It has been over four years since I relaunched Frontier Channel as a news and commentary site with a discussion of pseudoscience and the Technological Singularity. The commentary – “Science, Pseudoscience, and My Love of the End of the World” – began with me listening to Coast to Coast AM with George Noory, a habit I dropped soon after except for a rare listen when particular guest speakers are scheduled. The show remains popular but the problem I mentioned four years ago also remains: the mix of legitimate scientists with pseudoscientists and crackpots dilutes science education. All guests’ topics are treated as equal night after night.

Those people well versed in rigorous day-to-day science can quite easily tell the real from the fantastic, and when they cannot they temper any enthusiasm with an appropriate level of scepticism. It is not clear to me that many in the general public can do the same. Some might claim that this radio show is all about entertainment with a dash of learning thrown in. However, in a world of rapid technological change, where science fiction sometimes becomes science reality, where questions of science become political quagmires based on belief systems rather than empirical evidence, reason, and logic, the ability to tell the difference becomes increasingly important. Coast to Coast AM simply does not help.

Radio shows are not the only problem, and four years after my commentary it seems there is more talk of pseudoscience in the mainstream media than ever before. Mixed in with truly amazing scientific discoveries and technological progress are articles about prayers for rain in areas suffering drought, ghosts allegedly captured on video camera, New Age drivel masked as quantum mechanics (think “The Secret”), and nasty commentary about the evils of progress. It is as if serious news reporting never went away, but instead began to meld with stories previously found only in the tabloids, resulting in the hybrid major news websites of today.

What then to make of my own rather consistent coverage of the Technological Singularity here on Frontier Channel, as well as increasing attention to cryonics, transhumanism, and other ideas many legitimate scientists consider to be pseudoscience, or at best, fringe science? Has Frontier Channel itself become an example of the problems I find with mainstream news outlets? I have admitted in the past that in high school and college I was a rapt fan of pseudoscience. Have these new topics led me back to those silly days?

Unfortunately, the answer lies somewhere along the fine line between science and pseudoscience, a line blurred by the trends of today. On the one hand we do appear to be experiencing technological progress at rates never before experienced. Breakthroughs that were science fiction only a decade ago have become old news. Legitimate scientists sometimes report extraordinary advancements, like parallel computing in nanoscopic devices, reasoning avatars in Second Life, epigenomic understandings of diseases, an increasing number of spots in our own solar system that might harbor extraterrestial life, etc. Real life sometimes comes across like a tabloid article or science fiction story!

However, there are tools we can use to explore each one of these breakthroughs. Today’s breakthroughs require tomorrow’s confirmation. That excited moment of awe requires many moments more of critical analysis.

Pseudoscience, unlike science, is often very entertaining even at its most detailed. Pseudoscience has to be: it is competing for your entertainment time budget. Proponents must tell the most exciting tale possible, glossing over anything that might poke holes in the idea or decrease the entertainment value. Pseudoscience can be boring, of course, but not in the same way the minutia of peer-reviewed science can leave even the most enthusiastic defender bleary eyed and brain dead. Science does not have the luxury of glossing over details Further more, it is written in languages many people do not have a good grasp of, like the language of statistics, of graphics and charts, of images that without context make little sense in our macroscopic existence. Pseudoscience only requires the language of mainstream storytelling.

Pseudoscience is not hard. There is no rigor to its practice. Science, on the other hand, plumbs new depths everyday and requires rigorous checking and rechecking, confirmation, reporting, peer review, and other activities that are really designed to falsify the working theory. Scientists put in long hours for a reason: science is hard work.

So then, back to the Technological Singularity. There is not currently a rigorous “Science of the Singularity”, though there is compilation of statistics related to exponential technology trends and there is active and increasingly mainstream scientific and engineering attention to Artificial General Intelligence.

Without a “Science of the Singularity” it is hard to say why such an event should occur, trace its constraints, or fit it properly within various contexts. This is addressed somewhat by the activity in the AGI and AI fields, and therefore Vernor Vinge’s idea of the Technological Singularity appears to be on firmer scientific footing than Ray Kurzweil’s idea.

Partly because of this lack of a specific “Science of the Singularity” my focus on these ideas have been greatly modified in the past four years: instead of the heady far future, I am much more interested in near term prospects, benefits, and consequences understood within a framework of “technology”, “engineering”, and similar contexts. It is all I can do to keep up with accelerating technological progress over the next few years, let alone over the next several decades. At the most recent Singularity Summit I saw this in many other attendees and speakers. There was a shift of emphasis from the Singularity itself to business plans for emerging technologies coming much sooner.

In this I find support for the direction Frontier Channel has taken. The Technological Singularity will remain a framework by which we can explore emerging technologies and trends and how they may potentially merge, but the emphasis will be on the near-term rather than more “fringy” speculation. With cryonics I will focus more on the science of cryopreservation and scientific breakthroughs related to retrieving viable biological material than the possible technologies that might someday bring a person back to life. With transhumanism I will focus on the social movement and recognition of the impact of science and technology on humanity rather than speculate about a posthuman future.

And of course I will continue to report on the latest planetary science findings, an exciting field far removed from the fringe but even more compelling than science fiction led us to believe in those days before spacecraft visited the planets and their moons and before astronomers captured the first visible light images of exoplanets. Discovery backed by compelling evidence and data provides a depth of joy and consequence pseudoscience can never provide and fringe science cannot until it has been built on a firmer foundation.

In his entry from Monday, April 10, 2006 entitled “A Little Perspective On This Transhumanism Stuff”, Bruce wrote that “I’m going to be talking more about this, but I want to be clear that the only reason I’m doing it is because Glenn Reynolds has become a major public figure, he’s advocating these very wacky views, and everyone is giving him a bye. This shouldn’t be happening.”

Bruce states that “I got started on this whole subject simply because Glenn Reynolds describes himself as a transhumanist, and in trying to find out what that belief system involves, I’ve gotten a bunch of transhumanists on my case.” A few transhumanists, cryonicists, and life-extensionists, including me, have responded to Bruce’s criticism with our own comments, in varying degrees of professionalism. In a more recent post, Bruce explained that he had found Technological Singularity listed as a pseudoscience on the Wikipedia “pseudoscience” entry. Sometime after his post, an anonymous public editor removed Technological Singularity from the pseudoscience list.

If Richard Hoagland wrote a column for the New York Times, I might myself be upset. How, then, does the public, many members of which have trouble distinguishing between pseudoscience and science, decide what is what in a world where science fiction is rapidly becoming science fact, where hoaxes and fraud continue to be a problem, and the number of ideas that can be misused in other contexts continues to multiply?

One approach is to listen to those who decry the idea in question with name-calling. Bruce describes transhumanists and other proponents of life extension, the Technological Singularity, and cryonics with phrases like “he’s nuts”, “wacko”, “raving moonbat” and “quacks.” Some of these proponents have responded by calling Bruce names in return. In comparison, Carl Sagan was respectful of those who believed in ancient civilizations on Mars and alien abductions in his book “The Demon-Haunted World.” Instead of calling these believers names, he examined their ideas and suggested alternative explanations grounded in science. He also suggested that these believers were demonstrating the curiosity and willingness to learn valued by science, but had simply been failed by an educational system that had drifted away from critical thought and a strong foundation in science, mathematics, grammar, and other subjects.

Another approach is to listen to negativity. Bruce sees danger. He warns that “This is part of the problem: people think of Glenn Reynolds as a cute little nerd who leans in the direction of head-freezing.” Other critics of transhumanism have labeled the philosophy the world’s most dangerous idea (registration required.) In comparison, transhumanism is a celebration of difference, of freedom, of critical thinking and reason, of logic, of science and technology, and of possibility. Transhumanists demand not that everyone be forced to use science and technology for personal enhancement but that everyone have the choice. Transhumanists include, respect, and protect the rights of those who do not wish to modify their bodies or minds.

Perhaps a better approach is to not listen to anyone in particular in the first place and to take the time to study the issues and come to your own conclusions. It is true that I believe the Technological Singularity is possible, that I am a transhumanist, that I am considering signing up for a cryonics plan, and that I have a great deal of hope for scientific and technological progress. It is also true that I am more critical of myself than anyone else could every claim to be. I will never allow myself to accept those ideas I listed above on faith. Instead, I will keep reading both sides of the debate, keep asking questions, encourage scientific attempts to falsify the related theories, keep insisting on a reality check, and generally keep my mind open yet critical.

There is much more to be said about the need to distinguish between pseudoscience and real science. Bruce has provided a fantastic opportunity for debate and a much needed view into criticism of transhumanism and related ideas, ideas that I will continue to explore here.

Skeptical thinking is absolutely necessary in a world where science fiction is rapidly becoming science fact. The advent of mammalian cloning in the 1990s took the world by surprise. The science then took an unfortunate turn in 2002 when Clonaid alleged the birth of the first human clone. Raelians, the religious sect behind Clonaid, immediately promised to provide evidence of their breakthrough, but two years later the group has still not provided evidence to the scientific community.

Carl Sagan has said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In Demon he tackles topics of the paranormal ranging from alien UFOs to magic. Respectfully, he dismisses many claims of paranormal phenomena for lack of any evidence. There often exists a more prosaic and simpler explanation. Applying this reasoning to Clonaid’s claims, it is not entirely unlikely that a religious sect (or any organization outside the scientific community) could make use of advanced biotechnology and produce a clone, but science on the fringe requires the same adherence to documentation, independent reproduction of data, and peer review required of any scientific pursuit. Requiring less would threaten the fidelity of science. Few people doubt that human clones will eventually be brought to term, but it is doubtful that Clonaid has succeeded to do so given their reluctance to present their work for review.

In marked contrast, the efficacy of a controversial cloning procedure developed by a South Korean team was recently confirmed by a team at the University of Pittsburg who originally had their doubts about the procedure. They successfully used the procedure to produce the first primate clone embryos to progress to the blastocyst stage of development.

Recognizing this strict adherence to scientific procedures will help individuals separate reality from fiction. Dealing with this reality will require use of Sagan’s second recommended skill, an aptitude for wonder. In Demon, Sagan details the superstitious practices, beliefs and fears in Europe during the Dark Ages that lead to the death of thousands if not millions of alleged “witches.” Unfortunately, some of us will likely react the same way to the new creations of science. Already some have labeled clones as soulless monsters. That innocent human children conceived through means other than sexual reproduction could be met with this unwarranted discrimination is inexcusable. What we need instead of fear is a sense of wonder for the accomplishments of humankind, including our creations, no matter how strange and unique.

Xenophobia must be nipped in the bud prior to the emergence of human clones and other new types of beings. These beings are not demons. They warrant the same respect and humane treatment that we humans, at our very best, grant other humans. By using the skills articulated by Carl Sagan in his book, we can avoid turning the coming disruptive future into hell on Earth.

Bibliography

• Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.
• University of Pittsburg Medical Center News Bureau. “Efforts to Clone Primates Move Forward.” UMPC New Bureau. 6 Dec 2004.

The occult perspective draws a line of destiny from every individual to a much larger picture. It tries to explain the mysteries of good and evil and the unexplained. In one sense, the power of the occult is meant to inspire awe and provide a sense of place in the universe, but in another sense the occult compartmentalizes and categorizes all the vagaries of human existence. “Yes, of course!” one thinks when hearing about the occult. “That explains everything!”

Unfortunately, reality is much too vast to fit into such small spaces. The occult explains nothing. Like religion it is better at providing a sense of comfort than actually explaining reality.

The “evidence” sited in occult studies generally consists of two types: anecdotal and interpretive. Anecdotal stories provide little or no physical evidence of an occult incident, and are fraught with the subjective errors of the witness. Interpretations of sacred texts, images, and other apparent mysteries in various media can often be explained away with apophenia (the human propensity to see patterns where there are none).

Good science demands verifiable physical evidence and the reproducibility of results. Such strict demands ensure the fairness and objectivity of the process, traits that are unforgivable to pseudoscientists, occultists and the faithful. The occultist I would truly respect and hear would be the one who admits that he has no physical evidence and only a theory but is in the process of trying to gather such evidence. He would emphasize the subjectivity of his ideas, articulate his passion for his ideas but also his strict adherence to the scientific method, and make no promises regarding the outcome of his work.

In the movie “Contact”, Jody Foster’s atheist scientist demands empirical and reproducible data before supporting a particular theory or idea. Reluctantly, her character admits in public hearings that she does not believe in God as there is little or no scientific data to support the existence of such a being. At the end of the movie, after her experience with wormholes and aliens, when questioned as to whether or not the events actually transpired, she falls back on faith, stating that everything that makes her human convinces her that she actually met with aliens. This is the one fatal flaw in a movie I otherwise highly recommend. While she knows the events to be true, she provides no evidence other than her gut reaction. The movie tries to placate this betrayal by revealing a government cover-up of real evidence that she did in fact make a trip through the universe and met aliens.

Perhaps, as Mr. Tsarion proposes, aliens fleeing persecution on their home planet did settle on the Earth, create the city of Atlantis, and started a hybridization program with the locals to ensure their survival. However, such a theory demands real proof, not the interpretation of the world’s sacred text as clever metaphors created to hide the truth, not the gut reaction that tells the theorist he is right, and not the manipulation of human emotions and expectations in which all good occultists excel. Science intentionally embraces reason and logic and holds human emotions at a distance. While some may describe such a tool as cold and unfeeling, science includes checks and balances the likes of which no other human tool can claim. Those who relegate science to bolter their own submission to faith and fantasy admit their extreme disinterest in reality. For them the comfort of fantasy supplants the human desire to know the truth.