finding any � but one room, he cryptically added, was locked.
All the familiar anecdotes and legends about Feynman are retold in
Gleick �s book in colorful detail: his expertise on the bongo drums, his
exploits at Los Alamos as a lock picker and safecracker, his thousand-dol-
lar prize (which he paid) for a working motor smaller than a V 64 -inch
cube, his endless practical jokes, his fantastic speed in mental calculation,
Richard Feynman, Magician 247
his classification of 4-F after flippant responses to an army psychiatrist,
his co-invention of hexaflexagons � weird paper strips colored and folded
into hexagonal forms that change color when flexed.
Feynman�s one great romance was with his first wife, Arline Green-
baum. Because she had tuberculosis, they did not kiss on the lips when
they married. After Arline �s death in an Albuquerque sanitarium, Feynman
became an uninhibited, at times cruel, womanizer. Gleick spares no
details. He dated undergraduates, paid prostitutes, and slept with the wives
of friends. The affairs often ended bitterly.
Feynman�s second marriage was to Mary Louise Ball, a Kansas
woman he had met in a cafeteria while teaching at Cornell. When Cal
Tech hired him (it was rumored that the university needed someone capa-
ble of conversing with Gell-Mann), she pursued him to Pasadena. The
marriage ended in divorce four years later. Mary told the court she could-
n�t abide the sound of bongo drums, and said Richard was less interested
in her than in doing calculus in his head. Feynman�s last marriage, to
Gweneth Howard, from Yorkshire, England, was happier. They raised a
son and an adopted daughter.
Feynman was born in 1918 in Far Rockaway, New York. His parents
were atheists, and he shared their view until his death in 1988 from stom-
ach cancer. He made a scene at his father�s burial by angrily accusing the
officiating rabbi of hypocrisy in his graveside tribute. After Feynman�s
own death a heartrending letter (Gleick gives it in full) was found that
Feynman had written to Arline two years after she died. It recalls many
happy things they had done together, then closes:
My darling wife, I do adore you. I love my wife. My wife is dead.
Please excuse my not mailing this � but I don�t know your new address.
CHAPTER FORTY-THREE
IS THE SECOND COMING COMING?
F or Christians who think the Bible is without error, verses in which
Jesus predicts his early return are not easy to explain. In Matthew 24,
Mark 13, and Luke 21, after describing a darkening of the sun and moon,
and stars falling, Jesus adds: �this generation shall not pass� until he
comes to earth once more.
Did Jesus mean the generation of his listeners? That he did is surely
clear by his remark, in the same three gospels (Matthew 16, Mark 9, and
Luke 9), �There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till
they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.�
When Jesus� generation ended with no sign of his return, believers
were obliged to concoct ingenious ways to escape the obvious intent of his
words. The most fantastic explanation was that Jesus� generation had, in
fact, not entirely passed away. Because he mocked Jesus when the Lord
was carrying the cross, the so-called Wandering Jew was doomed to live
on until Judgment Day. The most bizarre way out was the notion that the
disciple John was sleeping underground in a state of suspended animation.
Some Bible scholars slyly reasoned that �this generation� referred to
those who at some far future time would witness the �signs� immediately
preceding the Second Coming. (Seventh-day Adventists identified the
falling stars with the great meteoric shower of 1833, but after a century
had passed they quietly dropped this from their literature.) Others decided
that the Second Advent occurred when Jesus was transfigured. Augustine
identified Christ�s return with the Holy Spirit�s coming at Pentecost, dis-
tinguishing this from a final judgment at the end of history. Augustine�s
way out soon became the Roman church�s dominant view. It explains
why Catholic priests today are not thundering about Armageddon.
Because no century of the Christian era has been free of believers
insisting fervently that the Second Coming was just around the corner,
one might suppose that today�s evangelists would be uncomfortable about
warning their flock to prepare for the Rapture � being lifted into the
This review first appeared in Book World (November 8, 1992). � 1996, Washington Post
Book World Service/Washington Post Writers Group. Reprinted with permission.
248
Is the Second Coming Coming? 249
clouds to meet Jesus. But few fundamentalists have any sense of history,
although they have finally learned the folly of specifying the year of the
Lord�s return.
Excellent books have been written about the sad history of biblical
prophecy, and the mysterious significance of 666, the number of the
Antichrist, but not until now has anyone covered in such vast detail the
eschatologies of America�s present believers. Paul Boyer, a historian at
the University of Wisconsin, takes his book�s title, When Time Shall Be
No More, from the old hymn that begins, �When the trumpet of the Lord
shall sound, and time shall be no more.� His book, published by Harvard
University Press (1992), is a splendid, rigorously documented treatise, as
up to date as the morning newspaper.
All the famous televangelists are covered: Billy Graham, Jimmy
Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Jack Van Impe, and
dozens of others whose knowledge of modern biblical criticism can be
scribbled on a file card. You will learn the doctrines of our nation�s lead-
ing Adventist movements: Shakerism, Mormonism, Seventh-day Adven-
tism, Jehovah�s Witnesses, and Herbert Armstrong�s comic Worldwide
Church of God. A 1983 Gallup poll, Boyer discloses, reported that 63 per-
cent of Americans had �no doubts� about the Lord�s soon return.
Mainline denominations continue to decline while evangelical
churches, preaching the Rapture and eternal hell for the unsaved, are on
the upswing. In small Madison, Wisconsin, Boyer counted more than fifty
such churches, and seven evangelical bookstores. �All America, not one
region,� he writes, �is a Bible Belt.� Fifty percent of college graduates
expect Jesus to be here any day now. We are, says Boyer, almost unique
in the Western world in combining high educational levels with high lev-
els of bibliolatry.
Historians differ on the extent to which the year 1000 sparked Second
Coming mania, but there is no doubt that the approach of 2000 is having
this effect. Hal Lindsey�s Late Great Planet Earth, Boyer reminds us, by
1990 had sold twenty-eight million copies, and no less a skeptic than
Orson Welles narrated its movie version. Lindsey has since repeated his
gory warnings in half a dozen other profitable volumes. For a while, such
potboilers were issued only by small fundamentalist houses west of the
Hudson, but it wasn�t long until greedy New York publishers discovered
the gold. Bantam took over Lindsey�s preposterous best-seller. ABC ac-
quired Word Books. Harper and Row bought Zondervan for $57 million.
Hollywood also leaped into the fray with movies such as The Omen,
Damien-Omen II, The Final Conflict, The Seventh Sign, The Rapture, and
many others. Rock and pop songs about the Apocalypse continue to pro-
liferate. Bumper stickers read, �Beam Me Up, Lord.� Boyer reproduces a
250 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
photograph of a watch that has on its face, �One Hour Nearer the Lord�s
Return.�
Boyer is good on covering the extent to which today�s believers have
latched onto nuclear war as the means by which God will precipitate the
final holocaust. Political bigwigs are not immune to such fears. Somehow
Ronald Reagan managed to combine his unscriptural faith in astrology
with anticipations of Armageddon. You�ll find his simple-minded pro-
nouncements in Boyer�s book. Who knows what professed born-againers
such as George Bush and Dan Quayle think about the Antichrist and
Armageddon? Marilyn Quayle, however, is on record as having been a
devotee of Col. Robert Thieme, Jr., a Houston Bible-thumper. Lindsey�s
The Road to Holocaust is dedicated to Thieme.
Caspar Weinberger once said he believed the world would end �by an
act of God, I hope � but every day I think time is running out.� Interior
Secretary James Watts justified his soft stand on the environment by say-
ing he didn�t �know how many future generations we can count on before
the Lord returns.� Surgeon General C. Everett Koop is another �premil-
lennialist� � one who believes the Second Advent will precede, not fol-
low, the millennium.
No book provides more comprehensive information about the awe-
some degree to which biblical literalism and prophetic fervor have
invaded the hearts and minds of Americans, rich and poor, educated and
ignorant. It will not alter the convictions of a single believer. Others who
read the book can laugh and weep.
Matthew 24:29 says the darkening of the sun and moon, and the
falling of stars, will precede the Second Coming of Christ. Early Seventh-
day Adventists took these prophecies to be fulfilled by the �dark day� in
New England, May 19, 1780, and the great meteoric shower of Novem-
ber 13, 1833. The illustration is from J. H. Waggoner�s From Eden to
Eden, published by the Adventist�s Pacific Press in 1888. Today�s Adven-
tists no longer refer to either event as signs of the immanence of the Sec-
ond Coming.
�The Falling of the Stars.� From J. H. Waggoner, From Eden to Eden
( 1888 ).
CHAPTER FORTY-FOUR
DO HUMANS
SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUST?
H ere we go again � another worthless book pandering to public obses-
sion with the paranormal. The authors of Spontaneous Human Com-
bustion (Robert Hale, 1992), Jenny Randles and Peter Hough, have sepa-
rately and in tandem perpetrated previous books about UFOs, crop cir-
cles, witchcraft, and similar wonders. In this book they do their best to
persuade readers that there have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of
cases of people bursting into flames from causes science cannot fathom.
The simplest explanation of most such burnings is that victims fall
asleep, often while intoxicated, and set fire to their clothes with a ciga-
rette, cigar, or pipe. If elderly, fat, and dehydrated, and given sufficient
time, almost all of the body can be reduced to ashes. Because the media
love to sensationalize, sometimes to lie, the myth of spontaneous human
combustion continues to thrive.
Not a single chemist or physicist of repute is cited in this shameful book,
and for an obvious reason. None believes that a human body can sponta-
neously catch fire. Virtually all the periodicals cited in the book are not sci-
entific journals but obscure fringe magazines devoted to the paranormal.
The authors discuss a variety of ways in which a body might ignite
apart from contact with such things as burning cigarettes and fireplaces.
Perhaps ball lightning enters a room to smite the victim. Static electricity?
(The authors call this a �shocking suggestion.�) Forcefields from high ten-
sion wires? Psychic curses from enemies? Poltergeists? �Kundalini fire,�
an energy that Yogis claim pervades a person�s astral body? One
�researcher� thinks the body may contain a subatomic particle � he calls it
a �pyrotron� � that undergoes a chain reaction unknown to physicists.
The authors take seriously what they call a �phosphinic fart.� That
expelled gas is highly inflammable is easily demonstrated. Could it be,
the authors wonder, that such gas might float up through clothing to be
fired by a cigarette?
This review first appeared in Nature (November 26, 1992). Reprinted by permission from
Nature 360, p. 283. Copyright � 1992 Macmillan Magazines Ltd.
252
Do Humans Spontaneously Combust? 253
The sole merits of this preposterous book are that it catalogues more
than a hundred alleged cases of spontaneous human combustion, cites
earlier books even worse than this one, and briefly considers cases of the
phenomenon in fiction. The earliest example is in Charles Brockton
Brown�s novel Wieland. Others include Captain Marryat�s Jacob Faith-
ful, Herman Melville�s Redburn, and Emile Zola�s Le Docteur Pascal.
The most famous instance is the spontaneous human combustion of a
drunken Mr. Krook in Charles Dickens�s Bleak House. Dickens was
soundly trounced by George Henry Lewes, George Eliot�s live-in lover,
for treating spontaneous human combustion as a fact. (See Blackwood�s
Edinburgh Magazine 89 [April 1861].) Their debate was notable among
the many controversies about the subject that raged in nineteenth-century
England.
The jacket of Spontaneous Human Combustion shows a grisly pho-
tograph of the remains of Mary Reeser, a plump sixty-seven-year-old res-
ident of St. Petersburg, Florida, who burned to death in 1951. The authors
devote a chapter to this most famous of all modern cases. When Mrs.
Reeser caught fire, she had not eaten dinner, was wearing a flammable
nightgown, had taken two Seconal tablets, and was smoking a cigarette.
When her son kissed her goodnight before leaving, she said she intended
to take two more sleeping pills. Not until the following morning were her
ashes found. The well-stuffed chair in which she sat was also consumed.
The authors cannot imagine why the house did not burn down, ignoring
the fact that the floor was concrete and a ceiling beam was burning when
firemen arrived.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation�s laboratory report on the case,
based on many similar investigations, stated: �Once the body starts to
burn there is enough fat and other inflammable substances to permit vary-
ing amounts of destruction to take place. Sometimes this destruction by
burning will proceed to a degree which results in almost complete com-
bustion of the body.� Yet the authors strive valiantly to avoid the obvious
and to convince readers that something strange and inexplicable had
felled Mrs. Reeser.
Why are cases of alleged spontaneous human combustion so much
rarer today than in past centuries? Because reporting is more accurate and
forensic methods have improved. In 1982 the U.S. press had a field day
when a Chicago woman was said to have burst into flames while walking
along a street. When a medical examiner investigated, he found that the
woman had been dead for twelve hours, and her clothes doused with
gasoline.
On their last page the authors conclude that spontaneous human com-
bustion is �triggered by forces that are just as puzzling to us as electricity
254 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
was to Leonardo da Vinci. Yet, like electricity, it is probably a natural �
not supernatural � energy dormant in our midst. If we can learn to tap into
it, to harness its raw power and perhaps control its anger, then who knows
what advantages it might bring to our children?�
Elsewhere, indulging in another pun, the authors call the �mystery� a
�burning question� for modern science. It is not a burning question. It is
not even a question. Not a single textbook on forensic medicine written
this century considers the phenomenon a possible cause of death. The
only burning question is how today�s cynical publishers can maintain a
clear conscience when they flood the market with absurd potboilers
solely for the purpose of extracting money from an ill-informed, gullible
public.
ADDENDUM
Of recent writings about SHC (spontaneous human combustion) I will
cite a few references of special interest.
One of the most naive articles defending SHC appeared, in of all
magazines, Science Digest (October 1981). Larry E. Arnold called his
article �Human Fireballs.� The editors say he is working on a book titled
Ablaze! The Incredible Mystery of Spontaneous Human Combustion. As
far as I know, it has not been published.
Michael Harrison�s Fire from Heaven (Methuen, 1977) is even worse
than the book I reviewed. Harrison links SHC to all sorts of paranormal
phenomena. That poltergeists are responsible in some cases, he says, �is
now beyond question.� A prolific British author, Harrison is an expert on
Sherlock Holmes, about whom he has written or edited several books. An
expert on science he is not.
Two articles highly recommended are:
Joe Nickell and John Fischer, �Incredible Cremations,� in the Skepti-
cal Inquirer (Summer 1987). See also the letters section of the Winter
1987-88 issue.
Warren S. Walker, �Lost Liquor Lore: The Blue Flame of Intemper-
ance,� in the Journal of Popular Culture 16 (1987): 17-25. Walker
stresses how America�s temperance movement promoted myths about
SHC being caused by heavy boozing.
CHAPTER FORTY-FIVE
WILL SCIENCE
DISCOVER EVERYTHING?
T~\ reams of a Final Theory (Pantheon, 1993) is an unusually well writ-
-Ls ten and informative account of the search for nature�s final laws. Its
author, Steven Weinberg, is one of the world�s most creative theoretical
physicists. In 1979 he shared a Nobel prize with Pakistani Abdus Salam
and his former high school chum Sheldon Glashow for unifying two fun-
damental forces of nature � the weak force and electromagnetism.
In our cold universe those two forces are distinct, but when the uni-
verse was very much hotter they were almost certainly one and the same.
No one yet knows why, as the universe froze, the beautiful symmetry of
the electroweak force broke in half. The most likely theory is that the
break was caused by a field known as the Higgs field.
Wether or not a Higgs field, with its quantized particle, actually exists
may soon be answered if the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) is
built south of Dallas. This fifty-three-mile oval tunnel, to cost at least $8
billion, would be the world�s most powerful particle accelerator. . . .
Weinberg makes strong arguments for the SSC�s cost effectiveness, and
they are summarized in his final chapter.
Although philosophy may have played a positive role in the work of
Einstein, Heisenberg, and others, it has, in Weinberg�s opinion, done
more harm to science than good. Particularly baleful, he argues, was an
early, crude version of positivism that prevented many eminent physicists
from regarding unobservable entities as �real.� The most flagrant exam-
ple was the refusal of the Austrian physicist Ernst Mach, who had so
strong an influence on Einstein, to admit the reality of atoms or to accept
the unobservable fields of general relativity.
Despite his negative view of philosophy, Weinberg devotes more
attention to metaphysics than most of his colleagues. Like almost all
physicists he is a hard-nosed realist, with little use for sociologists of sci-
ence and New Age thinkers and writers who deny there is a structured
world �out there,� independent of human observation. �The experience of
This review first appeared in Book World (January 31, 1993). � 1996, Washington Post
Book World Service/Washington Post Writers Group. Reprinted with permission.
255
256 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
listening to a discussion of quantum field theory or weak interactions in
a seminar room in Tsukuba or Bombay,� he writes, �gives me a powerful
impression that the laws of physics have an existence of their own.�
The fact that for the past hundred years not a single fundamental theory
of physics has been refuted suggests strongly to Weinberg that science is
moving closer to objective truth, that its progress is not like changes in the
fashions of dress. �A party of mountain climbers may argue over the best
path to the peak, and these arguments may be conditioned by the history and
social structure of the expedition, but in the end either they find a good path
to the peak or they do not, and when they get there they know it.�
Another source of antagonism toward science is the appalling growth
of pseudosciences promoted by those who, in Weinberg�s happy phrase,
have �holistics in their heads.� Why do scientists spend so little time try-
ing to counter such nonsense? Weinberg�s answer is straightforward:
Suppose that someone today reported evidence that there are seven
golden cities somewhere in modern Texas. Would you open-mindedly
recommend mounting an expedition to search every corner of the state
between the Red River and the Rio Grande to look for these cities? 1
think you would make the judgment that we already know so much
about Texas, so much of it has been explored and settled, that it is sim-
ply not worthwhile to look for mysterious golden cities. In the same
way, our discovery of the connected and convergent pattern of scientific
explanations has done the very great service of teaching us that there is
no room in nature for astrology or telekinesis or creationism or other
superstitions.
Earlier physicists predicted prematurely that all the basic laws of sci-
ence were about to become known. Weinberg is convinced, along with
Stephen Hawking, that the spectacular progress of particle theory has
made such a prediction more reasonable now than before. Obviously, if
�dreams of a final theory� come true science will not end. There will be
countless future discoveries � understanding how galaxies form, how
evolution works, the nature of mind, and so on. There will be awesome
technical inventions to be made and a monstrous universe to explore. But
Weinberg hopes and believes that we will soon know all the fundamental
laws � laws that cannot be explained by more basic ones. The final TOE
(Theory of Everything) will be a thing of fantastic beauty and rigidity,
�like a piece of fine porcelain that cannot be warped without shattering.�
Physicists appear to Weinberg like early geographical explorers,
filled with wonder about unknown regions. Their wonder vanished when
the entire earth became known and there was nothing left to find north or
Will Science Discover Everything? 257
south of the poles. This analogy can be turned around. Beyond the poles
are all the wonders of a vast, dimly comprehensible universe. Weinberg
himself speculates that our world may be only a bubble in an infinite sea
of bubbles, each an entire universe with its own unique laws. Many physi-
cists think the universe has infinite levels of structure, with enormous sur-
prises ahead that no living scientist can even imagine. They suspect that
the TOE is attached to an as yet invisible foot, in turn attached to who
knows what?
Perhaps it is no accident that physicists who see a big TOE protrud-
ing around the corner, the way fundamentalists see signs of the Second
Coming, are reluctant to attribute the universe to the work of a transcen-
dentally Great Mathematician. Weinberg finds Einstein�s God of Spinoza,
like the pale god of liberal Christians, too �vague� to be relevant. He
prefers that the word God be restricted to a deity concerned about human
history. Like many other atheists, his main reason for rejecting such a
God is the existence of irrational evil. He doesn�t quote Marlene Dietrich,
but she put it crisply: �If there is a supreme being, he must be crazy.�
Weinberg sees no sign in nature of a higher power interested even slightly
in the lives of you and me. In this sense, as he said before in his popular
book The First Three Minutes, the universe seems pointless.
Like Bertrand Russell and other eminent secular humanist thinkers,
Weinberg admits that atheism is a cold, sad way to view existence. How-
ever, he concludes in his chapter �What About God?� even though athe-
ism �is only a thin substitute for the consolations of religion, it is not
entirely without satisfactions of its own.�
ADDENDUM
Much to the dismay of physicists, Congress has cut off all funds for the
SSC (Superconducting Super Collider), and there are no signs they will
soon be restored.
Of many reviews of Weinberg�s book, particularly significant is one
by Roger Penrose in the New York Review of Books (October 21, 1993).
Penrose is convinced that if the SSC is ever built, it will not get us much
closer to any sort of final theory. �Perhaps what it may tell us will shock
those who most strongly support the continuation of the SSC project. Per-
haps the symmetry of the current electroweak theory is not fundamental,
and there is no proper Higgs particle. I would myself hope that this is the
case.�
CHAPTER FORTY-SIX
TUNNELS OF THE MIND
C ognitive psychologists study how we think and make decisions. In
recent decades they have devised a vast array of confusing questions
that most people answer incorrectly because of their poor grasp of logic
and probability theory. The correct answers are so counterintuitive that
they arouse strong emotions of disbelief comparable to those produced by
familiar optical illusions.
Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, a cognitive psychologist at the Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology, has written a delightful informal survey
of what are known as �cognitive illusions.� His book (Wiley, 1995) is
titled Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds.
Such illusions arise, he says, because of curious blind spots, or mental
tunnels, in our minds. Moreover, these tunnels often seriously distort our
thinking in such areas as law, politics, economics, and medical statistics.
The author�s example of what he calls a �super tunnel� is a notorious
brain teaser involving elementary probability. It generated such a storm
of controversy when Marilyn vos Savant published it in her Parade mag-
azine column that the New York Times (July 21, 1991) reported the fuss
on its front page. We can model the problem with three playing cards, one
of which is an ace. The operator of the game shuffles the cards and places
them face down. You put your finger on a card. The probability you have
chosen the ace clearly is V y
Suppose the operator, who knows where the ace is, removes a card that
is not the ace. Two cards remain. Most people believe that the probability
your finger is on the ace has now risen to V T Wrong! It remains V y Even
more amazing is the fact that if you shift your finger to the other card, the
chance it is the ace doubles to 2 / y Savant was bombarded with thousands of
letters, some from leading mathematicians, objecting to her correct answer.
Piattelli-Palmarini has a raft of other instances where intuitions lead
one astray. Which is larger, the set of all seven-letter words ending with
This review first appeared in Nature (March 2, 1995). Reprinted by permission from
Nature 374, p. 25. Copyright � 1995 Macmillan Magazines Ltd.
258
Tunnels of the Mind 259
�ing� or the set of all such words with �i� in the fifth position? Obviously
the second set is larger because it includes the first, yet on actual tests
most people guess the other way.
Consider this statement:
Steve is very shy and withdrawn, invariably helpful, but with little inter-
est in people or in the world of reality. A meek and tidy soul, he has a
need for order and structure, and a passion for detail.
Which is more likely, that Steve is a librarian or a farmer? Most peo-
ple pick librarian. Their blind spot is letting a librarian stereotype over-
ride the fact that there are far more farmers than librarians.
This neglect of background statistics is involved in other classics of
cognitive research. A laboratory test is 79 percent accurate in detecting a
certain disease. The disease is known to affect only 1 percent of the pop-
ulation. If you test positive, what is the probability you have the disease?
The correct answer, which the author says can be established by Bayes�s
theorem (to which he devotes an informative chapter) is 8 percent! Our
intuition, we are told, is faulty because we have failed to consider the
background information.
Are the cognitive psychologists right on this one? Let�s raise the
accuracy of the test to 100 percent. Surely the background information is
now totally irrelevant. Why would it become relevant if the test were, say,
99 percent accurate?
The most tireless researchers on cognitive illusions are Amos Tver-
sky, at Stanford University, and Daniel Kahneman, at Princeton. Is Piat-
telli-Palmarini right in saying their discoveries are so revolutionary that
they deserve the Nobel prize in economics? Or should we agree with their
leading detractor, the German psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer? He and oth-
ers argue that the tricky problems posed by cognitive-illusion researchers
represent rare, carefully contrived instances where intuitions are indeed
unsound, but that their work on such illusions is making mountains out of
molehills.
Whatever the case, Inevitable Illusions is the best popular book yet in
this peculiar field. It will be of as much interest to recreational math-
ematicians as to psychologists and general readers.
ADDENDUM
Some notion of how vague nouns are can be gained from studies reported
by Piattelli-Palmarini showing that most people say a sparrow is more
260 Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic
�typical� of a bird than a toucan or a penguin. They also report on tests
that 7 is more typical of an odd number than, say 51, and 4 is more typi-
cal of an even number than, say, 196. An apple is more typical of a fruit
than a coconut, a truck is more typical of a vehicle than an elevator, and
so on. Obviously such statements merely reflect the way words are com-
monly used, yet no less than seven cognitive psychologists have pub-
lished research along these lines!
I don�t want readers to think I doubted the paradox about drug test-
ing. Indeed, I gave a variation of this paradox as Problem 26 in my Rid-
dles of the Sphinx. Brian A. Kennedy, vice president and treasurer of Blue
Cross-Blue Shield of Illinois, explained the situation very clearly in the
following letter:
I was delighted by your �cognitive illusions� review of the Piattelli-Pal-
marini book.
Were you yourself playfully practicing a little cognitive sleight of
hand? You appeared to hesitate � using two question marks in a three-
sentence paragraph that cries out for periods.
You correctly point out that if the accuracy of a test is 100 percent,
then �the background information is now totally irrelevant.� However,
you then ask, �why would it become relevant if the test was, say, 99 per-
cent accurate?�
Here is why. Let the population be 10,000, of whom 1 percent have
a disease. So 100 persons are sick, and 9,900 persons are well.
If the test is 100 percent accurate, then by definition the test will
identify 100 percent of the above 100 as sick, i.e., 100 persons; and the
test will identify zero percent of the above 9,900 as sick, i.e., zero per-
sons. If this test says that you are sick, believe it.
However, if the test is 99 percent accurate, then by definition the
test will identify 99 percent of the 100 as sick, i.e., 99 persons; and the
test will identify 1 percent of the 9,900 as sick, i.e., another 99 persons.
If this test says that you are sick, then you are one of either 99 sick peo-
ple or 99 well people.
The blind spot is to fixate on the seemingly minuscule 1 percent
reduction (from the full 100 percent, to a still massive 99 percent). Actu-
ally, of course, a mere 1 percent of a large number can be (and is here)
nonnegligible.
With �background statistics� (conditional probabilities � Bayes�s
theorem), it is sound practice to tabulate the calculated numbers into
rows and columns, with cross-footed subtotals that sum to the popula-
tion�s grand total (here, 10,000). This low but solid methodology auto-
matically protects the researcher. It gives the blind spot no place to hide.
Gardner�s reviews are also wide-rang-
ing and cover books by such famous scien-
tists and authors as Sheldon Glashow, Heinz
Pagels, Stephen Jay Gould, Joseph Camp-
bell, and Freeman Dyson. Topics include
modern cosmology, superstring theory, math-
ematical beauty, archeological nonsense, how
to make a PPO (Permanent Paranormal Ob-
ject), the role of symmetry in science and
art, and the theology of astronomers.
No one is writing about such topics
with greater authority, wit, and knowledge
than Gardner. Americans need to listen to
his voice of sanity amid the deafening bab-
ble of the gullible.
MARTIN GARDNER, a fellow of the
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of
Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), au-
thored the �Mathematical Games� column
in Scientific American for many years. Among
his many books are Science : Good, Bad and
Bogus -, The New Age: Notes of a Fringe Watcher,
On the Wild Side: The Big Bang, ESP, The Beast
666, Levitation, Rainmaking, Trance-Channel-
ing, Seances and Ghosts, and More-, and Urantia:
The Great Cult Mystery.
Jacket design by Kevin Miller
�Embarrassed and offended by [Margaret] Mead's constant questions
about sex, a taboo topic in Samoa, the two merry companions decid-
ed to play on Mead what they thought would be a harmless joke. Such
pranks on outsiders were and are a common form of Samoan fun. The
two girls had no inkling that Mead was an anthropologist who would
go home and write a book about what they told her. To them she was
just a young, naive, meddlesome tourist .... With sidelong glances
at each other, and lots of giggling, the two merry companions told
Mead everything she wanted to hear."
From �MARGARET MEAD�S GREAT SAMOAN HOAX�
�No one denies that children are molested, but memories of events
that never happened are easily fabricated in the minds of suggestible
patients by techniques that include hypnotism, regression therapy,
drugs, dream interpretation, and guided imagery. These fake memories
become so vivid that patients who acquire them make enormously con-
vincing court witnesses. Jurors tend to believe them rather than the
expected denials of those accused. The result: an epidemic of wrong
convictions and a mass hysteria that is now far more extensive than
the old Salem witch-hunts.�
