Bio-Bunk? More Answers!

Biorhythms

The Skeptic's Dictionary by Robert Todd Carroll

With comments by Russ Streiffert - BioMap^tm

Biorhythms con't.

Instead, the usual evidence given by believers is an anecdote about Clark Gable or someone else who had a heart attack on a switch over day. There are thousands of heart attack victims each year and 1 out of 11 of them would be predicted by chance to have the attack on a switch over day. So, finding several individual cases of people who have serious physical problems on a critical physical day is to be expected, not wowed at. The ho-hum response that anecdotes such as the Clark Gable story should evoke from a reasonable person should...

Here the word "should" gives us a clue regarding our authors intent. At first glance he is suggesting we should think and feel a certain way. We've already explained that the transition zone is a good deal longer than described here.

...put one to sleep when you realize that some biorhythmists count the day before and after a critical day as "half-critical" days as just as bad as critical days. This means that at least once every 8 days, instead of once every 11 days, is a bad day for the body. Worse, 6 out of every 23 days (if you begin counting on the day before a critical and stop counting on the day after the next critical) are danger days for the body. That ups the odds to about 1 in 4. "note 2"

The odds are that at any given moment half of everybody in the WORLD is inhaling - that half of everybody in the WORLD is sleeping - that over half of everybody in the WORLD is eating right now! Do those odds mean that these behaviors are not governed by cyclic influences? Certainly not! James Randi, an individual mentioned below as a reference is a self admitted illusionist and these conclusions sound like more of his style of work.

Again, a meaningful test of the theory might be to study death certificates. If significantly greater than 25% of the sample died on a critical or half-critical day, then you have a scoop. If you find that Bella Lagosi or Belle Starr died on one of these special days, you have nothing out of the ordinary; for 25% of all people will die on one of the dangerous days.

Meaningful? Here we really see the authors lack of scientific understand as he suggests that death is a consequence of critical days and does not even suggest that we inquire as to the cause of death. Death by lethal gunshot would not suggest that biological cycles had any causal affect.

Another typical but useless test of the theory is to keep track of how accurate the theory is by charting each day and keeping a diary of your days.

Diaries are used in many medical scenarios to help cancer patients for instance, provide their doctors with medical feedback. In these cases the patients observations are considered relatively (like a lie detector test) accurate and valuable.

I saw the actress Susan St. James on a television program once where she described how she had done this. She was convinced. If her chart predicted a low emotional day, by golly she was upset that day. If her chart predicted a physical high, by gum she felt great that day. On a day when her intellectual cycle was at a low, oh boy she couldn't think straight about anything. In some circles this is known as the self-fulfilling prophecy; in others it is known as the power of suggestion. But whatever you call it, it ain't science.

And if she stays up late at night - she will get tired. I have a feeling our author is going to explain "science" for us now.

James Randi had George Thommen, president of Biorhythm Computers, Inc., and author of "Is This Your Day?" How Biorhythm Helps You Determine Your Life Cycles, do a biorhythm chart for Randi and his secretary. One of the listeners to Randi's radio program was selected for an experiment. She was to be given her own personal chart and she was to keep a day-by-day diary for two months and to rate her chart for accuracy. She reported that the chart had been "at least ninety percent accurate." Randi had actually sent her his own chart. He told the subject that he had done this by mistake.

After this admitted deception, why should we believe this man?

She agreed to check her diary with her real chart which Randi gave her. She reported that the new chart was even more accurate than the other one. Actually, she'd been given Randi's secretary's chart. This kind of after-the-fact rationalization of data is common among believers in astrology. In fact similar tests of astrological charts have been done, with the same outcome

Calculating ones chart does not require an advanced education. If the individual could not verify that this chart was hers, she was most certainly novice at identifying the manifested effects of these cycles in her daily experiences.

It is indeed true that "after-the-fact" inaccurate recollection as well as "in the moment" identification of our physiological states is a problem for all research. This gave rise to double-blind studies. Randi's experiment is certainly unscientific and not double-blind.

Lastly, one five year study of industrial accidents, by a society of safety engineers concluded that:

• Individuals do act differently on certain days;
• They are not cognizant of the fact that they are different even though it is apparent to others; and,
• They do not know why an accident they contributed to, had occurred.

This shows why the woman in Randi's non-double-blind "experiment" would not have been able to validate the charts she was given. As a novice she may not be cognizant of the changes she was experiencing. "POOF" a genuine Randi illusion!

 

Next:

Bio-Bunk? - Still More Answers!

(c)opyright 1995-2000 BioMap^tm

Previous article. Articles BioMap^tm