LDS Scientist

What’s the biggest thing you can’t see that is still closest to you?

            We can’t be the first ones to notice this. You’ll need patience with the following, as it really constitutes a short course in galactic black hole physics. It’s not hard to understand – just long. From The Pearl of Great Price, Abraham, Chapter 3:

1 And I, Abraham, had the Urim and Thummim, which the Lord my God had given unto me, in Ur of the Chaldees;
 2 And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;
 3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

            For decades, astrophysicists have believed that most if not all galaxies must have black holes at their centers. There is just too much “stuff” floating around, moving way to fast, way too close to other “stuff” for it not to all merge due to gravity and orbit-decay. They already knew about white dwarfs and neutron stars – that bigger and bigger original stars give way to more and more dense “final states.” You can actually “see” one neutron star by its rapidly oscillating magnetic field. It’s like a radar beam sweeping over you as the neutron star spins ~1000 times a second. The signal is coherent, which means that the neutron star must be smaller than the distance light can cross in that amount of time – less than 10 kilometers. Calculations show that a teaspoon of neutron star “stuff” would weight tons on Earth – that is, if you could transport and then somehow weigh it.
            Hmmm. What happens if you throw in a lot more “stuff” into the mix – what would you get? Must be something denser (see the Newton paragraph below) – and it will be a real glutton for all the smaller stars and gas and dust whizzing around it. Because of tidal and magnetic drag on the highly conductive material, the individual orbits will decay. Matter will spiral inwards. Annnnnd… I…. Gotcha!

            With each cumulative new addition, the neutron star becomes larger and denser, until finally it has curved space so strongly that light can no longer escape it. By definition, it’s now a black hole. Matter spiraling into it is trapped.
            For almost as much time as they’ve known about the idea, astronomers have diligently sought proof of a black hole at the center of OUR galaxy. They chose it because it’s closer than other galaxies, so it should be easier to image. However, on the face of it this would seem to be a daunting task, as a black hole, by definition, radiates nothing – no mass, no light, no signal can escape its event horizon. Remember from a previous chapter that black holes are really dark gray and fuzzy (but not cuddly). However, there ARE some indirect ways that we might see one. As in almost all of science, we figure things like this out only by indirect means (Eisenhauer, et al, 2003) – just as we figure out gospel truths by indirect means.
            One way to “see” a black hole indirectly is to map stars close to the galactic core. “Our” black hole actually has a name these days: Sagittarius A*, pronounced “Sagittarius A-Star” or just abbreviated Sgr A*. It lies in a corner of a bright region in the center of the Sagittarius Constellation, in the center of our Milky Way. This bright spot was designated “Sagittarius A” by astronomers as the first bright apparent star classified in that constellation centuries ago when they first looked at it. To them, Sagittarius A looked like any other star, but they were using cruder telescopes than the ones you give your kids these days for Christmas. (That nearly worthless toy-store ‘scope? Galileo would have drooled over it.) As bigger and better telescopes became available, it turned out Sagittarius A was a whole lot more than a single star.

A very short course in basic orbital physics:

            Thanks to Newton, we know that the gravitational force between two masses is equal to a constant (the “G” mentioned in the chapter on the Anthropic Principle) times one mass, times the other mass, all divided by the square of the distance between the geometric centers of the two masses. Whew, that’s a mouthful. Perhaps you can understand why physicists really prefer to say things in “equation” instead of in English. A quick translation (I didn’t use translate.google.com to do this) gives: F₁₂ = G * M₁ * M₂/r * r. In shorthand this can be concentrated further to F=GMm/r². This is important, because a star named “S2” close to the center of Sagittarius A has been tracked since 1992 as it moves in a fast, very tight orbit in the center of our galaxy. (http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/s2.htm). In the vernacular, that sucker is really rippin’: it orbits in an ellipse about 5 by 10 light-days across in about 15 years. Days and years here make it seem trivial until you remember the speed of light is 300,000 kilometers (~186,000 miles) per second. This star is moving so fast that it makes the huge nearby stars look like icebergs with a dolphin zipping around nearby – if a dolphin could move at the speed of sound. S2 orbits around something that can’t be directly seen – but because of that equation above, the unseen mass of “our” Black Hole can be measured, and it’s huge: about four million Suns’ worth of “stuff.”

A very short course in basic electromagnetic physics:

If matter is being drawn down into the monster, it will be accelerating because of that 1/r-squared part of the equation: the shorter the distance, the stronger the pull on it, and the faster it goes. In fact, it becomes seething plasma as it falls in, because the calculated forces are truly humongous (try dividing anything by a distance squared that approaches zero – it’s like magma expanding and accelerating up a volcano’s throat to a spectacular explosion, with ash distributed eight states away, like Mount St Helens in 1980). Such a seething cauldron of accelerating matter will radiate: electrons accelerating in a magnetic field give off electromagnetic energy at wavelengths proportional to the radius of curvature of their ever-tightening spiral motion inward. That’s a complicated set of words but think instead of a tether ball spiraling into the pole – a good place not to leave your head. The event horizon of a black hole in a busy galactic center, in fact, should be shrieking at all wavelengths. The closer to the event horizon, the stronger the pull and the higher the energy – and the higher the frequencies, all the way up into hard gamma radiation. You need a number followed by lots of zeros to describe the energies involved. It’s hard to see the screaming-edge source because of all the stars, gas, dust, and junk in between Sgr-A* and Earth – and it’s also a long way away to “look” (about 26,000 light years away) to see anything.

Back to the matter at hand:      

            Astronomers are a persistent lot, and eventually they figured out that certain longer wavelengths can get past all that dust and junk and be picked up by Earth-based radio-telescopes. (They settled on a rather atypical radio wavelength of 1.3 millimeters – not that far from what your cell-phone uses. They chose this wavelength for several reasons, including because it’s not a cell-phone-band frequency.) If you can get a rich enough billionaire to pay for it, you can get a big enough array of radio-telescope dishes, spaced far enough apart on the Earth, to get a pretty darn good radial resolution. Think: seeing the shape of a coin located a football stadium distance away. The shrieking edges of Sgr A* can more or less be made out this way. Its diameter is no greater than 44 million kilometers – probably a lot less. This is about one-half the size of Mercury’s orbit around our Sun. Now, fit four million Suns into that volume – and then step back, or scream as you are gobbled up.
            In 2004, astronomers were astounded to find evidence of a much smaller (1,300 Solar masses) invisible object orbiting the 4-million-Solar-mass Sgr-A* black hole – a sort of mini-black hole orbiting the BIG black hole (Ghez, et al, 2005). This object resides in the center of a cluster of seven massive stars, which orbit it. Astronomers have also identified a number of additional giant stars that circle around in the near vicinity of Sgr-A* (the “lumbering icebergs”).

            Now read verses 2 and 3 of the third chapter of Abraham again. Does this ring a bell? Note that this is not saying that God resides in, or near, a black hole. However, you would have to agree that there are a number of remarkable coincidences here. There are also some amazing physical processes taking place in the core of our galaxy. Abraham hints rather broadly at a vastly greater understanding than I think most people recognize, and certainly more than a humble shepherd could possibly have known on his own.

A decimal point, followed by 44 zeros, followed by 67

            One of the (rather many) unsolved problems of physics is that there are certain constants that cannot be derived from something else; they can only be measured. They just ARE (Barrow and Tipler, 1988). One of these is the fine structure constant, the coupling constant for the electromagnetic interaction between a photon and an electron. Other constants include the speed of light c, vacuum permittivity ɛ, Planck’s constant h, and the gravitational constant G. Depending on who you listen to, there are up to 26 known fundamental (many of them dimensionless) physical constants. Many of these are critical to the current approximation of a Theory of Everything (“ToE”), called the standard model of particle physics.

            It’s not a real TOE, of course, because for nearly a century no one has been able to figure out how to meld gravity with quantum mechanics. The theory du jour (for the past nearly 40 years) for this is actually a mélange called string theory, which requires us to believe that there are 10 (or in some flavors 11) dimensions in our universe, six or seven of them invisible and not measurable. The main problem with this is not the multiple dimensions (which can’t be tested or sensed), but the fact that string theory has over 10 to the 500^th power possible solutions. In other words, you can use it to predict anything you want. On several levels it is thus fundamentally untestable, so by definition is not even science.

            One must exercise a lot of faith to be a theoretical physicist these days.

            Here’s the interesting thing about these otherwise unexplainable constants: if any one of them were just slightly different, no life as we know it could exist in the universe. If you threw a coin and it came up heads 26 times in a row, that would be unusual, right? In fact, the likelihood that all these constants line up perfectly is quite a bit less than 1/2^26.           

            I.e., a decimal point, followed by 44 zeros, followed by 67. THAT unlikely. 

            The only secular explanation for this is the so-called multiverse; we will say more about this later.

            One example may be helpful here: the fine-structure constant, which measures the strength of the electromagnetic force that in turn controls how charged elementary particles (such as electrons and photons) interact. This (dimensionless) constant is nearly equal to 1/137. There are several ways to obtain it, but a simple one is this: The constant is equal to the ratio of the velocity of the electron in the hydrogen atom divided by the speed of light. Its value is precisely tuned to allow the formation of commonly observable (baryonic) matter, and thus the emergence of life. Another precisely-tuned number is the strong nuclear force coupling constant. Its value is about 1. A fraction of a percent increase in this value and the strong nuclear force would bind the dineutron and the diproton, and nuclear fusion would have long ago converted all hydrogen in the early universe to helium. Water, organic compounds, and stars, essential for the emergence of life, would never exist. No stars → no supernova → no heavy elements like oxygen, carbon, silica, and iron… → no life.

            The amazing, beyond incredible multiple coincidences of precise tuning with all these variables is called the Anthropic Principle. Another way to say this: these finely-tuned physical parameters are a necessity, because living observers wouldn’t be able to exist and thus observe the Universe, if these constants were not just precisely what they are.

            Physicists have no idea why this is the case. It just is. 

            Even the current age of the universe is critical: if it were a fraction of the current age, there would not have been sufficient time to build the heavier elements (especially carbon, silica, iron, and oxygen) from earlier stellar deaths – novas and supernovas. There would be no rocky worlds with salty seas to harbor life.      

            Attempts to explain the Anthropic Principle – this precise tuning that permits life to exist – invoke either of two ideas: the existence of multiple universes (the “multiverse”), or an intelligent creator or designer.  “Intelligent design” or “ID” is treated with scorn by most scientists because it is un-testable and un-provable, and repeatedly invokes against-physical-laws action by a Designer God, and therefore is even not remotely scientific. In our view, it is also placing very narrow human perceptions and limits on Who and What God is.

            But what about the idea of a multiverse? The idea here is that there are an infinite number of universes with different physical parameters – including the ONE that harbors life as we know it – so we exist by a sort of cosmic natural selection.

            There is also the very non-trivial problem of where all the energy/mass for all these multiple universes would come from in the first place. The devil is in the details, as they say.

            But the multiverse, like intelligent design, is completely untestable. Some critics conclude that the Anthropic Principle is more of a philosophical concept, or basic assumption like physical laws, since it thus cannot be a scientific principle. One way some scientists have tried to bypass the controversy is to emphasize the so-called Weak Anthropic Principle, i.e., the conditions that we observe in the universe must permit the observer to exist. In mathematics as well as philosophy, the weak form of an argument is one which is easier to support because it makes fewer claims. 

            It certainly is weak. In fact, if you find all of these arguments either non-explanations or circular reasoning, then put a gold star on your forehead. We personally find it amazing that some scientists are so desperate to avoid acknowledging the existence of a Creator presiding over this universe that they will flail around trying to promote something as non-scientific, as untestable (Karl Popper used the word “unfalsifiable”) as string theory, or a multiverse.

            So, who is the believer in something they can’t see here?

            We agree that there’s a lot that science can tell us – we are, after all, both professional scientists. However, we don’t think science knows everything by a very long shot. The evolving history of science alone makes this abundantly clear. And that’s good, because one of the pleasures of doing science is solving problems and looking forward to new answers. As we show here and elsewhere in this book, there are a lot of ways that scientists must operate on faith, including accepting a lot of untestable  assumptions. 

            Just like believers.

            So, the moral of the story here is you can believe in science and religion at the same time – as long as you don’t assume that either of them can currently tell us everything about the universe.

THINK before you make that bet.

            Well, *I* believe in SCIENCE!

            Heard that before? It’s certainly nothing new – it goes back at least to Voltaire.

           Scientism is an expression in use for most of the 20th Century and is often used to refer to science applied in excess – or applied unreasonably. The term scientism can generally apply in either of three ways:

1. To indicate the improper usage of science or of scientific claims,  
2. To refer to a belief that methods of natural science form the only proper elements in any inquiry.
3. To make science into one’s religion.

            In this third and broader sense, scientism is used to describe the invocation of science as a focus of worship, generally by people who would prefer to describe themselves as atheists. It’s sort of like Methodism, or Daoism, or… you can fill in the blanks here.

            Two recent articles, “Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science” (Freedman, 2010) and “Trouble at the Lab,” (Anonymous, 2013) draw some obvious and frightening conclusions about this approach or life view.

            They both reference two extraordinary papers published by John Ioannidis, a physician and mathematician, in 2005 (Ioannidis, 2005a, 2005b). These are among the most-cited papers in all of modern science – and they are incredibly embarrassing to scientists. In the first paper, Ioannidis convincingly showed why 80 percent of non-randomized scientific studies turn out to be wrong. Fully 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard (and thus far more expensive) clinical trials give incorrect results. It is from studies like this that the medical doctors that you and I seek help from base their diagnoses and treatment protocols. 

            Our lives depend on these studies being correct. Incorrect results include:

• recommendations to use hormone-replacement therapy in post-menopausal women,
• that mammograms and PSA tests are critical for extending lives,
• that anti-depressants such as Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil can stop depression,
• that doing puzzles will ward off Alzheimer’s disease, and
• that drinking lots of water during intense exercise is helpful.

            Not one of these turns out to be true. THOUSANDS of stories in magazine articles have been written based on these published studies. Just the propagation of the hoary old “8 glasses of water a day” is astounding. The number of studies that contradict other studies of the same thing are so high that The Week magazine actually has a section called “Health Scare of the Week.”

            Many physicians on their own (including one of our sons), have discovered that just taking a patient off of every drug they are currently taking can improve their health immediately.

            The truly glaring problem is that the large majority of these drug-efficacy studies cannot be replicated. This means that other groups cannot repeat the same experiments and get the same results. Amgen, an American drug company, tried to replicate 53 landmark studies in basic research on cancer. They were able to reproduce the results of just 11 percent of these studies (Begley and Mills, 2012). In a separate study done by Bayer, the German pharmaceutical company, only 25% of published results could be reproduced. These analyses aren’t being published by disgruntled scientists, but by editors in the premier of all science journals: Nature. Dr. Ioannidis warns that between one third and one half of medical research results have been shown to be untrustworthy. He suggests that physicians, when faced with all this potentially lethal error and confusion… simply ignore them all!

            Ioannidis’ second paper explains why these flawed studies happen and get published in peer-reviewed journals. Without belaboring the details (you can read them yourself if you want to), it comes down to many things – but many things that compound themselves:

• The “publish or perish” ethos for young scientists to get tenure or grants,
• Ignorance of what constitutes statistical significance among most scientists,
• Ego,
• Fear of reprisals by peers or superiors,
• The tendency of scientific journals to publish almost exclusively just the “new” and “exciting” discoveries,
• Bias in research study design, bias in analysis, self-serving interpretation, and
• Fraud.

            This last issue is interesting, and when identified firmly (often a difficult and expensive thing to do), it is supposed to lead to retractions of published articles. For example, The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal based in the UK, retracted an article by (no longer Doctor; his medical license has been revoked) mister Andrew Wakefield that used a mere 12 case studies, performed unscientifically, to “prove” that the MMR vaccine causes autism (Eggertson, 2010). Multiple attempts to replicate this explosive claim all failed, and further follow-up showed that the data had been “doctored” (pun intended), and basic ethical practices were ignored.

            A University of Edinburgh study of 21 confidential surveys of scientists worldwide (Fanelli, 2009) found that only 2 percent of them admitted to falsifying or fabricating data – but 28 percent said they knew of colleagues who engaged in these practices! If that difference hints to you at a broader problem, then give yourself three stars.

            The problem with Scientism is that it falls for the oldest mistake in the Book: it worships at the feet of the Golden Calf; one of several modern versions of the Golden Calf is Science. But like all man-made things, science is not something to be worshiped. It is a faith that is based on something that is fatally flawed, because science is very, very human.

            Are we advocating that people not trust science? Absolutely not – just don’t bet your life on it, and certainly don’t pour your faith and belief into it! Science is still far better and more honest than the talking heads and corporate-paid pundits on talk radio or some cable news channels. However, as currently practiced in the majority of cases, science is not Truth, and it is not The Answer we are all looking for.

Well, then, can you scientists predict anything?

An old joke goes like this: “What do tornadoes and divorce have in common?”
            Answer: “Somebody’s gonna lose a trailer.”

            Harold Camping made millions preaching that The Rapture would begin on May 21, 2011… and the world would then end October 21, 2011 (Goffard, 2011). In his words, “May 21st was one of the worst days of my life.”

           We don’t feel sorry for him: Would it have been a better day for him if everyone had died? Camping claimed to preach from the Bible, but apparently somehow overlooked Matthew 24:36 ”But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”

            Here are some disasters can you can definitely predict:
            – a volcanic eruption,
            – a traffic accident in your lifetime, and 

            – your inevitable death (though not everyone considers this a disaster).

            Here are some disasters that you cannot predict:
            – mega-earthquakes, and
            – when the world will end.
            In between these extremes there are some that you can “sort of” predict with varying future time-frames:
            – a tornado – by a few minutes to an hour,
            – the price of oil – up to weeks ahead, and
            – if you faithfully and regularly buy Lotto tickets… you will have one less car during your lifetime.

            Conservative estimates of money spent world-wide to study earthquakes range up to $50 billion – but with no success for all that expenditure. The top earthquake scientists we have talked with tell us that science can’t actually predict earthquakes (see previous chapter). We can forecast the statistical likelihood of one, but we cannot predict one. However, statistical likelihood makes the assumption that the earthquake-generation process is similar to and somehow linked to past events, which is a pretty shaky proposition (pardon the pun) – because then we should be able to predict them in the first place.

            Some things are truly random – or at least we cannot find a discernible pattern to them. Roulette comes to mind. However, your ultimate success at roulette is not random:

            You. Will. Lose.  This is because the numbers and payout are rigged against the player.

          However, some apparently random events may simply have causal factors still unrecognized or not understood by science. This hope has driven some brilliant people I know to gamble their entire professional science careers on earthquake research, and they have all seen little for it. So far, anyway.

          Human beings always look for patterns in everything – it’s built into us. If we can see a pattern in something (like earthquake precursors, or bubonic plague and rats), we hope we can predict something (like the next earthquake, or how to NOT get the plague) that might extend our lives. But a number of things we see over our lifetimes just don’t make sense, and there is an instinct in us to try to come up with SOMETHING to explain them. Science merely tries to put some rigor into that process: can you replicate it? Can you verify it somehow? Is it random?

          When something doesn’t make sense, we can either invoke magic, or conclude that we are missing information. There is at least one reason, one causative variable or set of variables, for everything that happens, unless we scientists have seriously misunderstood time; the linearity of time is another one of those faith-based assumptions of science, though there is some argument about it stemming from general relativity. One aspect of this causation issue revolves around the concept of random. The reliability and safety of your online credit-card purchases depends on being able to generate a random number. Really: it has to be something that someone else cannot factor, break down, and otherwise use massive computing to derive the encryption key.

            But here’s the fun part: generating a truly random number is impossible.

            Mathematicians and computer scientists have spent decades trying to do this – but hardware that can generate a number by a certain process can be duplicated. Mathematicians have gotten really, really good at generating pseudo-random numbers – numbers that sure seem to be random. Yet the fact is that the National Security Agency was able to eavesdrop on conversations in Islamabad, supposedly encrypted, on and after May 1, 2011. The NSA knew exactly what Pakistani authorities were saying to each other after Osama bin Laden had been tracked down and killed in their own back yard. That means the encryption keys being used were NOT random. Massive computing power in Fort Meade, Maryland (and a ginormous and not-so-secret server farm in the Utah desert), win again (Wikipedia, 2016, Utah data center: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center )

            However, there are no random events. Nothing “just happens.” The Big Bang didn’t just happen. Something causes everything, and if we don’t understand something, it just means we don’t understand the principles underlying it – and it’s a fool’s errand to then just deny that something doesn’t exist just because we don’t understand it.

            But Someone knows all the principles and rules governing this universe.

            Wouldn’t that Someone be nice to have for a friend?

We want PROPHETS. And Seers. And Revelators.

            On April 6, 2009, a magnitude 6.3 earthquake devastated the small town of L’Aquila in central Italy. It was caused by movement on a northwest-southeast fault in a region long known for tectonic activity and volcanism (there is a reason for Vesuvius and all those Alps). Over 300 people died.

            There were a number of fore-shocks, something not unusual for an earthquake-prone region, called fore-shocks only because a big shock followed. These were sufficiently strong that local officials asked for advice from six seismologists and a government official. A week before the main event, these individuals gathered as a panel to review the data, and afterwards at a press conference assured the public that they were in no danger. Their reasoning: that any potential accumulated fault energy was already being dissipated by these small shocks. But then the monster quake hit a week later.

            In May 2011, an Italian judge gave the go-ahead for a trial for these individuals. The charge: manslaughter. In 2012 they were all found guilty – and jailed.

            What’s happening here? Seven individuals were charged in court for failing to predict correctly the devastation that was about to happen. They could spend up to 12 years in jail.

            Is this right? Can you throw people in jail for failure to prophesy correctly? Italian jurisprudence certainly seemed to think so. At last check, the original draconian sentence was thrown out, then reinstated, and then thrown out again by higher courts. Stay tuned.

            The consequences of this trial are being felt far and wide in the scientific community. There have been impassioned letters sent to the Italian judge by European scientific societies, and many other science entities including the American Geophysical Union. 

            The US Geological Survey felt sufficiently moved by this decision to host a two-hour-long, web-based briefing for USGS scientists about legal liability for doing their science under United States law. 

            The bottom line for USGS scientists: if you do your job in good faith, you are not culpable because of several protective federal laws, and you are untouchable by any state or municipal government because of the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution. That translates to relief for American seismologists – sort of.

            A volcanic eruption can be fairly well forecast: the timing approximately, but the extent of damage and duration less so. Some eruptions can be predicted five months out; for others there may be as little as 15 minutes warning from the onset of the first unusual rock-breaking seismicity to an explosive eruption. The short warning usually correlates with the fact that the particular volcano was poorly instrumented, if at all. The geophysicists couldn’t see any evidence that anything was happening until an eruption was just coming to life, because they didn’t have data from close-in instruments.

            A hurricane can be forecast in a narrower window of time, but again, the extent of damage can only be estimated ahead of time very imprecisely.

            Earthquakes cannot be predicted (Hough, 2009), though they can be roughly forecast. The Dow Jones Industrial average cannot be predicted, though amoral people are constantly trying to game the system to gain an unfair information advantage.

            In these two cases – earthquakes and the Dow Jones – you can make some statistical forecasts based on past history, but they assume history will be repeated. Most people would consider a statement like “There is a 31 percent chance that the Hayward Fault in the San Francisco Bay Area will rupture in the next 50 years”... to be close to useless for them personally. “So, what am I supposed to do about it?” But this information is not totally useless: you can use this number to appeal for more funds to retrofit buildings and strengthen building codes. Or you could also move to the Mid-West and have a go at tornado-dodging.

            The FACT of your death can be predicted, in the sense that it will happen. Forecasting the TIMING of your death is less predictable: your lifestyle and parents’ longevity weakly correlate with how long you can expect to live, but that’s about all that science can say. Statistically, Mormons live longer and also live healthier lives, but an LDS Church friend, a chef, died several years ago of lung cancer from who-knows-what fumes in his restaurant grill.

            Scientists are not prophets, nor seers, nor revelators… though these roles are something that we as a society implicitly demand of politicians and leaders. Some of our readers will be surprised to hear that there actually are “prophets, seers, and revelators” around these days. We had these in ancient times, and we have had them again now for nearly two centuries. We personally know people “saved” by having a food storage system in place in obedience to the recommendations of a modern prophet. One of us has lived longer than his maternal grandmother did, in large part because of a set of prophetic instructions he has followed, called the Word of Wisdom, given in 1835.

            We all make bargains, in terms of what we will accept as risk in our chosen professions.  Field ecology and research geophysics are moderately dangerous fields as a career choice. One of us has nearly been killed by Shigella in the Venezuelan jungle, by a sand cobra in Mauritania, by a hunter taking a “sound shot” at him in the Sierra Nevadas of California, by an incompetent helicopter pilot in Venezuela, and even by the frigid sea in Alaska. As professions, ecology and geophysics are both less dangerous than being a fireman or police officer. One of us once worked as a wildland firefighter during three summers while in college, when large-scale forest fires in southern California nearly caught him twice in fast-moving fire-storms. This job is still far less dangerous than working as a Barents Sea crab fisherman, who statistically die in Alaska at truly startling rates.  And we wouldn’t give up our research jobs easily because they are just so darn much fun. 

This is the bargain many people have struck with their life: we choose research and learning, but they’re balanced with the excitement (and danger) that goes along with them (see our Faust chapter).

            As a friend once put it, we make our bed where we choose – but then we must sleep in it, too.

They’re the same, right? Actually, no.

            Are You Superstitious? Relax, It’s Okay!

            Here’s something funny, in an article called “The Science of Superstition,” in the Feb. 16, 2015, issue of The Atlantic magazine: A visitor (thought to be Carl Alfred Meier) once asked the Nobel Prize–winning physicist Niels Bohr whether he really believed that the horseshoe he’d hung at his country home was lucky. “Of course not,” Bohr said. “But I understand it’s lucky whether you believe in it or not.” Also find this quote in:

Droke, Maxwell, 1956, The Speaker’s Handbook of Humor, Anecdote Number 1172, Title: Not Superstitious, Quote Page 373, Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York.  Also:

A Journal of Shipbuilding, Marine Engineering, Dock, Harbours & Shipping, Vol 87, 1956, p. 422

            If Bohr couldn’t resist magical thinking, can anyone? We’re all, always, looking for explanations of things we can’t explain. And if the symbolism of the object we’re superstitious about fits what we want to believe, like the horseshoe does – a big basket-shaped item that seems able to catch all the good luck in the world, or at least in that room – great symbolism, isn’t it! – then it must be lucky.

            Because here’s the thing: All humans are always looking for meaning, for explanations, for ways to understand and control the world around us. (In this, we’re not so different from chickens!)

            As Pres. Harold B. Lee said, quoting another religious leader, Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, about the purpose of religion: “Man seeks something to end his state of confusion and emptiness…” [“The Iron Rod,” 04 April 1971 address in general conference: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/06/the-iron-rod?lang=eng ]

            Does religion do this? It does. It answers questions that science doesn’t even ask, moral questions, where we came from, why we exist, and what we may do to end our confusion and fill our emptiness.

            Here’s a quote from another religious leader, Shoghi Effendi of the Baha’i faith, about the purpose of religion, from the “Sic et Non” blog maintained by Dr. Daniel Peterson: (Peterson, 2018):

            The independent search after truth, unfettered by superstition or tradition; the oneness of the entire human race, the pivotal principle and fundamental doctrine of the Faith; the basic unity of all religions; the condemnation of all forms of prejudice, whether religious, racial, class or national; the harmony which must exist between religion and science; the equality of men and women, the two wings on which the bird of human kind is able to soar; the introduction of compulsory education; the adoption of a universal auxiliary language; the abolition of the extremes of wealth and poverty; the institution of a world tribunal for the adjudication of disputes between nations; the exaltation of work, performed in the spirit of service, to the rank of worship; the glorification of justice as the ruling principle in human society, and of religion as a bulwark for the protection of all peoples and nations; and the establishment of a permanent and universal peace as the supreme goal of all mankind—these stand out as the essential elements.

            We’re trying to think of which of these purposes, or goals, or functions, of religion can be accomplished by science. Hmmm… actually, none of them.

            We’re also trying to think of which of these purposes, goals, or functions, of religion can be accomplished by superstitious beliefs. Hmmm… again, none of them.

            What does superstition do, then? It provides some temporary relief from the fear of the unknown, a temporary illusion of being in control of our lives. It does not provide any of those admirable principles listed by the Baha’i leader, such as abolishing “the extremes of wealth and poverty,” or “the exaltation of work, performed in the spirit of service,” or “the glorification of justice as the ruling principle in human society.” Or anything useful or uplifting for humanity.

            In contrast, here’s some of what religion, and faith, can do for us, as expressed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, in an address given in Oct. 1981(https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/10/faith-the-essence-of-true-religion?lang=eng). Speaking of his experiences as an apostle, he said:

            “…these have been challenging years, filled with worrisome responsibility and satisfying experience. Mine has been the opportunity to meet with the Saints over the world. I have been in your homes in many parts of the earth, and I wish to thank you for your kindness and hospitality. I have been in your meetings and listened to your declarations of faith and your expressions of testimony. I have wept with some in your sorrow and rejoiced with many in your accomplishments. My faith has grown, my knowledge has broadened, my love for our Father’s children has strengthened wherever I have gone.”

            In what way is this at all like superstition? In no way at all. True religion, then, as opposed to superstition, is uplifting and inspiring, and leads humans to treat each other better, to increase in love and understanding of each other, and to grow in faith.

            In religious documents such as the Old and New Testaments, a sharp line is drawn between superstition and true religion.

            There are, from the Old Testament, the stories of Moses confounding the Pharaoh’s sorcerers. Remember when Moses threw his staff on the ground, and it turned into a serpent (Exodus 7:10)? Remember how then the sorcerers threw their staffs on the ground, and they also became serpents? And then Moses’s serpent ate all of theirs (Exodus 7:12)? Remember how much that impressed the Pharaoh and his sorcerers? (Not at all: See Exodus 7:13.) And so on.

            For instance, here’s a modern retelling of the story of the Prophet Elijah confounding the priests of Baal from the Chabad.org website: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3942331/jewish/The-Story-of-Elijah-and-the-Prophets-of-Baal-on-Mount-Carmel.htm.  You can re-read the story for yourself in 1 Kings 18:20-30. The conclusion is great: “How long are you going to waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him! But if Baal is God, then follow him!” (1 Kings 18:21).

            Whichever version of these stories you read, you come to the same conclusion: The true God of this Earth and all creation as we understand it, and more, appears to demand our worship. Why? Because he needs our love and respect? Not even remotely. Because WE need HIS love and help.

            In the New Testament, we read about Simon Magus, who was so impressed with the gospel of Jesus Christ as preached by Philip that he was baptized. However, he obviously misunderstood how the gospel and the priesthood are organized and practiced: He offered Peter and the other Apostles money for the power he observed in them to heal and give the gift of the Holy Ghost. Peter’s response says it all:

            “But Peter said unto him, ‘Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity’” (Acts 8:20-23).

            Here’s another point about true religion, a point made by Pres. Harold B. Lee in the same speech cited earlier (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/10/faith-the-essence-of-true-religion?lang=eng):

            “Now, if I may be guided by the Spirit, I should like to talk about another matter. There recently spoke in this city a prominent journalist from the East. I did not hear him, but I read the newspaper reports of his remarks. He is quoted as having said, ‘Certitude is the enemy of religion.’ The words attributed to him have stirred within me much reflection. Certitude, which I define as complete and total assurance, is not the enemy of religion. It is of its very essence.

            Certitude is certainty. It is conviction. It is the power of faith that approaches knowledge—yes, that even becomes knowledge. It evokes enthusiasm, and there is no asset comparable to enthusiasm in overcoming opposition, prejudice, and indifference.”

            On the other hand, we believe that “certitude” is actually the worst enemy of science. If you are certain, then you don’t need to carry out the research – because you already know. It is also one of the reasons for the recurring arrogance of some scientists who seem to believe that there is a contest between science and religion, and persistently ignoring the history of the awkward continuing evolution of science itself. See our following chapter on the massive intellectual fail of “scientism,” or worship of science as a kind of religion.

            We see this “certitude” displayed in the writings of many anti-theist scientists who seem to have taken upon themselves the task of “proving” that any and all religious beliefs are false, frequently stooping to ad hominem attacks when reason fails them.

            There IS this kind of certitude: superstition is NOT religion. Superstition provides a temporary, narrow answer to uncertainty. Religion – true religion – is “…uplifting and inspiring, and leads humans to treat each other better, to increase in love and understanding of each other, and to grow in faith” that there is a larger purpose for humanity. For our existence and beyond.

            Finally, by way of summary:

1. Observation is a key. If something makes little sense, you can invoke magic – or the fact that you lack information. There was poor observation. There were bad statistics in a science paper.
2. Keeping a record is a key. We must not be easily misled by a single or limited number of events recorded second or third hand. Oh Remember, remember…
3. Testing is a key. Can your religion survive testing? Can your scientific theory survive testing?
4. Carefully vetting previous research – and vetting the opinions of parents and friends – is a key. How did they arrive at their conclusion? We don’t have time to always re-invent the wheel, we need to base judgments and research on something reliable – so where do we draw the line at re-evaluating everything?

            Ultimately, is it uplifting? Does it lead you forward to be a better person? If you want to know if it is superstition or religion, you can go back two millennia to this: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matthew 7:20)

How much does science really know, anyway?

            An older issue of EOS, the weekly newspaper of the American Geophysical Union, has a very compact but informative figure in it that is very relevant today:

This shows the relation between fault surface that tears and moment magnitude of the ensuing earthquake (from Stein & Okal, 2011, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2011EO270005). It helps the average science-interested individual figure out how the size of a fault-plane can tell you how big an earthquake COULD be. Really? Other elements of the figure also warn us of potentially how large a tsunami run-up (the wall of water you will meet at the coast shortly afterwards) might* follow one of these monsters. The follow-on tsunami is what killed most of the ~16,000 people who died in northeast Japan in March 2011. (Elliott, 2014). The tsunami, not the magnitude ~8+ Aceh earthquake, is also what killed about 250,000 people around the borders of the Indian Ocean in December 2004. (Satake and Atwater, 2007).

            It’s been known for a long time that the size of an earthquake correlates fairly well with how much surface area is torn in the formerly “stuck” rocks on a fault surface.

Some quick brittle-rock-vs-plastic-rock basics:

            If you have a vertically-oriented fault like the San Andreas, the vertical dimension for the fault “tear” can be only about 10 kilometers – below that depth the rock is so hot and pressurized that it turns plastic and doesn’t “break.” A magnitude 7.8 event is about as big as it can get for the San Andreas Fault. Even if it rips horizontally for 200 kilometers, it can’t get enough surface area torn to have a magnitude bigger than that.

            An ocean-floor subduction fault, however, is a different kind of cat. These faults dip shallowly, almost flat in some places. You can therefore get a lot more “down-dip” rock breakage or “tear” in that direction with this kind of fault before the down-going slab of oceanic crust gets down to the “plastic” zone.

            The Tohoku earthquake off northeast Japan in March 2011 was calculated to have been in the magnitude 9+ range. That’s 10 times more energy released than a magnitude 8 event, and close to 25 times more energy than a “piddly” San Andreas 7.8 event (the earthquake that destroyed San Francisco in 1906).

            The EOS diagram above lays out this surface-slip calculation pair:

            A 60 km by 120 km tear, with 5 meters slip along the fault-face, will give you a magnitude 8 event – and a 10-meter tsunami run-up. That’s a wave – a wall of water – nearly 35 feet high.

            A 200 km by 500 km rip, with 10 meters slip (the Tohoku earthquake), will give you a magnitude 9 event – and a tsunami run-up of up to 20 meters (a 65-foot wave).

            This latter explains the monster 15-meter (50-foot) wall of water that hit and destroyed the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant, and over-ran and destroyed villages many kilometers inland. This Fukushima nuclear plant debacle now looks more and more like the Chernobyl disaster that depopulated much of the Ukraine in 1986 (where about 135,000 people were permanently evacuated from their homes in a little over a day).

            It’s been known for a long time that the rate of subduction – how fast a continent is over-riding an oceanic floor – seems to correlate with the frequency of volcanic eruptions inside the continent’s edge. Mount St Helens has erupted twice since 1980 (but no other eruptions have occurred elsewhere in the Cascade Range since 1917’s Lassen Peak event in northern California). The Juan de Fuca plate “only” moves about 2.5 cm (1 inch) per year towards North America, slow compared to 8 cm per year, the rate at which the Kamchatka Peninsula is moving eastward over the Pacific plate.

            More oceanic floor plate thus gets subducted down to the mantle, faster, and this means more partial melting takes place, faster. Think of a lava-lamp with three times the heating coils all turned on at once.

            What are subduction-related volcanoes, anyway? Examples are Mount Rainier on Seattle’s skyline, Mount St Helens and Mount Hood near Portland, and Mount Shasta in Northern California: in fact, the whole Cascades range qualifies. Their equivalents elsewhere: Bezymiani, Sheveluch, Alaid and a boatload of other dangerous volcanoes in Russia’s far east Kamchatka Peninsula; Mt. Fuji and Mt. Unzen in Japan; Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines; and Krakatau (“east of Java”) and Merapi in Indonesia. There’s a reason why the Pacific Rim is called the “Ring of Fire.” More pointedly, all the volcanoes in Central and South America are subduction-related volcanoes (see the previous chapter, “Volcanoes and Nephi’s Smoking Gun”).

            Does this subduction rate thing also hold for the frequency of occurrence for large earthquakes?

            The same diagram in the article suggests that subduction earthquake frequency and size don’t seem to correlate with how fast the plates are moving. This is probably because of complex fault geometries, and how often so-called “silent” or “slow” earthquakes take place (some tend to quietly redistribute accumulating fault strain… and apparently occur frequently beneath the Pacific Cascades).

            The bottom line here: the last huge subduction earthquake on the Pacific Northwest coast happened in January 1700 AD (Atwater 2005; 2015). According to seafloor drill cores, at least 7 of these magnitude 8+ events have occurred in the last 3,500 years, but that means nothing in terms of predicting the next monster. There is no regularity to these things. They don’t “tick” like a clock. The Next Big One could occur tomorrow or 400 years from now.

            What can you do about this? If you live in Kansas, you need not worry. Well, maybe you still do – because of tornadoes.

            If you live in Portland or Seattle (or Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, or Missouri where there have been large earthquakes in the past), however, it would be a good idea to earthquake-reinforce your house – and buy earthquake insurance. The problem is that if a Cascadia earthquake hits in the Pacific Northwest, the damage could be so massive and so far-reaching that it could wipe out many North American insurance companies. Hurricane Andrew (which slammed into south Florida in 1986, the same year as Chernobyl blew up in the Ukraine) caused about $24 billion in damage, and even with the modern practice of spreading risk by underwriting, it stretched some insurance company reserves to their limits.

            You CAN, however, steadily build up toward a year’s supply of food, and develop some sort of water storage system. Again, this is as much for your neighbors as for yourself. You are your brother’s keeper. You could restate it this way: Who would Jesus expect you to save? This is yet another way that science can inform our future. If we study, and are thoughtful and Christ-like, we really need not fear that future.

* Depending on fault geometry, there could also possibly be only a small tsunami – for instance a left-lateral or right-lateral fault movement would not raise or lower the seabed significantly, so it would not create a tsunami. Knowing the fault geometry ahead of time thus makes a big difference in predicting the size of a possible tsunami, when the first seismic waves at a seafloor earthquake sensor reports back to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawai’i and the hypocenter is located.

Nobody is safe. Ever. Anywhere.

            “The Day the Sands Caught Fire” is the title of an article one of us published in Scientific American in 1998 (Wynn and Shoemaker, 1998) about the Wabar asteroid impact event of 1863. This was a Hiroshima-explosion-sized impact in the middle of the remote Empty Quarter of what is now modern Saudi Arabia. As far as we know, no one died and nothing went extinct.

            The Chicxulub Event about 65 million years ago, however, wiped out the dinosaurs. (Not all of them died, actually; modern-day birds, tortoises, and alligators, among others, are their direct descendants.)  That Chicxulub object (there are still arguments about whether it was an asteroid or a comet) was about 10 km (6 miles) in size. The Wabar object was quite a bit smaller – about the size of a small house. It smacked down in the middle of the driest and hottest desert in the world (the temperature reached 61⁰C (142⁰F) one mid-morning while I ran a magnetometer profile over the largest two craters (Wynn, 2002). 

            While small by comparison with the Chicxulub object, the Wabar object still caused startling damage. Geologic and geophysical mapping show that it raised a mushroom cloud to at least the stratosphere; molten glass rained down at least 850 meters (900 yards) away. The object apparently broke up in the lower atmosphere and created at least three craters that we could still see between the moving saif dunes (“saif” is Arabic for “sword,” and these dunes are called this because their top edge appears like a giant sharp blade sweeping across the desert). Calculations show that the asteroid (94 percent iron and 4 percent nickel, plus a little copper, cobalt, and iridium) brought with it a kinetic energy equivalent to, or greater than, the Hiroshima atom bomb. The Wabar impact site is similar in all ways to the Sedan and other medium nuclear bomb craters in the Nevada Test Site, save one: there is no residual radiation. There is shocked quartz, there is an asymmetric ejecta field, and there are other minerals that suggest temperatures momentarily reaching over 10,000 C. If you could have seen it happen, it would have been a magnificent sight – but you would likely not have survived the experience. 

            Here’s a crucial point: Wabar happened in 1863. Gene Shoemaker (the father of astrogeology) and I mapped the field site together and we made a bet. We both agreed that the site was very young, much younger than the ~6,200-year previous estimate from fission-track dating. During a raging sandstorm one night we collected sand unexposed to light since the impact on some 1930-era samples collected by Philby (Philby, 1933), from below the impact rim of one of the craters.  If the Wabar site was older than a Qur’anic reference to a destroyed city named ‘Ubar, then I owed Gene a steak dinner. If it was younger than that, he owed me a Thai coconut sticky-rice dessert, and the dinner too, if he felt like it. Sadly, Gene was killed in a car-wreck 300 km north of Alice Springs in Australia in 1996, before the thermo-luminescence dating results came back. It turns out the impact site was less than 250 years old. Details for the 1863 date are in our Scientific American article (November 1998 issue; link above). 

            Whew. A “city buster” hit the Earth 150 years ago? Imagine that.

            Another crucial point: I have partial records that suggest that at least FIVE “city busters” like this hit the Earth (Wynn, 2002a). There were impacts in 1863 (Wabar, Saudi Arabia), 1908 (Tunguska, Russian Siberia), 1930 (Río Curacá, Brazil-Peru border), 1935 (Rupununi, British Guyana), and in 1947 (Sikhote-Alin, Kamchatka, Russian Far East).  At least five times in a century these huge kinetic-energy bombs have crashed into the Earth – and that’s just on the 29% of it that is on land that we can see evidence for (https://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html). Fortunately, every one of these fell in very remote areas. I published another article in 2002 (Wynn, 2002b) that showed that these things happen far more frequently than even a radical like Gene Shoemaker had suspected. 

            Over one-third of the total human population, nearly 2.4 billion people, lives within 100 km (60 miles) of an oceanic coast (https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/living-ocean). The reason? Because the weather is more moderate near an ocean. Remember that at least 71 percent of the Earth’s surface is ocean. Something like 20,000+ tons of TNT equivalent detonating under an ocean is a near-perfect tsunami-maker, comparable to tsunamis generated by subduction earthquakes. If the hit centered on your city, it would mean a relatively clean death by comparison to everyone around it. 

            One final point: We cannot easily “see” these things coming. They have to be really big before enough light scatters off them to be picked up by Earth-based telescopes, and you would need many “picks” before you could calculate a reliable orbit. By the time you could actually see a Wabar-sized object coming, it would already be over. Since the Earth has substantial gravity, one of these things flying even close to the planet will be drawn towards us, gravity being what it is. We can’t use radar to spot these things, either. The energy of a radar beam falls off as the distance squared, and even if the beam was 100 percent reflected, the reflected beam would have only the energy reflected, and then that falling off as the return distance squared. Mankind doesn’t have radar systems with enough energy to do this; if we did, it would fry everything in the sky flying through its beam.

            What does this all mean? It means we are helpless beneath the sky. It means we do not control our future. You can get fairly good warning of a volcanic eruption, but a supervolcano the size of Yellowstone (United States), Toba (Indonesia), or Veniaminof (Aleutians) going off could still take the few survivors on our world back to the Stone Age. We can get a shorter warning for a hurricane, a really short warning for a tornado, and just seconds to minutes warning for a subduction mega-earthquake – or for one of these bombs from the sky.

            But you can store a year’s supply of food and water with the intent to help your family and your neighbors survive a near hit. If you do that for your whole neighborhood, you can reasonably call yourself a Christian – being Christ-like. This is the real reason behind why members of the Church of Jesus Christ gather a year’s supply of food and water: to be Christ-like and take care of their neighbors, as well as themselves, in case of a disaster.

Or: Why can’t science solve our most critical problems?

            To some extent, we can predict weather: a hurricane land-fall up to five days out, a tornado up to two hours out. There are two consequences to this relatively new, science-driven ability: (1) these predictions have gone a long way towards saving human lives, and (2) there has been no discernable change in where people buy their homes and choose to live. What about earthquakes? If we could predict earthquakes, would it dramatically change our lives?

            Go back and read the previous two observations.

            There are about 60 scientists in the US Geological Survey, including one of us, who volunteered to reply on their own time to questions that came to us via Ask-a-Geologist. This WAS a place on the USGS website where anyone could ask a question and get an answer from a geoscientist. Almost half the questions were spam. (Surprisingly, many of these seem to be in Portuguese, and, no, we don’t understand that either, but we’re getting better at filtering them out. About a quarter of the questions were from school children trying to get someone else to do their homework assignment for them. These were pretty obvious, and by policy we were asked not to encourage this.) The rest tended to be really interesting questions from people as young as 3.

            Here is an interesting question I received one day; I share it here because I hope my answer will shed light on some of the questions that, from my reading of the daily newspapers, are floating out there:

Question:

            “Hello. I was just wondering first if the increased number of earthquakes is a sign of something bigger to come and since the earthquake in Japan knocked our earth off of its axis a few feet is that the reason for the severe weather we have had lately like all the floods in the south and tornados and severe storms?”

–No name given

My Reply:

            The Earth’s axial tilt moved about 10 cm during the 2011 Great Tohoku earthquake – that’s about 4 inches. It requires some very sophisticated GPS equipment and a lot of measurement time to arrive at that tiny amount of offset.

            While there is evidence that continents were at hugely different latitudes in ages past (e.g., freshwater aquatic dinosaur fossils discovered in Antarctica; see for instance Smith et al., 2011), a 10-cm tilt-change will not cause any effect that can be sensed by a human being. A long and slow tilt change in the Earth’s axis has been documented over time and can be explained by simple orbital mechanics (something called nutation, that you can see in a spinning top), but the operative word here is “slow” – we’re talking many thousands of years slow – the precession of the equinoxes takes about 25,770 years to complete a cycle. There is also the added complication that the continental plates have been moving around at the same time.

What fixed point do you reference against? Since we didn’t have observers using sextants to track where Polaris was 25,000 years ago, these things are understandably hard to sort out. The pole star 5,000 years ago, when the Egyptians were building the pyramids and aligning them, was Thuban, anyway, and not Polaris (Kallinger, et al., 2005). And 25 million years ago, it would have been Vega.

            Let’s consider another issue. There is an ongoing discussion within the seismic community about earthquakes triggering other earthquakes. Large earthquakes have been shown to “light up” volcanic areas like Yellowstone and Long Valley with short-term clusters of increased micro-earthquakes. Note that italic: these are very small consequences. However, the current scientific consensus, culled from literally petabytes of data (i.e. multiple libraries’ worth) collected over the past 50 years, is that distant earthquakes do not have any effect on faults not part of that earthquake’s own fault system. In other words, the monster earthquake in Chile during the spring of 2010 did not trigger the huge earthquake in New Zealand later in the fall, and that one didn’t trigger the ginormous Tohoku earthquake in March 2011 east of Sendai, Japan. Among other things, there were months separating each event. Also, an earthquake’s energy falls off as approximately distance squared, so if YOU didn’t feel these, then neither did the other distant subduction faults that broke loose later on. Researchers have studied syzygy (Coyle, 2014), the effects of Sun and Moon tides on earthquakes, and have found no statistical correlation.

            All THAT said, there is a measurable, undeniable, and steady increase in the carbon dioxide content of the Earth’s atmosphere over the last several centuries. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) has a measurable greenhouse effect on atmospheric temperatures, and in 2015 CO₂ levels in Earth’s atmosphere reached and crossed the 400 ppm level. Methane, however, has far more of a greenhouse effect for the same number of molecules released (it’s 37 times more potent, and we’re not talking odor here). There are far more cattle now than a century ago because there are far more people feeling they deserve beef steak. Virtually all scientists (except those paid to say otherwise) will readily acknowledge that there is a large anthropogenic component to this increase. This means that humans burning hydrocarbons, destroying forests, raising flatulent cows, etc., are mostly responsible for these increased gases in our atmosphere. How are they so sure? For starts, the levels of ¹⁴C are dropping – in other words, the new CO₂ entering the atmosphere is coming from fossil carbon. Also, if you haven’t ridden a horse or milked a cow recently, you might not believe how much methane a grass-chewing critter can produce. Hooo.

            It’s still being argued – mainly through increasingly sophisticated mathematical models – just how much all this increase in greenhouse gas emissions has actually changed our weather. There are certain undeniable influences on weather (the Solar flux and the great ocean currents like the Gulf Stream, for instance). There are a huge number of variables involved, so one model may disagree with another in detail – but not in gross conclusions. As the cartoon character Pogo famously said, “We has met the enemy, and he is us.”

            You and I may not remember huge hurricanes and tornado clusters from our childhood, but that may just be our imperfect memory. The apparent increase in wild weather events over the past few decades may also be an artifact of how records have become increasingly more detailed and complete over time. Keep in mind that earthquakes – and probably to some extent anomalous weather events – are to varying degrees random things. They don’t come on the hour, nor on Friday the 13th, but often have gaps and then appear in clusters – and we remember the most recent cluster best. That’s called the Recency Effect or Recency Bias, and is an artifact of the human mind (and why scientists must carefully record their data). Using a statistically more reliable approach – averaging and comparing hurricanes and their strengths for say, the 19th Century against the 20th Century – we are also hamstrung by the fact that there were far fewer recording observers 150 years ago… and correspondingly fewer and sparser records kept then.

            Bottom line(s):

• Climate change is here, is human-caused, and it is clearly accelerating.
• Earthquakes are random and essentially not predictable*.
• Neither one affects the other.

            However, this is just what science knows today. In 3 Ne 8:6 we find these words:

“And there was also a great and terrible tempest; and there was terrible thunder, insomuch that it did shake the whole earth as if it was about to divide asunder.”

            This and subsequent verses make it clear that an earthquake and a coincident volcanic cataclysm are being described here. The timing – coincident with the death of Jesus Christ in the eastern hemisphere – implies that earthquakes can in fact be triggered, or at least understood (and thus predicted), though not yet by modern science.

            To us, this suggests how far science has NOT yet gotten in the past century, and just further reinforces the idea that there is more than one path to the truth. 

* Recent studies suggest that a cluster of earthquakes on a major fault may increase the immediate likelihood of a significant earthquake nearby by a few percent (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-earthquake-probability-20161019-snap-story.html), however this is still controversial in the geoscience world as we write this.

Navigating between truth, Truth, and garbage in a post-truth world

            Note: To make a point here, all the references for this chapter are taken only from the Internet. Yes, that Internet.

            The Oxford Dictionary word for 2016 was “Post-Truth.” That really rings a bell with us. We are both persistently astounded at seeing transparently untruthful things on cable TV and the Internet. The word “crap” comes to mind far too often as we watch something on TV that doesn’t jive with a previous video, or when we hear about “alternative facts.” I’m sure this doesn’t surprise most of our readers – that’s in part why you picked up this book. We constantly get questions from people who ask us for advice after seeing garbage science or fake news on the Internet; one recent example was how did dinosaurs and humans deal with each other in times past, or variants on that idea. An article in New York magazine titled “How Much of the Internet Is Fake? Turns Out, a Lot of It, Actually.” (Max Read, New York magazine, Dec. 26, 2018, http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/how-much-of-the-internet-is-fake.html )… makes it ever more clear how little we can trust the information on the Internet. Keep in mind that there are MANY reputable scientists, legal scholars, reporters, federal agencies (including our own US Geological Survey), and others trying to make real (as opposed to alternative) facts available to all of us. However, our own anecdotal experience, strongly supported by Read’s article, suggests that there are probably the same number of charlatans, uninformed and self-anointed visionaries, amoral political hacks, Russian trolls, and malevolent know-nothings who are front-loading their garbage onto the internet.  

            What can any of us do about this problem of sorting trash and falsehoods from truth? The short answer is that it’s not that hard if you think a bit about it. If we use peer-reviewed and citation-listed scientific literature, we have a pretty good chance to get at the truth, at least for scientific questions. If we ask an actress about the efficacy of child vaccinations, we get what we asked for (remember the old saying “consider the source.”). Certainly, we can easily answer questions from people about dinosaurs interacting with humans. In case this issue is new to you, dinosaurs went extinct about 66,000,000 years ago, and the first recognizably human ancestors first appeared about 195,000 years ago (John Pickrell, 2006, “Timeline – Human Evolution, New Scientist, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9989-timeline-human-evolution/ ).

            That wasn’t so hard to find, actually. To answer the human-dinosaur question we simply searched the Internet – and restricted our reading to articles that came from reputable (e.g., peer-reviewed and citation-indexed) scientific journals. Note that we said “peer-reviewed and citation-indexed” journals. There are so many hucksters in the world trying to get rich without working for it that it probably would also not surprise you to learn that a few so-called academics, mostly in Third-World countries, have found that they can invite beginning young scientists to submit papers to their “journals.” Ahem, for a “modest fee.” There are many young scientists trying desperately to get ahead in their profession, to get a job, or to obtain that coveted faculty tenure. One so-called “academic” in Egypt was reported to have “earned” over $1,000,000 a year by selling publication promises. He simply dumped anything submitted to him on the internet and charged a fee that was NOT modest. He didn’t bother to arrange for or arbitrate peer review for any of it. He just collected fees. He has refused to answer questions from real academics and reputable journal editors like Nature or Science who are investigating him. When discovered, he just creates another slightly-familiar-sounding journal name and starts soliciting again. Academic dishonesty seems here to be a fully-functional business model.

            You probably would also not be surprised to know that real academics find this kind of practice both abhorrent and immoral. It threatens their own real science! One tack that they have taken to isolate this cancer on science is to use “Beall’s List of Predatory Journals and Publishers” (https://beallslist.weebly.com/). It is an amazingly long list of fake science journals that grows every month

            How did Beall develop his list? One of us is an associate editor of the scientific journal “Exploration Geophysics” (http://www.publish.csiro.au/eg ). It’s not hard to do some quick research and ascertain that this journal is citation-indexed – in other words, it is a journal that is rated for how many times its articles are referenced in other scientific work, a key marker for academic esteem and quality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Citation_Index ).

            Back to the original question. We rather quickly found that dinosaurs could not possibly have interacted with humans. That’s easy, you say – anyone who has taken a science class or two already knew that. But let’s turn to the broader world. What about things posted by Russian, American, and Chinese trolls in an attempt to influence and subvert the American (Ukrainian, British, French, Austrian, Indian, Pakistani, Italian… you fill in your favorite country here) democratic process? How can we figure out what’s true, what’s True, and what is NOT true? This takes a bit more effort, but you can still figure it out. To start with the particular question of the influence of Russian trolls in the 2016 American election cycle, we went to The House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence (https://intelligence.house.gov/social-media-content/ ). Yes, if you have followed the political news, you will recall that there was once a highly partisan divide in that very same Select Committee, with a former Chair attempting to report their investigations directly and secretly to the White House (a major ethical as well as professional violation), and even block subpoenas by the minority congresspeople on that committee for transparent political gain. Nevertheless, the staff of the Select Committee quietly put their heads down and just gathered and analyzed all the available data – and in their report (link above) they outline exactly what the “Internet Research Agency (IRA)—the notorious Russian ‘troll farm” actually did.

            Note that we did not go to Breitbart “News” or the Sean Hannity Show to answer this question, nor did we go to the other political extreme, for example Slate or the comedians of the Daily Show. We all might feel safer, dealing with political claims, to look at some of the sources that are more politically neutral, such as MSNBC, CNN, and the Wall Street Journal to get our answers.

            Well, you ask, where did we come up with that rating? The Pew Research Center, actually (https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 ). The Pew Research Center has existed for generations, and famously guards the integrity of its polls and investigations. The Center is bequest-funded and beholden to no one. There is no “pay to play” here. We thus went to a source that we felt had their own credibility on the line as perceived arbiters of truth.  If you are interested, they are also referenced by (trusted by) the University of Michigan (https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444). Here is their scaling of political reliability of (American, national-level) media:

           

Perceived ideological placement of media. You can trust things found in the Green Box.

            Well OK, but what are we to do about other questions that might arise? Perhaps there are reports about some ordinary person finding the long-lost (you fill in the blank here with anything weird). That feels good because it is by an ordinary person – like me! Perhaps someone else reports that a certain politician (fill in those words with a name of choice) said such-and-such a nasty thing. That feels good because I’ve already formed an opinion that the politician in question is a terrible person. The problem with the Internet is that it tends to feed our confirmation bias. That means that we naturally gravitate to stories that support our personal theories. We tend to accept a fact as real data, when it turns out to be just a single point of data, and not representative of the larger world out there – it is not evidence.

            For a quick training session on navigating our modern “post-truth” world, check out this video: Alex Edmans, a finance professor in London, gave a talk at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool titled “What to trust in a post-truth world.” (https://www.ted.com/talks/alex_edmans_what_to_trust_in_a_post_truth_world/transcript?language=en#t-1029117).

            This talk includes three critical tips:

Tip #1: Actively seek other viewpoints. Aristotle wrote, “The mark of an educated man is the ability to entertain a thought without necessarily accepting it.” Stephen R. Covey wrote, “Listen with the intent to understand, not the intent to reply.” And finally, Leo Tolstoy wrote, “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already. But the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already.”

Do you only get your news from Comedy Central or Fox News? Then you are part of the problem – because rather little of this is actually news.

Tip #2: Listen to experts. Would you prefer to get teeth-whitening tips from a hairdresser? Vaccination advice from an actress? Or would you instead rather trust peer-reviewed evidence from experts? Think about this: who would you trust your eye-surgery to?

Tip #3: Be very, very careful with what you share. Don’t add to the garbage gyres in the middle of the Pacific Ocean… or in the middle of the Internet.

            By virtue of the fact that you, the reader, have gotten this far in our book, we have confidence that with the few examples we have listed here, you can find (and undoubtedly have already found) a pretty good approximation of the truth. Remember, as you do so, that we made a distinction early on about levels of truth, and we provided you with two definitions: things that are true, and things that are True.  That is, the former are things perceived to be correct now, while the latter are things that can withstand the test of time and stand forever.