|
Cicap Extra
CICAP
Rubriche
Notizie
Rivista
Enciclopedia
Articoli
Indagini
Scuola
Video
BookShop
Liste
Links
Uff. Stampa
|
Balls of lights (2):
The Questionable Science of Crop Circles
Reaction on the article by Francesco Grassi et al.
(June 2005)
by Eltjo Haselhoff, PhD
Dutch Centre for Crop Circle Studies
dcccs@planet.nl
Summary
This article is a rapid reaction on a paper recently
published by Francesco Grassi et al., of the Italian Skeptics
organisation CICAP. In this paper Grassi raises many points
of concern with respect to three earlier scientific
publications, one of which written by myself. Most, if not
all of Grassi's points of concern on my publication are
irrelevant or erroneous. Some of his comments would have been
valid in case my paper had been a full- length article, which
it was clearly not. Grassi's arguments about statistic
relevance had already been mentioned in my own conclusions
and can hence not be used as a point of criticism. His
accusation that I should have withheld data to manipulate
statistics is not valid. In fact, due to poor communication,
Grassi has used 'garbage' data for his own analysis, which
has consequently no value at all. Finally, I believe the
bombastic and denigrating style of Grassi's publication is
beyond proportion.
Grassi's paper1 is a comment on three other
scientific publications, two of which were written by members
of the BLT research team2, and one of which was
written by myself3. While reading Grassi's
article, I found several apparent misinterpretations with
respect to the BLT work, but I will refrain from comments, as
the original authors are the appropriate party to comment
here. I will only consider Grassi's comments on my own
work3.
I was surprised to see that a comment on earlier
publications was not published by the same journal that
presented the original papers, in this case Physiologia
Plantarum. This is unusual for scientific communications,
and it is fair to assume that if the paper by Grassi et
al. would have been a relevant comment, the editors of
Physiologia Plantarum would not have rejected it.
Although Grassi does provide an explanation for the fact that
Physiologia Plantarum rejected his paper - which, by
the way, is a very uncommon subject of discussion in a
scientific communication - his statements are curious and are
currently under investigation.
Basically, Grassi's criticism on my publication is
fourfold:
a.
Important aspects in the presented physical model are omitted
(such as radiation absorption by the air and the radiation's
angle of incidence on the stem nodes);
b.
The analysis is based on an insufficient number of
measurements, so that the findings lack statistical
relevance;
c.
There is a lack of detailed information (e.g., Grassi
requests 'tables with original data');
d.
I deliberately held back measured data in order to manipulate
the statistics.
Before I will address - and reject - these four claims,
one fact needs to be emphasized. An important part of
Grassi's analysis is based on extensive field- and laboratory
work performed by myself. In the year 2003, Grassi approached
me by means of several very kind and polite e-mails, calling
himself a 'crop circle researcher', and asking me if
he could get the raw measurement data that I had collected
from a set of crop circles (Nieuwerkerk, 1996). After I had
sent these to him, no further communications about these
data, nor about my related work has taken place. (I will not
be offended by the fact that Grassi neglected to acknowledge
me in his paper, which would not only have been a matter of
courtesy, but is also quite common in scientific
communications.)
I will now briefly comment on Grassi's four main points of
concern:
a.
Important aspects in the presented physical model are
omitted
This statement, along with several other points of concern
addressed by Grassi throughout his paper, would have been
appropriate if my paper had been a fulllength article,
presenting original work. However, my paper clearly was a
comment on one of the BLT papers, and hence, not a
self-contained publication of original research. The issues
Grassi raises, including the one mentioned above, were
implicitly addressed in my conclusion, when I stated that the
commented paper 'stimulates further study'. I
therefore reject Grassi's criticism, as comments on other
scientific publications need to be focused and concise.
b.
The findings lack statistical relevance
At the end of my paper I concluded that 'much more data
would have to be analyzed and thorough statistical studies
will be necessary"' It is therefore curious to see that
Grassi uses my own arguments against me. He simply repeats my
own conclusions, which can never be a critical note, despite
the fact that Grassi presents it as such, and even in a
denigrating manner. I do agree with Grassi's statement, but I
reject it as a point of criticism on my work.
c.
There is a lack of detailed information and tables with
original data should have been provided
This point of criticism is curious, as I have provided
Grassi with all the original data that I had available.
Moreover, anyone with just a little experience in scientific
communication knows that publication of tables with original
data is not only unusual, it is even against the guidelines
of basically all scientific journals. Original data are found
in log books or computer spread sheets, and should be
available upon request, but they are not published in
scientific communications. This is what I was taught in the
first year of University, and for good reasons: otherwise my
paper would have been twenty pages long in stead of two, and
consist mainly of numbers. I therefore reject this point of
criticism too.
d.
I deliberately held back measured data in order to
manipulate the statistics
This is more a severe accusation of fraud rather than a
point of criticism. Grassi writes that, after he received the
digital spreadsheet with raw data from me, he 'discovered'
measurements that I had not published, and which, when
included in his analysis, would significantly change the
outcome of my findings. However, the reason for omitting the
data in my analysis was simple: due to an unfortunate
incident several of the samples in this series had been mixed
up even before the measurements were made. Although I had
re-ordered the samples to the best of my knowledge, this
event rendered any correlation analysis worthless, including
much of the work performed by Grassi and presented in his
paper. All of his related findings and conclusions are
therefore worthless as well. Interestingly, a simple e-mail
would have prevented him and his coworkers from wasting
valuable time.
At this point I should add that Grassi's requests for
'more evidence' had already been addressed. This is
still the focus of my personal crop circle activities today.
One particular case (Hoeven 1999), had already been worked
out in detail and published in my latest book4,
which is in Grassi's possession and formed the basis of his
studies. Grassi also requested the raw data of this
formation, however, I did not have these readily available.
Since then, November 2003, I did not hear from Grassi
anymore. However, besides the detailed information in my
book, Grassi was also aware of the extensive report about
this case that had been published long ago (1999) on the
internet5, including raw data6. This
study discusses a case of a crop circle that fits the BOL
hypothesis with very high statistical relevance, and hence is
in conflict with Grassi's main conclusion that
"involvement of some kind of electromagnetic radiation ... is
not supported by the available evidence". One can only
speculate why Grassi decided no to include these data in
his analysis.
Finally, I would like to express my astonishment about the
bombastic and denigrating style of Grassi's paper, in which
he pretends to debunk a sensational claim. Anyone who reads
my paper will agree that this was a mere comment to the work
of the BLT team, suggesting some model adaptations and
carrying ahead their hypotheses with a modified version, only
to stimulate further study. In my opinion the style of
Grassi's comment, as well as the propaganda related to it
that he currently carries out over the internet and beyond is
way out of proportion, and casts a dark shadow over his true
intentions.
Conclusion
Normally, authors of scientific communications are asked
for comment before their work is criticized. This is not just
a matter of courtesy, but it also avoids precious time being
wasted. Any serious researcher would take the time to verify
if there is some fact they have overlooked or possibly
misunderstood before they rush to publications and press
releases. I can only conclude that Mr Grassi has little or no
experience in scientific communication. Open and honest
correspondence, initiated by Mr Grassi and co-authors would
have saved myself, them, as well as the editors of
Physiologia Plantarum and the Journal of Scientific
Exploration much unnecessary work. I do appreciate
efforts that are dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge.
However, I can't help suspecting from the course of matters
that Mr Grassi was more dedicated towards disgracing me and
my work rather than to performing honest and sound
research.
This article is intended for the general public and may be
copied and distributed freely. I will consider writing a
formal reaction, together with the authors of the other two
articles, to the Journal of Scientific Exploration. In
such a reaction I would address all of Grassi's points of
concern one by one, in more detail. However, as it has become
clear to me that Grassi and coworkers have no or little
interest in an honest and constructive scientific discussion,
and too much time and energy has already been wasted in my
opinion, I may decide to spend my time on more useful
activities.
- Balls of light: The Questionable Science of Crop
Circles, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 19, No. 2,
pp.159-170, 2005.
- Levengood, W. C. (1994). Anatomical anomalies in crop
formation plants. Physiologia Plantarum Journal, 92, 356-363,
and Levengood, W. C. & Talbott, N. P. (1999). Dispersion
of energies in worldwide crop formations, Physiologia
Plantarum Journal, 105, 615-624.
- Haselhoff, E. H. (2001). Opinions and comments on
Levengood WC, Talbott NP (1999). Dispersion of energies in
worldwide crop formations. Physiologia Plantarum Journal,
105, 615-624; 111, 123-125.
- The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles, see:
www.deepeningcomplexity.com
- http://archiv.fgk.org/99/Berichte/Hoeven99/index.shtml
- http://www.dcccs.org/sample.htm
|
Go to:
SPECIALE Crops
Email:
crops@cicap.org
|
