remnants of remnants

For the last couple of years an internet meme has been circulating as follows:

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

This meme has been nicely analysed and debunked by Matt Davis, who is indeed a researcher in language and cognitive science at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy. At the start of his intriguing article, he writes:

Compare the following three sentences:

1) A vheclie epxledod at a plocie cehckipont near the UN haduqertares in Bagahdd on Mnoday kilinlg the bmober and an Irqai polcie offceir

2) Big ccunoil tax ineesacrs tihs yaer hvae seezueqd the inmcoes of mnay pneosenirs

3) A dootcr has aimttded the magltheuansr of a tageene ceacnr pintaet who deid aetfr a hatospil durg blendur

All three sentences were randomised according to the “rules” described in the meme. The first and last letters have stayed in the same place and all the other letters have been moved. However, I suspect that your experience is the same as mine, which is that the texts get progressively more difficult to read.

Matt then goes on to explain the germ of truth behind the meme’s entertaining claims.

He also has a collection of equivalents in other languages, adding that he is interested in collecting more, especially for “semitic languages (such as Hebrew or Arabic) where vowels tend not to be written in text; agglutanative languages (like Finnish or Turkish) where words are dramatically longer than in English; languages such as Thai which do not (conventionally) put spaces between words; logographic languages such as Chinese in which complex symbols represent a whole word or concept”. Good luck finding the latter!

(Hat tip: Chris Hall‘s del.icio.us bookmarks.)

Why do intelligent people swear by homeopathic remedies when scientists tell us they’re no good?

The obvious answer is that scientists don’t know everything. And this is the answer that many homeopaths give. Science is one way of looking at the world, they say, but not the only way. And scientists often don’t like to admit that there are some things they don’t understand, or don’t yet understand, and they mistrust those things. Homeopathy is one of those things. The problem, basically, is the narrow-mindedness of scientists.

Let me say right now that I think there is some truth in this view. It may not be absolutely right, but parts of it are fair comment and I can see how rational people come to subscribe to it. Scientists do indeed like to understand things; and it is indeed true that scientists mistrust things that they don’t understand, at least sometimes.

But I’m afraid I just can’t see how these facts are relevant to the discussion about homeopathy. Characterising the debate as a dichotomy between homeopaths and scientists seems to me completely wrongheaded. Whether you think that scientists are the ambassadors of modern humanity or a bunch of arrogant, narrow-minded twerps, we can put that entire debate to one side. The discussion has nothing to do with scientists and everything to do with straightforward, everyday logic.

Read the rest of this entry »