Atlantis Rising Magazine, #105, May/June 2014

In my previous books, The Secret Tao, and 2012 & the Mayan Prophecy of Doom, I have been criticized by skeptics that the theories and evidence I cite have not yet been accepted by mainstream science. So, I think it’s worth examining the question of what constitutes good science. Evidence is neither true nor false; it is the conclusions you draw from the evidence that are either true of false. Of course that depends on whom you talk to. Sometimes there is a consensus, but sometimes scientists are split. And sometimes the majority of scientists turn out to be wrong. Therein lies the difference between fact and truth. To understand this, let’s go back and look at how we define errors in the scientific method.

First of all, there are two types of errors in science. There is a type-one error and a type-two error. A type-one error is the kind of error most people think of when they think of scientific errors. That is, a type-one error is being too gullible, believing in crazy theories without sufficient proof. By this, you would think that the more skeptical you are, the less likely you are to be in error. But that is not always true.

A type-two error can be just as bad as a type-one error. A typetwo error is when you disbelieve something that is actually true. Remember Galileo and the Catholic Church. Well, his crazy theory turned out to be right, and they were wrong, but they refused to see that. They committed a huge type-two error. Or how about that intelligence officer who warned his superiors that terrorists were planning on using airplanes as bombs to crash them into buildings? There was no great response to this threat. None of the security measures that were enacted after 9/11 were put into place at that time. Why? It was simply a type-two error.

And it was probably one of the worst in history.

Thalidomide

In real science, type-two errors are every bit as dangerous as type-one errors. In fact, in the field of foods and drugs, type-two errors are much worse than typeone errors. Think about it. Suppose they create a new drug to prevent morning sickness in pregnant women. If the scientists are wrong, and the drug doesn’t prevent morning sickness, then the only harm done is to the company’s prof its. But, let’s say that there is a theory that this drug might create birth defects, but there is no evidence to prove that it would create birth defects. So let’s say that the hard-core skeptics won out, and they went ahead and released the drug, which had been proven to prevent morning sickness, but which had not proven to create birth defects. Well, this did happen. The drug was Thalidomide, and guess what? This turned out to be a type-two error. Many thousands of children were born horribly deformed because the drug company did not take seriously the unproven, theoretical risk of birth defects. This has been called one of the biggest medical tragedies in modern times.

There are many other examples. There is the risk of nuclear reactors melting down, the risk of hexavalent chromium contaminating the ground water (the case that Erin Brockovich made famous), the risk of using mercury as a preservative in inoculations (still debated even though the drug companies have taken it off the market), etc. All of these have been hotly debated, and some are still being debated. But every time a catastrophe happens, such as the nuclear accidents at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, we always find that hindsight is 20/20, and it was a type-two error that was to blame. This goes for the Challenger disaster, as well. Anytime someone is warned of a potential problem and they fail to heed the warning because of a lack of proof, they are running the risk of a costly type-two error.

So how does this happen? How can an otherwise rational, hard-nosed, tough-minded, skeptical scientist be so foolish that

they do not take into account a possible worst-case scenario, and plan for it accordingly? Good question. That is where the idea of pathological skepticism comes in. This is a concept that I came up with years ago to try to understand why some scientists are so skeptical that they frequently make type-two errors, and often use wild leaps of illogic to support their erroneous conclusions. Since then, the term pathological skepticism has become something of a household word. Like so many psychological disorders, this one consists not of a conscious act but, rather, an unconscious thought process.

The Meditation Study

Skeptics often use straw-man arguments. What’s funny about this is that they usually don’t even know that they are doing it. Whenever I think of pathological skepticism, I always think of a psychological study done years ago at my Alma Mater, Long Beach State University. A researcher there, who shall remain nameless, wanted to study the effects of Eastern meditation, so he came up with a pretty clever study. He came up with three options: A) One group practiced traditional meditation, as it is practiced in Eastern religions; B) One group practiced a secularized Western form of meditation (essentially duplicating the meditation technique, without any religious references); and, C) one group did nothing at all; this was the control group. He randomly assigned students to one of these three groups. He then monitored the subjects to look for positive outcomes of daily mediation, which might occur over time.

After the study was over, he looked at all the data. It clearly showed that both the Eastern religion meditation group and the secular meditation group enjoyed positive benefits, and the control group did not. Both of the meditation groups were more relaxed, less stressed, and happier than the group that did not meditate. So, most people would say that he scientifically proved the effectiveness of meditation.

The funny thing was that he concluded that meditation did not work! You see, he did not see the secular form of meditation as a form of meditation at all. He thought of it as a placebo; that is, like a sugar pill, an inert exercise. Even though he had duplicated many of the psychological features of Eastern meditation, and
perfectly distilled them into an effective meditation practice, he saw it as nothing, just a placebo.

When he compared Eastern meditation to his “placebo” meditation group and found no difference between the two groups, he concluded that meditation on the whole was apparently not effective. Ironically, this researcher had actually proven the opposite. He demonstrated the effectiveness of Eastern meditation, and even came up with his own secularized version easily practiced by millions of Americans, with all the same benefits of Eastern meditation. And, he didn’t even realize what he had done! Years later Jon Kabat-Zinn would do essentially the same thing with his secular, mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) practice (similar to the above “placebo”), and he would become famous for it.

This researcher’s mistake was completely unconscious and based on the tenacity of his beliefs. He believed that Eastern meditation was fake and that there were no positive results that came from practicing it. That is
what he believed before he collected the evidence. Therefore, once he had the evidence, he interpreted it in the only way that made sense to him. In the end, he saw precisely what he wanted to see. His bias had eclipsed his insight, and he failed to see what he had actually discovered, which is that meditation does produce def inite benef its and that it is a psychological process, independent of religion. You see, when the facts conflicted with truth, he reinterpreted the facts to fit the truth. But, whose truth? Obviously, his truth is different from the truth of the Dalai Lama or Jon Kabat-Zinn or millions of people who meditate. When I first read this study, I thought the researcher was purposely creating a strawman argument. People do this in politics all the time. You mischaracterize your opponent’s position, to make it sound ridiculous, then you can easily argue against it. I thought this researcher was intentionally mischaracterizing Eastern meditation as some kind of religious miracle that only benefits you if you are a devout Buddhist or something. In this way he could easily discredit Eastern meditation by showing that it was no miracle of religion. Eventually I realized that this was indeed like a straw-man argument, but I don’t think it was intentional.

Here the researcher really did believe that meditation was some kind of mystical religious experience that could only occur with divine intervention. He never even considered that it might simply be a scientific phenomenon. He thought he was striking a blow against superstition and ignorance, but he was only fighting shadows in his own mind. This is a classic case of what I call pathological skepticism.

I see this all the time with skeptics, such as Michael Shermer, founding publisher of Skeptic magazine. Once, in a televised interview, I saw him comment on the Baghdad battery, an ancient artifact found in an archaeological dig near Baghdad. The object was a terra cotta jar which had a copper cylinder inside of the jar, and an iron post that fit inside the copper cylinder without touching it. The metal was held in place in the jar with bitumen. It is believed that the jar had been filled with lemon juice or some other liquid high in citric acid. Well, that sounds like a battery to anyone who knows about electricity. Shermer claimed that this artifact was not evidence that the ancients knew about electricity. He thinks that the device was merely used for electroplating, since we have found evidence of gold plated jewelry from that period. So, they did not know about electrical technology, they only knew about electroplating technology? I know what he means, but I don’t think he realizes how obtuse that sounds. He just conceded that they did in fact know about the technology of electroplating, and actually knew how to build devices to implement it, including a battery cell sufficient to generate the necessary charge.

What he meant to say was that they did not have electrical wires suspended from electrical poles, with giant generators, producing massive energy to power light bulbs and run various appliances. But, he forgets that neither did Benjamin Franklin, Georg Ohm, or James Clerk Maxwell; neither did Thomas Edison in the beginning. But surely he would not deny that these men knew of electricity. Shermer, in his defense, might say that even if they somehow knew about electroplating, then it still does not prove that they had any modern understanding of electricity. That’s fair enough. I have no idea how they explained or thought about batteries or electricity. They may have attributed it to the gods, for all I know. But if you define a battery as any device that holds an electrical charge, and you define electricity as that energy which is stored in a battery, then he is clearly wrong. They had obviously discovered the phenomenon that we call electricity. And if they did use it for electroplating, then that proves that they had discovered the relevant principles and materials involved in that process.

You see, he’s actually using a straw-man argument, and I don’t think he’s doing it intentionally. He thinks that when a crypto-archaeologist says that ancient civilizations “knew about electricity” or were “experimenting with it” that they’re claiming that the ancients might have had electric lights and appliances, or that they lived just as we do today. But that’s actually a straw-man argument. If he did this consciously, he would probably be doing it because he can’t refute the actual facts, so he misrepresents it as something crazy and then argues against that instead. The thing is, I don’t think he even knows he’s doing it. The crazy scenario he is arguing against is all in his head. Most people who are fascinated with the Baghdad battery don’t necessarily believe that the ancients who created it had electric toasters or vacuum cleaners. 
 This process of unconsciously creating straw-man arguments is really an example of a neurotic behavior, in that it is an unconscious process that skews a person’s thinking and behavior, often in illogical ways. So what would cause someone to do this? Unconsciously, this kind of person probably has a fear of being gullible himself and doesn’t want to be made a fool of by believing in a practical joke, or a con. So he dismisses, downplays, or distorts facts because they are in conflict with the truth as he knows it. I call this pathological skepticism, because it is basically a neurosis, a disorder that causes people to make errors in judgment due to an unconscious fear of being humiliated or being overly gullible.

I’ve heard many such statements by various skeptics over the years. A good example of pathological skepticism is when someone says “there’s no proof that was a UFO; it was probably just some flying object that just hasn’t been identified yet.” Or, how about this one, “faith healing is nothing more than a placebo effect.” And when you ask them what a placebo effect is, they respond, “a placebo is when the person is healed because they believed that they’d be healed.” But isn’t that another way of saying that they were healed because they had faith they’d be healed? These statements kind of remind me of the famous quote by Leo Durocher that, “anyone who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined.” Just like the above skeptics, you know what he means, but what he says is so obtuse that it’s actually comical.

In a line from the movie The Last Crusade, the intrepid archaeologist Indiana Jones says, “Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Professor Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”

We claim to be a society that values science, but we actually value truth more than facts. But truth, alas, is whatever you believe it is. It is time that we as a society learned the difference between fact and truth. We as a people, and especially those of us in the scientific community, need to get back to the basics and start dealing with some inconvenient facts.

I call on all scientists to give up such shortsighted bias and begin to study potentially important, however unlikely, theories with the same zeal that they apply towards making minor contributions to an existing body of knowledge. In the words of F. N. Earll, regarding Hapgood’s theory, “if it is an unworthy thing let it be properly destroyed; if not, let it receive the nourishment that it deserves.”

Many think of Napa Valley as being the big-leagues of the wine industry. When you think of Napa, you might think of massive, corporate-owned wineries, making big money, producing the lion’s share of wine in California, one of the most sought-after wine-growing regions in the world. But, where did it all begin? There must have been a rag-tag group of hearty, intrepid pioneers that started it all. At one point, the winemakers of Napa Valley were what we today might think of as garagiste, or micro-chateau winemakers. There were, to be sure, small-lot wine producers all over the country. But the wine labels of Napa would go on to become legend. Names like Charles Krug, Beringer, Inglenook, and Chateau Montelena, to name a few. So, it might be interesting to explore the roots of Napa Valley Wine.

The first thing you will discover is that the real history and heart of Napa Valley began in the town of St. Helena. There, to this day, is located the Napa Valley Vintner’s Association, and the Napa Valley Wine Library, located within the St.Helena Public Library. The library is a wonderful resource with many rare and limited edition books on the history of the area and the early wine industry. But, what you discover there might just surprise you. It was not at all what many might expect.

Napa Valley did not start out to be a wine or grape growing region at all. Once the Native Americans were rounded up and moved to the mission, one of the first major land-owners was Dr. Edward Bale of England. In the late1830’s, he was convinced that the Napa Valley would be a highly desirable place for immigrant settlers, growing wheat and corn and raising livestock, and that would mean big money for whoever owned the mills and the infrastructure. At that time California was still part of Mexico. In a very shrewd move, he became fluent in Spanish and became a Mexican citizen. He then befriended General Vallejo, Governor of California, and eventually married his daughter. As a dowry, he received over 18,000 acres of land in Napa Valley. The first thing he did was to build two mills, a saw mill, and a grist mill for milling grain. In doing so, he thought he’d make a fortune off of the flood of people moving here, building farms, and growing grains. But it never materialized. Immigrants arrived and began farming, but not quickly enough. Eventually, in 1848, gold was discovered in California, and Dr. Bale went off in search of gold! But, he soon died of a fever, never to return.

Not long after that a young Prussian immigrant, a journalist named Charles Krug, settled in the area. He had some experience in making wine with an immigrant vintner in the area, named Agoston Haraszthy, and Krug saw the potential of Napa Valley to be a wine growing region. In a move similar to that of Bale, he courted and married Bale’s daughter. As his dowry, he received 540 acres of prime real estate just north of St. Helena, CA, on land that is still to this day owned by the Charles Krug Winery.

Surprisingly, many of the early settlers in Napa Valley were survivors of the Donner Party, or the party that immediately preceded it. You will remember, that this is the train of covered wagons that left Missouri, headed for San Francisco, that got caught in an early winter storm and resorted to cannibalism to survive the winter. Their camp was at the top of what is now known as Donner Pass. This grizzly back-history was shared by many early settlers in Napa Valley, and so formed the foundation of the society that flourished here. Perhaps they were haunted by being survivors of such a scandalous affair, and were just looking for a place where people would not gossip about them or judge them. In Napa Valley, they found refuge among other survivors of that ill-fated group.

Perhaps the most surprising thing about Napa Valley has to do with the wine industry itself. First, the myth that Napa Valley Wine is big business. Well, if you are referring to quality and price-point, that may be true, but regarding the business statistics, Napa is surprisingly small. Only 4% of California wine comes from Napa Valley. But, it’s still owned by big corporations, right? Wrong. 95% of wineries in Napa Valley are family owned. And, unlike most other grape producing areas, the average yield in Napa Valley, is approximately only 1.5 tons/acre. Napa wine is very good, but it’s neither very big nor corporate. That was a surprise.

So, with this new information, you’d think it should be easy to find many small winemakers from the 1800s, the winemakers who first began making wine in this region. And since it is still to this day, mostly small yield, family owned operations, this must truly be the home of the garagiste/micro-chateau winemaker, right? Wrong again!

Charles Krug was the first real commercial winemaker of any size in Napa Valley. He made his first batch of Napa Valley wine in 1858, producing about 2000 gallons of wine for his patron George Yount (founder of Yountville). That’s a little more than 600 cases. And, that was likely the smallest batch of wine every made in Napa Valley. The wine industry quickly took off. Charles Krug made 5000 gallons of wine in 1859. If you are a home winemaker, can you imagine making 5000 gallons of wine in your garage? That’s pretty big. And, then Krug built a massive winery on his property, near St. Helena in 1861. His winery was capable of producing over 100,000 gallons of wine a year, and did so for years to come.

Charles Krug’s cellar master was a young man named Jacob Beringer. When the winery burned down in the 1860’s, Jacob nearly lost his life trying to save the cellar. Krug never forgot it, and later helped Beringer start his own winery. After his brother from Germany joined him, the Beringer Brothers began making over 200,000 gallons of wine a year. Over the years, others came to Napa seeking their fortune in the wine business. In 1879, a former sea captain, Gustov Niebaum, who made his fortune in the Alaska fur trade, bought the Ingelnook Estate in Rutherford. He was soon was making 65,000 gallons a year. And, still the business grew.

Soon, many of the wealthy inhabitants of San Francisco made it a point of prestige to own a winery in Napa Valley. Some were gold or silver tycoons, or men like Sam Brennan who made his fortune selling supplies to miners in the gold rush. A man by the name of Alfred Tubbs made his fortune in making rope for miners in the gold rush. In 1886 he built what is now Chateau Montelena. The same year, the socialite Mrs. Josephien Tychson built what is now Freemark Abbey, producing 25,000 gallons a year. Nearby, Larkmead winery was established, now known as Rombauer, and soon they were producing 150,000 gallons a year. Meanwhile, the vineyards now known as Mondavi, were producing a whopping 250,000 gallons a year! All in all, just the area of St. Helena produced nearly two million gallons of wine in the year 1886.That does not include Rutherford, Yountville, Napa, Oakville, Calistoga or Conn Valley. The surrounding area produced another two million gallons a year.

Then there was the Greystone Co-op. The owners built the winery to get around the oligopoly of large wine merchants based in San Francisco. These merchants controlled the volume of wine produced and the market price per gallon for wine. They thrived while Napa Valley producers made more and more wine, for less and less money. Two men, William Bourn II and Everett Wise formed the Greystone Wine Co-op for small Napa Valley wine producers to make and sell their wine. You might imagine that it was like an early custom crush facility, helping small grape growers in Napa Valley to produce their own small batches of wine, independent of the large wineries. Well, not exactly.

Actually, it appears Greystone bought grapes from local producers on some kind of profit sharing plan; this is what they meant by the term “co-op”. This got around the San Francisco wine merchants, and offered a fairer rate of return for the growers. Then all the grapes collected went into making the Greystone wine. But, this was anything but a small winery. Greystone, when completed in 1889, was the biggest winery in the world, producing a whopping 350,000 gallons a year under a single roof!

Eventually, the Napa Valley wine industry collapsed under it’s own weight. Over production continued to drive falling prices, in spite of their best efforts. By 1887 Charles Krug was bankrupt. The Greystone Co-op only lasted a few years and sold out in 1892. The Napa Valley wine industry in the 1880s was what we might today call a “bubble”, and it eventually burst. Soon after this there was a devastating blight by the phylloxera aphid, and just when they were recovering, prohibition hit. In the span of several decades the Napa Valley wine industry was all but wiped out. In 1891 there were 110 wineries, and only 8 produced less than 10,000 gallons per year. By 1977, that number was down to about 51, and most were significantly smaller than their ancestor’s wineries.

In conclusion, the history of Napa Valley wine was not at all what you might imagine. You’d expect the California vineyards to start small, and then grow and grow, and eventually blossom to greatness. Not so in Napa. They started dismally, populated by several members of the doomed Donner party. Then, almost from the very first vintage, wine was big business in Napa Valley. In a few short years, it became an incredibly huge business. Then, just as quickly, it collapsed and then went through a few smaller boom and bust cycles, and was almost wiped out, before being banned by federal legislation. Only after nearly 100 years did Napa wine make a significant rebound. Napa wine survived Prohibition and saw the rebirth of the wine industry after World War II, leading to their rise to prominence once again in the 1970’s and 80’s. But that is another story.