Category Archives: Skepticism

Examining The Apple iPhone Planned Obsolescence Conspiracy

Apple has the money and the know how… are they making your old iPhone suck through planned obsolescence just to force you into the checkout line for a new one?

Planned Obsolescence isn’t just a conspiracy theory. You can read the 1932 pamphlet, widely-considered the origin of the concept, here. The argument in favor of it is it’s effect on the economy; more products being produced and sold means an active, thriving market. Of course there is an obvious ethical problem of selling people a product that won’t continue to work as it should for as long as it should. Several companies openly admit they do it. For Apple, it works like this: Whenever a new iPhone comes out, the previous model gets buggy, slow and unreliable. Apple dumps money into a new, near perfect ad campaign and the entire first world and beyond irrationally feels silly for not already owning one, even before it’s available. Each release marks the more expensive iPhone with capabilities the last one can’t touch. This is already a great marketing plan and I’m not criticizing Apple’s ability to pull it off as described. The problem is planned obsolescence; some iPhone owners notice the older model craps out on them JUST as the newest iPhone hits the retail shops. Apple has the money and the know how… are they making your old iPhone suck just to force you into the checkout line for a new one?

Full disclosure, I’m biased: I owned an iphone for long enough to live through a new product release and mine did, indeed, crap out as described above. Slow, buggy, and unreliable it was. With that anecdote under my belt I might be satisfied to call this e-rumor totally true but in the interest of science I collected further evidence. I combed the messageboards to see who had good points and who is just the regular internet nutjob with a stupid theory. To examine the evidence, I’m gonna start with this fact:

Fact 1: Apple’s product announcements and new product releases come at regular intervals. So, if the old iPhones stop working correctly at that same interval there would be a coinciding pattern. The tricky part is finding the data but the pattern of release dates is a good place to start because it is so clear. Other companies could be doing this type of fuckery but it would be harder to track. Not only does Apple time their releases but they do it at a faster pace than most. The new iPhones tend to come out once a year but studies show people keep their phones for about 2-3 years if they are not prompted or coerced to purchase a newer model.

Fact 2: Yes, it’s possible. There are so many ways the company would be able to slow or disable last year’s iPhone. It could happen by an automatic download that can’t be opted out of, such as an “update” from the company. Apple can have iPhones come with pre-programmed software that can’t be accessed through any usual menu system on the iPhone. There can even be a hardware issue that decays or changes based on the average amount of use. There can be a combination of these methods. The thing is, so many people jailbreak iPhones, it seems like someone might be able to catch malicious software. There are some protocols that force updates, though. hmmm.

Fact 3: They’ve been accused of doing this every new release since iPhone 4 came out. his really doesn’t look like an accident, guys. This 2013 article in the New York Times Magazine by Catherine Rampell describes her personal anecdote, which, incidentally is exactly the same as the way my iPhone failed me. When Catherine contacted Apple tech support they informed her the iOS 7 platform didn’t work as well on the older phones, which lead her to wonder why the phones automatically updated the operating system upgrade in the first place.

Earlier on the timeline, Apple released iOS 4 offering features that were new and hot in 2010: features like tap-to-focus camera, multitasking and faster image loading. The iPhone 4 was the most popular phone in the country at the time but it suddenly didn’t work right, crashing and becoming too slow to be useful.

The iPhone 4 release made the iPhone 4 so horrible it was basically garbage, and Apple appeared to have realized the potential lost loyalty and toned it down. The pattern of buggy and slow products remained, though, When iOS 7 came out in 2013, it was a common complaint online and people started to feel very sure Apple was doing it on purpose.

Fact 4: Google Trends shows telltale spikes in complaints that match up perfectly with the release dates. The New York Times(2014) called this one and published Google queries for “iphone slow” spike in traffic for that topic. Look at Google trends forecasting further spikes because the pattern is just that obvious:

Does Apple Ruin Your iPhone on Purpose? The Conspiracy, Explained

Apple has a very loyal customer base, though. Rene Ritchie wrote for iMore, saying this planned obsolescence argument is “sensational,” and a campaign of “misinformation” by people who don’t actually understand how great an iPhone really is(barf). Even though the motive is crystal clear, the arguement that Apple is innocent isn’t complete nonsense, either: Apple ruining iPhones could damage customer loyalty. People espousing this argument claim an intentional slowdown is less likely than just regular incompatibility due to new software features. The latter point is a good one, considering how almost all software manufacturers have a hard time adjusting new software to old operating systems. Cooler software usually needs faster hardware and for some ridiculous reason no one has ever come out with an appropriately customizable smartphone and Apple woudl likely be the last on the list.

Christopher Mims pointed out on Quartz: “There is no smoking gun here, no incriminating memo,” of an intentional slowdown on Apple’s part.

There is really no reason to believe Apple would be against this kind of thing, even if planned obsolescence were a happy accident for the mega-corporation. Basically, if this is happening by accident it’s even better for Apple because they don’t have to take responsibility and it likely helps push the new line. Apple is far from deserving the trustworthy reputation they’ve cultivated under Steve Jobs, as the glitzy marketing plan behind the pointless new Apple Watch demonstrates.

Jonathan Howard
Jonathan is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY

Panspermia “Alien Seed” Theory Still Unproven Despite Claims of New Evidence

Vote

Panspermia is the (hilarious) name given to a theoretical discussion about terrestrial life originating from someplace extraterrestrial, beyond Earth. The panspermia argument began with Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA molecules. If “panspermia” sounds like a science fiction idea from the 70’s you aren’t thinking too far off. While Crick is famous for the DNA thing, he actually had a more implausible idea about aliens and the origin of life. One that never stood up to scientific scrutiny but makes its way back into scientific debates from time to time.

Who knows? Maybe this guy started it all.

Over the years there have been several discoveries panspermia supporters point to excitedly, claiming they have found proof of alien life. The latest new piece of evidence comes from Milton Wainwright at The University of Buckingham. While the object was found embedded in a weather balloon designed to collect upper atmosphere debris, and it is undeniably a biosignature of some sort, it doesn’t definitively support the panspermia theory, despite recent, high-profile headlines.

Wainwright himself admits this: “Unless, of course, we can find details of the civilization that is supposed to have sent it in this respect, it is probably an unprovable theory.”

Um, yeah. So the guy quoted all over the new evidence is actually the first in line to warn against jumping to the conclusion that we are all aliens. Still, it’s a very exciting theory. Let’s take a look at other samples from various parts of Earth and beyond that have allowed dreamers to fabricate theories of life’s supposed extraterrestrial origin.

Biosignatures don’t have to be chemical. They can be magnetic, as suggested in this space.com article from 2011, or it could be described by the morphology, meaning the shape and size of fossilized evidence could indicate a living thing once left its mark. Biosignatures that support the idea of alien life or panspermic origins to terrestrial life are inconclusive but that doesn’t stop enthusiasts from pointing and claiming they have proven the theory correct. Here’s why the evidence supporting panspermia is still inconclusive:

Meteorite ALH84001

Meteorite ALH84001

Tiny, microscopic magnetite crystals were found in meteorite ALH84001. Not a lot can be proven from this undeniably interesting piece of space rock. The meteorite is likely Martian in origin. It’s famously debated because of a handful of potential biosignatures. Some scientists insisted only bacteria could have caused the crystal formations . They turned out to be wrong; similar formations can be found forming by complex physics, without life intervening.

Several other “possible biosignatures” have been investigated int he sample. There is a working hypothesis but not an empirical confirmation of life. Proof of an extraterrestrial form of life would mean these so-called biosignatures could have been formed by a living thing and only a living thing – which is clearly not the case. One such biosig was a small-pattern texture that resembled one from a known bacteria. A scientific majority ultimately decided these textures were small to be fossilized cells. Meteorite ALH84001 is a curiosity, a rare find and an amazing natural occurrence but it is not proof of the panspermia theory.

Then there is the Kerala red rain phenomenon happened in Kerala, India from 25 July to 23 September 2001. Heavy showers brought a peculiar, red-coloured liquid. The “blood rains” fell all along the southern Indian state of Kerala staining fabrics and causing alarm. Other colours were reported but the majority of reports and samples were red in color. It’s happened several times since, most recently in June 2012.

Kerala Red Rain

A photo-microscopy examination brought an initial rumor to the media: the source oft he red color was a meteor shower or explosion from asteroid particles heating up on entry to Earth’s atmosphere. Early misreports like that often cause rumors or conspiracy theories when the official story gets redacted. In this case, a detailed study commissioned by the Government of India announced the rains had been dyed by airborne spores originating from a prolific colony of terrestrial, forest algae.

It’s still a mysterious phenomenon but the genetic makeup of the cells found in red rain is far too common for the sample to be extraterrestrial.

Tardigrades

Tardigrades are so durable they seem to be able to survive for a long time when they enter a strange, dehydrated state. Tardigrades are one of the only species who can suspend their metabolism and going into a state of cryptobiosis. Several varieties of tardigrade can stay hibernating for nearly 10 years. While in this state, tardigrade metabolism falls to 0.01% and their water content goes down to 1% of normal.

Tardigrades would make excellent space travellers because they can withstand extreme environments most other lifeforms would be destroyed in, including extremes of temperature, pressure, dehydration and radiation, environmental toxins, and outer space vacuum conditions.

Wikipedia points out: tardigrades are the first known animal to survive in space. On September 2007, dehydrated tardigrades were taken into low Earth orbit on the FOTON-M3 mission carrying the BIOPAN astrobiology payload. For 10 days, groups of tardigrades were exposed to the hard vacuum of outer space, or vacuum and solar UV radiation.^[3]^[38]^[39] After being rehydrated back on Earth, over 68% of the subjects protected from high-energy UV radiation revived within 30 minutes following rehydration, but subsequent mortality was high; many of these produced viable embryos. In contrast, dehydrated samples exposed to the combined effect of vacuum and full solar UV radiation had significantly reduced survival, with only three subjects of Milnesium tardigradum surviving. In May 2011, Italian scientists sent tardigrades on board the International Space Station along with other extremophiles on STS-134, the final flight of Space Shuttle Endeavour. Their conclusion was that microgravity and cosmic radiation “did not significantly affect survival of tardigrades in flight, confirming that tardigrades represent a useful animal for space research.” In November 2011, they were among the organisms to be sent by the US-based Planetary Society on the Russian Fobos-Grunt mission’s Living Interplanetary Flight Experiment to Phobos; however, the launch failed. It remains unclear whether tardigrade specimens survived the failed launch.

Tardigrades can survive in space but that doesn’t mean they came from space. They have strong genetic ties with several other animals in the Panarthropoda group. They appear to have evolved on Earth but will likely be studied for years to come because of the adaptable nature of Earth life they represent.

Like a lot of pseudo-science, there are elements of hope and truth to tons of the details. Labeling bad science or non-science for what it is enables us to dream bigger and keep a better-informed, watchful eye on the available data. If you are feeling the sting of yet another science news story letting you down, recharge your creative side with this 90’s CGI classic that illustrates the crucial principles of panspermism:

Jonathan Howard is a skeptic and freelance writer working for Cosmoso.net

You can reach him at this email address: [email protected]

or find him on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/contact.jonhoward

Jonathan Howard
Jonathan is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY

Ukrainian Shell Attack Causes Massive Explosion, Rumors, Misinformation

Vote

Rumors of tactical nuclear weapon detonation and related misinformation have plagued reports of Last Monday’s explosion in Donetsk, Ukraine. The incident had no casualties, unless you count 2 people killed during the shell fire that hit the city and started the fire at the chemical plant where the explosion later took place. Every report coming from the ground in Donetsk, including a bevy of independently uploaded eyewitness video, supports the official story being reported by CNN and other 24hour news media, that the explosion was the result of a chemical plant being hit with artillery fire from the Ukrainian Army.

False reports of a tactical nuclear weapon detonation complicate political discussions in the short run and desensitize the public to the idea of nuclear war in the long run. Misinformation often abounds from war-torn parts of the world which is exactly why a skeptical, eye toward the data should be used. It’s especially important to rule out false conclusions if the conclusions imply the world somehow taking a nuclear assault with a grain of salt, which would be the case if all the major news outlets slept on the first nuclear bomb explosion in a combat situation in decades. As with any disaster, there was an opportunity for rumors and misinformation to take hold last after Monday’s independant reports, including video, began to surface.

Three video examples below, combined with Ukrainian Army and Russia official responses, do not support a nuclear bomb explosion as correct interpretation of this disaster.

So here is what actually happened:

CNN reported the explosion as a fire at a chemical plant, a claim apparently originating from the local media in Donetsk. Pro-Russian Rebel spokesman Eduard Basurin was the official source claiming the chemical plant was hit by Ukrainian Army shelling. Ukraine is has yet to deny responsibility. The plant was not hit during hours of operation but the surrounding area was also hit with Ukrainian Army shell fire, killing 2 civilians.

Pres. Obama’s statement on the matter: “Russia has violated every commitment in Ukraine” he said at the press event supporting this week’s visit from German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the White House. The public is debating whether or not the U.S. should arm the Ukrainian government to deter further Russian manipulation. President Obama has gone on record saying he wants to avoid that but implied it is not yet off the table. The EU member states are not all in favor of U.S. involvement. The volatile nature of the current talks are accented in a macabre way by the rumor of nuclear war.

The EU has decided to delay sanctions against Russia to give ceasefire negotiations more time. If negotiations don’t achieve a ceasefire, economic sanctions against key Russian citizens as well as Russian corporations could worsen the already dangerous decline in Russia’s economy.

2 great reasons why it can’t be a tactical nuclear weapon:

1. The upload timeline is too tight. Regardless of the size or nature of the tactical nuke, a nuclear attack would be chaos. It would be very difficult if not impossible to get any form of media recorded within a reasonable distance of the explosion. Local media covered the chemical plant fire within hours. Most of the videos published appear to be undoctored, eyewitness and posted within hours, sometimes minutes of being created. For the footage to be planned and released from so many sources, the timeline is too tight to be believable. If an actual nuke went off, there would be footage emerging from the area gradually for the next few days but electromagnetic disturbances and physical damage would stop anyone near the bomb site from getting internet access. The Ukraine revolution has been accompanied by a steady stream of media coverage at a grassroots level since it began. That would be put on complete blackout in the wake of a nuclear explosion.

The story fell into speculation and misinformation mostly because there was a lack of data yet, that lack of data is the evidence that there wasn’t a “tactical nuclear weapon”, as versions of the conspiracy theory claim. A nuclear bomb would have spread data in various forms far and wide with an intensity that would enable scientists from around the globe to examine it. It would be virtually impossible to set off a nuclear weapon without various scientists around the world being able to verify it almost instantly; it’s been 2-3 days at the time of this piece being published.

2. Neither side of the Crimean conflict wants the area to undergo the aftermath of a tactical nuke. Seriously, the city and surrounding areas would not be livable. The internet isn’t the only thing that would not be reliable in a nuclear attack. The death toll would not be small news that leaked into the mainstream gradually over a few days. It would be thousands of human deaths and widespread environmental damage. he fact that people are still in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine shows that a nuclear bomb was not detonated in the uploaded videos. There wouldn’t be anyone close enough to video the incident who would then be alive to upload the kind of close-up video we’ve been seeing. Most of the people taking video and uploading it to youtube would already be succumbing to radiation poisoning if not destroyed entirely before they even had a chance to upload, even if they could get online.

So, no, there wasn’t a tactical nuclear attack in Donetsk, Ukraine last Monday. It was an exploding chemical plant.

Jonathan Howard
Jonathan is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY

Do Fecal Matter Transplants Actually Cause Obesity?

Vote

Ok, so let's get gross for a second so I can give you some specific background about poop transplants: Some people can't handle this topic and to them, I apologize. As of June 17th, 2013, the FDA decided to allow fecal matter transplants for recurrent bacteria Clostridium difficile, which is a gastrointestinal problem with symptoms like life threatening diarrhea, severe cramping and dehydration. Against C. Diff., fecal transplants have a 91% success rate. This promising treatment might be able to combat a variety of gastrointestinal diseases related to probiotics and the balance of microbial life in the human gut. Right now you might be imagining something really gross and I can't exactly assuage your fears but when I researched the process, I was marginally reassured that the fecal matter is "rinsed and strained" um, ok, and then administered rectally or orally in pill form. It's kind of like asking where hotdogs come from.

Ok, so let’s zoom in on the gross for a second so I can give you some specific background about poop transplants:
Some people can’t handle this topic and to them, I apologize. As of June 17th, 2013, the FDA decided to allow fecal matter transplants for recurrent bacteria Clostridium difficile, which is a gastrointestinal problem with symptoms like life threatening diarrhea, severe cramping and dehydration. Against C. Diff., fecal transplants have a 91% success rate. This promising treatment might be able to combat a variety of gastrointestinal diseases related to probiotics and the balance of microbial life in the human gut. Right now you might be imagining something really gross and I can’t exactly assuage your fears but when I researched the process, I was marginally reassured that the fecal matter is “rinsed and strained” um, ok, and then administered rectally or orally in pill form. It’s kind of like asking where hotdogs come from.

A new case study about fecal matter transplants shows a possible link between gut flora and obesity which has far reaching implications for treatment of obesity and other gastrointestinal disorders. Some scientists and medical professionals already seem convinced but how related is your gut fauna to your body weight? Emerging research on the practice has shown gut bacteria to be linked to several surprisingly diverse aspects of human physiology. If this is a new topic for you, check out Jeroen Raes’ compelling ted talk on the subject.

In the above video, Jeroen Raes is very convinced of the efficacy of biotic treatments and the influence of microbial life on human health. In its current practice and form, can FMT cause obesity? If you are desensitized enough to examine a case study I can move on to explain where the obesity comes in.

Last November(2014) a woman‘s C. difficile infection was successfully treated by fecal transplant. After receiving the transplant, the patient experienced rapid weight gain to the tune of 34 pounds in 16 months. The donor was also overweight, yet the recipient had never had any problem with fatness prior to the FMT. Open Forum Infectious Diseases has a long and detailed argument from active people in a variety of related fields, if you want to see the debate unfold. Spoiler alert: there is not enough evidence to know for sure that the gut bacteria transplant or a related aspect of FMT caused the obesity.

After going through a variety of antibiotic treatments, the woman kept being reinfected because, the theory goes, her fecal bacteria was out of balance. After what was probably a pretty miserable few weeks of unsuccessful treatment the woman’s medical team at Newport Hospital in Newport, RI, decided to give fecal transplant a try.

Before the FMT treatment, the patient was at a healthy weight, 136 lbs with a normal BMI of 26. Her daughter, the fecal donor, weighed 140 lbs at the time, with a BMI of 26.6. In the weeks after the transplant, the daughter actually gained some weight, too. Recurrent infections ceased and the transplant appeared to be a success.

So, sixteen months passed and the fecal transplant recipient experienced a weight gain of 34 pounds, making her now technically obese. After going on a closely monitored exercise and diet program she still kept the weight on over 2.5 years later.

The author of the case report, Colleen Kelly, said, “We’re questioning whether there was something in the fecal transplant, whether some of those ‘good’ bacteria we transferred may have an impact on her metabolism in a negative way.”

Some science blogs are reporting this as a strong link to argue fecal matter can cause weight gain, and the case study is certainly compelling, but until further study is done we can’t be sure. It’s worth mentioning, though, that the association between gut bacteria and body weight has already been extensively theorized. A few animal studies seem to show FMT from a fat mouse to a normal-weight mouse may be related to a significant increase in fat in the recipient mouse. It’s not exactly a settled issue, though, with several possible factors which could alternatively explain human weight gain. Gut flora may influence less direct aspects of body weight, like an increase in appetite. In fact, an increase in appetite may have just been a sign the subject in the case study beat the infection. To complicate the debate further links between H. pylori treatment and weight gain have been demonstrated in case studies that don’t involve fecal matter transplanting. The reason this case is so convincing is partly because the daughter and the mother both gained weight in conjunction.

The verdict? While the researchers conclude the FMT was partly responsible for the recipient’s obesity, I found the science inconclusive. I’ll definitely be keeping an eye out for new info on this most scatological and potentially very important debate.

[Via Open Forum Infectious Diseases and IDSA]

Jonathan Howard
Jonathan is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY

Dr. Wolfson Keeps a Straight Face about his Antivaccination Elitism

Vote

An Arizona cardiologist finally came out and said what the underlying attitude is behind parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. In an interview with CNN last Monday, he openly admitted that he doesn’t care who gets the measles from his unvaccinated kid.

During his ridiculous CNN interveiw Dr. Jack Wolfson said, “I’m not going to sacrifice the well-being of my child. My child is pure. It’s not my responsibility to be protecting their child.”

Wolfson said this with a straight face to a camera during the well-publicized measles outbreak currently taking place in California. CNN included a piece about a leukemia-stricken child who can’t be vaccinated because of chemo, and must therefore rely only on the commonly understood concept of herd immunity to protect her from infection from contagions such as measles.

The CNN interview happened immediately after Wolfson appeared in a radio spot on KPNX, saying, “As far as I’m concerned, it’s very likely that her leukemia is from vaccinations in the first place,”

This completely honest reply really sums up why antivacination isn’t just a personal choice for every family. It’s actually wrong. Listen to this nonsense:

“I could live with myself easily. It’s an unfortunate thing that people die, but people die. And I’m not going to put my child at risk to save another child. I’m not going to sacrifice the well-being of my child. My child is pure.”

Watch the CNN interview below:

Jonathan Howard
Jonathan is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY

Vaccines and the Psychology of the Anti-Science Movement

Vote

One of the things I love about science is the vocabulary that it allows people to use. The whole point of any science is to understand and adapt to the environments we find ourselves in. People who are particularly good at explaining this vocabulary make good or even great scientists but the ideas scientists explain are not dependent on any one human.

Sometimes the truth is harsh. Science sometimes allows us to see a harsh aspect of reality and rather than accept that harsh reality, some people search for a second opinion, in hopes that bad news is not true. This emotional state makes people vulnerable to misinformation, to anyone who might want to exploit that vulnerability. To me, science offers a way to look at those harsh realities for what they are without emotions clouding the ability to understand. The scientific method isn’t just a good way to examine reality, it’s the only way that guarantees the available truth can be understood.

I’m gonna use vaccination as an example of a harsh reality that people don’t always readily accept. I’ve had to go through the debate with various friends and family for years. The vaccination debate has half a dozen easily debunked, unreasonable reasons for not vaccinating humans against diseases. When I point out the science behind my arguments for vaccination they are met with a bizarre suspicion. Without going too much into the ridiculous anti vaccine argument, the anti-science part of it goes something like this:

The source of this scientific claim is suspect so the science itself is suspect. You may have found an article or study that proves my anti vaccination argument wrong but you have to consider the source. Some people write these studies or orchestrate them to show results that are not necessarily accurate.

Why it’s wrong:

You can use the scientific method to reevaluate any study. Science is like math. People can do math incorrectly and get a wrong answer but that doesn’t make math itself wrong. Badly done science doesn’t mean that the scientific method is bad. That’s what I mean when I say the scientific method is the only way. It’s the only logical way to understand literally anything. Saying you don’t trust it is like saying you don’t trust arithmetic.

So, the antivaccination argument that you can’t trust a study is beside the point. I agree that no one should blindly trust any scientific claim. Not being able to readily rust information is a problem but the solution to the problem is to use the scientific method to weed out bad science. A study can be funded and published by a biased source and still be good science. By using the scientific method you can tell the difference between good and bad information.

We live in a time where we are assaulted by information. The antivaccination movement is a great example of how compelling bad science can become when the audience isn’t using the scientific method to parse the information they are reading. The antivaxxers are wrong but the misinformation has a chance to take root in the collective psyche of modern man because of how available information itself is. People without a solid understanding of the scientific method can’t follow the actual debate and must resort to whichever side wrote the most emotionally compelling argument. Not being able to tell what is true or untrue makes people suspicious and even paranoid. Learning and using the scientific method is crucial to the modern internet experience. It’s the only way to see what’s really happening.

Jonathan Howard
Jonathan is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY

It’s 2015…Where Are The Aliens?

Vote

Look, I mean… I want aliens to exist. As of Summer of 2013, statistically half of the United States believes there are aliens. Roughly a third of Americans believe there are intelligent aliens. While it isn’t the largest sampling size, the veracity of this stat is pretty unchallenged. (The HuffPost/YouGov poll was conducted June 11-12 among 1,000 adults using a sample selected from YouGov’s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. Factors considered include age, race, gender, education, employment, income, marital status, number of children, voter registration, time and location of Internet access, interest in politics, religion and church attendance.) I’d love to update this post with better data but I think a fifty-fifty split as to whether aliens exist or not makes it a particularly interesting debate.

While I believe it is better for humanity to be prepared and I understand the spirit of searching for alien life forms, I am having trouble squaring belief in alien life as scientifically accurate.

On the one hand, several prominent, respected, high-profile scientists claim to believe in aliens(or at least a high probability of aliens) yet there is currently no scientific data supporting the existence of extra terrestrial life. Skeptical attempts to try to answer this frame the question, from Fermi to Degrasse Tyson, have stood largely unchallenged and withstood criticism when finally challenged. Until science can truly answer all questions about the conditions needed to reproduce life as it is found on Earth it’s difficult to know the statistical probability of finding life as we know it on similar planets. Good science requires skepticism and a strict definition of truth; believing in aliens without empirical data is bad science.

It’s actually harder to get data on this subject than it should be but National Geographic did a pretty solid attempt about 2 years ago, though. The gist of the statistical info is this: maybe not the majority but possibly half and even by the low-end estimates a huge percentage of Americans believe in aliens. Those people might be really great dreamers and thinkers in their own way but they are coming to the conclusion that extraterrestrial life exists using bad science.

Back in the early 60’s, Dr. Frank Drake made the first noteworthy attempt to quantify the aspects needed for Earthlings to detect intelligent life on other planets with what became known as the Drake Equation. Most of the scientists who believe in aliens argue that extraterrestrials are a mathematical probability. For example, Stephen Hawking said, “To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,” in his Discovery Channel series called Stephen Hawking’s Universe. The problem is, without knowing exactly how life on Earth began there is no way to know the mathematical probability of it happening anywhere else.

Dr. Frank Drake was responding to one of the most famous cases against extraterrestrials, though, an earlier, 1950’s argument usually called The Fermi Paradox. Last Thursday (Jan. 28th, 2015) Neil Degrasse Tyson explained his interpretation of the Enrico Fermi’s classic – and still indestructible- argument:

“[Enrico Fermi] said that the universe has been around a really long time, and technological evolution, when it happens, happens fast. If there are [advanced] aliens in the galaxy, they should have been here by now. Because if they live approximately as long as we do, they can send colonies out to other star systems, set up base camps, and then [those base camps] send out other colonies. So one grows to ten, grows to a hundred, grows to a thousand,” Tyson explained. “And you can grow the number of colonies exponentially in the world very quickly, so where are they?”

You can watch last weeks Degrass Tyson lecture in Denver, CO in its entirety, here:

So, until new data arrives or a deeper understanding of life on Earth can be had, belief in Aliens is unsupported by any credible data. Contemporary Americans are pretty great at disregarding science in the name of what simply sounds cool or interesting, though, so most people will continue to believe in aliens.

How unscientific~!

Jonathan Howard
Jonathan is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY