Download PDF Science Shams & Bible Bloopers

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Science Shams & Bible Bloopers file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Science Shams & Bible Bloopers book. Happy reading Science Shams & Bible Bloopers Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Science Shams & Bible Bloopers at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Science Shams & Bible Bloopers Pocket Guide.

Hayes, Michael A. Hayes Chaplain. Daniel Carroll R. Garrow - - pages Revelation for Dummies! Buriff - - pages Revelations to Go! Workbook by Brian J. Brooks - - 80 pages Rome and the study of Scripture by Catholic Church. Pope, Catholic Church. Baab - - 64 pages Sacred Biography by J. Sneed - - pages Scripture by Brandon S.

Zeolla - - pages Scripture zoology, intended to illustrate those passages in the Bible, in which allusions are made to objects in animated nature - pages Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility by Dewey M.

Download Science Shams Bible Bloopers

Can There Be Common Ground? Lebron - Searching for Spiritual Unity Miller, Jason Vinley - - pages. Prester John by Vsevolod Slessarev - - pages. Princess to Princess by Kathy Collard Miller - - pages. Pope - - pages. Profits of the Prophets by Joe Nations - - pages. Promise of the Soul by Dennis Kenny - - pages. Aaberg - - pages. Prophecy by Vine Vine - - pages. Prophecy text book, for reference and for classes by Keith Leroy Brooks - - 93 pages. Prophet And Historian by Maurice A. Williams - - pages. Prophetic Shadows by Gary Arthur Campbell - Protevangelium Jacobi by Harm Reinder Smid - - pages.

Proverbi by Mario Cimosa - - pages. Smith - Prudens dispensator verbi by Elisa Mascellani - - pages. Psalm by Ron Hirschhorn - Psalm 91 by Areon Potter - - pages. Psalms by Alastair G. Hunter - - pages. Smith - - pages. Pseudepigrapha by William John Deane - - pages. Punishment in the Bible by J. Arthur Hoyles - - pages. Pure in Heart by Rebecca Lee - - pages. Purification Practice by Joo Lian Carter - - pages. Pursuing Holiness by Carolyn Nystrom - - 64 pages. Burns Ii - - pages.

Quest for Discovery by Richard Carl Bright - - pages. Questions of the charismatics by David M. Gower - - 28 pages. Quick and Easy, Bible Studies by G. Stephan - - pages. Quick games for children's ministry by Beth Rowland, Trudi Bils - - 92 pages. Quick Studies by David Cook - - pages. Quiz Me! Raccontare Dio - - pages. Ransom by Dean H. Harvey - - pages. Rape and the Bible by Alton Meyer Winters - - pages. Re-Introducing God by Richard Rodriguez - Read the Word by Matthew Tague - - pages.

Kohlenberger, III - - 32 pages. Reading Law by James W Watts - - pages. Reading Leviticus by John F. Sawyer - - pages. Reading the Bible by Timothy R. Carmody - - pages. Reading the Bible today by Daniel Thambyrajah Niles - - 88 pages. Reading to Live by Raymond Studzinski - - pages. Real life, real people by Nelson Word Publishing Group - - pages. Reasonable Christianity by John Rendle-Short - - pages. Reconstructing the first-century synagogue by Stephen K. Catto - - pages. Recovering the Unity of the Bible by Walter C.

Recovery by Juanita Ryan, Dale Ryan - - 64 pages. Redeeming Time by Engstrom, Robert C. Larson - - 48 pages. Reference the Scripture by James Rhodes - Reflections by Phyllis Kreis - Reflections by Martyn Lloyd-Jones - - pages. Relationships by Gladys M. Hunt - - 64 pages. Utter - - pages. Religion and sexism; images of woman in the Jewish and Christian traditions by Rosemary Radford Ruether - - pages. Religion and violence by David A. Bernat - - pages.

Religion in the Pacific era by Frank K. Flinn, Tyler Hendricks - - pages. Religious Polemics in Context by Theo L. Hettema - - pages. Renewal by Anne Ortlund, Raymond C. Ortlund - - 96 pages. Rereading Prophecy by Homer Kizer - - pages. Rereading Talmud by Aryeh Cohen - - pages. Respondent Spark by Chuck Fager - - pages. Kim, Denise Evans - - pages. Resurrection by Stanley E.

Retelling the Torah by John E. Retellings by Jo Cheryl Exum - - pages. Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts by M. Schwulst - - pages. Instead, warned the pamphlet, we should all have our spines adjusted to prevent colds and other viral illnesses. Yet another brochure, titled What Does a Chiropractor Do?

Both religion and chiropractic are wildly popular with the American public, claim- ing tens of millions of devoted followers. Both religion and chiro- practic are represented by a superb network of skilled and attrac- tive spokespersons, persuasively articulating the message.

Both religion and chiroprac- tic offer emotional consolation to the discouraged, claiming that traditional medicine too-easily dismisses the possibility of alterna- tive or miraculous cures to disease. Both religion and chiropractic, despite their powerful and conspicuous presence on every-other street corner, view themselves as a meek and unfairly persecuted minority. Moreover, irrespective of its theory, the scope and quality of chiropractic education do not prepare the practitioner to make an adequate diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment.

In , the AMA ruled that it was unethical for physicians to associate professionally with chiroprac- tors. The first misconcep- tion is that chiropractors treat only problems of the spine. A casual reading of chiropractic literature, however, reveals that spinal ma- nipulation is offered as a cure for literally every malady known to mankind.

The literature speaks for itself. Factually, however, many chi- ropractors practicing today are not even college graduates. Chiro- practic schools have long suffered a reputation for accepting prac- tically anyone, regardless of his or her impoverished academic back- ground. Five of the seven chiropractic schools nonetheless responded immediately with letters of acceptance. Another school suggested that the applicant take a GED examination, and, on that basis, gave him conditional acceptance! The typical chiropractic school is filled with students who first applied to colleges of medicine, but were turned down.

To the above criticism, chiropractors often respond that, to earn their license to practice, chiropractors are required to pass the identical state board examinations required of medical doctors. While this fact is true, a crucial difference needs to be highlighted. The medical student takes his state board examinations as an inci- dental part of his career preparation, sometimes years before com- pleting his science and medical studies and residency program.

By contrast, chiropractic colleges do not teach the scientific causes and treatments of disease. Rather, the schools tend to focus on coaching the students to squeak past the state exam. In no sense therefore is a D. When you visit a chiropractor, chances are good that he will take a gigantic x-ray of your entire spinal column.

Such a claim, however, is completely vacuous because nervous tissue is invisible to x-ray film. To image a spinal nerve, a liquid or gaseous contrast media must be injected into the patient—a procedure that chiropractors do not perform. Shortly before the parade started, Palmer exchanged heated words with his son, B.

The local prosecutor sought an attempted-murder indictment against B. Chiropractors claim to be practitioners of the scientific method and members of the professional scientific community. Why, then, has no article ever been published in a peer-reviewed scientific or medical journal substantiating the chiropractic theory of disease? Publication and peer-review are the scientific method. Since chiropractors are forbidden by law to prescribe medi- cines, they hawk all forms of potions and elixirs. These tablets are packaged in bottles which are designed and labeled to mimic the appear- ance of doctor-prescribed medications prepared by a pharmacist.

Some of these eye-of-newt remedies appear to have been in- spired by various episodes of The Beverly Hillbillies and the pre- scription pad of Dr. Granny Clampett. Or is it possible that spinal manipula- tion of animals would be fruitless since they are not vulnerable to psychological and financial manipulation? Such a pinched nerve would call for imme- diate and complete immobilization of the victim rather than forc- ible manipulation , and would likely require the most-delicate surgery to repair. When was the last time a real doctor of- fered you a free consultation?

Is there an elaborate mass conspiracy of silence to protect all chiropractors? Instead of rebutting their critics by publishing articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals— as true scientists do—the well-oiled machine of professional chiro- practic associations can, at will, generate ten-thousand bullyraging telegrams of protest. Here again, the chiropractic profession closely resembles a group of religious Fundamentalists, bombarding tele- vision networks and magazines with morally indignant letters whenever an opposing viewpoint is expressed publicly.

Let us recall that, according to chiropractic theory, immunizations are unnecessary if our spines are properly aligned. Even babies were actively sought as patients. Mean- while the American Academy of Pediatrics—which represents M. In the United States, however, the American Academy of Pediatrics remains officially silent on the issue. Honestly, now. What would our opinions be of a physicist or chemist who published no evidence whatever to substantiate his highly-dubious theories, and who threatened to file utterly ground- less lawsuits against any scientist who published contrary opin- ions?

Science Shams & Bible Bloopers

Few, if any, of these threatened lawsuits are ever actually filed. And, to the best of my knowledge, no judge has ever permitted such an ultra-frivolous lawsuit to go to trial. Most judges do still respect and enforce the First Amendment. Their goal is simply to intimi- date their critics into silence, just as the Catholic Church sought to strong-arm Galileo into silence. Such intimidation is not merely evidence of intellectual bankruptcy, it is evidence of blatant hy- pocrisy, since the chiropractic profession is itself continually pub- lishing literature which openly ridicules vaccinations, antibiotics, surgery, and other effective tools of modern medical science.

Chiropractic literature should of course be openly accessible to everyone, as should The Tales of Mother Goose. But in my opinion, the field of chiropractic more closely resembles a religion than a science. And its practitioners more closely mimic television evangelists and faith healers than men and women of science. Medical doctors are often viewed as pillars of the community; and their stated opin- ions carry much influence, particularly on issues of health care. Galileo and Darwin must be rolling in their graves, for both men taught us that science de- mands, not only brains, but guts.

Question: What are the principal functions of the spine? Answer: To support the head To support the ribs To support the chiropractor. Palmer, Answers Notes on Chapter 1 1. Anyone who has earned an M. John Smith. During his undercover investigation of the chiropractic pro- fession, Ralph Lee Smith learned that B. Palmer and his family invariably went to traditional medical doctors whenever they them- selves became ill—despite the fact that B.

Most chiroprac- tors, when facing a true illness, follow B. What Does a Chiropractor Do? Try instead to become creatively absorbed into outside interests and external activities. Stop obsessively contemplating your own navel. Develop reward- ing interpersonal relationships. Get your mind off yourself. If you merely focus attention elsewhere, then your self-centered emo- tional problems will die of neglect.

Try instead to build up your own sense of self-worth. Take pride in yourself! Work toward elevating your own self-respect and enhancing your self-image. Your feelings of unhappiness and depression will surely evaporate if you only esteem yourself more highly! Instead of espousing, as we did previously, that mental health is realized through lucid interpretation and interaction with the external world, we now seem preoccupied with the wholly internal effort to elevate our own self-appraisal.

Forget our former effort to objectively perceive the empirical universe; today we simply want to feel good about ourselves. All that matters is his internal self-image. Because of this shift in popular emphasis—from external pre- occupation to internal self-contemplation—we find our libraries and bookstores stacked with radically different self-help texts from those published a few decades ago. Yet, despite the wide distribution of such popular texts, and despite our tireless efforts to build within ourselves and our chil- dren a sense of self-worth, it seems, today, that the average person is as confused as ever perhaps more so!

Put another way, we shall learn why an individual would enjoy increased emotional stability and deeper contentment, and why he would suffer far less anxiety and inhibition by completely abandoning his drive for self-esteem. Unfortunately, the entire discussion in psychological circles has now focused on how best to teach self-esteem, rather than on whether self-valuation is emotionally healthy.

Our blind devotion to self-esteem has become a virtual religion, a religion in which the worshiper and the worshiped are the same individual! The nobil- ity of self-esteem has become a sacred, unchallenged article of faith. We tend to ascribe many of our social maladies—notably the drug problem—to a lack of self-esteem among teenagers. Criminals, we say, have little self-respect; otherwise they would not behave as they do.

Religious institutions especially have proposed an inextricable link between morality and self-respect. A person without self-respect is thought to be a person with- out ethical standards. Why, then, should we abandon self-esteem? How could a person conceivably enjoy his life without some mea- sure of self-esteem? When we say that an individual has self-esteem—or self-respect, self-love, self-admiration, or self-worth—we do not mean that he values himself without proposed justification. We do not mean, in other words, that his self-esteem is unearned or unconditional.

No, people tend to view themselves positively for a reason, usually because they perceive, correctly or incorrectly, that they possess admirable personal traits e. Self-esteem, it appears, comes through perceived individual ac- complishment or through supposed possession of desirable per- sonal characteristics. A businessman may enjoy self-esteem because, from his view- point, he is professionally successful and treats his family well. A politi- cian may feel self-esteem because he won a lopsided victory in the last election and sponsored a popular congressional bill to help his constituents.

Remember, Key Point 1: Self-esteem must, in some way, be earned. As an illustration, think for a moment about your own personal achievements. Take ample time; give this question care- ful reflection before continuing. No feat of bravery, no act of heroism, no display of superior intellectual acumen will bless the individual with permanent self-esteem. He must savor the moment, for soon his expanded ego will deflate and, once again, he will feel driven to prove himself worthy of life and happiness.

A majority of people seem to believe that, if they could glori- ously achieve X or Y in their lifetimes, then such a celebrated ac- complishment would forever rid them of intermittent feelings of inadequacy. They might aspire to be Chief Executive Officer of their corporation. They might envision themselves discovering a cure for cancer. Or they might fantasize about marrying a highly desirable member of the opposite sex. It is no surprise, for example, that many boxers, long retired, feel compelled to reenter the spotlight e.

Financial compen- sation, however important, was not the primary motivation in- spiring their return to the ring. These champions sought to resur- rect within themselves that former feeling of self-pride, which came through defeating a weaker opponent and through being the focus of public adoration. Not only the champion boxer, but many of us find it disheartening, even depressing, when forced to retire from a job, the performance of which is integral to our self-esteem.

Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan all disclosed in their respective memoirs that even becoming President of the United States soon becomes a routine, often boring affair. So even famous and powerful individuals become discontent quickly if future goals are not continually established, pursued, and realized. Presidency—will provide only a tempo- rary emotional glow. President Nixon, in fact, described his disil- lusionment when, on the night of his re-election landslide, he inexplicably felt no pleasure or emotional excitation of any kind.

By , Nixon had already been President for four years and no longer derived self-esteem merely through being Chief Executive. Famous individuals, whether they are politicians, movie stars, or athletes, do not permanently feel their fame in the way imag- ined by the factory worker or the housewife. Even the Queen of England would soon feel despondent if separated from relation- ships and challenging activities essential to her self-esteem.

Like- wise for us commoners. An individual must constantly strive for, and perpetually achieve, new goals if his ego intoxication is to continue. Remember, Key Point 2: Self-esteem must be earned repeat- edly. It is never permanent. Worse yet, we may neglect to maintain those character traits or the desired physical appearance which we have so thoroughly incor- porated into our personal tabulation of self-worth. The football player, esteeming himself for athletic ability, feels humiliated and self-loathing after repeatedly fumbling the ball. It appears that the only theoretical means by which an indi- vidual could enjoy consistent self-esteem would be for him to be- come incapable of failure.

He would, in addition, have to live in an environment where disappointment is impossible. He must, in other words, transcend his mortal limitations and become a god- like being. He must be immune from innate human fallibility and possess virtual omniscience and omnipotence. He must reside in some kind of heaven, where no rejection or behavioral inadequa- cies can occur. Otherwise, his fragile self-esteem is vulnerable to human failure and weakness and to the terrestrial terrors imping- ing upon him from without.

Instead of believing that he is sim- ply a person whose performance excelled or whose traits are com- mendable, he will believe, quite pompously, that he is therefore a superior person. He will see no distinction whatever between him- self and his behavior; they are one in the same.

Clerical Whispers Team

If his performance is good, then he becomes good. Since his achievement was supe- rior, he considers himself a superior, godlike individual, far above the lowly slobs he defeated. He will, for a time, revel in self-esteem and feel much happier than if he concluded merely that his exter- nal behavior was superior. He derives far more pleasure by imagin- ing that he, his very being, his essence, is superior. The person who feels noble and godlike today for succeeding, will feel equally hellish and self-despising tomorrow for the slightest failure.

And when he fails to reach his ma- jestic goal—as he invariably will do from time to time—his life seems to him worthless. The successful individual concluded, not only that he per- formed well, but also that he was transformed thereby into a supe- rior human being. Likewise, the individual failing to achieve his goal may conclude, not only that his performance was inadequate, but also that he himself is a failure as a human being. Sooner or later, the self-esteeming individual will pay the price for making his self-worth contingent upon outstanding achievement. Metaphori- cally at least, the universe will serve justice upon the sin of pride.

There circulates a curious theory that self-rating and self-respect encourage moral behavior—i. A philosophy of self-esteem, therefore, does not at all guarantee moral behavior. On the contrary, self-rating encourages the individual to redefine morality in self-serving ways, to guarantee the survival of his self-respect. The opposite of self-esteem is not self-hatred. Self-esteem and self-hatred there- fore are two sides of the same self-appraising coin. If you view yourself as exalted and lordly for your successes, then you will automatically view yourself as paltry and worthless when fail- ing.

It is a package deal. You cannot enjoy self-worship with- out, very soon, suffering self-damnation.

The tacit logic up- holding your self-esteem can just as easily document your ab- ject worthlessness. The individual who lusts after self-esteem will forever ride an unstable emotional roller coaster, up and down, up and down. He may indeed soar quickly to great heights. But he will inevitably sink rapidly into the depths of despair and dejection, because it is a single philosophy—his philosophy of contingent self-rating—that produces both his positive and his negative self-image. Remember, Key Point 3: Self-esteem leads intermittently to self-damnation.

The short answer to this question is, no, the price usually is not worth paying. The expense we incur for esteeming ourselves is by no means limited to feelings of humiliation when failing. If that were the case—if the only unpleasant consequence of self-esteem were an occasional feeling of disgrace when failing—then one could legitimately argue that self-esteem often benefits individuals who are exceptionally successful, attractive, or talented. Artistic indi- viduals, we say, are motivated by pride in their creative projects. To a limited extent, the drive for self-esteem probably does spur some individuals to productive and creative activity.

Instead of stimulating genius and creativity, however, the theology of self-esteem more often results in severe behavioral inhibition and debilitating anxiety. Take, for example, the average-looking, average-intelligence single male, who feels romantically and sexually attracted to a woman of extraordinary beauty and brilliance. This gentleman may fantasize vividly about dating or marrying such a desirable woman, and his self-esteem would no doubt be temporarily elevated if his fantasies were realized.

Because his precious self-esteem would be de- stroyed if he were rejected openly by such an attractive, enticing female. That way, the likeli- hood of rejection will decline, and the threat to his self-esteem will diminish. If she, nonetheless, rebuffs his ad- vances, then he will naturally feel disappointed, but, because his entire value as a human being is not in jeopardy, he will not feel ashamed or humiliated. He tends to give up, and to rationalize excuses for with- drawing from outside activities and interpersonal relationships.

After all, he reasons, how could a worthless bum such as himself succeed at anything truly significant? On the other hand, if an individual views his current behavior, rather than himself, as deficient, then he clearly sees that, through more practice and effort, he may in the future rectify his previously deficient behavior. Pause to ask yourself this question: Does your long nose or your poor complexion really prevent you from asking out highly desirable members of the opposite sex? Or is it, rather, your fear of ego-deflation that deters you from asking?

Likewise, our self-esteem inhibits us from participating in any activity in which failure is deemed disgraceful. And because failure in virtually any endeavor is deemed disgraceful by the self-esteeming individual, he becomes distinctly afraid to try anything unfamil- iar. Far from inspiring productive behavior and social interaction, the concept of self-esteem is the most inhibiting philosophy imaginable. Remember, Key Point 4: Self-esteem usually promotes social and behavioral inhibition.

His anxieties, moreover, will often be intense, for he still believes devoutly that his entire value as a human being depends upon success at this new activity or relationship. And with so much at stake, with so much riding on success, he cannot possibly enjoy the intrinsic pleasures of the moment. But he will clutch the telephone nervously as he dials. His hands and forehead will sweat profusely as her number rings. And his heart will palpitate uncontrollably as she picks up the receiver.

Regardless of how smoothly the conversation flows, he will derive little intrinsic pleasure from the experience, because he fears that, at any moment, he might say the wrong thing, and his self-esteem would surely die a tortured death. So he thoroughly defeats himself by maintaining this silly ego-bolstering philosophy. His anxieties sabotage his objec- tives, because he concentrates principally on how he is doing, rather than on what he is doing.

His drive for self-esteem can be de- scribed accurately as a built-in self-destruct mechanism. The impotent male, for example, often creates for himself the specific sexual dysfunction he seeks to avoid so desperately. In- stead of focusing in bed on his female partner, and thereby becom- ing sexually aroused, he obsessively monitors his own body for signs of potency. His drive for self-esteem therefore is an impediment, rather than an asset, in bed.

But because of his ego-centered fixa- tion, his thoughts will converge only on himself and his holy self-esteem. The inexperienced public speaker also suffers self-esteem-related anxieties. He imagines himself becoming tongue-tied or failing to recall his memorized text. He foresees his face becoming red and his voice quiv- ering. He concentrates therefore, not on the content of his speech, but on the need to preserve his self-esteem by avoiding such em- barrassments.

He suffers anxiety because his self-esteem is in dan- ger of being lost. And this same disquieting anxiety will render almost impossible a smooth, professional delivery of his speech. Remember, Key Point 5: A compulsive drive for self-esteem leads to frequent anxiety. As an immediate corollary, we deduce Key Point 6: Self-esteem-related anxiety is an obstacle to achieving those goals essential to our self-esteem! If our self-worth de- pends upon external achievement, then naturally we believe that we must achieve.

But if we must achieve, then our anxiety becomes so distressing and burdensome that we often withdraw from the activities and relationships that, potentially, we might enjoy the most. We withdraw in dreadful fear of an ego-crushing failure or rejection. The self-damnation, in turn, makes us feel unworthy and incapable of future success. Quite a pickle indeed! But can we somehow escape our boxed-in predicament?

Is there an alternative to this self-defeating philoso- phy? We can help ourselves immeasurably toward greater hap- piness and emotional stability. We can overcome rapidly our need- less anxieties, while profoundly enriching our enjoyment of life. We can conquer our social and behavioral inhibitions with surpris- ingly meager effort.

Yes, we can indeed annihilate our self-sabotaging philosophy, but only if we are willing to pay the price. We definitely can prevail over anxiety and inhibition, but only if we are willing to make a sacrifice: surrendering our compulsive drive for self-esteem. There is no other way to help ourselves in this regard. We are easily misled, however. We simplemindedly think that we can get something for nothing—that somewhere there is a Garden of Eden, where bountiful fruit may be harvested without corresponding work or sacrifice.

Through the physical sciences, we learn that energy cannot be created out of nothing. These books claim to remedy self-condemnation without extracting the corresponding sacrifice of self-esteem. The reader, in other words, is promised something for nothing.

Momentarily, an individual enjoys an exhilarating euphoria when esteeming himself, so he is understandably reluctant to sac- rifice this intoxicating, positive self-image. He must therefore make a choice, but not a choice between self-esteem and self-condemnation, for both attitudes are inseparable manifestations of the same self-rating philosophy. His choice, rather, is whether he will or will not rate himself at all, positively or negatively.

He must choose between having a self-image and having no self-image. Instead of labeling himself as honorable or as foolish, he can more accurately and specifically rate the efficiency or inefficiency of his external actions, a subtle, yet critical difference in percep- tion. Instead of speculating emptily that he is intrinsically noble or that he is intrinsically worthless, he can more scientifically view his outside behavior as advantageous or as disadvantageous to his chosen goals. He can, in other words, refuse to entertain any self-image. He can restrict himself to observing and evaluating the empirical universe, of which his behavior is a part—and he can forget about inventing and perpetuating any kind of self-image, which exists only as an egocentric vapor in his head.

Revisiting our illustration of the average-looking, average-intelligence male attracted to the beautiful and brilliant fe- male: So long as he abstains from consciously rating himself—or from being, in other words, self-conscious—then he can pursue the rela- tionship even though success is far from guaranteed.

If, on the contrary, he does con- sciously rate himself as a human being—i. Your choice, rather, is between establishing an overall self-image and establishing no self-image. View your external actions and traits as desirable or undesirable, but abstain from esteeming or damning yourself as a whole.

Blog Archive

He spends most of his hours, however, observing his external envi- ronment and trying to do something interesting or productive within that environment. If, then, he already spends most of his time not contemplating his self-worth, why can he not, through resolution and industry, eliminate virtually all of his self-image? The answer, of course, is that he can eliminate his self-image, once he recognizes that such an absence of self-image is possible and is, in fact, preferable to his frequent anxiety and inhibition.

Animals, other than man, seem completely content as egoless creatures, simply observing the outside world. They seem entirely free from the anxieties and hang-ups suffered so often by their self-centered human cousins. It may be argued convincingly that other animals are intellec- tually inferior to man and thus possess no capacity for self-esteem. So it is amply apparent that the superior human intellect often invents and adheres to unhealthy philosophical systems.

It is just possible that the philosophy of self-esteem fits neatly and properly into that category. All pseudosciences quickly resort to needlessly complicated or meaningless jargon as a substitute for intellectual substance. If these five characteristics are hallmarks of a pseudoscience, then the majority of police departments across the United States clearly qualify as cesspools of pseudoscientific malpractice.

Police investi- gators are no more scientific in their pursuit of criminal suspects than are astrologers in their pursuit of futuristic visions. Why do I label the police as practitioners of pseudoscience? Lie Detectors Twenty years ago, I published a book titled Holy Hypnosis in which I detailed fifteen methods used by various religions to brainwash or hypnotize suggestible individuals into joining the creed and believing religious doctrines. The number one method of Holy Hypnosis is to convince the potential convert that his emotions represent more than just feelings in his gut: His emotions are pro- found evidence of the imminent presence and operation of super- natural Powers.

Heavens no! In actuality, emotions, whether soothing or upsetting, prove only that individuals do hold specific beliefs.


  1. Thin on the Ground: Neandertal Biology, Archeology and Ecology.
  2. EU Security Governance;
  3. Random Walks, Boundaries and Spectra.

Generally speaking, the more strongly a belief is held, the more intense will be the emotional response. To therefore assert an inextricable link between your transitory, internal feelings and ex- ternal, objective reality is to embrace mysticism and pseudoscience of the worst sort. We may contemplate our own navels until dooms- day; but in doing so, we engage only in self-absorption and self-delusion, rather than scientific inquiry. The theory under which police operate is that suspects who lie under interro- gation are nervous, and that this nervousness is evidence of their lying.

But the obvious fallacy, here, is the presumption that the only reason for a person to be nervous is that he or she is lying. Police misuse of nervousness detectors has a sorry and disturb- ing history. It is likewise fair to say that even a woman who had not been raped would be emotionally traumatized by such probing and intimate questions leveled at her by a stranger, who was almost invariably a man.

She was inventing the rape story to attract sympathetic atten- tion to herself, or to frame someone she disliked, such as an ex-boyfriend. I could of course refuse to take the test, citing my Fifth Amend- ment rights. But police—and the public at large—would con- clude immediately that I must be guilty of the crime. Why else would I refuse the test? I am then instructed by the examiner to falsely answer a control question. Now, the examiner begins the official test. I may be asked whether I was in the vicinity of the bank on the day it was robbed.

I may be asked whether I know the whereabouts of the stolen money, or whether I was in fact the robber himself. The average person, however, is clearly able to distinguish a control question from a relevant question and there- fore suffers apprehension and anxiety in direct proportion to the rel- evance of the question.

So, while I may not feel threatened by a question regarding my eye color, and suffer no anxiety at that moment, I probably will feel seriously threatened—with a trial and imprisonment—when questioned about my alleged partici- pation in a bank robbery. When people are asked directly whether they committed a crime, they virtually always experience at least mild anxiety. People who are at all introspective or sensitive to their own emotions will of course notice that they are anxious.

Since they realize moreover that their physiological reactions are being closely monitored, they fear that their anxiety is indicating deception to the examiner. This fear that they are failing the test further heightens their anxiety, which, in turn, leads to greater fear and greater anxiety.

Some people have literally suffered full-blown panic attacks while truthfully answering questions posed by polygraph examiners. Every human being is different, with a unique psychology and a singular emotional constitution. Every person reacts differently to stressful circumstance; and any police interrogation would, in my view, have to be regarded as intensely stressful.

One reason is that nervousness detectors provide a ready-made excuse for lazy government investigators to sit idly on their butts. Take the case of Aldrich Ames. Ames was a year-old, year veteran of the CIA, having access to secret intelligence data critical to US security. Ames had for years been a traitor, selling CIA se- crets to foreign powers for over two-million dollars in payoffs. Ames had even sold the names and addresses of US covert agents work- ing abroad, many of whom were executed as a direct result.

Each time, Ames passed the test without arousing sus- picion that he was a traitor. There is no objectively verifiable method of determining the accuracy of a polygraph ex- amination. Just press your toes firmly against the bot- tom of your shoe and lie away. The nervousness detector, in all its scientific glory, will be dumbfounded. I had been extremely skep- tical for some years about the scientific basis of these tests; so I attempted to conduct my own experiment by undergoing several polygraph examinations myself. At your convenience, I wish to schedule such an appointment. I am researching the scientific validity of the polygraph device and want to undergo the examination my- self.

I wish your examiner to report whether, during my examination, I truthfully answer each of the following 25 questions: 1. Did your father serve in World War II? Was your first car a Volkswagen? Do you live in a brick house? Is your middle name Allen?

Do you have two brothers? Did you wear braces on your teeth as a teenager? Is your shoe size 10? Have you ever broken a bone in your body? Did your mother attend high school with Soupy Sales? Did you vote for Walter Mondale in ? Do you frequently watch Zorro on the Disney Channel?

Is your second cousin Gene Cernan? Did you ever shake hands with Princess Diana? Have you ever tasted coleslaw? Do you live on a one-way street? Have you visited the State of Michigan? Were you married in Poland? Do you currently own a Japanese car? Does your mother-in-law live on Staten Island? Are you a graduate of Ohio University? Have you ever smoked a pipe? Do you have diabetes? Did you ever ride a motorcycle? That is why I sent out fourteen letters when my actual intention was to undergo only four or five examinations.

The person actually being tested, therefore, would not be me, but the polygraph examiner and the polygraph device itself. Apparently, none of these fourteen businesses had enough confi- dence in their nervousness-detecting gizmo to accept my money and to be held accountable—even anonymously! Although this gentle- man never personally administered these tests, he stated that he frequently ordered them done as part of his official investigations. I might add that this retired detective was, by all accounts, a public servant of impeccable integrity and courage.

He is likewise a man of extraordinary talents, who can singlehandedly build an elegant home or paint a portrait as realistic as a photograph. So I was naturally quite interested to learn of his professional experi- ences with nervousness detectors. Like the CIA, he absolutely swore by them.

This detective, in my opin- ion, accurately reflects the generally-held belief among police de- partments that the nervousness detector is practically infallible. All legiti- mately scientific tests will, from time to time, yield false results. And any member of the scientific community who publicly an- nounced that he had devised an infallible test of any kind would be viewed as a fool by his professional colleagues. In the real world of science, false results are to be expected, as physicians who read PAP smears and mammograms will openly and honestly admit.

Devout beliefs in infallibility are therefore articles of religious faith and evidence of pseudoscientific crackpotism. And nervousness detectors are neither infallible nor scientific. If you pass the test, police do not thereafter concede your innocence and apologize. So if you fail the test, you are a child molester. If you pass the test, you are a serial child molester. Police will occasionally concede that a person may fail the poly- graph even though he is truthfully denying the charges against him. But, again, police do not admit that their device is mistaken.

In other words, if police discover incon- trovertibly that you were miles away when the local bank was robbed, your having failed their nervousness detector means that you must be guilty of other bank robberies instead. As with all religions and pseudosciences, anything which disagrees with the official dogma is explained away with tortured logic and absurd rationalization. He hired three polyg- raphers to question suspects about a crime that never actually oc- curred. Ironically, most of these re- sumes could be evaluated more economically and far more accu- rately by making a few quick telephone calls to the academic insti- tutions and former employers boasted by the applicant.

It would be a wonderful thing—perhaps—if science actually could devise a machine capable of discerning truth from decep- tion. The guilty could be immediately fingered and the innocent swiftly exonerated. But this fanciful dream, like so many others peddled by the charlatans of pseudoscience, must be recognized as a futuristic vision, rather than swallowed naively as current real- ity. Look into their eyes. The topic being debated is whether the universe contains enough matter to pro- duce the gravitational attraction necessary to one day stop the universe from expanding.

For six uninterrupted hours we listen attentively to the first group of astronomers. They present their painstakingly-gathered data, which, in their view, demonstrate why the universe will expand forever. After a short break for lunch, we listen for six additional hours to a second group of astronomers. They argue why, from their perspective, the scientific evidence points to the opposite conclusion—that the universe will eventu- ally stop expanding and collapse upon itself.

None of them perspired or looked especially nervous. If nervous hands and shuffling feet disqualified a scientific theory, we would condemn this presumption as pure idiocy. What horse shit! It is, for the fol- lowing reasons, absolutely immoral: 1. There is no scientific evidence that handsome men or beau- tiful women are more honest than the rest of us. Nor is there any evidence that smart people are more virtuous than the less edu- cated. Nor are socially cultured people more trustworthy than the average blue-collar worker. Yet virtually every psychological study on the subject demonstrates conclusively that juries are indeed more likely to believe the testimony of attractive, articulate, well-mannered witnesses than they are to believe those who are homely, illiterate and socially unpolished.

Your degree of comportment on the witness stand has liter- ally nothing to do with the credibility of your testimony. To be forced to testify in court is to become an unwilling public speaker. And public speaking always tops the list of activities most feared by the average individual. Now, you may be a wonderful public orator, smooth and composed.

Or, more likely, you may be a wholly inexperienced speaker, stuttering and stammering while soaked in nervous sweat. But your integrity should not be evaluated by how slick-talking you are. The biggest liars in the world are also the slickest speakers, as the President and Congress demonstrate daily.

The more charming and confident his demeanor, the more likely voters are to believe his absurd and irresponsible promises. To rely even slightly on demeanor is to surrender oneself to being hoodwinked—either by swallow- ing big lies, or by arrogantly scoffing at honest truth because it was clumsily presented. Prosecuting attorneys have rehearsed and repeated their iden- tical courtroom tactics and sermons hundreds of times.

Science vs God: Bryan Enderle at TEDxUCDavis

They have it down pat. They are relaxed. He is under extraordinary pressure; and he is understandably nervous. Many prosecutors boast in having never lost a case in court. But their pristine record is usually achieved through deliberately selecting defendants for trial who are uneducated and inarticulate. Because of their unfair advan- tage, most prosecutors harbor a wildly inflated appraisal of their own polemic skills, which are usually mediocre at best.

But to judge the merits of his testimony by these trivial quirks of de- meanor is, again, a reflection of unadulterated ignorance. I know several people—and you probably do also—who can look directly into your eyes and cooly fabricate the most elaborate and outlandish lies imaginable. By contrast, I also have friends who, despite their absolute sincerity, twitch and shake while speak- ing like a man being electrocuted. We must descend from our pompous ivory towers, and show a little understanding of indi- viduals whose diplomatic skills and speaking abilities are less re- fined than our own.

There is an increasing tendency for courts to use and rely upon the testimony of witnesses questioned on videotape. Television news magazine shows are notorious for using these unethical tricks to make individuals look sinister. Dur- ing routine conversation, this distance is approximately 3 to 5 feet.

If, how- ever, the camera zooms in uncomfortably close to the speaker, we feel the same subconscious foreboding as if someone had stepped within inches of our face. Every tiny drop of perspiration looks like a bucket full; and every wrinkling of the forehead looks like a defi- ant scowl.

These tricks were used when David Frost interviewed former President Richard Nixon shortly after Nixon was forced to resign because of the Watergate scandal. Whenever Nixon was discussing foreign policy or the economic agenda he pursued as President, the camera kept its distance, showing Nixon sitting relaxed in a plush armchair. He looked horrible—as most of us would; and he appeared to be extremely ill-at-ease because of the excessive magnification of his facial movements and expressions.

Dishon- est tricks with the camera were unnecessary and certainly led me to question whether the television production crew was pursuing honest truth or simply wanted to further smear an already-unpopular figure.

enter site Another smear tactic used during videotaping is to raise the camera height to a level above that of the subject. Politi- cal consultants use the opposite camera angle when filming cam- paign commercials. The way in which a subject is lighted also plays a critical role in determining how we perceive his demeanor, whether on screen or in person. Fortunately, few prosecutors are savvy to these videographic subtle- ties of perception. But as videotaped testimony is introduced more and more into criminal and civil proceedings, the potential for abuse will grow accordingly.

The most disturbing element of judging people by their demeanor is that, psychologically, we tend to approve of others only when they look and act like us. To judge a person by how he looks is therefore an open invitation to racism. The way we look— and our personal mannerisms—are primarily inherited character- istics.

While I myself find it difficult to understand why someone wants to pierce his tongue, there is no logical reason to believe that such an individual is more likely to lie than I am. Remember, our own parents and grandparents looked with equal disgust upon our own ways of dressing and acting as youth. Neither shall you be swayed, either for or against a witness, by any personal mannerisms or idio- syncrasies exhibited by the witness. Once again, your local police department fulfills this defini- tion of a pseudoscientific organization.

Nonetheless, police departments, without exception, view the Fourth Amendment as a painful thorn in their flesh and as a hin- drance to the swift performance of their duties to the community. Po- lice are sadly inclined to believe that minorities have no right to drive an expensive automobile. So what do the officers do?

Not a chance! Far from being a rare occurrence, these unauthorized and illegal police searches are conducted hundreds of times daily throughout the United States. Often the victims are black or Hispanic; but anyone including you! A person well-versed in constitutional law may be highly skep- tical of my claim that police routinely behave in such a lawless manner. This report will contain one of two standardly-employed bogus assertions which police use daily to camouflage their illegal searches: 1 Police will claim that the seized evidence e.

Those butter-fingered criminals just let the evidence slide out of their slippery pockets. What, then, does the prosecutor do? Does he indict the lying officers for perjury? Are the officers then fired? The prosecutor is delighted that the policemen are ly- ing about how they obtained the evidence.

Otherwise, no charges could be filed against the defendant. The prosecutor therefore sub- orns perjury by calling the police officers to testify under oath against the defendant. Wearing an immaculate, well-pressed uniform and newly-shined badge, the clean-shaven and well-rehearsed officers repeat in court their fanciful tale about how they innocently ob- served dropsy evidence. Moreover, just as prosecutors know damn well that policemen are lying about their illegal searches, judges also clearly realize that fraud and perjury are being committed under their noses by po- licemen on the witness stand.

The worst mistake made by jurors, therefore, is to trust the judge as a neutral and objective arbiter of law between the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel. A jury should more incisively view the judge as lead attorney for the pros- ecution. But why is this so? Any judge who honestly and courageously defends the US Constitutional prohibition against unlawfully-seized evidence will swiftly lose his position on the bench. Whether elected or appointed, therefore, judges in the real world are pretty much forced, like it or not, to accept police perjury and illegal evidence as standard courtroom procedure.

Charles Hynes has seen dropsy-evidence cases from a variety of vantage points. He has been the Brooklyn District Attorney since ; but prior to that, he worked as a Legal Aid lawyer defend- ing poor and minority clients, who make up a disproportionate number of the dropsy cases. More revealing, however, is that this judge, in typical fashion, permitted the other eight cases to proceed, even though he understood fully that these were illegal dropsy cases as well.

So if you should ever fall victim to a dropsy-evidence scam by police, you should not expect your defense attorney to stand up in court like F. In the newly-elected Republican House of Representatives quickly sought to implement its Contract with America. I believe that public education is probably the only means of eradicating this rampant corruption within our judicial system. If jurors are truly savvy to this common hoax—which, ironically, is both exceedingly disturb- ing and exceedingly comical—then I say let the police and pros- ecutors and judges offer all the dropsy-evidence testimony they wish.

But it is not my intention to as- cribe evil motivations to these law enforcement officials. They genu- inely believe that the end justifies the means. The prosecutor wants only one thing—to win his case through any means and at any cost. Do you doubt my last statement? In addition to prosecuting cases himself, McMahon spe- cialized in training rookie prosecutors how to select jurors. The jury-selection methods described on this tape were—and still are—used widely, not only in Philadelphia, but across the United States.

You are there to win. If you go in there, any one of you, and think you are going to be some noble civil libertarian. If you could know their IQ, you could pick a great jury all the time. They have a higher standard. They hold you up to a higher standard. They hold the courts up to a higher standard. They got intelligence, sensitivity, all this stuff. Teachers are bad, espe- cially young teachers. Bad luck with teach- ers, bad luck with social workers.

Bad luck with intelligent doctors. The blacks from the low-income areas are less likely to convict. This is how prosecutors hope to win through any means, fair or foul. We have already discussed how naive jurors are being bam- boozled by dropsy evidence scams. But there is a far-more-ominous fraud being perpetrated throughout US courtrooms.

When properly col- lected, stored, analyzed, interpreted and reported, DNA evidence is probably the single most reliable indicator of who, among mil- lions, committed a particular crime. The ugly fact is that a majority of our state crime labs are staffed by unqualified amateurs, hired by political hacks to be lapdogs for the prosecution. They habitually misrepresent in court the nature and reliability of the tests they perform.

And their test results are almost invariably skewed in favor of the prosecution. These boys from the crime lab exhibit a depth and diversity of scientific knowledge that puts Isaac Asimov to shame. Nonethe- less, Fred Zain soon became a crime-solving superstar. Whenever prosecutors faced difficulty amassing sufficient evidence to bring an indictment, Zain always saved the day by conducting some kind of scientific test that implicated the suspect.

Zain was so talented that he could sometimes write a lab re- port before the materials to be tested even arrived in his lab! He frequently testified about the results of tests that he never actually performed. Woodall eagerly volunteered his own blood sample for comparison. The result was that Glen Dale Woodall, who, by this time, had been imprisoned for five years, was found to be completely innocent.

Another man had committed the rape. The State of West Virginia ended up paying Woodall 1 million dollars in damages—small compensa- tion for his suffering at the hands of Fred Zain. But the Woodall case was merely the tip of the iceberg. Of the first 36 cases reexam- ined, Zain was found to have lied about evidence in all 36! Fred Zain may ultimately bankrupt the State of West Virginia paying monetary damages to those falsely impris- oned.

What do you suppose happened to Fred Zain once he was exposed as a fraud? How long did he go to prison himself? The answer is that, after Zain was thoroughly discredited in West Vir- ginia, he simply packed his bag of tricks and moved to Texas, where he promptly resumed his investigative career! Unlike West Vir- ginia, Texas often employs the death penalty. But, again, Zain never spent a day in jail or paid one dollar in fines to the State. In late , Fred Zain was finally returned to West Virginia to stand trial for his villainy.

But three days before the trial began, all charges were suddenly dismissed because the indictment did not specify to the penny how much salary he had collected during his employment from to In other words, law-enforcement authorities were not really too upset with Zain; for he had been their best friend. The answer is twofold. First, dozens of de- fense attorneys were simply too lazy to seek an independent analy- sis of the evidence. Like many other white-collar professionals, defense attorneys tend to be slothful and to do as little work as possible to earn their money.

More importantly, however, no independent scientific tests could be performed unless someone paid for the tests. The pros- ecution uses its own crime lab and yes-men.