Metaphorical invisibility sucks. What about literal invisibility?

Twitter got me thinking. It has a terrible habit of doing that. Specifically, this time we were talking about being invisible and abusing the advantages. One of my tweeps mentioned being invisible in the Caribbean- and I began to wonder about it. I asked if tanning/skin cancer would be a concern, and she said it would be, since UV light is also invisible.
At this point, I was intrigued. Invisibility is great, but how could it work? I came up with a few scenarios.
First, UV light is the primary source of tanning. But, how do we gather heat from the sun? It has been demonstrated that the most energetic wavelengths of light, on Earth at any rate, also correspond nicely with the visible spectrum (particularly green, hence chlorophyll). The sun "just happens" to emit light most strongly in this spectrum. But what does that mean for the Invisibles? Heat is a byproduct of kinetic movement, in that molecules, and especially their electrons, get agitated to the point that they move around faster, jostling back and forth. In a normal, visible human, light rays bombard our skin and clothing and smack into millions of molecules on our skins, speeding things up and warming us.
So, would the invisibles be cold all the time, unable to draw heat from the light that was hitting them, only able to get warmth via ambient heat? Or would we be too hot, since ultraviolet rays could somehow pierce through our skin and shine directly on, well, everything inside, agitating a lot more than our surface area? Neither of these answers has implications that pass muster. Being opaque to UV radiation seems absurd if we're going to be transparent to everything else, since right now we're opaque to most everything else as well. If they were cold all the time, that makes (very slightly) more sense. X-Rays pass through us, and we don't notice any significant heat difference because they are passing through us, not colliding with our skin or, since we'd be completely transparent, organs (well, at least not colliding with us in any significant number- I'm sure the occasional atom will absorb a random photon here and there, but not on the scale that something opaque does at every minute of every day).
But then we have the problem of what would we be made out of? There are lots of reasons that we aren't invisible (for one thing, materials that are simply aren't conducive to life), but how could we be? Water makes up most of our cells, but it's not invisible, either. For something to be invisible, it would need to refract the light in precisely the same way as the ambient air. And water simply can't do that. So the rest of our materials would have to optically correct for the failure of our water. For one thing, we do tan, and melanin would have to go. Sorry, bones, calcium is no good- perhaps we can restructure the molecules so that they are largely silicon and oxygen, (out with you, calcium!) and never mind the pesky hemoglobin (a very complicated molecule in its own right) that is bright red and performs the minor task of transporting oxygen to the rest of our bodies... and I think you can see how this explanation rapidly degenerates into one more extravagant excuse than the last.
Well, maybe one way, but I don't particularly buy this one either: the Invisible Man tackled this issue by simply putting the protagonist into another dimension, at least partially, which neatly sidesteps all of the aforementioned problems (and puts the explanation, and any bothersome details, neatly out of the grasp of most non-physicists, including myself).
So, screw all that. There's no way, without some kind of cloaking device, we'd be invisible, and that's not particularly tenable either, for many of the same reasons, including one more that applies to all three.
Everything else aside, I don't buy it simply because our eyes function by capturing light, and if they can't because light goes through them, then I'm invisible(Yay!) and blind(Crap!). In the case of the alternate dimension approach, I would think that our ability to see would be based in whatever dimension our eyes were in, for the same reason. Of course, on that front, I could be completely uninformed. About all I know about multiple dimensions is that, mathematically, they have been proven to exist. And if something is mathematically proven, that's about as certain as we can be of anything at all.
In that case, though, good news. I am invisible- to anyone not in the room with me right now. At least, dimensionally distant.
Verdict? Metaphorical invisibility sucks, but at least you still have 5 senses going for you.

Why pundits should stick to politics.

I didn't think it was possible that I could lose any more respect for Ann Coulter. How does one reduce an absolute value below zero? I don't agree with her on a single thing, but now I've heard her views on evolution. Trick question. It raised, just a smidge, when she said, "Evolution is compatible with my religion." I actually thought, in my sleep deprived brain, "I might actually agree with Ann Coulter on something!" Then she said, "but it isn't true." This is an excerpt from a debate between she and Bill Maher. The quality is pretty bad, and granted, neither one is particularly qualified to debate THIS topic, but it bled over from some political things they talked about. And got my blood boiling at 3 in the morning. Then it got me thinking.
To sum up the clip (the interesting bits, [except for Ann's gaff about the earth being 500 billion years old] start around 2:15 or so and continue almost to the end), Bill Maher is grilling her on the differences between voodoo and Genesis. He mentions evolution, and after being given the go ahead by the mediator, they begin the talk. She wrote a book (Godless: The Church of Liberalism) that talked a lot about evolution, and so was glad to tackle this topic with Bill.
Here are the claims that she got wrong, in approximately the order they occurred.
1) The Cambrian period, where there are all sorts of fossils which don't seem to have good origins from before. A fair point, but see my next blog for a detailed examination of this topic.
2) She claims the fossil record disproves evolution, that paleontologists are the most vociferous opponents of 2b)what she continually refers to as "Darwinism".
3) She keeps claiming that Darwin's evolution cannot be disproved.
4) She claims that the death of one type of organism is not an example of evolution.
5) She cites Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, which refers to Irreducible Complexity.
Maher gets one wrong too, to be fair, though she did most of the talking.
6) Survival of the fittest = strong survive, weak die.
But back to Coulter,
7) Evolution is based on faith.

Fortunately, she's a very educated person, and she actually has at least a working knowledge of evolution. I'm putting her gaffs down to the point that her education is focused on art and law, and that she's probably not particularly interested in the natural sciences anyway. Medicine isn't that interesting to me, either. Bill Maher gave her an out, but she wouldn't take it, so we have to assume she has never heard of Punctuated Equilibrium. In spite of writing a book which dealt heavily with evolution, and having read at least one book about it, she is unaware of the mountain of evidence for evolution.

Points 1 and 6 will be dealt with heavily in my next blog post. There's a great deal there.
2) The fossil record was a problem, for Darwin, because there hadn't been thousands of scientists digging all over the world to find it. But now, the fossil record is actually one of the best proofs of evolution- it predicts transitional fossils, long before they were found. One of the things that makes or breaks a theory is it's predictive power- the ability to add new things to scientific knowledge. If a theory explains everything and predicts nothing, it is not a theory.
2b) This is a common claim by people trying to discredit evolution, but I wonder if it's not simply because they really think evolution hasn't changed since Darwin's day?
3)Now? Well, it seems increasingly unlikely. But, in the first 50 years or so, when lots of things were questionable? Sure. A dinosaur fossil in the Precambrian fossil record. A bat giving birth to a tomato. Poorly adapted organisms flourishing to the detriment of well adapted competing organisms. Any of these would disprove evolution, though the last would be the most shocking. As for the first, there are isolated instances where the layers of sediment may actually be jumbled up, due to some kind of cataclysm. If there were no evidence of that, just a fossil of, say, a leopluradon being eaten by trilobites, then sure. Evolution is bogus- or it has a LOT of explaining to do! The thing is, scientists flourish on disproving well established theories. The fastest way to become a rock star is publish something that flies in the face of an old theory. (2b) Because of this, evolution has already been modified, refined, and perfected over the years, as thousands of contributing scientists add to the global body of human knowledge.
4) She says that if we developed an antibiotic, that kills non-bald people, we wouldn't be evolving bald people. Obviously, a trivial and far fetched example, but lets set aside the details. No, we wouldn't. But, if we exposed this antibiotic to ALL humans, the humans who were resistant (ie., bald) would survive and reproduce. That's how evolution works, and she doesn't seem to get that. Killing a bunch of people with hair is not evolution. Killing ALL people with hair could be.
5) Irreducible complexity is, well, ignorant. It doesn't take into account how brilliant nature is at co-opting. The classic example is half an eye. Totally useless. But what about an eye that sees in black and white versus one that sees in low resolution? Or one that only detects light or darkness, without an image at all? And all of these would be preferable to no eyes at all.
7) Of course it is! In the same way that typing on a computer is based on faith, that turning on a light is based on faith, and that starting your car and hurtling down the highway at 75 mph is based on faith. In each instance, there are reinforcing experiences to give you a reason to believe that your reactions will be consistent in the future. The first time you get in a car to drive, you should probably be at least a bit nervous about getting on the highway with 2 tons of steel death surrounding you- but after practice and experience, it gets easier. If we didn't see lights come on every time we hit the switch, we probably wouldn't get annoyed when it doesn't work. If that's what she means by faith, then I agree. Of course, it isn't, and I don't. She means evolution is a religion. But at what point does it become more rational to not only believe in but expect miracles, which are, by definition, supposed to be extremely rare? It is not rational to believe that we will win the lottery if we by a single ticket. In the same way, belief in miracles can not be rational. It requires emotional support, in the lottery ticket's case, desperation. In religions case, faith. In evolution's case, neither- it is through the sweat and sacrifice of scientists, exhuming the evidence from long lost graves.
Finally, I ask you, Ann Coulter, if evolution is a religion, how is it compatible with yours?

What's the harm? This is why science is important.

This is exactly the kind of thing that depresses me about humanity. To sum up:

A COUPLE allegedly tied up and tortured a teenage employee because a Vietnamese fortune teller told them she stole from them, a Darwin court has heard.

Nhung Tri Tran and Trien Tran pleaded guilty to assaulting Leilani dos Santos on February 17, but not guilty yesterday to threatening to kill her and depriving her of her liberty.

...a Vietnamese fortune teller told the couple the person who had stolen the handbag was close to them, and was someone they loved.

Ms Tran also allegedly told Ms dos Santos they would cut off her fingers, but they loved her and would inject her with heroin, so she would not feel it.

Ms dos Santos said Mr Tran beat her in the back with a meat cleaver, threatened her with a samurai sword and burnt her arm with a cigarette.

Ms dos Santos said the couple had a Lady Gaga CD playing loudly.

There are a few things to this story, but one that jumps out at me is regardless of how much she stole, there's no justification for being subjected to loud Lady Gaga. This is exactly my problem with non-evidence based world views: it's not the everyday people that go around doing insane things, but as long as this kind of irrational, delusional belief is encouraged, we leave ourselves open to just this kind of abuse. Those in the "psychic" industry need to be more responsible (I'm looking at you, Sylvia Browne).
Granted, the egregious abuse in this story may be telling of a serious mental health issue, suffered by the Trans, or even dos Santos- that's beside my point. I'm not interested in placing guilt, or even blame- the fortune teller had a job to do, the Trans had a business to run, and the victim is right to sue for damages.
What I want to examine is the kind of person that could take something like this seriously. Why would anyone even believe in a fortune teller, for one thing? For the exact same reason one believes in magnet therapy, chiropractic, homeopathy, witches, or breaking mirrors for bad luck (or glasses for good luck). Because they've been told it's true. That's all it boils down to- and society plays it off as harmless, which it is, most of the time. Most Christians I know go to doctors, and get vaccinated (even if they refuse to accept the theory of gravity).
<> There are lists of cases as long as my arm where kids are neglected to death, or even murdered, by their parents because of their ridiculous beliefs. When people take homeopathic talismans to protect them from malaria. Men in Africa sleep with virgins to be cured of AIDS (also, see the even more depressing dissenting opinion here). Vultures are hunted to near extinction for gambling on soccer. Rhinos are killed to make ineffective potions against arthritis. Tigers are killed to make manly wards.
So yes, I get upset when otherwise intelligent people ignorantly ruin our planet, kill our innocents, or spread disease needlessly, because they want to believe in superstitious drivel. < /Rant >
I feel that people believe this sort of nonsense because of the way we're wired. I'll use myself as an example, though according to studies of human beliefs, many people fall into these (and other) traps. 1.) I know that if someone tells me something confidently, I'll be inclined to believe them without trying to verify it. 2.) Similarly, if I hear something multiple times, or I read it in several places, I'll be inclined to believe it. 3.) I also know that if I already believe something, or am inclined to believe it, that I'll tend to remember the things that confirm belief.
I could go on, but let's stick with those three.
1.) Obviously, this is a terrible reason to believe something! And yet, most of us will, and salesmen and preachers alike take full advantage. There are two things I do to avoid this tendency toward blindly obeying. First, I avoid making decisions when caught up in the moment. I give myself a chance to cool off and think about my actions. Second, if I catch myself doing this, I do research to find out whether it's justified.
2.) Just because a billion people believe something, doesn't make it true. One thing that makes this one so dangerous is because of our tendency to gossip and spread rumors. When at all possible, I go directly to the source, if it's about someone, or I verify the story with multiple sources (as above, when I mentioned the dissenting opinion on the virgin cure of AIDS myth).
3.) This is also called confirmation bias, and this one can be tricky to countervail. To do so, I must, on a regular basis, actively seek out dissenting information and re-evaluate my beliefs on a given topic. For instance, after catching myself uncritically repeating the above AIDS myth, I've done some more research- and sadly, it holds up.
The dissenting story was saying that the infant rape in South Africa had nothing to do with the Virgin Cure myth- it still exists. People believe you can cure an STD by transferring it to a virgin. And that's the harm.