# 13 things that do not make sense **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 22, 2006, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399 "2006-11-22T07:58:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399/41 "2006-12-05T03:57:23Z")
[QUOTE=KarlGauss] I don’t know if anyone’s still reading this thread, but still wanted to add that I think the homeopathy ‘results’ are, by far, the potentially most earth-shattering or paradigm shaking. In other words, all the other phenomena on the list, while not making sense, would “merely” require adjustmens and refinements to the current thinking in their respective areas. Such adjustments could be quite large, and call for a major overhaul of thinking, but still would all lie safely within the realm of established science. On the other hand, the homeopathy results, if true, would require not just some tinkering or extension of current thought, but would mandate the creation of an entirely new set of physical laws to account for the mechanism and behaviour of the findings (a set of laws that would be totally unique and without precedent in the area on which to build - indeed, the area wouldn’t have existed until that point). Not only would the laws governing them be entirely novel, but the processes, mechanisms, and phenomena they govern would, likewise, be unique. Such processes would have been completely unknown and unexpected prior to the validation of the relevant experimental results. The closest analogy I can think of is to imagine an experiment that convincingly showed the effectiveness of prayer to cure, say, cancer or a set of experiments that unequivocally prove the existence of ESP. Such experimental results would place you completely outside the realm of _all_ current science. [/QUOTE] Unfortunately (or fortunately), it seems like the more prosaic explaination of systematic error in the experiment design was the right one. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399/42 "2006-12-05T04:07:16Z")
Thanks. And you are, of course, absolutely right. Despite the verbosity of my post above, I neglected to say that although positive results for the homeopathy experiment would be the most earth shattering, I thought it far more likely that the whole thing would wind up being a big fat zero. Do you remember a paper from around 1990 that actually got published in _Nature_? The authors purported to have demonstrated much the same phenomena as what Ennis described in the New Scientist article. As I recall, even Randi got involved in the debunking of that Nature article. I’ll see if I can dig it up online. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399/43 "2006-12-05T04:08:38Z")
OK, [this isn’t the article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste), but it’ll do. ---
**Author:** ![stochastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@stochastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stochastic)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399/44 "2006-12-05T05:10:06Z")
I had the pleasure of working for several years with one of the engineers that built the biological detection hardware that performed the Viking martian soil experiments mentioned in the article. He even had a spare unit that he showed me; a true wonder of miniturization. He was steadfastly convinced that his instrument proved that life of some sort was present on Mars. In fact, he claimed the MS/GC actually returned ambiguous data, and not strictly negative data showing an absence of organics as stated in the article. He was particularly agitated that NASA hadn’t sent anymore landers to follow-up on these findings. I certainly hope that some future lander will provide this capability, for I think that finding definitive proof that extraterrestrial life exists would have a greater impact upon humankind than answering any of those other questions on the list. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399/45 "2006-12-05T05:30:28Z")
[This transcript](http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml) has a bit to do with Jacques Benveniste, Madeleine Ennis and James Randi. [This paper](http://www.hiscia.ch/infos/fachliteratur/Baumgartner/Guggisberg2005.pdf) (pdf) has the results of a meta-study which shows no further replication. ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399/46 "2006-12-05T18:45:57Z")
[QUOTE=stochastic] …\…for I think that finding definitive proof that extraterrestrial life exists would have a greater impact upon humankind than answering any of those other questions on the list. [/QUOTE] I just don’t see that. What practical impact would it have on our lives if we were to find out that at some point in ancient pre-history there were microscopic lifeforms on Mars? Compare that to cold-fusion. Maybe your point is that cold fusion will only ever impact our lives through magazine covers and such, but if it were possible it would have a major impact on the entire planet. How will finding life on Mars have a greater impact on humankind than finding a basic description of dark energy? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399/47 "2006-12-05T19:35:16Z")
> [@](#): > > How will finding life on Mars have a greater impact on humankind than finding a basic description of dark energy? Easy. Finding life on Mars would imply that the Universe is abundant with life. That would in turn suggest (though not prove) that there’s likely to be some other intelligent life within communications range. Some of those other intelligences are likely to be more advanced than us, so we could ask them for a description of dark energy, or whatever else we’re wondering about. ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399/48 "2006-12-05T20:48:14Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] \…Some of those other intelligences are likely to be more advanced than us, so we could ask them for a description of dark energy, or whatever else we’re wondering about. [/QUOTE] I’m developing the habit of asking whether or not people are serious. Are you serious? You want to ask a fossilized, single celled organism that’s probably hundreds of thousands of years old to describe dark energy? And why should they be more advanced than we are? I personally already believe that the Universe is abundant with life. Will finding some chemical trace of the surface of Mars mean that I won’t die of cancer or in a car crash? Will it pay for my kid’s college? (Barring the far fetched idea that I personally discover said chemical trace.) If we start sending messages into outer space asking for some help with these conundrums and the outer space life _is_ more advanced than we are, what are the odds that the space people won’t be a bunch of stuck up prigs who treat us like we’re stupid for not already understanding dark energy? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399/49 "2006-12-05T22:29:23Z")
[QUOTE=SiXSwordS] You want to ask a fossilized, single celled organism that’s probably hundreds of thousands of years old to describe dark energy? [/QUOTE] He didn’t say that the Martian life is who he would ask the question of. If life evolved independently on Mars, that indicates that probably life happens much more often that we had previously thought, greatly increasing the expected chance of finding other, intelligent, life close by. ---
**Author:** ![carterba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/85e7bf/32.png) [@carterba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carterba)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399/50 "2006-12-05T23:13:05Z")
[QUOTE=Capa84] A quick bio on the author: Gregg Easterbrook is the author of “The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse” and other books. He is also a contributing editor for The New Republic, The Atlantic Monthly and The Washington Monthly, and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. He has a weekly article where he lambastes stupid decisions by NFL players and coaches, raves about cheerleaders, and often discusses news from the worlds of physics, marketing, and science fiction. Here is his article from last week with the above quoted passage: > **[ESPN.com: Page 2 : Hey coach, take responsibility!](https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook%2F061128)** > > Coaches have bad games too. So, TMQ asks, why do they always blame the players? [/QUOTE] Gregg Easterbrook has written some really really bad articles about science, particularly about physics. He became infamous for a quote about extra dimensions, which was (paraphrased) “scientists can say there are any number of dimensions—10, 25, 1000—and people will take them seriously. If I said there was one dimension, a spiritual dimension, I would be laughed out of the room.” He clearly has no understanding whatsoever of what a “dimension” is, yet feels free to write about them. (I first saw it in a New Republic article; he later re-used it (almost verbatim) in an article on Slate.) Plus, he seems to have an agenda; in that quote it’s the “persecuted Christian” canard (“laughed out of the room” for confessing spirituality). He also has intelligent design sympathies. I don’t take anything he says about science seriously anymore. Why anyone gives him space to write about science I have no idea. ---
**Author:** ![stochastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@stochastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stochastic)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399/51 "2006-12-06T04:13:21Z")
[QUOTE=SiXSwordS] I just don’t see that. What practical impact would it have on our lives if we were to find out that at some point in ancient pre-history there were microscopic lifeforms on Mars? Compare that to cold-fusion. Maybe your point is that cold fusion will only ever impact our lives through magazine covers and such, but if it were possible it would have a major impact on the entire planet. How will finding life on Mars have a greater impact on humankind than finding a basic description of dark energy? [/QUOTE] I’m not thinking in terms of “practical” impacts, not in terms of things that we could exploit, and not just explanations for things that are kind of neat to know. I’m thinking that definitive proof of life existing somewhere other than this rock called Earth would have a fundamental impact upon how we think of ourselves and our place in the universe, and the mythos (aka religion) that so many of us use to guide our lives. Those other discoveries may have a more material impact upon us, but I can’t see any of those other discoveries having the same psychological impact. It certainly would be nice to know that we’re not alone in this big universe, if for no other reason than if we totally f-up life here on Earth, we know life will soldier on elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399/52 "2006-12-06T13:00:00Z")
[QUOTE=carterba] Gregg Easterbrook has written some really really bad articles about science, particularly about physics. He became infamous for a quote about extra dimensions, which was (paraphrased) “scientists can say there are any number of dimensions—10, 25, 1000—and people will take them seriously. If I said there was one dimension, a spiritual dimension, I would be laughed out of the room.” He clearly has no understanding whatsoever of what a “dimension” is, yet feels free to write about them. (I first saw it in a New Republic article; he later re-used it (almost verbatim) in an article on Slate.) [/QUOTE] Well, he does have a point, you know. I assume he’s talking about String Theory, which frankly deserves far more criticism than it gets. I mean, there’s a dimension for travelling from one universe to another? Excuse me? Isn’t the universe, by definition, everything that exists? It runs into problems long before you reach 8 or 9 dimensions, however. IIRC, the third dimension is defined in terms of the ability to warp a two-dimensional plane, such that you can jump from one point on the plane to another without passing through the interveining space. Is there some reason they can’t just define the third dimension as “up”? Oh wait, there is: String Theory won’t work that way :rolleyes: When you start talking about high-level metaphysical stuff, the line between science and philosophy becomes blurry, and I don’t think scientists really realize this. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399/53 "2006-12-06T17:14:19Z")
[QUOTE=Diceman] I assume he’s talking about String Theory, which frankly deserves far more criticism than it gets. [/QUOTE] String Theory has been getting a lot more criticism lately. I know that _I_ used to think it was a scientific theory that held great promise for a TOE, until I read Brian Greene’s book _The Elegant Universe_. That book was written like a sales pitch for String Theory, but it had the opposite effect on me, and I suspect many others who for the first time were able to peek behind the thick mathematical curtain to see that it’s mostly emptiness behind it. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399/54 "2006-12-06T17:34:44Z")
[QUOTE=CurtC] String Theory has been getting a lot more criticism lately. I know that _I_ used to think it was a scientific theory that held great promise for a TOE, until I read Brian Greene’s book _The Elegant Universe_. That book was written like a sales pitch for String Theory, but it had the opposite effect on me, and I suspect many others who for the first time were able to peek behind the thick mathematical curtain to see that it’s mostly emptiness behind it. [/QUOTE] A while back, a Doper posted a link to a website that used Flash animation to explain String Theory. At first, I thought String Theory was really cool. But then I realized, “Hold on a second. This sounds like the kind of crap you’d hear in a Star Trek episode. Sure, it might be possible to use the 6th dimension to shift to another timeline. Just like it might be possible to invent a device that can convert me into energy and beam me up to a starship. That doesn’t mean that this ‘theory’ is in any way useful.” To go back on-topic, the possibility that there might still be a “Planet X” out there is really cool. I think it’s quite plausible. Like Cecil explained, the discovery of Pluto was an accident. We’re just now, 80 years later, starting to find the rest of Pluto’s kin. If Planet X isn’t very reflective, it might well have escaped detection, even if it’s fairly large. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399/55 "2006-12-06T20:41:11Z")
> [@](#): > > IIRC, the third dimension is defined in terms of the ability to warp a two-dimensional plane, such that you can jump from one point on the plane to another without passing through the interveining space. Is there some reason they can’t just define the third dimension as “up”? Oh wait, there is: String Theory won’t work that way :rolleyes: When you start talking about high-level metaphysical stuff, the line between science and philosophy becomes blurry, and I don’t think scientists really realize this. There is nothing in any physical theory or model, including the String Model, which requires that any particular dimension be assigned to any particular number. There are conventions, but even those are generally pretty loose. And there is nothing in the String Model that says that you need extra dimensions to allow for curvature, or that it’s necessarily possible to “jump” from one place to another in the Universe, or to “another universe”. I don’t know where you got those ideas from, but it wasn’t from anyone who knew what they were talking about. That said, the String Model (which is not, despite the common name, a theory) is, in fact, pretty crummy. The only reason it’s taken seriously at all is that we don’t really have anything better, as a candidate for the theory of quantum gravity. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399/56 "2006-12-06T21:10:10Z")
[QUOTE=Diceman] A while back, a Doper posted a link to a website that used Flash animation to explain String Theory. At first, I thought String Theory was really cool. But then I realized, “Hold on a second. This sounds like the kind of crap you’d hear in a Star Trek episode. Sure, it might be possible to use the 6th dimension to shift to another timeline. Just like it might be possible to invent a device that can convert me into energy and beam me up to a starship. That doesn’t mean that this ‘theory’ is in any way useful.” [/QUOTE] I recognize the flash site you are describing. I can’t remember where to find it, though. Anyway, it’s not talking about string theory, and it’s not written by a physicist either. The guy who wrote it even specifies on the front page that he’s giving a poetic interpretation of his understanding of some things he’s heard about physics. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![chorpler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chorpler/32/2888_2.png) [@chorpler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chorpler)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399/57 "2006-12-06T23:17:25Z")
[QUOTE=jacquilynne] I realize that science may not have a particularly good explanation for placebo, but the objection in the article - about morphine inhibitors inhibiting placebo, as well - doesn’t seem all that strong to me. If you’ve got a way that your body responds to a drug, and another drug that prevents that response, the other drug is likely going to prevent the response regardless of whether your body is doing in response to the original drug or to the placebo effect. [/QUOTE] I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you’re saying. Naloxone blocks opiate receptors extremely effectively, and it also seems to make the placebo effect disappear. Doesn’t that seem like _extremely_ strong evidence that the placebo effect is dependent upon endorphins? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/13-things-that-do-not-make-sense/381399.md?page=2)