There are then a few questions we can ask. The trivial: Is this even true? The interesting: Why is this the case? And the difficult:  Is it a justifiable position?

The first question is almost certainly “yes”. Subjects such as abortion,  universal healthcare and separation of church and state get pretty liberal treatments (or, as we might prefer to say, don’t suffer right-wing distortions) in their respective articles. The editorship is also largely liberal leaning in the behind-the-scenes discussions. Being a largely international and diverse group (by internet standards, at least) there’s certainly a wider acceptance and discussion of gender, sexuality and social issues than you’d expect from non-liberal groups. Sure, everyone is a skpetical empiricist first, but in places where that doesn’t easily apply, the political stance is clearly to the progressive end of the spectrum.

The second question could most easily be answered with an issue of origins. Founded originally in response to Conservapedia – a wiki “encyclopaedia” written from “a conservative viewpoint” – it seems inevitable that the founding members, and subsequent style of RationalWiki would fall heavily to the left. But as simple as that is, it isn’t the full story. Conservapedia is extremely far right, even by American standards, and even back in the days when it was vaguely relevant. Responding and railing against Conservapedia would attract more than just the corresponding far-left; anyone close to the centre would be appalled by its twisted viewpoints, and religious conservatives would be shocked at Andrew Schlafly’s cherry picking and distorting of the Bible, cumulating in his Conservative Bible Project – a project that was widely criticised by anyone who paid enough attention to it. Conservative Christians were as much flummoxed by Schlafly’s project as liberal atheists were.

So this alone cannot really say why RationalWiki attracts a liberal audience. Instead we have to look at a wider trend within the media where the conservative-liberal or left-right dynamics becomes increasingly polarised thanks to the echo chamber effect. In contrast to the past, where different views would be collided together in great shouting matches, the modern political sphere is heavily segregated into channels and environments that are held separate to each other. If you’re an American viewer with cable TV, you might want to note the small buffer of mindless, neutral programming held between the MSNBC and Fox News channels. So a slightly liberal environment in a young website is unlikely to attract a wide variety of further contributors from a moderate or conservative slant, even if they are critical of Conservapedia. The echo chamber is self-perpetuating.

But what about the mission and its relationship to politics? Stephen Colbert famously quipped “reality has a well-known liberal bias”, so does that explain the largely liberal positions held by those in the reality-based community? Is a liberal position justified through rationality?

In some respects, yes, but not in others. A significant number of crack-pot conspiracies come from the right. There’s the Religious Right (so endemic as a movement that it deserves capital letters) that supports creationism, there’s the Birthers, who believe Barack Obama was born in Kenya despite persistent evidence to the contrary, and the distortions found within Fox News makes it an excellent case study in cognitive bias. Clearly, there’s a lot wrong with opinions and views that stem from the political right, and most rationalist or skeptic communities are well within their rights to rally against that political affiliation.

Though this would be to ignore a vast quantity of woo stemming traditionally from the left. New Age hokum, or hysterics over vaccines (although this one is becoming more wide in its political affiliation) or even just the slant and biases associated with more left-wing pundits like Bill Maher. RationalWiki has enough criticism of these people and ideas, for reasons exactly affiliated with its mission. Barack Obama is referred to as “so-called” liberal for his extension to the 2011 USA PATRIOT Act, and his actual article makes a fairly sizeable (although proportional) note of his human rights record. But apparently this doesn’t stem the tide of accusations that it’s predominantly leftist and liberal, with a stringent bias to attack exclusively conservatives. Yet at the same time, it rarely – if ever – gets an accusation of being a right-wing cesspool because it dares to attack the occasional liberal sacred cow.

At the end of the day, though, people will have their ideas and they will be debated endlessly. That’s part of the fun. But at heart, we remain skeptical empiricists first, and won’t take bullshit from any location in the political sphere.

Wim Hof, demonstrating just how much power the mind has to affect the body.

• AD: Zeal of the convert
• ‎CivisHibernius: Direct Democracy Ireland
• ‎DickTurpis: 2006 Baylor Religion Survey, Pew Forum’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey
• ‎Faunas: ‎Richard A. Gardner, Vidkun Quisling
• ‎Krej: ‎Panacea, ‎Right for the wrong reason, Wim Hof, ‎Hildegard medicine
• ‎PowderSmokeAndLeather: Marian Fitness
• ‎TheSocktor: ‎Statements that are wrong on the level of a Young Earth
• ‎Wehpudicabok: Erik Rush

Oh my God. Lois, don’t get alarmed, but I think I might be Descartes. I’m Descartes.

— Eliezer Yudkowsky, The Sequences

Self projection as goat, or vicarious autorationalism, is a process of psychological projection in which “rationalists” redefine or anticipate the results of their thinking, cherry-picking from The Fine Art of Baloney Detection to devise a rationalisation system reflecting their own personal beliefs, needs and desires. This process is sometimes described using the pejorative term “Cafeteria Rationalist.” But there are many varieties of rationalist.

Richard Dawkins.

Ancient rationalists originated in cultures considered primitive by modern standards. At the time of writing Origin of Species, Charles Darwin saw no problem with marrying his cousin. Rationalists face further problems in rationalizing the incontrovertible evidence that Hitler was an atheist and used Origin of Species as the template for the Holocaust.

Modern rationalists are slow to embrace a life of gas chambers and upper-class English incest, so those parts of the Origin must be rationalized or ignored. The latter is easier than the triumph of marketing required to put a positive slant on producing an entire social class of wealthy two-headed banjo players. Even the Beatitudes, delivered during Dawkins’ Sermon on the Mount, contain directives that are nonsensical and reckless. It’s noteworthy that many prominent evangelical rationalists today ignore Dawkins’ requirement that they marry Doctor Who actresses.

A rationalist can draw boundless comfort and reassurance from knowing that they’re smart and moral enough to share the same rationalisations as their goat. Such conviction lends perceived authority to a position that could otherwise be untenable. If their goat has come to the same conclusion then surely it must be right. There is no shortage of rationalists using goat as a proxy for their own beliefs.

Rationalists will frequently decry those with a different self-projection as heretics of some variety: irrational, political, pseudoskeptical or posters to /r/atheism.

Self projection as goat is fairly harmless, but attempts to anthropomorphize other animals and natural occurences are fraught with danger. Self projection as tiger is remarkably dangerous, with many people uttering as their final words “it won’t bother you if you don’t threaten it” or “it’s more afraid of you than you of it.” Followers of primitive nature-based rationalisms fall prey to this approach and often die with the grim realisation that a regular supply of virgins is not an effective precaution against volcanic eruption.

Adapted from Fun:Self projection as goat on RationalWiki.org. Reproducible under Creative Commons by-sa 3.0.

As we all know, herbs are good and drugs are bad, right? Herbs are perfectly natural foods which can’t do any harm whatsoever, and, at the same time, can cure every disease. This flies in the face of the fact that if you go into the forest and eat some random plant you find on the ground, you will probably die. (If it were, true, it would also raises some questions about the statistics for pre-antibiotic-era lifespans.) In fact, traditional healers used risky herbs were for centuries in the mistaken belief they were safe, because the side effects occurred either after a long time or in a small enough number of patients to avoid being detected. Here’s a list of herbs Big Placebo doesn’t want you to know the truth about. (Unless stated otherwise, the herbs are not know to be effective.)

Aristolochia indica, a species of birthwort

Birthwort is a group of plants in the genus Aristolochia used in various traditional systems of medicine around the world (notably in China and Europe). It was used as a panacea (what medicinal plant isn’t?) Some of the diseases it “cures” include asthma, bronchitis, ulcers, snakebites, wounds, sores, lung disorders, fluid retention, scorpion stings, joint pain, malaria, stomach issues, ulcers, gall bladder disorders, pain, abscesses, stomach aches, malaria, gout, rheumatism, worms, arthritis, typhus, smallpox, pneumonia, amenorrhoea, fever, neuralgia, rabies, and (especially) childbirth (the word Aristolochia means “noble birth”.) The reality is, birthwort is toxic to the kidneys and liver and carcinogenic, because it contains aristolochic acid. For some reason, the many traditional medicine-men worldwide who used (and still use) this herb never picked up on these toxic effects. European birthwort is strongly suspected to have caused over a thousand cases of kidney damage in the Balkans, the so-called “Balkan endemic nephropathy”. Birthwort has been banned in several countries, including Taiwan, the U.S., and Germany. Despite this, some alternative practitioners still recommend it, because, hey, if it’s natural, it must be good!

Madder (also known as Indian madder) is chiefly known for its use in dyes, but it’s also claimed to be good for cancer, dyspepsia, freckles, acne, wounds, ulcers, erysipelas, eczema, scabies, hoarseness, diarrhea, worms, bladder stones, jaundice kidney stones, lack of menstruation, paralysis, and sciatica. Because of its dyeing properties, madder can turn urine, saliva, perspiration, tears, and breast milk red. This isn’t the bad part, as the coloration is harmless. What is not harmless is that fact that madder root may cause cancer, miscarriages, and birth defects. So, no, madder root is not good for cancer. Quite the opposite, actually.

Ephedra funerea. You’re damn right it’s funerary!

Betelnut chewing is very common in Asia, and betelnuts are also used in TCM (for deworming) and Ayurvedic medicine. Betelnuts can cause mouth, liver, cervical, stomach, prostate, and lung cancer. Chewing betelnut/leaf can cause skin color changes, dilated pupils, blurred vision, wheezing/difficulty breathing, increased breathing rate, salivation, increased tearing, incontinence, sweating, diarrhea, fever, confusion, problems with eye movement, psychosis, amnesia, stimulant effects, a feeling of euphoria, addiction, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach cramps, chest pain, irregular heartbeats, high or low blood pressure, and irregular heart beats. It’s basically Asian tobacco.

Ephedra viridis

Ephedra is used in Chinese medicine, also as a panacea. Ephedra-containing supplements are banned in the U.S. because the herb is dangerous and can be lethal. It can cause dizziness, restlessness, anxiety, irritability, heart pounding, headache, loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, hypertension, insomnia, arrhythmia, nervousness, tremor, seizure, cerebrovascular event, myocardial infarction, kidney stones, high blood pressure, heart attacks, muscle disorders, seizures, strokes, irregular heartbeat, loss of consciousness, death, and other side effects.

Country mallow has ephedrine, like ephedra does, and as such can also be considered dangerous. It’s used in Ayurvedic medicine.

Comfrey is used for wounds and stomach problems. It can cause cancer and fatal liver damage. Comfrey can also be absorbed through the skin.

Chaparral is Yet Another Panacea (YAP), and it can kill you by causing liver damage and kidney failure.

Greater Celandine is a YAP and can cause hepatitis.

Germander is used for weight loss, gout, fever, diarrhea, gallbladder problems, and claimed to be an antiseptic. It can cause hepatitis, cirrhosis, and death, and for this reason is banned in several countries.

Feverfew is a good painkiller with mostly mild gastrointestinal side effects. Chewing it, though, can cause mouth ulcers, loss of taste, and swelling of the lips, tongue, and mouth.

Digitalis purpurea, also known as the “Russian Roulette” plant. (OK, well, I made that name up, but it’s a good description.)

Foxglove (or digitalis) is actually good for heart problems, but the thing about foxgloves is that there is no way to know how much digoxin (the active ingredient) an individual plant has. A certain amount of a foxglove plant grown in one place may work, while the same amount of a foxglove grown somewhere else may kill you. The pure drug digoxin, on the other hand, is very precisely dosed.

One study done on St. John’s Wort suggests the herb may cause cataracts in people exposed to sunlight after taking it. Maybe it doesn’t, as not much other research has been done, but the risk may exist.

Groundsel is used for worms and stomach problems, can cause liver damage, cancer, and birth defects.

Yerba mate is a South American beverage also used for many, many conditions. It can also cause many, many types of cancer.

Squill is used for heart problems, bronchitis, asthma, whooping cough, and wounds. It is also toxic and can kill you.

The inclusion of licorice on this list might surprise you. Well, licorice can cause tiredness, absence of a menstrual period in women, headache, water and sodium retention, decreased sexual interest and function in men, miscarriages or early deliveries, raised blood pressure, and can make heart and kidney disease worse. Also, taking 30 grams a day (5 grams if you consume a lot of salt) for several weeks can cause high blood pressure, low potassium in the blood, weakness, paralysis, and occasionally brain damage, even if you’re otherwise healthy.

Senna actually is good for constipation, but long-term use may cause dependence, heart function disorders, muscle weakness, liver damage, and stop the bowels from functioning properly.

Lobelia (also known as Indian Tobacco) is supposed to be good for asthma, bronchitis, cough, and smoking cessation. Unfortunately, there’s no evidence for it being effective. Even more unfortunately, the plant can cause profuse sweating, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, tremors, rapid heartbeat, mental confusion, convulsions, hypothermia, coma, and death. What did you expect from taking a plant called Indian Tobacco?

The “Holy Herb” Nicotiana tabacum

Tobacco is a dangerous herb which can cause … oh, wait, you already know. Well, anyway, tobacco was used by native Americans for many diseases, and the Europeans called it “the holy herb” because it was apparently such a good medicine. In the 19^th century, there were ads which promoted the use of medicinal tobacco cigarettes for head colds, asthma, respiratory problems, and many other conditions. One ad even claimed cigarettes could cure asthma. (The Cure “They” Don’t Want You to Know About, obviously.) The reason naturopaths seldom (if ever) recommend medicinal tobacco is that society as a whole has been brainwashed by Big Pharma’s propaganda to reject this natural cure. Recommending smoking would be career suicide. Most naturopaths probably do think smoking is bad, but that’s not really a reasonable position to take; if naturopaths were consistent, they wouldn’t shirk from telling people to buy tobacco, given the fact that natural things can never be bad, no matter how disproven or implausible they are (just look at this list!)

Almost all of these dangerous side effects were unknown until the advent of clinical studies and adverse event reporting systems. Who knows what risky supplements are being sold right now? Ignorance is not bliss.

• ‎Andrewstewart1: Norman Finkelstein, ‎Voting Rights Act, Kermit Gosnell, Margaret Sanger, Joss Whedon
• ‎Apparition: ‎Robert McLuhan
• Baloney Detection: The LessWrong dictionary
• ‎Civic Cat: ‎Albinism
• ‎Faunas: Daniel Estulin
• ‎Hamilton: Feminist internet laws
• Krej: Probiotics
• ‎MidnightBlue766: ‎Tulpa
• ‎Sethpeck: American Center for Law and Justice
• ‎Weaseloid: ‎Crisis actors

Oscillococcinum alone has sales of $20 million a year in the US.

Alternative medicine isn’t quite the underdog it’s usually made out to be. The revenue of the alternative and traditional medicine industry worldwide is estimated at $60 billion a year, and the supplement industry was worth $20 billion in 2004 just in the US. For comparison, Big Pharma is worth about $300 billion a year.

Complementary and alternative medicine companies could improve their image dramatically by proving that their products are effective. It would also make sure that people using CAM get treatments that are better than placebos. Big Placebo clearly has enough money to test them. But they don’t test them. Why? Because it would cost money. CAM companies will never prove the efficacy of their products unless they are required to by regulation, because doing so would require spending money (we can’t have that, now can we?) and throwing away many profitable placebos.

CAM companies have just as much incentive to make money and cut costs as Big Pharma. But Big Pharma is forced by government regulation to show its products are effective, and generates public outrage when it does science badly; Big Placebo has no reason to test its products or sell effective remedies, and actively repudiates scientific medicine as a selling point. Yet, for some reason, CAM supporters trust Big Placebo and its claims completely.

While many, if not most, of the products that Big Placebo sells (such as homeopathic remedies) are, in fact, placebos, some herbal products, such as willow bark, can have actual medicinal effects. Despite being sold as supplements, they are used and work as drugs. Dietary supplements are theoretically to be used to supplement one’s diet to address deficiencies, not treat specific diseases. Is St. John’s Wort sold to supply deficiency of essential nutrients? Of course not. Big Placebo has appropriated the term “supplement” to make its products seem safer. Since herbal “supplements” contain actual active ingredients, supplement companies are just unregulated drug companies selling untested drugs. As David Colquhon puts it, they constitute “an unknown dose of an ill-defined drug, of unknown effectiveness and unknown safety”.

Ayurvedic and traditional Chinese medicine supplements sold in the US have been known to contain dangerous levels of substances such as lead, mercury and arsenic. If some food product were found to be unsafe, adulterated, or contaminated, there would be an uproar about the failure of regulation to ensure product safety. But if a supplement or homeopathic product (yes, homeopathic) is found to be dangerous or even lethal, there is an uproar about the unfair suppression of gentle, natural cures by a massive government conspiracy. Assuming they don’t just go for science by lawsuit.

“But what about the customer’s freedom to do what they want?” Nobody’s saying people shouldn’t be allowed to choose their own treatments. The point is not forbidding people from using their preferred treatments, but objecting to the existence of a multi-billion-dollar industry built almost entirely on selling placebos. Buying placebos may not be inherently wrong, but selling them as medicine is an entirely different matter.

Adapted from Big Placebo on RationalWiki.org. Reproducible under Creative Commons by-sa 3.0.

Ultimately, intelligent design is just a newspeak rebranding of creationism; though it uses scientific jargon, it is not science because it violates the principle of methodological naturalism, is not falsifiable, and does not use scientific methodology. As such, it is pseudoscience, and shouldn’t be propagated at places where real science is done. However, universities have tended to bend over backwards — in the name of academic freedom — to be tolerant of staff advocating this blatant non-science. Here are the examples most commonly touted by ID advocates.

Guillermo Gonzalez: In June 2007, astronomer and intelligent design supporter Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure at Iowa State University. The Discovery Institute (of which Gonzalez is a fellow) was the primary group that managed the public relations campaign against the university and claimed that the denial was merely about an inherent prejudice against an ID supporter in academia.

The main argument by the DI was that he had significantly more publications than was needed at Iowa State for tenure. However, the number quoted by the DI is the total number of publications in Gonzalez’s career, and only those publications written while at Iowa State count; and the standards for tenure include much more than a publication record. Additionally, those three papers were based on research done by Gonzalez as a post-doctoral student, not as an independent researcher.

One of the significant issues in deciding whether to approve tenure was the amount of research funding Gonzalez had secured. Since coming to Iowa State Gonzalez has brought in about $22,661 in outside grant money; by comparison his colleagues averaged $1.3 million in grant money before becoming tenured.

Richard Sternberg was an editor for the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, which is affiliated with the Smithsonian Institute. In 2004, Sternberg approved for publication an article by Discovery Institute “fellow” Stephen Meyer entitled “Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories“. After publication, Sternberg came under fire for bypassing the normal peer-review process for the journal (specifically, not including another editor in the peer review process). Ultimately the Council of the Biological Society of Washington issued a statement on the matter:

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard V. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.

After this, Sternberg claimed to have been singled out for ill treatment at his job as a staffer at the Smithsonian, alleging that he:

• Was targeted to have his job removed.
• Met with negative interactions from colleagues.
• Had his keys taken away and lost access to his office.
• Was denied access to specimens for his research purposes.

Sternberg filed a religious discrimination complaint against the Smithsonian, but the Office of Special Counsel ultimately dismissed his claim.

Others have reported that Sternberg’s primary complaints were mostly trumped up:

• No threats were made to Sternberg’s face regarding his job.
• Most of the ill will focused around professional malfeasance on his part.
• Sternberg’s keys and office were changed as part of a larger move that affected the whole museum.
• Sternberg’s access to resources and specimens did not change and is equal to that of anyone in his position.

Michael Behe lecturing on intelligent design.

Michael Behe is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and a major proponent of intelligent design. The faculty at his university put up a disclaimer on their website stating that they have unequivocal support for the theory of evolution and that Behe is the only dissenter. While Behe may have had his feelings hurt, the University has afforded him plenty of freedom, including the right to teach an ID class.

William Dembski: In 1999, William Dembski was involved in setting up a new ID center at Baylor University in Texas. The center consisted of two people; Dembski and Bruce Gordon, another intelligent design promoter. Both individuals were hired directly by university president Richard Sloan without going through the usual channels of a search committee and departmental consultation.

The complete disregard for standard procedure, the embarrassingly anti-science nature of its mission and Dembski’s incessant prancing and preening led the faculty at Baylor to vote 27-2 to dissolve the center. The university president refused, but agreed to allow an outside review. That review pretty much agreed with the facult. The center was absorbed into existing structures at Baylor and disappeared.

Dembski, however, took this loss as a victory (as ID is wont to do) and issued a press release saying that the committee had given an “unqualified affirmation of my own work on intelligent design”, that its report “marks the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry” and that “dogmatic opponents of design who demanded that the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo. Baylor University is to be commended for remaining strong in the face of intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression.”

This outright lie and attack on the university faculty and integrity finally got to the university president, who asked Dembski to withdraw the press release. Dembski refused, calling Sloan’s request McCarthyism. Finally, Sloan had Dembski removed from any real position at Baylor and kept on as an “associate” but never asked to teach or engage the university in any way. Finally, in 2005, Baylor and Dembski officially parted ways.

Caroline Crocker was a part-time faculty member at George Mason University, where she primarily taught introductory biology. In her last year at the University, she decided to give a series of lectures straight out of Kent Hovind videos. She ranted about the Cambrian explosion, the Miller-Urey experiment, and the multiple “types” of evolution. After the year was over her contract was up and it was not renewed. Crocker claims it was because of her lectures, while the university maintains it had nothing to do with that and that they just didn’t need her services any more.

Regardless of why she wasn’t rehired, the university would have been firmly within its rights to dump her based on what she taught. She was a non-tenured temporary professor hired to teach Biology 101, who instead opted to turn to a tirade against established scientific principles, a professional risk she chose to take. She flat out states in her interview that she would not teach any evidence for evolution because there “really isn’t any” and that she saw her role as being to fight the entrenched dogma of science education and fact that her students brought into the classroom. The university would have been within its rights and probably ethical responsibilities to show her the door immediately, but they were tolerant and allowed her to finish out her contract.

It is noteworthy that a number of evangelical scholars working in Christian colleges, the heart and soul of the creationist movement, have written articles questioning the literal young-earth interpretation of Genesis — on account of which they were investigated and fired, with many winding up in secular schools.

Adapted from Intelligent design and academic freedom on RationalWiki.org. Reproducible under Creative Commons by-sa 3.0.

10. How to grievously insult Ray Comfort: call him a “bibliophile”. (At least he did apologise.)
9. Ann Coulter: Boston suspect’s widow “ought to be in prison for wearing a hijab.”
8. A Moral Argument Against Darwinism, wherein Christian apologist Douglas Groothius apparently proves that Darwinism is false because racism is bad.
7. Yeah, the blood, gore and trauma are fake, you fucking scumbags.
6. The West Texas explosion was totally Muslim terrorism, because fertilizer bombs were used in the Oklahoma bombing, and Saddam Hussein had a role in that.
5. Only 13? Hint: It starts with “Both Hitler and Obama held rallies in outdoor stadiums” and goes downhill from there.
4. An Arkansas Republican state legislator has a dignified, tasteful message for the people of Boston. Update: And now he’s sorry (that he got called out on it).
3. Donald Trump reminds everyone that Jon Stewart is Jewish.
2. PETA draws moral equivalency between being a meat-eater and being a rapist. Way to win people over!
1. Not two hours after the Boston Marathon bombings, the nutcases are coming out to blame Saudis and Muslims and also falsely claiming that Wolf Blitzer was blaming the Tea Party. And Alex Jones can just go fuck himself. And the WBC predictably blames teh gayz.

The answer from overhead, with a rendition of the Hoagland face nearby.

The Arecibo answer is a crop circle — or crop rectangle — that is purported to be a response to the Arecibo message, a piece of coded information about Earth and humanity beamed into space in 1974. It appeared in 2001 near the Chilbolton radio telescope in Hampshire, UK. Despite crop circles being known to be hoaxes, some believe this is key evidence of extraterrestrial presence on Earth.

The crop pattern is a near-replica of the Arecibo message, which contained various pieces of information such as the numbers of chemical elements, the composition of DNA, the position of Earth in the Solar System and a depiction of a human being. The “answer” itself doesn’t expand much upon this and still forms the same 23×73 grid (because these numbers are primes, so a recipient could guess that a 1679-bit message should be arranged in a rectangle) and most of the chemical data remains the same.

Arecibo (left) and Chilbolton (right), elements colour-coded.

The changes in the response are straight from existing alien folklore and science fiction. In the section detailing important chemical elements, the main focus is altered from carbon to silicon, and the diagram of DNA is re-scribbled slightly. At the bottom, the pictogram of a human is replaced with a shorter figure with a large, bulbous head: a grey alien, which as a depiction can only be something that a human would come up with. In blatantly trolling the UFO conspiracists, there is a nearby depiction of Richard Hoagland‘s alleged face on Mars.

Of course, there is also the obvious representation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster — four years before Bobby Henderson’s letter to the Kansas School Board. Oo-wee-oo!

The likelihood of the Arecibo message ever being picked up is very, very low. It was aimed at globular star cluster M13, which is 25,000 light years away. In fact, it’s so far away that in 25,000 years, its destination will in fact have moved! The message was only intended as a demonstration of the transmission technology, not as a serious attempt to make contact.

The message will also pass close enough to a few nearby stars to potentially be “received” in their vicinity. But why wouldn’t the recipients simply send back a message via radio, instead of coming here and messing up some poor farmer’s crops at night and then sneaking away?

Adapted from Arecibo answer on RationalWiki.org. Reproducible under Creative Commons by-sa 3.0.