Sunday, April 06, 2014

How Language Works

My infographic on communication was misunderstood by some.

Fortunately, it was not universally misunderstood. In fact, most people "got it". Nevertheless, I'll expound on it, because that's what I tend to do.

An expert will tell you that there is a difference between language and communication... that language refers to the vocabulary and the grammar that we use to express concepts; and that communication refers to the sharing information. You can have communication, for instance, by non-verbal means. My cat is perfectly capable of telling me when she's hungry, or when she wants out. She doesn't need language for that, any more than you yourself need language for basic communication.

But language requires communication if it's to work

The Basics of Communication:

If you don't have all of these, what you have is
a failure to communicate

So let's take a few moments to look at communication. Over the years there has been some disagreement over what comprises effective communications, but here are the four parts as I have learned to see them:
  1. The SENDER 
  2. The MESSAGE
If you don't have all of the above, you're not communicating. Keep in mind as you read this that I'm talking about the simplest case of a single message. In dialogue, there are multiple senders and receivers, transmitting multiple messages and feedback criss-crossing each other, sometimes asynchronously. Dialogue can be complicated, but in every case, with every message, it's composed of simple message loops.

Keep that in mind: a message loop is simple. You can make some very impressive structures using only the simplest Lego bricks. Likewise, even Albert Einstein was a collection of single cells.

Who's talkin'? 
(the Sender)

Let's say you are the Sender, so we're aligning this discussion with that graphic. As the Sender, you're the one who owns the message. It originates in your head. You are the one who knows it in its entirety. Since you own the message, you have the responsibility for phrasing it properly. No one else. And you hold the responsibility for failing to do so.

The receiver doesn't know the message. You can't depend on him to "fill it in" for you. He doesn't have it. He lives in a different skull. He can try to fill in the message from his experience, but he's not obligated to, and that's prone to failure anyway because it is basically guesswork. You cannot depend on someone else's guesses to accurately communicate your message. That's the reason we need feedback, which we'll talk about shortly.

Are you talking to ME? 
(the Message and the Receiver)

The message can be almost anything. It can be a stop sign, an advertisement, a verbal sentence. In its simplest form it is the transmission of one thought. Multiple thoughts require multiple loops. 

Now in my previous post I noted that "when your words are universally misunderstood, the failure lies not with the listeners. YOU used the wrong words." That's 100% right. You don't have to take it as an accusation either... it's merely factual information you should use to refine the message. 

I also called it "Rule #1", putting it before even the definition of communication. Why? Because it's essential to the creation of the message. You should begin and end every conversation with this question: Who's my audience? It matters because the identity of your audience is tied to the placement and construction of the message. For instance:
  • If you're an adult talking to a child, you should use words a child can understand. Specifically, you should use words that your target child can understand.
  • If you're writing an ad intended for Mexican consumers, you should write it in Spanish.
  • If you're writing Business Requirements for a computer program, you should avoid technical jargon.
It's actually a little broader than words. Far more things go into a message than you might think, particularly if it's delivered in person. Your demeanor, your dress, your grooming, your mannerisms, your facial expressions, and even your past statements all define the context for your message. And it's important to remember where your audience is. That's why I don't list the medium (or channel) separately. The medium and the message are one. Try looking at it this way: neither the message nor the medium is the thought. Each is intended to convey the thought, and each answers the same question: "How will I say this?". 

As for the message I sent above, I did not publicly identify the receiver. That was deliberate. In part, it's because embarrassing the recipient was not part of my message. In part, it's because I feel the message is broadly applicable. In part, it's because I wanted to see if the receiver recognized himself. Judging from emails and private messages, a number of people thought it applied to them enough to say so. I got the feedback I was looking for, and in the case of the intended recipient as well as others, the message was understood.

Do you understand?

Have you ever tried talking to someone who doesn't even acknowledge your presence? Frustrating, isn't it? Feedback is a necessary component of communication. In the case of a blog such as this, or radio, etc., the feedback can be delayed or indirect. For instance, I get feedback in the form of comments, emails, and analytics that count the number of visitors, their geographic locations, and referring sources. A radio station may get feedback in the form of listener calls, letters, and emails, and advertising sales. But it has to exist.  

Of the four components I'm describing, feedback is the least recognized. Nevertheless, to a castaway on a deserted island, a message in a bottle is merely an attempt at communication, whereas a rescue defines success. 

Now, you don't have to feel bad if 100% of your audience doesn't get the message at first (unless it's an audience of one). In every crowd there will be someone who doesn't follow the conversation. And you don't have to feel bad if those who do comprehend the message do not agree with it. "Agreement" is not what feedback is about. "Understanding" is.

Let's look at our original infographic again. How do you know that your words were misunderstood? Only through feedback.

The Fifth Element

Feedback is necessary because it not only tells you whether the message was received and understood, but because it can tell you more about your audience than you knew at the start. This allows you to refine your message, choose the right words. and try again.

Feedback is only useful if you act on it, which is why I'm mentioning "iteration" as the "fifth element" that doesn't appear on my diagram. Just as communication is dead when you have no feedback, it's likewise dead when you ignore the feedback you have. In more complicated communications, such as conversations, the other person talking isn't to give you an opportunity to rest up. It's for you to pay attention.

And that's what my infographic is really about. By listening to feedback you can choose the right words and get your message to the receiver intact. It's not an accusation. It's advice.

So why did I bother to post this when so much has been said by so many about communication? One big reason is that although the Wikipedia article on Communication says, "Feedback is a critical component of effective communication," it only mentions the word two times (one of which I've just quoted), and for further information links to an article on feedback in engineering contexts that have little to do with communication. I wasn't kidding when I said feedback is the least recognized component. That's no way to treat something that's critical.

This post utilizes graphics adapted from those contributed to Wikimedia Commons by user East718

Raising Pyramid Stones with Levers and Ropes

Popular Archaeology has an interesting report on some work done by Roger Larsen of Columbus, Mississippi to demonstrate how large stones can be moved by only a few people with simple ropes and levers. Larson has put video of his method up on YouTube.

One of the nicest bits of tech showcased here is the "Isis Knot", as Larsen calls it. Rather than being a complicated fastening of multiple lines, each line terminates in a very simple, very solid knot. The central winch line has similar knots along its length, and the lines are connected by a smaller bit of twine wrapped around them (see illustration). The purpose of this knot is to allow the levers to gain purchase further down the rope while steady tension is always maintained by either the winch or the levers.

Larsen's "Isis Knot"

The majority of the force of pulling is vectored along the winch rope, causing the knots to interfere and brake the load.a very small bit of force is exerted by the wrapping twine to make this happen. Larsen mentions that those who used such a process regularly would doubtless be better at it, and I agree. For instance I can immediately see where his procedure can be easily streamlined by putting a knotless loop in the center of the wrapping line, passing both loose ends through the loop, and pulling it tight. A number of other quick fasteners could be used.

Larsen believes that this method would allow the sides of the pyramids to be used as ramps (though I favor Jean-Pierre Houdin's  speculation about an internal ramp. It's important to remember, though, that it's not necessary for all of the blocks in every tier of a structure to be raised by the exact same method.

As with my own conjectures, the purpose of relating Larsen's experiment here isn't to say this is how the Egyptians did it. Rather, it's to demonstrate that it's possible for them to have done it, in response to the terribly unimaginative few who would discount the native ingenuity of our ancestors in favor of wild speculation about aliens and magic. Basically, these people can't think of reasonable, workable ways to complete a task, so they resort to "it must be magic" when genuine consideration fails them. I don't find such thinking to be terribly smart, by any measure.

BTW, you can see more about Houdin's investigation into an internal ramp on YouTube.

Monday, March 31, 2014

How Language Works (Rule #1)

Blaming the listener will never make the listener look dumb. 
It will never make the speaker look smarter. 
It will never make the meaning clearer.
It will never communicate the intended message.

So own the message. Rephrase it and try again.


Sunday, March 16, 2014

The Constitution Doesn't Grant You Rights

The phrase "inalienable rights" doesn't appear in the Constitution. It's in the Declaration of Independence. Nevertheless, the concept was well-accepted by the Founding Fathers. So much so that they didn't bother to list these rights in the Constitution. The first 10 Amendments were added in as the "Bill of Rights" under a bit of controversy.

How could there be controversy?

For one, the enumeration of certain rights may be taken to imply that other rights do not exist. This conclusion would be in error, which was addressed by the Ninth Amendment, which has since been largely forgotten and marginalized.

But also, the enumeration of certain rights may be taken to men that those rights are granted by the Constitution. This interpretation is as wrong as it possibly could be. Let's make it clear

The Constitution Doesn't Grant You Rights

Rather, it enumerates rights that you already have. These are the ones alluded to in this passage of the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Not only does the Constitution not grant you rights, but no man is empowered to do so, for that would violate the principle of equality. Your rights came to you from God, or Divine Providence, or they are Natural Rights, or however it is you choose to phrase such things. But one thing is certain: they are not made by superior men, to be granted or revoked at their pleasure.

Note the following carefully:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That's the First Amendment. It doesn't grant freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press, or assembly, or petition. It doesn't . It merely takes for granted the fact that you have those rights, and they may not be abridged by the government. That last bit is important, too. It says nothing about how people privately behave, but specifically and pointedly limits itself to what Congress does.

Likewise, the Second Amendment is commonly mangled:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
A common argument is that this right is "connected" to the Militia. That is bullshit (to put it mildly). At no point does this Amendment grant you the right to bear arms. Rather it acknowledges that the right you already have shall not be infringed. It does state a reason that the State should support that right, but that is in no way, shape or form a stated purpose for the 'grant' of a right.

The plain fact of the the matter is that every human being has an absolute right to self-defense. By absolute, I mean it trumps literally everything. Self-defense is a reason to kill another human being with legal impunity. And there is zero restriction on the weaponry I am "allowed" to bring to bear to further that aim. That's not to say I can employ that weaponry in any way I want. If I'm a danger to others, then they can take me out for the same reason. But the mere ownership of a weapon does not make me a danger.

The Third through Eighth Amendments deal with legalities:
My home is to be free from invasion and usurpation; especially, so is my person, and my stuff. I have a right to due process in the courts. Once acquitted of a crime I have the right to consider the matter settled: I need not fear the same charges again.. I have a right to my property. I have the right to refuse to testify against myself. I have a right to a speedy trial. I have a right to be judged by a jury of my peers. I have the right to know the charges against me. I have a right to face my accuser. I have the right to compel witnesses in my defense. I have a right to legal counsel. I have a right to expect bail and fines to be reasonable, and I have a right to be free from torture.

The Ninth (mentioned above) makes clear that it is not this Constitution that grants your rights, and that you are not limited to the ones above:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 And the Tenth reminds us that it is not "the State" that owns the Government of the United States. There is no "Crown" here:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
ALL powers exercised by our government are delegated to it, by the people, via the Constitution. To the extent that a government exercises powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution, that government action is illegal. "The United States" as mentioned here consists of all branches, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. When a Judge legislates from the bench, it's illegal. When a President ignores laws by selectively enforcing them, that's illegal. When Congress passes laws that infringe our rights, that's illegal. It does not matter whether a branch of government does so in collusion with another branch. The Tenth Amendment is there for a reason.

There is also a reason the Tenth Amendment has been marginalized and ignored by Progressives. It's damned inconvenient to tyrants to be shown up as the tyrants and usurpers that they are. Your knowledge and understanding of the limits of government makes it ever so much more difficult for bureaucrats to stifle your rights and exercise control over things that are flatly none of their business, ever.

When our government gets to the point where they do all of these things, it is the right and duty of its citizens to recall that government. This becomes problematic when the government has been given the privilege of educating our youth, and have abused that privilege to strip a generation of the knowledge of their sovereignty, ownership, and individual power.

It's starts with this: Your rights are yours. The government is yours.

Saturday, March 01, 2014

Nazis, Cake, and Gay Pride

WARNING: Strong language appears in this post. If strong language and strong opinions offend you, do not read it. Please watch some Muppets instead. Muppets are fun.

A Facebook friend shared an image and caption

@Dave Someone took your idea, Dave...
Should a Jewish baker be forced by the State to bake THIS cake
for a White Supremist's birthday? According to gay Rights activist...
Of course the cake metaphor is in response to stories like this one reported on

Although we had a prior discussion of Nazis and cake, the Nazi cake above does NOT illustrate my idea at all. My observation is entirely different. I'm not talking about a Nazi forcing a Jew to make an offensive Nazi cake, full of Nazi, with Nazi all over it (to paraphrase another friend).

Reverse the roles. Would a Jew sue a Nazi baker for refusing to bake him a cake? No Magen David, no weirdness... just a plain old ordinary cake. What if the story were exactly as depicted in the charges in Oregon... just flat-out discriminatory business practices based on nothing but hatred with no religious dogma to use as a shield?  Would the Jew sue?

Hell no.
HELL no.

And do you know why? Because the Jew's got integrity, and he's not going to do business with a FUCKING NAZI.

He's certainly not to cast himself as some weak-assed narcissistic co-dependent emotional basket case by running to Mommy and Daddy and pathetically crying that the mean old man down the street "doesn't love me... MAKE him love me!"

After centuries of persecution and pogroms... after the wholesale slaughter of six million of his family in a World War... and despite all the Woody Allen Jewish psychiatrist stereotypes... the Jew isn't that fucked in the head.

The Nazi has every right to be a dick, but the Jew isn't going to give his valuable custom to a dick. He'll take it somewhere else, or bake his own damned cake and serve it with his head held high. He's certainly not going to beg a court: "Please make them take my money... I have a right to pay their bills!"


Now, my metaphor isn't nearly as sympathetic to the Christian baker... let's face it, it's not at all sympathetic. The Christians can take care of themselves... but I'm speaking of the point of view of the gay plaintiffs.

Guys, gals, and pronouns of your own devising... I know you think you're being really clever, but you're not. You're just being a bunch of monumentally oppressive jerks on your own behalf. And having a pet bully in the courts doesn't make you right.

When the baker doesn't make your cake, He's the jerk, but that's all he is. But he has a right to be a jerk and hold whatever beliefs he has. And he didn't force you to walk in the door. But the court errs egregiously when they claim that the First Amendment doesn't apply because the bakery is "not a religious institution". The freedom of religion isn't about "religious institutions", and I congratulate you on finding a judge so astoundingly stupid and uneducated that he thinks it does. The freedom of religion is about your individual right to worship God -- or not -- as you personally see fit. And that applies to the business owner whether he puts a cross on the building or not.

And when he doesn't make your cake you're offended and disappointed, but that's all you are. So buy a different fucking cake from a nicer guy, and then get online, talk up the good guy and blast the bigot. Convince his customers to go elsewhere... Don't beg to feed his fucking family. What the fuck is wrong with you? You call that gay pride? Because it looks a lot different.

By employing force to get your way, you've become bigger dicks than the dicks you oppose ever hoped to be. You're more oppressive than they are. And you've managed to convince a court to violate the First Amendment of the Constitution so that you can have not just cake, but a specific cake baked by a personal slave... a slave who still doesn't love your despotic ass. Congrats, on that, too. Maybe you can force a trophy-shop slave to provide you a little something for the mantle in celebration of the achievement.


BTW, if you can comprehend that the Jew has a right not to do business with the Nazi, and you comprehend that you have a right not to do business with the bigot, then there's something seriously wrong with you if you don't comprehend the bigot's right not to do business with you. Rights apply equally... even the people you completely disagree with have the same rights you do.

Now, personally, I don't like bigots. I think it's a great idea for as many people as possible not to do business with bigots. If they want your money they'll start treating you better. You lose the contest to see which of you is the bigger shithead the moment you decide to play that stupid, stupid game.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Braille Money.

This should be self-explanatory. The Canadians have done it.You'd think that it's a lot cheaper than some of the other features they've recently introduced, such as the polymer stripe and holographic ink. And it's one thing that people really, really need on the money.

It's not like they haven't thought of it, or even spent money on it. From the Bureau of Engraving and Printing:
"Also, a machine-readable feature has been incorporated for the blind. It will facilitate development of convenient scanning devices that could identify the denomination of the note."
So the blind have to use an expensive electronic device to scan the bills, which they FIRST HAVE TO INVENT, instead of just reading a few bumps that could be impressed on the bill by running the proofs through an embossing roller.

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

What Does Your Police Chief Need With An Army?

I believe that by and large, the police of this country are decent, honest folks who are doing their best to do a difficult and dangerous job. I certainly am on the side of law and order.

However there is a trend in law enforcement that I believe should be completely stopped. Special response teams such as SWAT ("Special  Weapons And Tactics"). You've seen them... military gear, military vehicles, military weapons, military bearing, and little to no regard for the due process that is the hallmark of legitimate law enforcement.

And yes, I said "legitimate law enforcement", which is, I believe, something that SWAT teams are not. Please read to this report from the Cato institute:

An issue here is many-faceted and simplistic at the same time.
  1. SWAT teams blur the demarcation between appropriate police and military action. The people that a SWAT team faces are not enemy combatants. They are citizens, who always, 100% of the time, always have Constitutional rights which must be respected. And I don't mean just their right to due process, but all of the rights afforded by the Constitution.
  2. But SWAT teams are "sexy". They've been glamorized in movies and television. As a result, police departments across America want them. And when they see some action going down in Columbine or Sandy Ridge, they consider how they would respond to such an action, and start making plans for their own little armies just like the ones the big-city. It's a little bit of jealousy, mixed with a little bit of fear, mixed with a little bit of hero-complex.
  3. SWAT teams also give the appearance of "doing something", and God knows we need to "do something"... which given only the time required for a knee-jerk reaction is almost always the wrong thing. And SWAT teams are almost never given more time than is appropriate for the "knee-jerk" reaction. Therefore, use of them is almost always the wrong response. .
That's a police car?
Roderick Yang - Creative Commons
SWAT teams are often referred to as "paramilitary", but I think that's mis-informative. Again: military gear, military vehicles, military weapons, military bearing, military tactics, and a military outlook on the nature of their opposition, none of which is appropriate to police work. SWAT teams are tiny militia, under the command of local police chiefs. And that is not kosher, nor in my mind is it constitutional.

Here is article 20 of the Constitution of South Carolina (my home state), which states the problem and solution (emphasis added)
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law. (1970 (56) 2684; 1971 (57) 315.) [PDF]
Now, Article XIII, Section 1 informs us that "the militia" consists of "all able-bodied male citizens of the State between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years" (with certain exemptions, notably conscientious objection), but here we're talking about "active" militia, all of whom must be under the command of the Governor by the direction of the General Assembly. And that is because the kind of safety imposed by a standing army is dangerous to liberty.

Our problem in the present day is that we forget the part about militia being "dangerous" to liberty, burying it behind arguments concerning the public safety. But our indulgence of special response teams results in neither safety nor liberty. Witness this report from regarding Eugene Mallory, an 80-year old man who was executed in his bed, by six bullets fired by a deputy, before being told to "drop the gun"... a gun which Mallory was not holding.

The warrant for this action was executed only on a verbal accusation from a self-proclaimed "expert" in controlled substances who had never set foot on Mallory's property, who claimed he could "smell" methamphetamine from downwind. And no, this incident didn't happen in South Carolina, but it could happen anywhere, and does happen in jurisdictions across the country.

Eugene Mallory's is not an isolated case. I could keep you here all day long with case after case of abuses rained down upon citizens by militarized police. In recent times this has not been limited to SWAT teams. As stated by Wikipedia,
"The relative infrequency of SWAT call-outs means these expensively trained and equipped officers cannot be left to sit around, waiting for an emergency. In many departments the officers are normally deployed to regular duties, but are available for SWAT calls via pagers, mobile phones, or radio transceivers." 
These are policemen?
Oregon DOT - Creative Commons
Those members who have been trained to look at the public as though they are combatants are distributed throughout the force, and they take that mind-set with them. That's inevitable, or else they wouldn't be very effective SWAT team members. And those who aren't a part of the "elite" but aspire to be may adopt that mindset as well. Hence, we have seen a marked increase in the number of shootings by police of innocent citizens and even their pets over recent years.

And here we have another issue. SWAT teams are expensive. The result is that they look like a monumental waste of money if you don't use them. After all, you've gone to the public and argued the urgent need for having a "force" to deal with "urgent" threats; and if you then don't find any urgent threats you look like Chicken Little... and an idiot. So suddenly, non-urgent threats become urgent, and officers who have been trained to deal with terrorists and hostage-takers are deployed in force to pick up a couple of legally-grown pot plants and shoot an old man in bed.

That's what you get with a SWAT team. Eventually, that's what you always get with a SWAT team, I think.

And it's completely  unnecessary. SWAT is by nature intended to equip the police to do things that police aren't equipped to do, and they can never be equipped to do everything. If that sounds to you like an invitation to never-ending escalation of violence and spending, you're right. We do, however, already have a force on hand that is already equipped, funded and trained to do those things, and that is the legitimate militia... the National Guard, properly under the command of the Governor of the state. They can be deployed at the direction of the Governor, given a request and a damned good reason.

And with all due respect to police officers past and present, if you're one of those who thinks that's its "too onerous" to have to provide a damned good reason before charging onto private property in riot gear and firing weapons without first at least attempting to knock at the door and speak civilly, then I don't think you should be doing police work.


[Main photo caption: A SWAT team vehicle. Courtesy Flickr user Roderick Yang. Licensed under Creative Commons:]

Junk Science Keeps On Comin'

I'm a glutton for punishment. I really should have had my fill with The Pyramid Code, but here I am, watching television producers "educate" their audience into ignorance.

This time it's Atlantis: Secret Star Mappers of a Lost World, which I watched on In the interests of full disclosure, I knew from the title that it would probably be crap, but there was the slightest minuscule chance that they would surround the discussion of a fictional utopia with some actual science. There is a little bit. but then they had to spoil it for me.

I'm not going to debunk the whole show. I'll limit myself to one item. Since they gave you a bucket of garbage, perhaps we can at least pull something real out of it. At right about 31 minutes into the program there's a discussion of ancient maps, and ... oh, well, I'll just give you the quote:
"These seeking maps show accurate east-west distances, and that requires a knowledge - and accurate knowledge - of time. you have to measure time to get that. Now, they didn't have clocks back then. They didn't have timepieces at 2000, 3000 B.C. So they had to have another mechanism by which they could measure time. And that mechanism is the slow wobble of the Earth's axis, which would cycle once in 25,920 years. And with this rate of the wobble of the Earth's axis, the constellations of the zodiac appear to move along the horizon. They knew this rate, therefore they could measure time, and therefore measure east-west distances."
Now, there is absolutely no way to say this politely, so I'm not going to try. This is a tremendous load of complete bullshit. The author of this astonishingly ignorant statement is James I. Nienhuis, who is the author of "Ice Age Civilizations". I mention the book because it's prominently featured as a credential under his name, and which (oddly) I found in its entirety as a PDF file on I'd link you to it, but you've got Google, same as me.

Nienhuis is a young Earth creationist, but more important to the current discussion, he has not the slightest clue on how navigation and cartography are done. I'm going to focus purely on two things here, one from the frontspiece of his book and one from the quote above, because the one informs the other, and I don't want you to think I'm taking his ignorance out of context. Let's start with the book:
"The precise measurements and religious observances of the apparent movements of the sun and constellations of stars, in their orderly and predictable course in the sky, was a great passion for the ancients, and such is reflected in their legends, megalithic buildings, and navigation maps, which reveal the ancients' awareness of the solar equinoxes and solstices, and also, which reveal that they actually measured the precession of the earth's axis, the slow gyroscope-like wobble of the earth's axis in space, that would cycle once in 25,920 years. Those ancients could measure the earth with this knowledge because it allowed them to accurately calculate the radius and, so then, the circumference of the earth, and thereby, they were prepared to execute measurements for the accurate mapping and navigation of much of the globe within a few centuries during the Ice Age."
One does not need any knowledge of the Earth's precession, much less its period, to make an impressively accurate estimate of the circumference of the Earth. Eratosthenes of Cyrene did it in the 3rd century B.C.E.. Here's how:

Pretty simple and obvious, right? Nienhuis would have you go 25,920 years out of your way to get the answer to that dead simple geometry problem. He would have you believe that ancient, esoteric superscience was necessary to solve a problem that could be solved with a stick.

I repeat: with a stick.

Now, let's look at his assertion in the Atlantis... program... that the mechanism if timekeeping used by the ancients to make accurate "east-west distances" was this same precession.

Hogwash. Nienhuis doesn't display an understanding the rudiments of navigation. When we're done in a moment, you will, though. So settle in and we'll go through the basics

The Basics

Even knowing the circumference of the Earth, it's difficult to measure distances between landmasses because you can't just pace off the distance. But you know that the Earth is round; and regardless of whether you believe it rotates or the Sun moves around it, the Sun appears to move from east to west, with local noon occurring at whatever spot happens to be directly under it. Now, if you have a clock, then you set it to the correct time for your home port. Then, as you travel, you note the position of stars... it matters little which. You then note the difference in where you perceive them to be where you are and where you'd expect them to be back home. This tells you were you are.

Now, to do this you're going need to know the circumference of the Earth at your latitude. Look at a globe and you'll see that the lines of latitude actually form circles, and the circles get smaller as you near the poles.

You remember from plane geometry that circumference = pi * diameter. Because the Earth is a spheroid, we can calculate how big each circle is. It size varies with the distance from the Equator, so any line of latitude's circumference is pi * diameter * cos(latitude). If you're using a calculator, remember that we express latitude in degrees. We can then calculate how far along that line we've traveled by determining how much local time differs from the time back home.

Here's an example:

For my simple example, I'm going to use the easiest star, which also happens to be the one closest to us. It's the Sun.

When at my home port of Charleston, I set my clock to 12:00 exactly at solar noon. Then I travel to Casablanca. At solar noon in Casablanca I look at my watch, which says 7 am. So I have observed that "noon" in Casablanca occurs 5 hours earlier than noon in Charleston. I also know my latitude, which I got from looking at the pole star Polaris the night before and noting how high off the horizon it appeared to be. Since Casablanca's at 33.5N, and Charleston's at 32.7N, I'm going to average them out and say they're both on the 33rd parallel for our purposes. Thanks to the method I learned from Eratosthenes, I know that the Earth is about 24,900 miles around, which makes its diameter 7,926 miles.

Armed with all of this, I calculate that the circumference of the 33rd parallel is

equatorial diameter * pi * cos(latitude)
7926 * 3.14159 * cos(33) 
about 20,883 miles

I also know there are 24 hours in the day, and I'm five hours away from my home port. So the distance I've traveled is 20,883 / 24 * 5, or about 4,350 miles, which is pretty close to what we'd sail if we stayed on the 33rd parallel and didn't take the Great Circle route (which would save us a couple of hundred miles).

There is no circumstance in which knowing about a 25,000 year-long cycle will help you with this calculation.

Now, in practice, the sun's not going to stick around waiting for you, and at night you'd use star charts. These will tell you what latitude and longitude a particular star is expected to be at a particular time and day of the year, and knowing where it is versus where you expected it to be you can calculate your position the very same way we did it using the Sun. After all, the Sun in simply the closest star.  But again, these charts are only useful if they tell you where to expect the stars now. Your charts should be accurate and recent.

Now, Atlantis... beats it into you that the modern method of map making is based on the relationship of time to distance. It's stated over and over and over again, along with the assertion that this is somehow, in a completely undefined way, associated with the knowledge of the Earth's precession. In fact, as you can see for yourself above, where the stars were thousands of years ago is of precisely useless in cartography or navigation. It's useless when calculating your longitude; it's useless when calculating your latitude, and it's useless when determining the time. They are conflating two completely different forms of time measurement, trusting that you won't notice that the one thing they have in common is the word time.
While I'm at it... "modern" cartography depends a lot on the GPS satellites, and is no longer done by reading the stars with a sextant.
If you want to calculate your longitude, what you need is a chronometer, not a calendar. What the ancients had to do was figure out a way to tell the time of day. Could they?

Well, Nienhuis makes a big deal out of the lack of "clocks". But without qualification, when you hear "clock" you're thinking in terms of a modern timepiece, no more primitive than a clockwork mechanism with gears and springs. That's not the only way to tell time. Here are a few others, known and used by the ancients:
  1. Water clocks tell the time in several ways... the simplest is the steady drip of water through a small hole in the container, the remaining water level indicating the time. Some used wheels to measure a steady flow, or had various levels of complexity, but you get the point. These are the oldest confirmed clocks, known to exist in Babylon in the 16th century B.C.E.
  2. Candle clocks tell the time via the slow and steady burn of a candle marked along its length with graduations that indicate the amount of time it's been burning, or the amount of oil left in a lamp.
  3. Hourglasses tell the time by the slow release of sand. They're not terribly accurate.
I should mention in passing that the Antikythera mechanism was not a clock. Rather it was more akin to a mechanical calendrical calculator.That's not the kind of time you're looking for. Move along.

In mentioning these ancient clocks, I'm not saying this is how it was done, or that these are the only ways to do it. But keep in mind that ancient thinkers were not idiots. They were so used to working within the limitations of their technology that things that seem like insurmountable problems to us were commonplace challenges to them.

While accurate timepieces are needed for accurate measurements on long voyages, that doesn't mean that less accurate timepieces are useless... they're just useful for a shorter period of time. These ancient clocks were not terribly accurate, but then again they didn't really have to be. They just had to be accurate enough to get you to your next landfall. At that point you can re-calibrate using local observations. Although you may navigate at night, when you're mapping, it's daylight. And yes, the errors are cumulative, but look at an ancient map. They're not nearly so precise as the gushing of these presenters would have you believe.

I'm going to leave it at that for now. There's so much wrong here that I got tired watching it.


Postscript: One more thing before I put this issue aside. This bit of debunking has nothing whatsoever to do with having an open or closed mind  It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe that the description of an allegorical anti-utopia in the writings of one ancient scholar represent historical fact. It doesn't matter whether you think the Earth was born yesterday. It has to do with math.

A closed mind won't change the math, and it's not possible to just brush it aside. And when Nienhuis is so completely wrong about such a fundamentally simple concept that is so easy to verify that you can do it right there in your armchair, you absolutely owe it to yourself to take other statements he makes with a skeptical attitude.

This isn't a passing mistake. It's a fundamental error. It leads the introduction of his book. He expounds on it in this movie. Ask yourself whether deliberately misleading you, does not check his facts, or is simply abysmally bad at fact-checking. Then ask which of these would make it OK to take his word at face value.


Post-Postscript: Why did I not calculate the Great Circle route? Partly because it's a pain in the ass and I'm giving you an introduction, not a course in spherical trigonometry. But if you're interested, here's how [link]. The linked site will not only give you the formulae; it will give you code you can use to do the spherical trig on your computer. 

But the main reason is the same as why the Mercator projection was preferred by sailors... it gives true compass bearings. An ancient sailor is not only going to eschew the complicated math, he's going to be more concerned with knowing where he is than optimizing his route. So the distance I gave is that which you'd travel if you sailed due East for the entire trip.

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Well, since you ASKED...

I guess whoever made the graphic thought it was really clever. It would have been a lot more clever had they recognized and acknowleged that "chemical medications" have been around for those same thousands of years.

You see, the herbs and berries and juices and oils touted by alternative medicine are composed completely and solely by "chemicals". EVERY SINGLE BIT. There's NO ingredient in ANY natural medication that is NOT "chemical". Not one, ever, ever in the history of ever. The closing statement of the graphic above is ludicrously non-informative, and it is just plain wrong.

The problem with some of the natural remedies isn't that they're natural. And the "problem" with artificial chemicals isn't that they're artificial. At least, not when you put your mind to it. Let's take for example the case of willow bark tea... a very effective painkiller. But from experience and careful testing we know that of the myriad chemicals in willow tree bark, only one kills pain: Salicin.

Now, why does salicin alleviate pain? When metabolized by the body it breaks down into two components, one of which, salicylic alcohol, is further metabolized into salicylic acid, and that's the stuff that kills pain. It does that by inhibiting the enzyme that create prostaglandins, which are fatty molecules that both communicate pain and assist blood clotting. Your body does a lot of chemistry to get you there, but the thing in the bark that's useful is the salicin.

Knowing this, chemists took their knowledge of the plants, isolated the active ingredient that does the work, removing all the other ingredients that don't, and stabilized it. The result is acetysalicylic acid, which metabolizes directly to that same salicylic acid... the same stuff that you get to from willow bark, without being adulterated by extraneous ingredients. Your body wouldn't look for the "made by" label on the molecule even if such a thing existed.

And because the resulting chemical is pure, the dosage can be controlled. You don't know how much medicine you're getting from a willow bark infusion; but you do from a pill.

That pill, by the way, is called Aspirin. It's more like 150 years old, as it was first prepared in 1853.


Contrary to popular belief, doctors, chemists, and pharmacists do not decry "natural" remedies just because they're natural. Indeed, an "alternative medicine" that is proven to work is called....


Medical researchers actively examine all manner of plants and animals in search of useful chemistry, and for good reason... a living organism in its environment is the most advanced chemical research laboratory there is. Aspirin is simply the first, and most high-profile example of this. But these researchers go far beyond the herbalist or homeopath. They don't stop at saying whether something works: they then ask the questions:
  • What in it is doing the work? 
  • Why does it work?
  • How does it work?
  • Can it work better? Safer? In a controlled fashion?
Remember, when you're taking a "natural" infusion, you're getting some medicine, yes... but you're also ingesting a lot of chemicals that are not medicine, by any definition. What do they do? Why are you taking not-medicine along with your medicine? Because it's natural? Even willow-bark tea isn't necessarily safe. Salicin may have contributed to the death of Ludwig von Beethoven. Look at what else is natural...
  • Socrates was put to death using a tea made of hemlock. Like all plants of the time it was organically grown. I suppose you could say that he died of "natural" causes.
  • Strychnine is all natural. It's so toxic that the poison and the plant have the same name. That is, when we're not calling it "rat poison".
  • Cyanide is found in all-natural wholesome apples, cherries, peaches, plums, almonds, and apricots. I know that essential oils are all the rage now, but unless carefully prepared in such a way that negates any possible claim of being "natural", some of them (extract of bitter almond, for instance), could quickly kill you.
  • Cassavas are nice. They're what's used to make tapioca. But they're also toxic if not processed. If you like your cassavas as God made them, you may enjoy having pancreatitis.
  • Potatoes contain alkaloids like solanine, so you don't want to eat the green ones, and you definitely want to cook them thoroughly; otherwise you could wind up organically dead.
  • Likewise, tomatoes and other members of the nightshade family contain poisonous solanine. The berries of the tomato plant are OK to eat, but make a tea from the leaves only if you're all done with living and would like to leave a sun-dried corpse.
  • Try eating horse chestnuts and see how many you get down without experiencing projectile vomiting and convulsions. If you eat them quickly you could enjoy paralysis.
I could go on for a very, very long time. There are as many dangerous, poisonous, and inedible plants, bacteria and fungi as there are beneficial ones. Anyone who claims that something is safe merely because it is "all natural" is either lying to you or uncritically repeating a falsehood that he or she heard.

Don't you be the one to do that. The very first thing you should ask when confronted with the phrase "all natural" is "has it been tested, and how?"

Even poisons can be medicines in the right doses. And even oxygen can be toxic in the wrong dose. And chemicals... even the natural ones... react with those around them. How effective they are is often determined by the company they keep. What pharmaceuticals do is control those parameters so you know what your'e getting. And even then the results are not 100%, nor will they ever be, as everyone's body chemistry is subtly different.


This blog post is NOT a claim that all alternative medicines are bad. Since you're reading and this isn't a conversation, I don't even know what your favorite underdog is.

Rather, it's an admonition to use your mind and neither accept something because it contains a "good" buzzword nor reject something because it contains a "bad" buzzword. Scientists don't do that, and neither should you.

Remember, "alternative medicine" that is proven to work is called "medicine". You're making the claim, so you have a burden that you can't pass off... the answer to anyone who doubts your favorite alternative treatment is for you to prove it works. Not with anecdotes, and not with folksy sayings, and not with superficially slick yet fundamentally logically flawed platitudes about how long people did it the "traditional" way. Instead you prove it with proof.  That would be double-blind repeatable studies that show that the treatment is more effective than a placebo. 

It's been thousands of years, so there's really no excuse for not having done it by now.


On Facebook, Heather observes that "Doctors are more inclined to prescribe pills rather than a plan for good nutrition that could perhaps have the same (or better) results when taking into account side effects."

Correct. To be fair, though, many doctors of my acquaintance do stress nutrition, and have for a long time. They also, if you ask, will admit that the vast majority of the things that can go wrong with a human body will fix themselves, given the opportunity.

A great example: A few years back I tore both rotator cuffs in my shoulders. The doctor offered both painkillers and surgery, but when I asked for other options he said it would heal if I exercised it properly... but it would be painful. I hung a simple pulley from the ceiling and used it to help work the arms past the point of pain where they'd "catch". And yup it was painful, but they did heal. And to be honest, the pain wasn't THAT bad. I've been hurt worse playing baseball.

Unfortunately this ability of the body to fix itself often leads to the erroneous conclusion that some something else did the healing. You take Brand X and get better, and you reach the conclusion that Brand X cures your ailment, when you'd've healed on your own anyway. Most cold medications do exactly that. You take it "for your cold", but really the common cold is going to run its course. You're really taking the medication to reduce the symptoms.

Even then, reducing the symptoms isn't always the best idea. Your nose stops up and you get a fever because that's how the body fights off invaders.

However, back to nutrition. Doctors have to take it into account to some degree, and more should, because even "healthy" fruits and vegetables may not be healthy in company... for instance, there is a HUGE laundry list of medications that can be rendered impotent by eating grapefruit. Sounds weird, but there you go. Grapefruit contains anti-oxidants and vitamin C and they lower cholesterol, which is all great; but often not when you're on medication.


Also on Facebook, Jenny notes: 
Thanks for the interesting commentary, Dave. I do think that the "active" ingredient in a substance exists in a highly sophisticated context of micronutrients and energetics and so on, a synergy that (although it may be very subtle and not currently noticed by our scientific instruments, as that's not what they're looking at) causes the "active" ingredient to work at its best. We are a culture of parts, not of wholes, but nature works in wholes exclusively, and we forget that to our detriment. That's not to say that something like aspirin doesn't work well; just to point out that the most measurable part of the phenomenon is almost certainly not the only force at play. I agree with you about all the rest, though!
That's certainly a possibility and sometimes a reality, but it's not the only one, nor by some measures the most likely one. First, let's remember that the substances exist within the plants for the plants' benefit; not for ours, and that our body chemistry is very different from that of a plant. Even within animals, body chemistry matters. For instance, chocolate is a delicious treat for humans, but poisonous to dogs.

So even when we consider that the chemical is found with a holistic mix, that mix isn't necessarily for you, especially if the plant is from a remote region where humans had little or nothing to do with its breeding. Remember, organisms develop those traits that are most beneficial to their own survival within an environment. That environment includes other organisms, so symbiosis does exist, but if it's an obscure species, you're not part of that. You're taking and using someone else's stuff to your benefit, and that's not always appropriate to your needs.

So what are the possibilities?
  1. The substance works best with the entire chemistry of the plant, as per assumption.
  2. The other chemical components of the plant make no difference. They're neutral. But, being neutral, they still dilute the medicinal substance and make the dosage less predictable.
  3. The other chemical components of the plant reduce the effectiveness of the medicine in humans. as happens routinely in the grapefruit effect. If we're going to consider wholes, then we must also consider that chemistry is balanced, and is rarely all good or bad. Yin-Yang is a synthesis, which leads to...
  4. The other chemical substances are directly harmful, or even poisonous.
Three out of the four possibilities are not the rosy one pictured. Which of them is true is answered by the scientific queries I previously listed. "What's working?" "Why does it work?" "How does it work?" "Can it work better? Safer? In a controlled fashion?"

There's a 75% chance of getting it wrong by merely trusting that nature does it best.

Remember, my point isn't that "natural" is necessarily bad. It's that it's not necessarily good either. It is what it is, and we can't determine what that is by anecdote and assumption. So trust, but verify.


Per the Anonymous comment here, Tim Minchin hits the same note (and a few more) in a 9-minute beat poem called "Storm". Tim's a bit more confrontational about it. I would like to point out, too that Aspirin is hardly what I'd call "virtually side effect free" as he claims. Actually, there's a fairly long list, including allergies, angiodema, bleeding, and Reye's syndrome. Here's the list [link]. Nevertheless it's still my go-to medicine for pain.

Still, while science certainly doesn't have ALL the answers, concerning the physical world, it is how we discover them.