To: SJS who wrote (4164 ) 12/16/1997 3:38:00 PM From: SJS Respond to of 62552
Santa hypothesis refuted... _____________ In reference to manuscript previously distributed about the existence of Santa Claus, I must unfortunately not recommend acceptance and publication. The authors should be ashamed of their ignorance of the scientific method. On these grounds I recommend a swift rejection of the work: 1. Existing contrary observations were not addressed in the work. Every year, without fail, gifts appear in almost every Christian household. Even some agnostic and atheist households are affected. The deliverer of these gifts is never spotted, and the deed is almost always done at night. These are the basic elements of the Standard Santa Claus Model(SSCM), as presented by [1], a model so strong that no other explanations have seriously been advanced [2]. While these are also elements of the millions of nightly burglaries that happen on our planet, additional elements exist that distinguish the two classes on a case-by-case basis: a) In burglaries, items are removed from the residence, or destroyed, whereas in Santa Clause events they are delivered, often intact. b) Burglaries happen regularly throughout the year, while Santa Clause events occur on only one night each year; the time correllation of these phenomena is quite high -- better than 1-(10e-27). The probability of hundreds of millions of random events producing such a good correlation is infinitesimal. c) There is unity of circumstances worldwide, such as the prevalence of the colors red and green almost to the exclusion of all other colors. 2. Many of the authors' points are weak and ignore obvious alternative explanations. For example, all of their points assume that in this day and age Santa Claus is ignorant of recent technical advances in aeronautics, despite the uniformly high technological level of the gifts delivered [3]. 3. Finally, and most important, the authors provide no observational evidence whatsoever, and propose no experiments that might test their putative proof. Anyone can spout theoretical calculations. The good scientist must ask: what observations and experiments can I perform to verify my hypotheses? I see no proposed observations in the work presented and no acknowledgement of the existing (very large) database of positive evidence for the Standard Model. Given the above points I must strongly recommend rejection. Further, I find that failure to leave cookies and milk, as suggested by [4], is still contraindicated this year.[1] Christmas, Mary, 1922. A Link Between Spontaneous Yuletide Altruistic Phenomena and Chimney Clogging Events. J. Irrep. Res.7:129-141.[2] Day, Holly, 1930. Santa Claus: Further Evidence. U. VirginiaPress, Richmond. Although there were later suggestions that parents were involved, a closer look at those objections showed that the agents lacked motive and opportunity, and that there was no evidence for the worldwide networks needed to coordinate the large manufacturing, distribution, and delivery of gifts by hundreds ofmillions of parents without the knowledge of their children.[3] Toe, Lisa, 1992. Layout Constraints for Santa's Workshop Based ona Statistical Analysis of Holiday Gifts. Ph.D. Dissertation in homeeconomics, U. South. N. Dak., Hoople, ND.[4] Noel, Joy, 1984. The Correlation Between Lacto-Granular Offerings and Yule Gift Delivery Rates. Farm. Alm. 223:34-42.