Crop Circles, Burkas, and the like November 3, 2007
Posted by Graham in : General, Science and Rationaltiy , trackbackAnyone interested in crop circles -are they human-made hoaxes? or is there some other-worldy paranormal explanation? should check out this thread
The debate falls into two camps: on the pro-paranormal side, very detailed examination of the patterns and microscopic changes in the cellular structure of the wheat stems etc is presented as evidence that they could not have been man-made. A rather obscure alternative theory to do with plasma and the “universal subconscious” is presented instead.
On the sceptics’ side, plenty of evidence is presented that many of not most crop circles are indeed man-made and there are plenty of hoaxers who have come out and demonstrated how they do it. Some have built lucrative careers out of both the original hoaxing and subsequent books and demonstrations. It appears to be a career with considerable prospects. The challenge then is to explain the construction of some very elaborate and complex crop circles which have as yet not had anyone come forward to claim responsibility.
I want to humbly offer a few thinking tools when considering this issue (and other phenomena which may seem to require paranormal explantion):
1)Scientific theory- that we live in a world governed by the Laws of Thermodynamics- is validated constantly but all of us in our everyday lives. Everytime we get in a car, turn on the computer, eat industrial food, grow gardens or whatever. The vast vast majority of our everyday experience confirms our assumptions that the world is actually in large part predictable. This does NOT mean that we can rule out automatically knowledge that lies outside this realm of current knowledge- if we did that, science itself could not proceed in the way that we know it has. So the point of this is, we should be suspicious of explanations that favor a completely different set of physical laws to explain them, because if such a set of laws were discovered, it would necessarily change our whole experience of everyday life.
For example, today as usual I got up, made coffee, had breakfast, turned on the computer etc all in a fairly regular and predictable fashion. I took it for granted that the Laws of Physics applied this morning the same as they did yesterday. By the same token it is not reasonable to look for paranormal explanations for things just because we havnt yet figured out exactly how they were done. Science has in fact given us more information and knowledge about the world than we had, say, in witch-burning times. I did not, for example consider the possibility that I be suddenly transformed into a huge purple banana and start doing Elvis impersonations….oops! Well, what do you know…
2)Crops circles are not it seems a modern phenomenon, but have been around for a long time and are commonly played around with by young kids on school holidays. As the media picked up on them they became more and more frequent and more and more elaborate. This doesnt prove anything but it does point to a reasonable hypothesis: there is money in them there crop circles. (Many require a fee if you want to view them). Some people apparently have devoted many many years of their lives to developing the skills to make ever-more eleborate crop circles. This kind of explanation may seem unlikely but it is FAR more likely than any alternative theory- and entirely plausible. There is abundant evidence for hoaxing; there is no evidence for the paranormal.
3) Human beings are incredibly creative and even stone-age people had extraordinary abilities to do things that we would find nearly impossible without years of experimentation and training. Neil Buchanan’s Big Art Attacks are given as one example of extraordinary creative abilities that some people have developed. (Ive never seen him myself.) Just because we couldnt see how something was done doesnt mean it couldnt be done.
4)Hoaxes are all around us and have been since the beginning of history, probably. Climate change denial, bogus claims about renewable energy, Uri Geller, etc etc.. The hoax hypothesis is definitely worth considering because we have absolute proof that hoaxes do happen.
5)Whole populations of people still believe many things for which there is no evidence- the existence of God, the benefits of the industrial growth system, etc.. This is why we need proper research methods- it is very easy to draw false conclusions from the data.
6)Especially in the post-modern world, we have a built-in desire to believe in things that will take us away from this at times tedious and rather difficult world confined as it is by the laws of thermodynamics. Wouldnt it be great to live in Disneyland where the houses are made of marsh-mallow! Part of this desire is I think nostalgia for childhood. It is understandable but not desireable. It may be that the problems of the world also seem at times so overwhelming that we wish we could just be transported into another realm.
7) The charge given against the sceptics point of view is that it is closed-minded and trapped in its own orthodoxy. This is not true, in fact it is usually the other way around- those who favour paranormal explanations (which with few exceptions have indeed been disproved) are often closed-minded themselves and deeply prejudiced against science- despite making use constantly in their daily lives the benefits that the scientific based system is able to deliver reliably and on time.
The understanding of the universe revealed by science is far more exciting and interesting than that interpretation clouded by superstition and belief in fairy-tales.
Science is precisely that uniquely human realm which has been able to create tools- extensions of our senses- that really are able to make unseen worlds and realms visible.
Dawkins in “The God Delusion” expresses it this way in the last chapter, “The Mother of All Burkas”:
If the one-inch slit in the muslim woman’s burka represented the range of light waves that are visible to the human eye, how long above and below the eye-slit would the black cloth be to proportionately represent the rest of the Invisible spectrum? It would apparently be so long that it is difficult to convey- many, many miles. So science not only has revealed how little our senses perceive, but has acquired the tools and techniques to describe this in precise detail.
Dawkins says: “What science does for us is widen the window. It opens up so wide that the imprisoning black garment slips away almost completely, exposing our senses to airy and exhilarating freedom”.
Comments»
In my opinion the Wikipedia article on crop circles doesn’t leave much room for believing that they are not made by humans.
Seeing as I raised this subject in the first place I guess I’d better respond here (also speaking as probably the only one involved in this thread that has actually seen one of these things). I didn’t raise crop circles because I believe they are made my space aliens or fairies. I raised them because I do think that some of them are genuinely unexplainable, and therefore of relevance to this ’science can explain everything’ discussion.
In one of Graham’s responses on the thread about Woo Woo in Permaculture, he cited James Randi as a source of scientific refutation of crop circles. James Randi is a magician, not a scientist, and his arguments against crop circles are basically a collection of newspaper articles and heresay, he offers no references at all, certainly no peer reviewed papers. If that is a scientific refutation and an example of clear minded scientific analysis it is pretty rubbish. The Wikipedia page Tom refers to is similarly clearly written by people writing from a skeptics perspective, drawing together lots of stories of people hoaxing circles, which undoubtedly happens, yet does not explain every formation. The Doug and Dave story to which it refers has been largely debunked as a media creation.
The Wikipedia piece dismisses the scientific research on the subject (which I gave links to in the Woo Woo thread) which has gone on for many years through Dr Levengood and his team, and has been peer reviewed and published in journals, by referring to one case where some hoaxers tried to replicate their findings. I quote;
So, we are supposed to believe that these formations, many of stunning complexity, some of which require hundreds of points to be positioned precisely on the ground in order for them to be joined up to create astonishingly complex geometric patterns, and which appear in short time periods in the dark, with plants ’steamed’ to the ground in complex weaves and swirls, are not only made by people with ropes and boards, but as well as all their hoaxing equipment, they also lug with them, down dark muddy tracks and field tramlines, their “Flammschmeisser” machine, a generator presumably, a bag of iron filings, and a portable ‘microwave emitter’. For heavens sake. They do this week in week out over the summer months, sometimes creating 2 or 3 formations in one night, and for what, the occasional mention in the News of the World? Come on.
As time passes the hoaxers do, of course, improve, yet there are a number of formations each year that are not explicable by hoaxing. Many of those who make hoaxes actually, ironically, believe that there is a genuine phenomena, and that they are communicating with something, rather than just debunking it. I would suggest, if anyone wants to read more about it, rather than just relying on Canadian magicians, Andy Thomas’s book ‘Vital Signs’ and also John Michell and Allan Brown’s ‘Crooked Soley’, which is a detailed analysis of how one particular pattern would have to have been constructed (it is quite mind boggling).
Graham flippantly makes the point that sometimes a fee is charged by the farmer to let people into formations, as if this is somehow evidence of fakery. “There is money in them there crop circles” he argues. Not much it must be said, in fact none, unless you get a very occasional commission to do one for Renault or somesuch. Charging for entry is done by the farmer not by who or whatever made the circle! Farmers are usually incensed by the arrival of these things, and often cut them out as soon as they arrive, rather than rubbing their hands with pound signs in their eyes.
Of course people hoax them, but there is little evidence that more than a few are made like this. It is a rather patronising argument to say that people are interested in things like crop circles because they are escapists. Personally speaking, I’d say I probably use Premier League football and second hand bookshops for escapism more than my interest in crop circles!
There is of course a whole load of New Age nonsense and cosmic nonsense that has attached itself to this thing. Yes, a lot of that is non, even anti-scientific. Without a doubt. Yet at its core I am still sure that there is something that evades explanation.
As I mentioned before, the last crop formation I visited in the UK before I moved to Ireland I would stake my life as not having been made by people. I was one of the first people into it, it was immaculate, appeared in 45 minutes in broad daylight right next to a main road, and was a stunning example of the phenomenon. I will go to my grave certain that it was not made with string, rollers, planks, “Flammschmeisser” machines and microwave emitters. I suspect also that I will also go to my grave still not knowing how that formation was made.
It is somewhat patronising to say that people who believe that some crop formations are not man made are nostalgic for their childhood!! Being interested in crop circles and being nostalgic for your childhood are two things independent of each other, in my opinion. It is a ridiculous argument in this context, and betrays more about Graham’s understandable frustrations about flaky New Agers who say that climate change will sort itself out because the High Kings of Pleidies will see to it, than it does about the crop circle phenomena.
There is a difference between scientific analysis and cynicism. For the cynic, everything that doesn’t fit the world view is dismissed. I have no axe to grind about crop circles, other than thinking that the arguments presented thus far above are simplistic, based on scrabbling about for any bits of information that back up one’s cynicism, rather than a genuine scientific open-mindedness.
I would suggest that rather than deciding, categorically, that this is not a genuine phenomena, you perhaps do some actual research yourself. Apply the incisive scientific tools you espouse. Yes, there is a line of logic that runs “it makes more sense that these things are hoaxed than not”, we might call this Graham’s blue banana hypothesis. Yet, surely scientific progress comes often from seeing things that don’t fit with the accepted model and saying “I wonder”. Cynicism is the death of “I wonder”. The lazy arguments presented above do little to give one faith that science is the open minded, ground breaking, explain-everything tool Graham so stridently proposes it as being. Perhaps it is science that needs to catch up a bit, not the crop circles!
Not sure how to upload links, I am assuming it is the same as in Word Press. Here goes, hope it works. Here are a few links so the reader can get a sense of what we are talking about here.
This is the circle I am talking about that I saw in 1996 which I mention above. Here is an amazing one that a US engineering company estimated would need 296 individual points to be marked on the ground before the actual pattern could be marked out and which was made in pouring rain yet not a single muddy footprint was found anywhere in the formation.
Also, have a look at this collection of formations, on a circle hoaxers’ website, note that they have no explanation for most of these, rather a tone of hushed awe! Not surprising really, many are too complex to draw on paper never mind mark out precisely in a dark slopey field. Right, let’s see if this works!
Hurray!
I never said that science has an explanation for everything Rob, that’s just confusing things. As you must understand by now, the whole point is that the same rigorous method of exploration- looking for explanations- should be used for all phenomena- you agree, yes? Obviously there is much in the universe that is unexplained, perhaps far more unexplained than explained.
I didnt mean to imply that you personally take interest in crop circles because of nostalgia for childhood- just that a sort of romantic search for lost innocence and a wish for greater forces than we know is a natural inclination in our over-technological culture, a yearning for more immediate contact with the natural world etc., but that it can get in the way of proper investigation.
An innacuracy in what you say:
the wiki link sites a study concluding 80% crop circles in the UK were definately man-made.
In contrary to the nasturtiums that you are casting, it is not the rationalist approach that is closed minded, which is simply: follow the method and collect the evidence. This is NOT the same as certainty, but a valuable principle that has worked very well for the world is, the most likely explanation is usually the right one, especially when you are dealing with something that would otherwise turn upside down not just a theory about crop circles, but absolutely everything we know about everything. The laws of physics don’t just randomly stop working every now and then.
Its just not helpful to keep dissing science for being closed minded, for all the reasons I have already given. We badly need to revise the popular New-Age ignorance of science, especially as it is creeping into the permaculture world as well- and if you are genuinely interested in investigating stone circles,(or Walnut trees for that matter) it is in your interest to stop dissing science and just work with it.
So the precautionary principle is very important and I think you should support it. You on the other hand are claiming absolute certainty that the one you saw was NOT man-made; however amazing they are- and the photos are certainly impressive- you just cannot reasonably discount the possibility that they are man-made. That does not prove that they are- obviously I am coming down on the sceptics side but this position does require demonstration it is possible, you are absolutely correct.
To doubt your certainty is not cynicism and it is not useful to the debate to suggest it is.
The arguments expressed are not lazy, they are quite normal in this kind of debate. They need to be taken into consideration. I think some circles are a genuinely interesting an unexplained phenomenon. Of course scientific inquiry depends upon being open-minded- the issue is, you cannot just throw out everything we know from science, without which we wouldnt even be here to discuss it.
Keep investigating, but just maybe accept that you just might possibly be wrong?! Otherwise YOU might turn into a Blue Banana!!
Does it have to be either/or? Can’t science and woo woo co-exist? Woo woo may just be something for which no measuring apparatus and units have yet been invented. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I have, for example, experience of successful dowsing and homeopathy which goes beyond coincidence or placebo (not to mention experience of many other unexplained phenomena). I don’t know how it works (though I have some idea how some of it might be explained, though not scientifically ‘proven’) but I do know it works, and I know both are considered bad science. I accept the existence, I wonder, marvel, theorize, but do not make assertions about what they are or are not. To me they are not bad science just because they are not proven in double blind studies in a lab (do experiments take all possible complex interactions into considerations?), nor do I attribute them to the High Kings of Pleidies. We shouldn’t forget that much of what is proven by science now was once poo-pooed by scientists of the past, and much of what was state-of-the-arts science in the past is now obvious quackery. Radioactivity would have been an invisible, unmeasurable, i.e. non-existent force about a century and more ago, and yet, within a short time of its discovery, radium capsules were sold as cure-alls, backed by the science of the day. The only certainty is that there is no certainty, not even in science.
As to the crop circles, I think there could be an explanation which is neither Doug-and-Dave-and-a-plank-and-piece-of-string, nor some alien or supernatural force, but man-made, yes. Indeed, some of the shapes are probably impossible to do on the ground with the equipment mentioned in a previous post, however, there are some humans who probably have the capability and equipment to produce these very complex patterns (as well as ‘UFOs’): the military/government. Motive? Martial law. OK, so we are in the realms of conspiracy theory, but look at all the creeping control measures, and you may begin to see that there might just be something in it. Plant the seed of some alien force in people’s minds, deny the existence, but one day roll out the Big Show which, after initial denial, would seem all the more ‘genuine’ : ‘My fellow citizens..blah blah… been invaded by an alien force …I thus have to declared a State of Emergency…’ So how might they do those ‘circles’ which are beyond Doug and Dave? I am only guessing here, and not sure of the technology, but think it feasible maybe from a helicopter, airplane, or even satellite. Project the image onto the ground from a computerised blueprint and then either manually have Private Doug and Dave do a plank job or use some laser equipment from the air.
Well you’ve certainly given us food for thought and put a different angle on things Judy.
But I cant really but the conspiracy theory. The methods required to dupe a whole population and get them to accept martial law are well understood and probably quite easy to install in any modern state. Look at the WMD deception as an excuse to invade Iraq. TV, advertising and the dependency on oil and the consumer society are, it would seem to me, already enough to manipulate the British population as much as would be needed. The mere threat of removal of some of our goodies, or much more prosaic threats like terrorism or crime would surely do the job much better.
Many, many people believe that dowsing and homeopathy “work” and site similar personal experience, but it seems very difficult to replicate in any controlled setting- and there could be other explanations for the effects people get. Science has come a very very long way since the 19th century quack doctors, and issues of controls, the observer effecting the outcome are very well understood. This doesnt mean mistakes cant be made, but since science is now very well able to measure radioactivity, or microwaves and a staggering array of new discoveries that no-one had previously guessed at, which have allowed all the stuff of the modern world that we depend on to exist, why should it not be able to measure the effects of dowsing? When dowsers are tested, they are generally very optimistic and sign statements that they expect 100% success and are often recorded as being shocked at the failure.
The question is, how CAN you be sure about something unless it has been tested using the double-blind method with controls, and replicated by others, and verified independently? Is it really good enough- given what is at stake with the future of the planet- to just assert: “I KNOW it works”? If science being can be mislead then surely the possibility of an individuals’ personal conviction being in error is all the more possible.
The difficulty I have with selective criticisms of science- it has made mistake, it doesnt create certainty, you cant really be sure etc etc is it plays right into the hands of the Woo-Woos who, ignorant of the elegance of the scientific method and the astonishing, mind boggling wonders that it has uncovered- the scale of the cosmos, evolution, the electro-magnetic spectrum- conclude: you cant really be sure about anything, THEREFORE absolutely anything is possible and I will just believe- and teach- whatever makes me feel good.
Crop circles are a a different case, because the phenomenon themselves are not in question- any attempt to come up with an alternative explanation to man-made is likely to fail (because it would necessarily be speculating about phenomena of which we have no experience, something entirely novel) so the only work that can really be done is to try to demonstrate how they could have been man-made. So far, the sophistication of the newer crop circles seems to be ahead and for the moment they remain a genuine mystery.
If they turn out NOT to be man-made we will have to re-write practically everything we know about the universe- but it still wont guarantee proof for dowsing or homeopathy!!
are obviously applicable to
Hi again
In response to Judy’s email, I was with her until about half way through (I have seen homeopathy work on my young children exceptionally well), but then she lost me. Sorry. Crop circles as the harbinger for the New World Order takeover? Sorry, that’s just ridiculous, for so many reasons that I would spend the next four hours with my crap typing trying to get them all down. Her point that just because we haven’t created the tools to measure something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist is very valid.
How does one create a machine to prove/disprove the provenance of a crop formation when we still don’t understand the process that creates it? it’s a tricky one.
We seem to be getting somewhere in the bigger discussion. So now some circles may be real. Aha. I am intrigued by your sentence “as you must understand by now, the whole point is that the same rigorous method of exploration- looking for explanations- should be used for all phenomena”.
Absolutely, and I am with you that we need to apply these tools and insights where possible. Yet it would appear, to apply your own argument, in the original WooWoo piece, that so far, in this discussion in relation to crop circles, that I am the only one who has presented “rigorous scientific testing and verifiable, refutable methods”.
I am so far the only person in this dialogue who has cited any peer reviewed papers, any genuine quantitative research, any actual scientific insights on the matter. In terms of the original parameters you set out, it would rather appear to be crop circles 1, Graham 0.
The example of Radium actually counts in favour of the scientific method and Im afraid against homeopathy.
Radium capsules DO have a measurable effect that was noted before the cause of the effect was correctly identified; the difficulty with verifying homeopathy seems to be with getting a measurable effect in the first place. The point is, if (early) science was able to identify the real effect in Radium why cant modern science- with its much more sophisticated techniques and a hundred years more experience demonstrate the effect of homeopthy? The same goes for dowsing- an explanation for how the effect works is not required, merely a demonstration that it does work. If I thought I could definitely demonstrate either would i go for the $1million prize from James Randi? You bet!
My experience with dowsing and homeopathy have also been as observer and experimenter. Having picked up some energy near my home (no cables or pipes anywhere close by) I have on many occasions pushed some rods into the hands of visitors and asked them to walk along the path (approx. 50 yards) and see if they would pick up something. Most have had no prior experience, and they all picked up something at the same spot. I made sure of not giving any signs through body language and stood well away, but within sight of the rods. I believe this to be statistically significant. An experienced dowser would also be able to say what caused the reaction. One account I came across claimed that small amounts of iron in the diet is in the form of magnetite, which accumulates in or near (my memory is a bit foggy on the detail) the pituitary gland near the root of the nose (the very place birds have their navigation organ!) and may make the organ sensitive enough to act as a kind of compass which can pick up disturbances of the earth’s magnetic field in the ground like geological faults which may also be fissures carrying water. Dowsing tools are only amplifiers, aids for the subconscious mind to make the information visible. A very experienced dowser will be able to take these clues from their body without tools, but often use them as customers ‘expect’ to see some tool.
The statistically significant homeopathy experience was administering it to my cat who had five bouts of cystitis, each one only being ‘cured’ whilst she was on antibiotics. As soon as the course of treatment ended, she promptly got ill again. The vet then suggested vitamin C to acidify her urine. At the health food shop where I mentioned it when buying the vitamin C, the knowledgeable owner said I should try homeopathic treatment, which I did with instant success and no recurring cystitis for a number of years. On any subsequent occasion when she got it, the homeopathic treatment always worked with no immediate recurring bouts as happened with the antibiotics. No placebo effect there. Even double blind studies are only statistics, but wrapped in white coats with letters behind names. Oh, and egos. I am not knocking science, but what I am trying to say is that its not that clear cut, which is what I meant by “the only certainty is that there is no certainty”. My personal explanation (though I am by no means fixed on it) for homeopathy is that it works in a similar way to vaccination, taking a tiny amount of an offending material/inactivated pathogen to kick start the immune system.
What is woo woo today may one day find a scientific explanation or - I keep an open mind - something that would have us rewrite the physics books (I’m sure they have already been more than once).
I make no assertions that the crop circles are made to bring about martial law, but that it is a possible explanation. It could equally be a high level prank, but no doubt by those who have some very sophisticated equipment at their disposal. To me this makes a lot more sense (for the very complex configurations) than Doug and Dave or aliens. But ultimately, until we have evidence, we are guessing. A guess may be only a little above not knowing, but it opens a line of enquiery which may ultimately lead to an answer.
Thanks Judy. as I say, many people will have similar experiences to recount- but why then can they not be replicated under controlled conditions? To make your experiences valid they would have to be replicated with independent observers. The cases where I know this has been attempted have not been successful. My point is, there is no reason why they should not be replicated- in the same way that for example microwaves can be demonstrated to exist. Especially if there is a simple explanation to do with accumulation of iron filings in the nose! likewise with homeopathy- there is no reason for it to be singled out an doubted if it does indeed work. The theory that is works on a similar basis to homeopathy doesnt seem to make sense because there are no active molecules at all in a homeopathic remedy, as I understand it- it is supposed to work purely on an “etheric” level.
It is widely believed and often repeated that science will be routinely updated every few decades with everything we currently know likely to be thrown out and revised, but this is not likely.
You could think of it as a similar bell-curve to peak oil- rapid changes and scientific revolutions were common in the early stages but probably peaked with Einstein. There is much still left to discover but not so much that we will throw away the basics of what we know now. As I said before, verifying the effect should be a simple matter (in the case of dowsing- more complex in homeopathy) and
I cannot think of a motive not to find it if it is genuinely there.
Egos, Im afraid, are not confined to the world of science!
Of course there is a dark side to science, more to do with the way it is used, and a materialistic ethic, but as permaculturalists we should work together to revise the lamentably negative view of science which is far more open, exciting and useful than people realise.
Useful debate on homeopathy here:
http://badhomeopath.com/?p=22#more-22
Thanks to Tom for this link re crop circles:
http://www.starstreamresearch.com/confessions.htm
And thanks to Rob for introducing me to the strange world of circle makers! I find the whole thing fascinating- from an artistic and scoiological perspective, that is.