[FAQ draft] 9. Do those magnetic wine thingies really age your wine instantly?

references:

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.

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

They should have sent you to negotiate in the Middle East...

It's his magnetic personality that makes more mellow, smoother...

references:

great job

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

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.)

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.)

1. 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-DKAg5EfYnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@insightbb.com...

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.

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

Ads for this device were subject to an adjudication by the UK's Advertising Standards Authority:

Yes, as a lapsed audiophile I have seen my fair share, too. Any oxygen-free copper cable for you, Max? ;-)

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.

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

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.

"James Silverton" in news:076dnWEAG8Xj_kbYnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com :

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

Spun off from "FAQ Draft 9. Magnetic thingies ..."

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 , 21 July 1991. [Except it didn't have "News:" in the Message ID at the time -- no newsgroup messages did, until recently.]

themselves

understand to

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"

Mark Lipton

Mark, I looked at the three references and they seemed decent science and 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 ----------------------

1. 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 Pertinent references:

------------------ End C&P ------------------------------

This subject recalled an incident you might enjoy.

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

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.