[FAQ draft] 9. Do those magnetic wine thingies really age your wine instantly?
Mark Lipton
always, any and all comments welcome.
---------------- Begin C&P ----------------------
9. Do those magnetic wine thingies really age your wine instantly?
Magnetism is a continuous wellspring of pseudoscience owing to a
general lack of public understanding of the nature of magnetism. In the
wine world, this has given rise to a number of devices that claim to
make wine “smoother,” “mellower” or to taste aged by means of a magnet.
Many of these devices are praised by one or more wine authorities as
doing exactly what’s advertised, but the fact remains that THEY DO NOT
WORK. Magnetism is a very weak force that’s incapable of changing
molecular structure. So, why do so many reputable people claim that
they work? That’s the problem with anecdotal evidence that hasn’t been
collected in a rigorous (i.e., double blind) manner. The power of
suggestion is strong, so it’s easy to convince yourself that something’s
happening if you’re looking for it to begin with. If, after all of
this, you still aren’t convinced that the device in question is just an
expensive placebo, go out and get one and try it for yourself. Remember
that it won’t hurt the wine either!
Pertinent references:
http://www.dansdata.com/wineclip.htm
http://www.badscience.net/?p=192
http://www.winelabels.org/artps.htm
------------------ End C&P ------------------------------
Mark Lipton
cwdjrxyz
>
> ------------------ End C&P ------------------------------
>
> Mark Lipton
It looks good to me, and I am glad you included the 3 references. But
there are always other magic devices that are being introduced. For
example, for only $US 299.95 you can have:
"Clef du Vin is a scientifically-designed measuring device made from a
mix of precious metals. Made for all wines, Clef du Vin, when dipped
into a glass of wine, will age the wine one year for each second the
alloy is in contact with the wine. Two seconds equals two years from
now, three seconds equals three years from now, etc. Take the
guesswork out of collecting with this invaluable tool. For the serious
collector. The Elegance 3-piece set includes a pocket, service and
bottle model with cherrywood accents."
For those without the spare cash for the above, there is a portable
single piece model for only $99.95.
Jose
pseudoscience that seems to be taking over around here.
Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
Mark Lipton
> Looks good to me too, though I don't think you are hard enough on the
> pseudoscience that seems to be taking over around here.
>
> Jose
Thanks, Jose. The problem with really slamming it is that naive readers
may well infer that I have some axe to grind and discount the advice. A
less strident denouncement is likely to be more persuasive IMO.
Mark Lipton
DaleW
>
> ------------------ End C&P ------------------------------
>
> Mark Lipton
great job
Jose
> may well infer that I have some axe to grind and discount the advice. A
> less strident denouncement is likely to be more persuasive IMO.
I'm glad you wrote it. My answer would have been:
| Do those magnetic wine thingies really age your wine instantly?
|
| No. Now go away or I'll taunt you a second time.
:) Jose
Max Hauser
under discussion, I want to mention a couple of subtleties (hoping this
isn't indiscreet, and that it's useful to the discussion). This is also
quick, and done without reviewing the references yet. (I have a lot of
experience by the way with comparable, plausible-sounding pseudoscience
mythology in other genres, and dealing with them on online fora.)
1. A reader of the FAQ text trained in magnetic properties of materials,
but unfamiliar with the issue of this FAQ, might wonder at its mention only
of magnetic force as incapable of changing molecules. The text doesn't
mention properties like diamagnetism, paramagnetism, and magnetization,
which can lead to mechanical forces on molecules and therefore (for example)
separate them, catalyze reactions, etc. (I wonder if the draft therefore
leaves open plausible skepticism or rhetoric. This is often true of subtle
areas like, for example, audio technology, where technical people trying to
refute doubtful testimony will themselves rely on a too-simple model of the
situation, sometimes _really_ too simple. Many improbable "audiophile
tricks" are snake oil, but some of them actually work, demonstrably. The
last word is the key, and segue to my Point 2.)
2. Underlying the dispute that you'll hear on subjects like this, from
people who dislike the theoretical refutation, is not so much an answer as a
faith. A faith that is unwilling to be tested. That I think is your real
target here. This does emerge, at one point, in the mention of
double-blind. But I feel that the FAQ could possibly bring "testing" out
more centrally. Please also beware of assertions (e.g., They Do Not Work.)
That is a language of conviction (I Believe, Therefore It Is True) and thus
to be avoided to the extent you wish to _demonstrate_ that you aren't merely
asserting a different personal conviction. (Assuming you aren't!)
-- Max
"Mark Lipton" in news:fYCdncC-DKAg5EfY...@insightbb.com...
James Silverton
MH> 2. Underlying the dispute that you'll hear on subjects
MH> like this, from people who dislike the theoretical
MH> refutation, is not so much an answer as a faith.
That's the essence of faith isn't it, to believe the
unproveable. I can still remember from being a small child and
learning the catechism the answer to "What is Faith? Faith is a
virtue by which we believe without doubting whatever God has
revealed". The logical inconsistency of how we know how God
revealed something was not addressed.
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not
Steve Slatcher
>"Clef du Vin is a scientifically-designed measuring device made from a
>mix of precious metals. Made for all wines, Clef du Vin, when dipped
>into a glass of wine, will age the wine one year for each second the
>alloy is in contact with the wine. Two seconds equals two years from
>now, three seconds equals three years from now, etc. Take the
>guesswork out of collecting with this invaluable tool. For the serious
>collector. The Elegance 3-piece set includes a pocket, service and
>bottle model with cherrywood accents."
Ads for this device were subject to an adjudication by the UK's
Advertising Standards Authority:
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?Adjudication_id=40006
--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher
Mark Lipton
> I basically support the FAQ draft (and thank you for it, Mark). While it's
> under discussion, I want to mention a couple of subtleties (hoping this
> isn't indiscreet, and that it's useful to the discussion). This is also
> quick, and done without reviewing the references yet. (I have a lot of
> experience by the way with comparable, plausible-sounding pseudoscience
> mythology in other genres, and dealing with them on online fora.)
Yes, as a lapsed audiophile I have seen my fair share, too. Any
oxygen-free copper cable for you, Max? ;-)
>
> 1. A reader of the FAQ text trained in magnetic properties of materials,
> but unfamiliar with the issue of this FAQ, might wonder at its mention only
> of magnetic force as incapable of changing molecules. The text doesn't
> mention properties like diamagnetism, paramagnetism, and magnetization,
> which can lead to mechanical forces on molecules and therefore (for example)
> separate them, catalyze reactions, etc. (I wonder if the draft therefore
> leaves open plausible skepticism or rhetoric. This is often true of subtle
> areas like, for example, audio technology, where technical people trying to
> refute doubtful testimony will themselves rely on a too-simple model of the
> situation, sometimes _really_ too simple. Many improbable "audiophile
> tricks" are snake oil, but some of them actually work, demonstrably. The
> last word is the key, and segue to my Point 2.)
We walk a fine line here. I don't want the answer to descend into
technical details to such an extent that the average reader is lost, but
I also don't want to lobotomize the legitimate criticism of the claims
made. I addressed the issue of magnetic force because that was what was
claimed by the various vendors I have seen (Wine Clip, et al.).
Specifically, they all claim to use magnetic force to polymerize
tannins, so that's what I took on.
>
> 2. Underlying the dispute that you'll hear on subjects like this, from
> people who dislike the theoretical refutation, is not so much an answer as a
> faith. A faith that is unwilling to be tested. That I think is your real
> target here. This does emerge, at one point, in the mention of
> double-blind. But I feel that the FAQ could possibly bring "testing" out
> more centrally. Please also beware of assertions (e.g., They Do Not Work.)
> That is a language of conviction (I Believe, Therefore It Is True) and thus
> to be avoided to the extent you wish to _demonstrate_ that you aren't merely
> asserting a different personal conviction. (Assuming you aren't!)
A very good point. Again, I am not trying to make an iron-clad case
against the devices, which IMO would be far too technical for the
average reader, but rather summarize the views expressed here over the
past 5+ years. Thus, I do resort to Proof By Fiat, but I also give
references that do a much more thorough examination (and rejection) of
the claims. Moreover, I focus on the methodology of their studies (all
anecdotal) rather than the scientific basis for their claims.
Thank you for the very thoughtful reply. I will await to see how others
feel about the points that you raise.
Mark Lipton
cwdjrxyz
> What follows is a draft of a section of the FAQ on wine magnets. As
> always, any and all comments welcome.
>
> ---------------- Begin C&P ----------------------
> 9. Do those magnetic wine thingies really age your wine instantly?
>
> Magnetism is a continuous wellspring of pseudoscience owing to a
> general lack of public understanding of the nature of magnetism. In the
> wine world, this has given rise to a number of devices that claim to
> make wine "smoother," "mellower" or to taste aged by means of a magnet.
> Many of these devices are praised by one or more wine authorities as
> doing exactly what's advertised, but the fact remains that THEY DO NOT
> WORK. Magnetism is a very weak force that's incapable of changing
> molecular structure. So, why do so many reputable people claim that
> they work? That's the problem with anecdotal evidence that hasn't been
> collected in a rigorous (i.e., double blind) manner. The power of
> suggestion is strong, so it's easy to convince yourself that something's
> happening if you're looking for it to begin with. If, after all of
> this, you still aren't convinced that the device in question is just an
> expensive placebo, go out and get one and try it for yourself. Remember
> that it won't hurt the wine either!
Back when I was a graduate student(longer ago than I like to admit)
the then head of the physical chemistry department was interested
mainly in chemical kinetics(rates of reactions). Research money was
easy to get then from several sources, so he sold a federal agency on
doing a project to see if a change in reaction rate could be produced
in an extremely large magnetic field. He got a post doc for the
project, and set up a huge DC generator for the magnet outside of the
building that would seem to be big enough to power most of the
university itself - huge. This was before super conducting magnets.
Reactions on systems that had magnetic properties most likely show a
change in reaction rate in a magnetic field were studied. After much
work, one are two systems showed a slight change in rate, but not at
good enough statistics to be certain that it was real. I am not even
for sure if it resulted in any decent journal articles, although there
likely were reports to the agency that funded it. This project was
considered rather misguided by some of the other professors even back
then. It was the sort of far out project you might get funded back
then, but you chances now would be very slim.
Max Hauser
> Max wrote on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:05:48 -0800:
>
> MH> 2. Underlying the dispute that you'll hear on subjects
> MH> like this, from people who dislike the theoretical
> MH> refutation, is not so much an answer as a faith.
>
An excellent comment, opening a crucial distinction (explicit in a draft
note you haven't seen). I refer to faith about realities in the here and
now, existing apart from our convictions about them, and open to test
(unlike religious faiths). Though the ability to test them isn't always on
the minds of people who hold them, nor is it always easy, which is a side
issue.
The secular type of faith is commonplace, actually it is a necessary tool by
which humans deal with reality. But I'll spin off the rest of this as a
separate posting from my larger experience of pseudoscience and responses to
it (-- the draft I mentioned above).
-- Max
Max Hauser
Summary: Beware syndrome of pseudoscience from hobbyists evoking
pseudoscience from scientists; what supports convictions but not reality.
The basic issue of a phony product claim is incompatibility, not with this
or that textbook theory, but with reality. (So if a scientist then invokes,
out of hand, a too-simple theory in reply, the scientist has wrongly
abstracted the situation, i.e. committed pseudoscience too. I've seen it,
too often.) Occasionally, unlikely gadgets work. The problem with fans of
gadgets (and sometimes with scientists too) is not that they are factually
wrong, but that they don't want to find out. Thereby they deny themselves
the two-edged sword that may sometimes show that a gadget works (and a
theory doesn't fit, or even needs changing). To learn if a notion is
actual, you must be willing to find that it's false. (That I understand to
be sound science.)
Sincere convictions come from simplified reality models that people adopt,
mostly unconsciously. Everyone. Ask someone a building's color; they'll
say white, though they see just a bit of the building. That's a trivial
example. To a professional scientist, classic theories are valuable reality
models, but sometimes get offered (you'll pardon the expression) on faith.
Faith that they pertain.
Credentials may prop up a conviction (but not the reality, sadly). In
either direction. Thus, one magnetic wine gadget's inventor is "a certified
Master of Wine." (Does this make the gadget work?) In early days of
consumer digital audio, I read a magazine article on it containing
mathematical misinformation (easily demonstrated as such) -- note, about
mathematics, not what they could hear! -- from "several audiophiles with
$100,000" audio systems. Would $300,000 systems have rendered the
mathematical assertion more true?
Indeed tangible stake supports conviction. We often assume that a product's
maker isn't its most objective judge. But that goes also for buyers.
People don't like to learn they were gulled. A good metaphor: Art dealer
says "Ever buy a fake painting? The more you paid, the more you want to
believe."
-- Max
--------
All this is supposed to be good for you. Doctors say so. Nowadays people
believe anything they are told by "scientists," just as they used to believe
anything they were told by clergymen.
-- Evelyn Waugh (1930)
This business of science being so dogmatic that it can't accept new ideas is
a standard line from New-Age mystical types, usually with something to sell
you.
-- Kevin R Boyce in newsgroup message
<news:1991Jul21....@athena.mit.edu>, 21 July 1991. [Except it
didn't have "News:" in the Message ID at the time -- no newsgroup messages
did, until recently.]
Mark Lipton
> The problem with fans of
> gadgets (and sometimes with scientists too) is not that they are
factually
> wrong, but that they don't want to find out. Thereby they deny
themselves
> the two-edged sword that may sometimes show that a gadget works (and a
> theory doesn't fit, or even needs changing). To learn if a notion is
> actual, you must be willing to find that it's false. (That I
understand to
> be sound science.)
Jean and I both bore witness to a painful example of this in graduate
school. Jean's graduate advisor had a project in which he sought to
develop a novel catalyst for steroid functionalization (a commercially
important process). The graduate student working on the project found
that it worked, extraordinarily well. Paper after paper was published
on this fantastic new result, the advisor's name was mentioned in the
context of a Nobel, all looked great... until he spoke at Yale,
whereupon a truly brilliant Physical Organic chemistry professor noted
that the rates of the catalyzed reaction were physically impossible!
Mad scramble, lots of checking ensues. The graduate student's notebooks
suddenly disappear from lab, then _she_ goes missing. (You can probably
see the sad end to this story already)
Upshot: grad student faked all her results, papers had to be
retracted, no Nobel for advisor. But, and this is the bitter irony: the
reactions *did* work, but they didn't involve the catalyst at all! The
grad student had panicked when her control experiments gave the same
results as the "catalyzed" experiments and thus a major scientific
scandal was born. (Interested parties can read the roman à clef
"Catalyst"
[http://www.amazon.com/Catalyst-Novel-Jennifer-Ball/dp/0571199151]).
The moral of this story, if there is one, is that an open mind is
essential to the proper functioning of a scientist.
Mark Lipton
Max Hauser
well worth citing. (Confession: I have some professional training in
electromagnetics and magnetic materials.) In all humility and fairness,
_what I have read so far_ of them refutes bad theoretical arguments of
gadget promoters with sound theory, but doesn't completely exclude the
prospect that some devices have some value _despite_ the theory that
rationalizes them (which would be a situation, not unprecedented, of "they
were right but they didn't know why").
Regarding FAQ text (and this principle may apply to other FAQs too), a style
favoring plainly demonstrable facts is harder for someone to take issue with
because it avoids the odor of Yes-It-Is / No-It-Isn't argument. Using that
principle (and some experience in technical editing also), here's an example
rewrite. Not necessarily as literal FAQ text but to illustrate what I mean.
(N.B.: body 150 words vs. original 175.)
---------------- Begin C&P ----------------------
9. Do those magnetic wine thingies really age your wine instantly?
Magnetism is a wellspring of pseudoscience, owing to a general lack of
public understanding of its detailed nature. In the wine world, commercial
devices claim periodically to make wine "smoother" or "mellower," or to
taste aged, by means of a magnet. Many of these devices are endorsed by
wine authorities. However, their purported principles of operation
(claiming to use magnetic force to polymerize tannins, for example)
contradict established science, as shown in more detail in references below.
Many competent scientists interpret this contradiction to mean that the
devices are bogus (and by the same token, harmless). The theoretical
contradiction does increase the burden of proof that these devices are
effective not just in believers' minds, but in reality. This is a practical
question, susceptible to test. A consumer considering such a product might
prudently look beyond the pseudoscientific explanations and demand
demonstration (with honest blind taste tests) before spending money
Max Hauser
Years ago as a graduate student I took a battery of rigorous oral
examinations. The examining professors for electromagnetics (in separate
exams) were Whinnery and van Duzer, distinguished teachers and co-authors of
the standard undergraduate engineering EM textbook in North America.
John Whinnery, the senior of the two in and something of a legend in the
field, said as I stood at the blackboard (chalk in hand):
"First question: Where's my wine?"
Whinnery, a wine enthusiast, had subscribed, with others, to a group
pre-arrival order of late-1970s Bordeaux wines (which were then current)
that I negotiated with a local wine merchant (Bill Easton). The wines were,
in the style of some pre-arrival orders, late. It was not the ideal
situation for a student in an oral examination.
However, as usual Whinnery was in good humor and I eventually got to the
safer ground of mere electromagnetics questions. And passed.
Cheers -- Max
cwdjrxyz
>
http://www.dansdata.com/wineclip.htm
http://www.badscience.net/?p=192
http://www.winelabels.org/artps.htm
I think you have enough references, but here are a few more that some
might find interesting to read. It seems several types of probable
snake oils are competing for the wine aging gadget marketplace.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article576802.ece
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1700816
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/low-tech-wine-gadget-perfect-for-your-drunkard-friends-223070.php
Fred
news:1171956224....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
> It looks good to me, and I am glad you included the 3 references. But
> there are always other magic devices that are being introduced. For
> example, for only $US 299.95 you can have:
>
> "Clef du Vin is a scientifically-designed measuring device made from a
> mix of precious metals. Made for all wines, Clef du Vin, when dipped
> into a glass of wine, will age the wine one year for each second the
> alloy is in contact with the wine. Two seconds equals two years from
> now, three seconds equals three years from now, etc. Take the
> guesswork out of collecting with this invaluable tool. For the serious
> collector. The Elegance 3-piece set includes a pocket, service and
> bottle model with cherrywood accents."
>
> For those without the spare cash for the above, there is a portable
> single piece model for only $99.95.
>
If you leave it in for a few minutes, hundreds of seconds the equvalent of
hundreds of years, will the wine be spoiled?
Fred.
Max Hauser
> ...
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article576802.ece
> http://www.wineenhancer.net/
> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1700816
> http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/low-tech-wine-gadget-perfect-for-your-drunkard-friends-223070.php
Thanks for those links.
Randi by the way (as some of you surely know) has been a remarkable speaker.
He was hired to speak on this sort of stuff years ago, at a professional
meeting I attended. He also has appeared on TV documentaries. Randi made
an important career demonstrating how people can be fooled by charlatans
seeking money (after his first career as prof'l magician doing the same
thing, for entertainment).